I see far too many problems in your original logic, let me explain:

You have not clarified your dependant variable, nor have you stated how you will isolate the independant and dependant variables from the extraneous ones.

You state that:
'By fundamentally different, I mean that the art of karate',
in reply to my point about your original statement which was, I quote:

'Today we find that there are a number of ways in which Okinawan kata fundamentally differ from Chinese systems practiced today'.

You appear to have changed tact on this point. Besides some would say that Kata is the heart of karate anyway.

As regards subjectivity is in the eye of the beholder. The point is that any hypothesis that is empirically tested should be able to have the method repeated and have at least some chance of getting the same results, the more times the method is repeated the more likely we are to establish a rule from which we can in future make deductions about such matters.

But that is actually impossible, in fact you state yourself that actually you cannot prove this

Mike Eschenbrenner wrote
'I am not sure to what extent the arts that have survived are all that representative of the arts that may have been taught by the Chinese to the Okinawans between the 1400s and the early 1800s'

But your hypothesis is:
'Chinese military personal likely taught Okinawans military arts to defend tribute vessels, and that these arts survive until today' (Mike Eschenbrenner).

Do you not see this as a major problem in proving your hypothesis?

Yet you also state:
'I am not sure there really can be any way to trace any Chinese systems to the Okinawan kata practiced today' (Mike Eschenbrenner).

It seems to me that you must be bluffing something here, you cannot say that I am going to prove this, but actually what I am going to prove cannot be in anyway verified.

Chinese military arts survive until today in Okinawan Kata, but you cannot trace any Chinese systems to Okinawan kata.

Or as you have put it (direct quotes are indicated by your name in paranthesis at the end of each quote):

'Chinese military personal likely taught Okinawans military arts to defend tribute vessels, and that these arts survive until today' (Mike Eschenbrenner)

Your method: Through showing that the Chinese spear movements are still in the kata...but at the same time stating the following two points:

'I am not sure there really can be any way to trace any Chinese systems to the Okinawan kata practiced today'. (Mike Eschenbrenner)

and

'I am not sure to what extent the arts that have survived are all that representative of the arts that may have been taught by the Chinese to the Okinawans between the 1400s and the early 1800s' (Mike Eschenbrenner).

Do you see why nobody is going to accept the theory that you are proposing?
However as Mr Neeter said it does not devalue what you are doing martially (I agree).
Mr Neeter disagrees on the basis of technical inaccuracy in the interpretation of Kata (I also agree) and also historically inaccuracy (with which I also agree) however in addition I disagree on the basis that your logic is entirely flawed.

I must admit that I was also somewhat bemused by your comment about 40 surviving kata. I would be interested in knowing exactly which 40 kata that you are saying these spear techniques can be found in. Can you provide a list?

I made a suggestion, which was a sensible one. However you appear to have ignored it. If you are going to test your hypothesis then surely you have got to look at possibilities, especially when they may provide evidence or otherwise of the proposition that you have put forward in your hypothesis.

So you still might want to look at General Yeuh Fei and the Eagle claw system and also Fan Tzu Ien Jao, as these were clearly military arts that included a number of weapons, most certainly spear.

Personally I really do not think that looking at this particular system and Chinese spear arts is actually in anyway a mere academic exercise. Even so you are proposing a hypothesis, most would say that is an academic matter. Whilst you say that

'Some have tried[studying Chinese systems], but the fact remains that Okinawan kata are very different from arts practiced in China today'.

But you are looking at the spear in this systems, that is what I am suggesting, how is it used in those systems, what are the movements like, can you correlate these with any Okinawan Kata movements. You may even be able to prove that the movements of Okinawan Karate kata can be shown to have been influenced by Chinese spear techniques.

As I said Good luck with it.

Regards

Chris Norman










Edited by Gesar (01/14/10 05:55 PM)