Karate 'styles'

Hello Ed:

Time for the Sunday night "support" session. What is
'Bu No Hyoji' ? (And should I be worried that I don't recognize the phrase )

J

read the quotes again, and this time pay attention to detail.

Good thread, Ed. I have been a believer for some time now that "styles" only exist for political or competition reasons. Other than that, there are only so many ways to hit or twist the human body.

Maybe back then, but now its been driven in stone by the interpetations, so styles now exist.

I've seen how styles can trap you with the good or bad of its practice zone. It is an interpetation of perferred methods and these methods can build upon their strong points and sink you trapped in its weak points. Please don't start that stuff that PURE KARATRE is Perfect.

Anyway having cross trained and witnessing different styles at there best and worst. Trained well styles can strengthen you but trained closed minded they can trap you into trying force their methods (not techniques the when, where and how, techniques are pretty much the same almost) to work. As my wife's son trained in TKD was attacked in cleets and slipped attempting a high kick and they had to pull the guy off him. Or a guy beaten pretty baddly, not able to adapt to continous assault of real fighting, he seemed to use a tournament style.

I've also seen Kenpo guys out kicked or out punched and TKD guys out punched or out kicked because they were trained in a set style and were not able to adapt to the timing and distance of another system.

I've seen Kung-fu & Silat guys beaten standing but fighting from the ground continuously knock the wind out of or drop their sparring partner.

Or the continuous hands or kick of the Kung-fu/Silat overwheam a one punch artist. I've also seen the opposite a One punch striker blow away a Kung-fu/Kali practictioner.

Styles exist we have to learn to make them work and adapt them to any or most situations. Sorta like JKD in thought but with structure and a better idea of what we are trying to perfect, though we never will. There is no perfect fighting system/Karate or otherwise.

A Styles/interpetations can trap/limit you to its method, especially if you think its perfect or the best. Though it maybe the best for you.

I agree with your points Ed, as you know I generally only see 2 schools of thought, shorin and shorei in relation to Okinawan Karate, as starting points up the same mountain anyhow.

however im pretty sure if we go back in time that family traditions/schools would just be other words for 'styles', or as I prefer to call them - systems.

It seems that we have a desire to protect whats 'ours' and often to prove 'ours' is better than the next villages.......LOL,

I guess in the modern world its alot to do with money whereas before pride would have been a major factor.

Sounds like the NFL.

thats true. but what fun would it be if everyone just let people do what they do without nudging us to wake up and smell the beans?

I'll say one thing, from the way people describe their Art of choice on forums, it would seem everyone is doing exactly the right thing....'right' for what purpose is not always clear.

I stopped calling what I do 'self-defense', since it's not completely honest. SD is a by-product of my study and not a comprehensive focus. I realize not everyone has those priorities...but thats the direction I choose: exploring the Art thru kata while making asumptions about it's intended purpose.

A 'system' could have 1 technique: 'curling into a ball if attacked' - is that a comprehensive 'self-defense system'? I suppose some would argue it, but the limiting flaws are obvious since it only addresses one strategy for a particular circumstance (perhaps the best response when surrounded by an overwhelming number of weaponless opponents, right after being splashed in the face with hot oil? lol).

a style or system meets it's goals when it's assumptions are correct and as contingentcy planned as possible. If my goal is self-defense, then going about doing that thru kata seems not the best way in this day and age...especially given the limited time per day I can devote to it. If my goal is to understand kata with the assumption kata was used as a training device toward SD... then the focus is not self-defense, but instead the focus is a study of kata using my assumptions.

Karate styles (kata and non-kata based) seem to boil down to training to a custom set of assumptions.

there are some assumptions that are so wildly incompatable, that using them, or force-fitting them no longer remains a study of that intended system. thats when my criticism of it kicks in.

am I right? who knows, but like I said...it'd be a boring place if nobody spoke their mind.

although this is an interesting statement that what would it be like with no style. i believe that different styles exsist because different people interpreted and took different things from what they learned, they took what they liked and threw away what they didnt like thats why there are different styles now, back in the olden days it wasnt about what someone liked it was about what is going to save there life, but now adays we have the luxury of going to an art that fits ourself and our personal needs. although i think maybe having no different styles might be a good idea, the different styles are there for a reason so i will not disagree with the masters that made these styles because their reasons were their own.....just my opinion

thats exactly my point

Ed you have made some of the most interesting threads as of late. Thank you for keeping my interest. I knew Funakoshi "cross trained" before that was a common term. I didn't all know this though.

Body mechanics haven't changed so why are there so many "styles"? We each have strengths & weaknesses. An expert who discovers he's adept @ kicking will pass along kicking skills more proficiently than (maybe) combination punching skills.

Students believe (often as taught or insinuated by their instructor) that what they're learning is the BEST way or "style". Pride or tribe mentality then takes over. Unfortunately, not all the students are so good @ kicking & either never realize their full MA potential or migrate to a "style" that emphasizez (maybe) combination punching.

Some students learn from an instructor when he is older & therefore emphasizes different aspects based on his decreased ability to perform young men's skills in exchange for strategy & timing (that come w/ experience). Now what? Same style, different emphasis.

Tani said "We each make our own karate" meaning that if the basics are mastered, our body type, muscle speed, timing ability, temperment & strength will dictate your "style".

But politics always seems to rear its ugly head. Nothing to do w/ technique but who's boss. This is the antithesis of the concept of humility that is so necessary in developing responsible fighting skills. More money, ego & power never made a better MA-ist.

owari

Each instructor who has achieved a high enough rank starts to put their signature on a style. This was always intended with Okinawan karate, and this diversity is a good thing. It would be great to imagine standardizing all karate and just calling all ryu/ryuha "karate". The reality is that all karate is not the same, was not created with the same intent and often serves various functions.

Take a seemingly simple system like the one I train in, Matsumura Seito Shorin Ryu. Soken Hohan had many advanced students who came from many base styles. Kise, Kuda, Nishihira, Kinjo, some say Yabiku Takaya all have slight variations on a theme when it comes to Matsumura Orthodox.

Kise was originally a Kyan-Shorin guy (Shorinji Ryu), Kuda's base system was Okinawan Kenpo (Shigeru Nakamura). The traits of these two systems influenced their interpretations of the Suidi they learned from Soken. Matsumura Kenpo (Kuda Shinshi's style) uses a little different stance work (e.g. straight back leg in Zenkutsu dachi), invented some beginner forms and utililizes Bogu sparring. Kise's Kenshinkan at one time was very Matsumura Orthodox, but since the late 70s has been more consumer friendly. He does not teach most of what Soken taught him. He implemented the Tomari forms like Ananku and Pinan Sandan, and teaches Kyan-esque techs in a lot of his current incarnation of Matsumura Orthodox. All this info comes from multiple people who have trained with both guys up to very high BB levels, who btw also differ in their approaches once they reach Kyoshi status.

The good thing about Okinawan karate training before it was imported to the mainland, was that it was diverse in interpretation, which is always a good thing. Standardization is fine, but uniform standards can also stagnate progress. Kobayashi Ryu is a school of thought, whether Shidokan or Shorinkan, but the two schools have differences to contrast the uniformity of Chibana's intent. From these comes Yamashita Shorin and Frank Hargrove's interpretation of Shorinkan. This keeps things fresh and allows for adaptability. Those who think that traditional means unchanging and dead are wrong.

The core techniques and strategies in TOMAs are very similar and very different. They all aim to make one a better person physically/mentally (and even spiritually) after all is said and done. The hard Hojo Undo of many Naha Te styles sets them apart from the Shuri Te influenced systems (Matsumura Ha). Their forms are very different in execution and even principle. The Chinese influence is more prevalent than in the Shuri/Tomari based styles. Even amongst all the so-called "Shorei and Shorin Ryu" based systems the styles are very unique. That's a wonderful thing. Is American Goju the same as Higaonna Goju? Uh-uh not really, but they each do have similarities.

Commonality is a good thing, but diversity is a great concept. In nature if a species dies off and a niche is left open a similar yet very different animal will often take the extinct species' place. From this new niche inhabitant several subspecies will often emerge to further adapt to their environment. This keeps things fresh in a natural and cohesive manner. Natural is a word the old Okinawan teachers use a lot, and for a reason.

The Japanese like competition and at the same time uniformity. They often say "a nail left standing will be hammered down". This is the prevailing attitude in modern karate. You can understand why, since the Japanese hold the lionshare of control and influence when it comes to karate. Originally it was an Okinawan art, and the Okinawan are very nonchalant, unregimented people. They are a tropical culture, not a temperate one like the Japanese. Their Te reflected this. They wanted diversity and looseness, with dilligence in ones studies. They were very particular with placement of the feet, how you walked, having "too much hand" in kata execution. Each instructor taught in a personalized way. Lessons were custom fit to the student, often only 1-4 at a time, privates being preferred. To many this was the best way to teach karate, especially at the beginning levels.

So in order to not wash away the Okinawan aspect of karate training, the genesis of it all, there has to be styles/ryuha. Think about it. The large classes, the afterschool programs, the competition circuit, these are modern and very ubiquitous aspects of karate training, Okinawan or otherwise. How many of you learned in an intimate setting where the sensei could adjust each movement and give you one-on-one attention? Very few have experienced this, but some of us think that type of karate training is very salient to keep good, underground karate around. Otherwise in 50 years there will be very few if any Shorin, Goju, Uechi, Isshin, or other smaller systems. The Japanese, Korean and Americans will control the flow and the larger, richer more organized and patent systems will prevail and what many term "original, real" karate will be dead.

In my opinion we can never let that happen and some of us will not partake in a whitewash based on what Funakoshi or Miyagi wanted to do with their systems back in the day in order to garner respect from their Japanese occupiers. Yes all good Okinawan karate is similar, but very different at the same time. That's a great thing IMHO. To each his own...

<<often to prove 'ours' is better than the next villages

How do I seperate the hyperbole, the bravado if you will that ~ours is better~ from the ours is different idea? Different intentions might twist the words meaningfully in some circumstances. Sometimes simply a really bad choice of words...

Jeff

I see your point, but I disagree with what is written between your lines. just to be clear - by suggesting 'no styles', I'm not saying I think there should be a unified system. diversity IS good. I'm only saying that the lines that currently separate styles are not as sharply drawn as people sometimes make them out to be. Karate 'styles' are protected and guarded like copywritten products nowadays, yet reading about the style founders reveils that sharing ideas and cross-learning was not even a second thought...it just happened. It could very well be that this collaboration was only during a time when all were trying to unify and pre-package Karate into a presentable system worthy of other Japanese budo. but the spirit of the corroberation and cross-study as a learning culture is not lost on me.

I suspect in that atmosphere, one person's teacher might refer them to another teacher to learn or work on an aspect or add to their point of view in their core study...and even better is the main instructor teaching how to incorporate what they've taken in from the other teacher, into the core study. I think thats absolutely fantastic and is the element of true diversity thru rigerous study - always questioning methods, reevaluating and adjusting.

traditionalist dogmatic isolationism has it's place as preserving their Art like a moving museum piece which is important - but more often than not, they are moreso just preserving a product.

to each their own, is right.

Great posting people!

Ed- I completely understand what you are saying. In fact I agree with your words. I am not a master of any system. I started in Judo, boxed, did Shorinkan for a bit, did some Matsubayashi Ryu for awhile, experimented with BJJ, was influenced by Filipino and Thai kickboxing, saw the efficacy/inefficacy of a lot of MAs training in the real world; so I agree with getting a broad vantage point. Absolutely. Hohan Soken learned from various sources including Shihequan shifu in Taiwan. He also encouraged his students to learn from multiple sources in order to enhance, compare and contrast what they had already learned. We have no debate as far as this concept is concerned.

What I was getting at involved the whole idea that in the end we all develop the same tools, regardless of the process. Now that is something I can't agree with and that's based upon my own empiricism. I do post on this forum because I know there are honest mature folks here wishing to understand better what it is they do by comparing notes with other players. I try to give a vantage point that is my own albeit influenced a bit by those who helped guide me in this direction. I am not infallible and have been known to "take a bite and the leave the rest" in order to better understand my take on the things I've learned.

Without heated discourse and emotional dialogue oft-times we tend to buff the marble instead of sculpting a masterpiece. What I'm saying is that I've never intended to divide just to enhance or add to the conversation. The unity all decent people have (martial artists or otherwise) is that we are all part of a community. On FA.com it's a community of individuals who have MAs in common. The diversity and varying personalities make it interesting and not so pseudo-scolarly like other sites (no names will be mentioned).

We are unified in the goal of self-revelation through MAs and sometimes combat sport. We are diverse in our opnions and approaches. It is all relative, but the assumption that all karate is good, is very naive IMO at best. If you observe enough karate in your life you know that the intent of many systmes is very different, from Seidokaikan to the generic "Kenpo" school seen at various strip malls throughout the USA.

Peace

Also of note is that originally karate was not a business, it was a tool of survival. It had to be effective. One HAD to train hard. There was no tournaments, belt ranking systems, etc... If two masters fought, that was a BIG deal. Now guns are about survival. LOL

Unsu,

You write with clarity and a great appeal for what you enjoy. But in the midst of this explanation that you give you present evolutionary equivalents to the deccimation of your arts and castigate those karate-ka whom dealt their styles into a codified system for consumption by the Japanese.

The problem here, (though perhaps you are right in some sense, that only some few will be left who have the "authentic" goods to hand to the consumer) is that the world has changed and the times are not what they were.

One can chastise those who came before for their presentation of watered down arts or changed arts, but if not for them, then perhaps karate would have died a meager death on Okinawa after the war. Or, perhaps, other Japanese styles would not flare up with a new take on something that has merit. Not all that is old is good and not all that is new is bad. This is also evolution.

There is also a recognition in this process, whatever you want to call it, that those who made the trek to solidify karate within Japanese Budo, may have done it for its continued existence in whatever iteration it has now.

There are bad, crappy martial arts in whatever arena you want to look at, but there are still some good things out there too. How good? How close to the original? I don't know. But without these more common and commercialized styles there would be no entry here in the States for the authentic stuff. If you never had any syrup on a pancake, and then were given some sugared liguid with brown dye....wouldn't that at least make you curious about real Maple Syrup?

Butterfly:

I agree that Funakoshi kept his beloved Tode alive by being slick and offering it up to the Japanese with Nipponese sensibilities in mind. Many say he was a mediocre karate guy. I don't know if this is true. I feel from what I've read and seen of him in "Karate Jutsu" and "Karate-do: My Way of Life" that he not only learned from the best, Asato and Shishu (Itosu), but he had a very clear and concise understanding of what Tode meant to the typical Okinawan of his era and before. He adjusted his karate to fit with the times, accordingly. So I know that the majority of karate that is practiced out there is of the Japanese and Korean variety. I also understand that a lot of the Okinawan karate trained nowadays is what some Okinawan shinshi call "schoolboy" karate. What I was getting at is the fact that what I do and a few others out there will be dead if we don't explain our position and relevance to it all. I feel that we can give people a glimpse of karate when it was about life (and death), a very practical art which included weapons play and a lot of "grappling". There is a vanguard for that kind of karate too, and it does still exist and hopefully won't be drowned out by the more modern-minded styles.

I like good karate. I have seen good Korean karate and good Japanese karate. I have seen some decent American Karate (Hawaiian or otherwise). Kyokushinkai is an awesome system as are its offshoots. There are outstanding Shotokan-ka and Ryuei Ryu practitioners (although technically Ryuei Ryu is an Okinawan art). The same can be said for Yamaguchi-influenced Goju Ryu and Shito Ryu. I have seen good Japanese Shorinji Ryu too.

My take is that it is often the stylist, but the dojo and teacher(s) are also big influences on one's training. If the intent of your system is to test your mettle in point sparring, kata comps and the tournament circuit then I feel that you might just be going through the motions of good karate, but your intent is different than mine. That stuff is what Mastumura coined "Budo of Nominals"- lots of fighting for glory and false pride, the kind which can bring shame and harm to you and your family. I practice "Budo no Bugei" or the "Bujutsu of Budo". To each their own.

I don't include good kickboxing or even MMAs stuff in my evaluation of what is effective training or not. Of course you can increase your ability to withstand punishment and to fight at all levels with arts that emphasize a lot of hard contact. So the truth is I have the utmost respect for your style of karate and in fact John Farrell's group (Kyokushin) from Corpus Christi use to come up and train with us. He's since relocated outside Texas, but they were very good karate-ka.

The intent inherent in my training is based upon self-preservation and protecting those around me if need be. I feel that if you fight all out in training, you might not be at your physical best when the excrement hits the fan. I don't know how realistic this really is, but this is what I've decided good MAs training is --- for me.

I haven't been to LA in a long while, but when I do visit I'd like to check out your dojo and then maybe we can meet so we can have a better understanding of who it is we really are. These forums are not good for that. My words are often miscontrued as angry and combative. How anyone can surmise what my demeanor is or if I'm a phallus or not is a mystery to me. I guess when it comes to intuition some have it and some don't.

Peace

I belong to a "style" because my Sensei teaches that style and I am his student. However, too many "styles" are being created because too many people think they are the best thing out there and what they have is sooooo unique (actually just a compilation of several other styles that they received a sandan in).

I used to say that even within my style I could tell you who a person trained with because of little differences. I respected some teachers more than others and knew that their students knew what they were doing.

That being said, lineage is more important than style. I have trained under several instructors of varying styles. If I say that I trained under teachers X,Y, and Z, and they are known for being good, That should speak enough for me. However, someone else could be in the same style and have studied under A,B, and C, all of whom are thought low of.

In my ideal world, there would be no styles. There would be a lineage recognition system. However, that kind of eliminates the ranking system and brings it back to a system of someone being designated an instructor and that being the end of it.

in my ideal world, my back fist can knock out a rhino.

we live in an ideal world already, the dojo. i think you understand a appreciate what i have to say already, styles don't matter to most expirenced karate ka, they have been around the block enough to understand that style's are more to be thought of as just one idea about how some situations should be handeled.

i think we should count ourselves lucky that we have a few of these guys kickin around here to answer questions and give valuable advice that you might end up paying Dillman 5000$ bucks for.

my instructor always gives s a speace about the belt meaning nothing outside of organization, im glade i got that speach early, and at ever seminar. bottom line, i think is that we should learn to get along through our training differences, like having you over to my house for dinner, you eat what my mom cooks, and then i kick your a$$ for callin my sister hot!