DaveB

Wow, thanks guys

Has anybody got a video example of Te/Ti/Di? I've never even heard of anyone seeing it after the likes of Funakoshi etc. When I look all I find is Okinawa te, which I think is either a modern art or an old family style like Motobu-ryu. Funakoshi wrote that Te was a "plebeian" form of boxing, much less refined than the Kung-fu they merged it with to form Karate. The idea that it may have been a regional variant on something like Muay Boran is interesting.

One kick wonder, a lot of what you wrote seems to be contrary to history i as know it. Funakoshi did not coin the term kara te. http://irkrs.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-1936-meeting-of-okinawan-karate.html in a 1936 meeting of karate masters , Master Chomo states that he wrote a book in 1905 called "karate Kumite". the meeting had a discussion on the naming of Okinawan Te. Funakoshi was not at this meeting. however the suffix DO may have been what you were referring to but i would suggest that Do was a common martial art word in main land Japan and thus it would have been the Butokukai that added the word Do. Karate in the educational system was a goal of Itosu for Okinawa. there is a letter i could referrance of Itosu's thoughts on this. however i think it was more the Japanese National movement using the Physical education system as a method of indoctrination of political policy prior to WWII. they kinda hijacked karate for a push of propaganda. history is never so clean and idyllic. names where changed for political reasons and often for the sake of self preservation. you couldnt go around talking about Chinese stuff without being a national traitor. Perhaps Funakoshi plagiarised the whole thing then. I don't know. I wasn't there. Lol, more likely you just got your history wrong. Funakoshi was sent to Japan to further Itosu's plans for karate. He first called his art Ryu kyu kempo Karate Jutsu, changing to do and emphasising character development later, possibly after ww2. And the 5 Pinan weren't split from any protokata, itosu created them as a self-defence short course, a way to get kids into the basics of karate training.

The pinan kata are essentially key skills from a range of the most popular karate here is a good article on Passai kata and it is great that you look into the origin of the forms you practice in TKD/TSD. https://www.ikigaiway.com/2014/making-sense-of-passai-an-exploration-of-origin-and-style/ That's an excellent article. Thanks for sharing. I've read it and watched the clips, and will undoubtedly go through it a few more times because there's a lot to take in. Two things really stood out for me. Firstly, that the form has evolved substantially in recent decades, from being more of a soft/internal almost tai chi like form, to a much harder and more aggressive style. If my observation is correct, then I'm inclined to lean towards the view held by some historians that out of all the possible translations of the name, the most widely accepted is possibly not the original intention. The second thing that really jumped out at me was the shotokan bassai dai. It was clearly a natural evolution of earlier versions, and was undoubtedly the closest to what I practice as simply bassai. In fact it was almost identical. Close enough in fact that I'd bet if someone on my club were to perform the shotokan version of bassai dai in a grading instead of doing our version, if they did it well, I reckon they'd still get full marks in that section of the test. Feedback afterwards would possibly be along the lines of showing chambers more and being a bit more direct in some of the moves. Bassai sho also stood out for me but for different reasons. I saw in that a kind of amalgam of key elements from the pyung ahn/pinnan/heian set as well as bassai dai. Almost like bassai sho is a kind of abridged version of all the forms typically taught to pre dan grade (kyu / geup ) students. We don't have bassai sho at ours, but as it looks like a mix of other bits we do have, I might learnt it for my own interests to see if it sheds more light on the other forms I have so far. Watching Kanazawa’s (Shotokan) performance of Bassai Dai and Bassai Sho, Bassai Dai seems a lot closer to the Pinan/Heian series than Bassai Sho does. To be honest, the Pinan/Heian series seems a bit closer to Bassai Dai than the various Kanku kata that the Pinan/Heian allegedly came from. Maybe that’s just me though. I see far more Pinan in Bassai Dai than I see in Kanku. The Pinan kata are essentially a collection of key lessons from the big 5 kata of shotokan: Bassai Dai, Kanku Dai, Chinte, Jion and Empi. They function as a self defence course and overview of karate skills and tactics on which to base deep study of proper kata.

in your middle paragraph you mention that there is a Chinese influence on Okinawan karate but only acknowledged to a lessor extent?? i am not sure what you mean. did i understand you correctly? there is a direct link to the Chinese and it is very obvious one. its not a hidden fact today. it was down played during WWII but its never been a secret. i find it very unlikely that there is a Thailand influence to Okinawan karate. as far as where did Chinese kung-fu come from..well there is a theory that it traveled over the silk road from India. that the Budhidharma legend was probably many people traveling over many years. the Chinese leaned from the Indian fighting styles which had Yoga like forms. In turn it is believed that the Indian culture picked up combative fighting from the Greeks. Alexander the Great and his men who practiced Pankration when not in battle made it all the way to the edge of India. it is well known that many of his men stayed and the Greeks had a practice of assimilation into the other cultures rather than dictate its own culture upon those that it conquered. while many laugh and mock at this idea it is the most probable lineage. The Indians defeated Alexander the Great's armies, they clearly had their own martial culture and a civilisation that predates Ancient Greece. I think the attempt to trace MA back to the Greeks is dubious at best and a bit sinister at the worst. I think it is unlikely that Muay Boran influenced karate through anything more than a passing glance. I just don't see it in anything that has survived to the present. That being said I would love a look at Ti. I am curious as to whether Karate was meant to be an advancement from a base of Ti, or just an alternative for the upper classes. [/b]

Hello, I have heard the suggestion that Okinawans included Mauy Born once before. Can you explain from where this idea comes please?

We'll have to agree to disagree. I personally don't use nor teach blocking in the modern sense of the word. Blocking in the modern Japanese definition is non-effective in a real fight. So we have different points of view and definitely different beliefs on the subject but it's all good. I find that belief fascinating. Can you explain what about blocking is ineffective? Unlike training in a Dojo, when in a real confrontation, "blocks" as most know them have inherent limitations and pit falls. You essentially change your momentum and power for a period of time which gives your opponent the advantage. Example: attacker is driving forward, momentum and power are focused forward which means that they can and will easily follow up with a second or third or (fill in the blank) strikes / defender upper blocks (Jodan Uke), Momentum is stalled and power and focus is directed upward. Leaves body wide open for attacker to choose target. The other inherent problem with blocking is unlike training the opponent does not leave their arm out in space while allowing you to execute your counter. Real fights are fast (if the participants are serious) and that one full body committed strike does not happen often if at all. Instead it is a barrage of strikes (maybe light, maybe with 70% power or maybe all with 100% full power). Another example; most teach blocks as defense against weapons such as knives and clubs. You essentially gift a target to a knife wielding attacker in that your arm is in a perfect position for them to reverse direction and slash or hook your arm. The same is true when unarmed. It gives me the opportunity to seize the defenders arm and control their direction of momentum and balance thus giving me the advantage. I am not saying I do not teach Uki (Uke) or to receive techniques. I do not teach blocking. If you do some research you'll find that, what the Japanese coined as Uke and the western world coined as blocks, were never employed by the original founders but was a misinterpretation. We utilize brushes, traps, sweeps and strikes in place of what is called blocks. Blocks at best are ineffective unless your fighting someone less skilled than yourself. Against a better fighter blocks are useless. And IMHO, if you have time to execute a lower block (just for one example), you have time to shift your body. Unlike your explanation above of terrain, etc. In old school Suidi (Shuri-te) you are constantly moving outside of your opponents direct force. Why then would I stand in place, as is taught in 90% of the schools today, and deliver a lower block when I can shift, allow them to pass and counter. Yes in that moment I might be brushing and seizing the attackers weapon to control them as I move to an advantageous position but to "block" serves no purpose IMHO except to give the opponent the advantage. I have used the "block" when I was young because that is what I was taught. In real fights I found out very quickly it does not work. To each their own. If you say they work for you then use them. Me personally... I don't use nor teach them. My Shinshii did not teach them and my students don't teach them. Question; have you ever noticed that you never see them utilized in Kumite, MMA, or any other form of fighting? Ever seen a Jodan Uke utilized in a street fight? 2nd Question; if blocks were a realistic methodology for combat/battle (which is where the art came from) then why do we not teach blocks in Tichiki (Bunkai)? The founders did not pass down step forward and upper block but instead passed down step forward while striking upward into the trachea and into the chin for one example. Strike, throw, brush, deflection, redirection, trap, seize, etc - not a block. The only applications I have ever seen utilizing an actual block are literal applications. Not the true representation of the founders applications or their teachers applications that were taught to them. To each their own. I am not saying that blocks are bad or that you shouldn't be teaching/using them. For you they may make sense. For me they do not. And as such, I do not teach/use them. I used to be where you are on blocking, but eventually I came full circle to start reconsidering their use. I find that at least in part the issue is a semantic one. People get very caught up with the English language connotations of the word "block", such that they end up talking about the tiniest fraction of the ways you can use an uke technique to avoid damage when saying that blocks don't work. On the other hand I include things like brushing the blow past as you sidestep as a use of blocking, since blocking is just the English colloquial name for the various uke techniques. You ask why we don't see blocking in combat sports. Because no one trains them. MMA is only now discovering the oblique kick; Lyoto Machida showed them how effective foot sweeps could be but they are still not common... The list of techniques that were useless but now have been shown to work in the cage is huge and one day blocking will be added to it. But if you look back.to the days before gloves, old bare knuckle boxers did indeed use blocks and in particular the jodan uke was exactly the same in boxing as it is in karate. Also in modern boxing the gloves impede vision once you start waving your hands around to block. I know because I used to do it in boxing/kick boxing training. The blocking was extremely effective until I messed up and allowed follow up strikes. Then I found I couldn't see so had to learn boxing blocks ie zonal covering. A side note: the covering up that combat sports people do is mostly garbage. Especially in ufc with the smaller gloves, it is totally ineffective. But when most karateka have lost the knowledge of how to block why would boxers etc know? Also this idea that old school karate didn't use blocks is something that I hear a lot but see no evidence for. I've been lucky enough to train briefly with some very old school karateka and while they moved differently and I think called it something different, they still used their arms to stop incoming blows from landing, ie they blocked. At best the idea is semantics at worst it's revisionism. Finally I would ask you to look over my description of the use of blocking again. The reason. Is that much of what you explain for why you shouldn't block we are on the same page on. I accounted for momentum and multiple strikes before you mentioned them as reasons not to block. Ultimately I feel that if people can draw a distinction between how things work in the dojo and how they work in the street it is an indication that the training they have been exposed to is lacking aliveness and probably too formal. The laws of physics are the same in a dojo, thus the only limitations to effective training are those we impose for safety and those we impose because it's not what we know. So if we know people plow in with more than one punch that is what we need to train against and if we allow our skill level and understanding to be the weak link when things go wrong it's much easier to find what we need to make things work rather than throwing them out.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I personally don't use nor teach blocking in the modern sense of the word. Blocking in the modern Japanese definition is non-effective in a real fight. So we have different points of view and definitely different beliefs on the subject but it's all good. I find that belief fascinating. Can you explain what about blocking is ineffective?

The basic blocks are best used as blocks against fully committed attacks. When the attack has full weight and intent behind it (ie not the first punch in a flurry but the killing blow) the basic blocks disrupt momentum and structure creating physical and temporal space for the counter attack but more importantly enabling control of the enemy. This can be done both with interruption or absorption of the attack, the latter usually combining some degree of pivoting or footwork. Age/jodan uke in particular is a great opportunity to control the opponents elbow, or can offer great openings by dropping your level while blocking. As to the idea that if you can block you can move, I think if you consider that statement you'll realise it's a bit backwards. Hands move faster than the body. Also depending on terrain moving my be a bad idea, especially head movement that breaks your balance and leaves you vulnerable to kicks and tackles. Blocks are either an active defence strategy or a last resort for something you didn't see coming. Everything else is moving out of the way. The trouble is that people learn to block without learning why or when they should. If your block can't disrupt the opponent nor give you control of his body then it should be body movement and at most a palm parry. You should never be in the position of blocking multiple strikes without response.

Well in order to understand the training then you have to understand that most would only take on worthy students. This simply put meant that most teachers would have their potential students prove themselves before they would actually start teaching them. The major focus was conditioning training to see if their will would break and if they had the proper attitude and character they were looking for in a student. However this was not the primary focus once accepted by the teacher. To the bold above - conditioning or Hojo Undo is a part of training. In some arts it is more important and in others it is a small part of training. You are making a pretty broad statement about all Okinawan arts that is not true. Our primary focus is on the Kata and the applications that it contains. Conditioning is a part of our training (a small part of class) and is done primarily outside of the Dojo by the individual. The focus is to learn how to defend oneself not to look like Arnold. The Dojo is not a Gym. I think your basis of argument is flawed as there many disciplines and no two are exactly the same. I have to correct your historical statement as well. Funakoshi as well as everyone else that was studying the art (Toudi or Ti'gwa) then was of class lineage, albeit in his case of lower Pechin class. Itosu dumbed down the art in order to teach it to the commoners and to school children. It's focus was physical fitness not combative training. Most of the combative elements (Chibudi, Tuiti, Tegumi, Ti and Quan Fa) were removed. The Kata was taught without explanation. The intent of the Kata was changed and the applications were for all intents and purposes replaced, removed or taught as something else. Example - blocks. This is also why modern arts question elements of the Kata like throws and are now creating applications because the founders applications were not passed down to them. I was thinking more of Japanese karate when I wrote. I'm not sure how your comment corrected my historical comment. What is chibudi? and what form does ti take in Okinawan karate?

You shouldn't listen to Everybody, that guy's an idiot.

Isnt it more important to stress things like the actual strikes, in particular from stances used in free fighting? In a word, no. The techniques are the stance and the stances are the techniques. What changes from the form to the fight is the way in which the stance manifests. The alignment of your body and distribution of weight and transfer of energy are ingrained by drilling the stances. When you've done it enough you can be in a stance with much less external form and you can move through them at will.

I wasn't suggesting Miyagi himself was poor, but I doubt there were that many wealthy folks on Okinawa to fill all the dojo of the people we still talk about, let alone all the masters we've forgotten about. Gichin Funakoshi's autobiography details exactly how tough it was to work in the fields and train as though from a noble family his father was a gambler who squandered their wealth. Hohan Soken also talked about training when people were poor and had to work all day, particularly how devastating injury could be. Also there's no way Miyagi learned in this way from his chinese teachers. He only spent a short time travelling and learning kung fu, so had he been subjected to years of fitness training followed by years on a single training form by each teacher he learned from he'd have learned nothing.

He didn't say anything I particularly disagree with. What about you?

The warrior class were the people practicing in the old days when the likes of Funakoshi was young. With the meiji restoration and the abolition of the samurai class, karate started to grow and people like itosu started to teach more broadly. I could be wrong about the reason behind the focus on strength over skill. It could just be they felt fights were won by the strongest. Either way it has led to a culture of people with far more theory than skill because so much time is devoted to technique and not to the "how" of fighting.