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.

The fact that miyagi died with almost no one knowing his system tells you everything you need to know about this method of teaching. Imo old Karate was way too focused on building up the individual and not focussed enough on employing skills. I think this is probably in part to do with how malnourished poor folk were in those days.

Consider this: if these 3 kata make up a systematic progression like the pinan or naihanchi, what order do they belong in?

I think Bruce Lee made styles unfashionable. He popularised the idea of the formless adapter, but while that approach has strengths I think it has left many to flounder. Rather than just an aesthetic choice, MA styles offer us a distinct method of fighting. Ways to attack and ways to defend that we can fall back on in any situation. Most of the martial artists that I've met, myself included, learned lots of techniques and just had to work out how to use them through trial and error. A small portion of the techniques are explained through sport or self defense drills, but an over arching game plan was missing.

Actually as unpopular as it may be, I'm pretty sure that of that list Shotokan is the oldest, in that Funakoshi was teaching before Itosu named his style Shorin ryu. People often don't realise that Funakoshi was considerably older than most of the founders of the various Shorin ryu styles. That being said tracing shotokan to Funakoshi technically makes Shotokan a style of Shorin ryu. Shotokan as the modern Japanese art is indeed younger than the others, but none of these things are cut and dried because each teacher does his own thing and everybody learned from everyone else. I consider Goju ryu as one of the youngest styles. The oldest IMO is Matsumura Sieto Shorin Ryu. A style that called itself Shorin ryu because that's what everyone else was doing (and Shorin ryu basically just means Shaolin style - a general reference to kung fu origin rather than a statement of lineage). Matsumura seito is the personal style of the legendary bushi Matsumura and was originally passed down only through his family. So it is older than Itosu's Shorin and different in a number of ways since Itosu was mostly taught by a Tomari guy.

It's a lovely idea, very well written, but it's just not how any of this work.

Yes, to all of those. Kata in a dojo is a new thing. The best metaphor for kata is the phrase, "from little acorns mighty oak trees grow." Kata is the acorn, fighting with the Kata is the oak tree's foliage in full bloom. This occurs through the "unpacking " of the kata: breaking it down into ideas and mechanics, exploring how these can take different forms and be combined in different ways then ultimately inculcating them to be used as needed in combat. The division of training into the three k's is imo a false one. It is all kata, whether training techniques or drills or fighting.

It's not so much about combating other styles as it is about exploring Shotokan. Shotokan that everyone thinks of is a combat sport based on kendo. It has almost nothing to do with the karate that birthed it and which practitioners skirt around through their kata practice. I'm not saying that the sport style is bad, but like any game it is it's own specialist area, not especially geared towards ring fighting or mma etc. The art presented in the kata of Shotokan is a more general purpose fighting art. In fact Shotokan is really a collection of a range of Okinawan/Chinese fighting methods which you can refine down to suit your individual talents and attributes. For example, the breakdown I listed above gave examples from 6 kata: Hiean Shodan, Hiean Nidan, Hangetsu, Jion, Tekki Shodan And Bassai dai. Right there is a single fighting system syllabus, modelled on deep study of kata just as the Okinawan karateka of old did it. Core concepts from each kata interlock with the others to give guidance for entering, taking initiative, defending and regaining initiative, landing blows and finishing a fight. Plus there's a ton of stuff I didn't mention in those forms like timing, escaping holds, setting up throws, dealing with clinches... Years of study if you so wish it, and yet it is a combination of kata that I had never considered before my post. As to the style issue, I also think it is a useful indicator of things to know how to combat, like those nasty kicks to the thigh. But over reliance on a stereotype is as harmful as helpful. That being said I am a great believer in the benefits of learning to apply a given style as it was intended rather than patching together techniques because you have seen them work on the TV.

You are welcome. I enjoy discussion about using martial arts, but sadly they are few and short lived.

I mentioned a similar issue in a post earlier today. Understanding or lack thereof, of what is appropriate in various ranges is key to understanding much technique. Back when I could kick I was a big fan of axe kicks in close or shifting suddenly to long range and throwing a long technique at an opponent who was blocking everything up close. The sudden change in frame of reference let the blow land every time, sometimes with devastating effect. I trained with a lot of close quarter kung fu guys then, and they all thought long techniques and high kicks useless.

There are two options when learning by fighting another style: Either you copy what they do, or You analyse your own art for solutions to the problems that they present. By far number 2 is the better option, partly because it encompasses 1 to a degree but also because copying is a poor substitute for going and taking classes in said style. So how do we analyse Shotokan? First step is research. Knowing what is for fighting and what is cultural baggage will help. For example, long stances were introduced as a training tool, the logic being that if you're Strong enough to move quickly in long stances you can move even faster in a short stance. So start by making your stances around half their current length. This will make you more mobile, able to shift your weight onto angles and make short skips back to let him punch air while you launch your counter to intercept his forward momentum, just like you do in normal kumite but shorter and faster, dodging by the inch rather than the foot. Also a shorter stance gives you the option to extend your stance to attack, so long as you remember to retract it (front leg or back) once your momentum falters. Deep stances are most useful in standing grappling, either for supporting your own balance Understanding kata in terms of simple fighting is next. Forget the strings of joint locks ending in a throw that everyone loves for bunkai. Karate is a percussive art and so much of the kata instructs on how to land strikes. Start with the range: in close quarters an open guard is begging to be hit. In Shotokan kata you do a lot of moving forward in back stance with shuto uke. That is your close fighting guard. Lead hand high, elbows sunk and in front of the body. Rear hand covers the centre. Most important you should be square to your opponent in this position, NOT side on! This way you can employ both hands equally and present no blind side. When the lead hand parry's the rear shoots into the space with an attack (hiean nidan), otherwise the hands move as if on opposite ends of a stick: one goes up, the other goes down etc. This helps you cover all your openings. Now you know how to stand learn to relax in the position. Loose the rigid blades and tight knees and 90d angle of the feet. Practice dancing, advancing and retreating and shifting your body weight by pivoting the front foot. Body shifting sideways and to angles is the whole point of hiean kata openings. Angular footwork is the holy grail of shotokan imo and key to a lot of ring fighting because it takes you off the line of force while giving you a line of attack. Learn to hit using the hand techniques that accompany kokutsudachi. Most involve trapping or simultaneous blocking and knife hand thrusts are the same principle as single knuckle fists: focused pressure. Useful when you don't have space to generate acceleration. You are used to making space for long techniques, well by having your weight back Kokutsudachi creates space between you and your attacker. The guard is a wall between you that triggers your counter the moment it is touched. The front foot should be light enough for you to pick up the knee to check any kicks. A tenet of southern Chinese martial arts from whence karate originated, is that hands deal with hands and feet deal with feet. Another way to do this is to check his legs while on the ground using the Hangetsu dachi. That turned in front knee is to apply pressure to your opponents lead leg making it harder for him to kick (must work with hands to trap him) and to make groin shots harder when not so close. So where do these knee raises come from if we are using karate? Bassai dai and. Tekki are great examples: the knee comes up while the supporting leg contracts so you are.more stable as you receive his force. Then you slam it down, pressing your weight forward with a. Powerful upper body technique. In Tekki it's a trap setting up the elbow, in Hiean sandan it's an elbow strike-back fist combination, in Bassai it's a simultaneous trap and over hand swing in the mountain punch followed by a mighty uppercut/under-hook and shoulder throw. This leads neatly into attacking. Defending leg kicks won't be a problem if you are the one dominating. Again, shorten your techniques. The power zone of a punch is up to 3/4 extension, so stop fully extending when you punch. If your punch is only having to go half way before the other hand launches think how many more punches you will put out. The more you throw the more the chance of one landing (jion, hiean shodan). Shotokan kumite is based on kendo, but you are not using swords and one good hit may not be enough. Whatever movement you make, cover them with a volley of strikes. The cross step in tekki is an indicator for inserting a kick. And that kata only moves by cross step! It also only uses circular strikes. Hands follow feet and in tekki they often follow by pulling the guard down to enable the strike. If you try this pull the elbow not the wrist, but only trap if you can't get through and with the opponent on the back foot. Otherwise it is just a space in which your not hitting him and where he can (and will) hit you. Hooks go around a guard. If his hand is covering where your hook will go give it somewhere else to be by striking so he has to move it. Forget your long horizontal backfist and embrace the vertical dropping backfist with the elbow sunk. Then reinterpret every ude uke in your kata as one (and every other block as a strike) and see what it does for your combos. Lastly on attack, one of the fundamentals of Okinawan karate is turning attack into defence and vice versa with the same hand. You see this clearly in Bassai dai after the tate shuto uke. Punch twists into block. Make use of that, especially the other way around. When you block/parry, the blocking hand is often closer to the opponent. If you can time it so he is just starting his next attack you can quickly launch a fast light eye level attack from the hand that just blocked you can force him on the defensive to retake the initiative. There's pages and pages more I could add about timing etc, but the bottom line is this: most karateka don't know how to fight, because they get stuck in techniques or the fighting they do is for the specialised kendo hand tag of kumite tournaments. Fighting is the study of landing techniques. It is not the muay thai style you are having trouble with, it is the study of landing techniques that is made by combat sports people of all stripes. I'll bet everything you were taught in shotokan regarding distance timing and interception came in the context of tournament style fighting. Understanding how to fight as a karateka can only come from studying kata for clues in how to land techniques, not in inventing more of them. Actually being able to fight can only come from taking those lessons and trying your damdest to make them work in sparring against a variety of people, and constantly revising and retesting the methods as your attributes and skill levels develop. Most of all it needs an ego check to allow ourselves to grow by getting beat up a lot but persevering anyway. Well done for starting down the path!