Whats the difference between Okinawan and Shokotan?

[15-lisa-newbie]

whats the difference between okinawan and shokotan anyone?

[Sparkey]

Boy oh boy....books have been written...!

 

Well, I'll give a very BASIC explaination. The scholars can expand on it more. Because of trade routes, the Okinawans learned many of the empty hand fighting techniques from China and made their own systems according to where they lived on the islands and who they trained with. Then the Japanese learned from the Okinawans and Shotokan was formed from Japanese based Karate systems. Crude and short explaination, I know...but again, books have been written....

[P.A.L]

when you say okinawan I assume you mean Shuri-te and tomari-te since Naha-te (goju ryu) is compeletely something else. Shotokan supose to be the same as okinwan but when Funakoshi brought the karate to japan he had to make some changes so japanies would accept it, as a result during the years katas has changed from it's original version for example you don't see Naihanchi dachi( ippon Sanchin dachi as some people calls it) in shotokan any more it changed to Kiba dachi which is totally different so the meaning of Naihanchi kata also has changed now it is Tekki

 

with another bunkai,all(most not include sandan) the Nekoashi dachi in Pinan series changed to Kekutsu dachi, shiko dachi in shotokan is deeper than okinawan version, the shuto block/strikes are different, moveing the back leg is different, and some more technical details, as far as kumite shotokan does point sparring with full control , you shouldn't hit the opponent, from 2-3 inches to slight touch are all good if you do the technique right (not a cheap shot), in okinawa some do point spar and some do full contact but annual full contact tournoment in okinawa is done by protective gear and it is a bloody game, some schools do open hand kumite , they don't hit with seiken they hit but not very hard we call it dojo level. in my school we put the gloves on , i use head gear too since they hit hard to the head and i have 30 miles driving back home.

[Shorin Ryuu]

This question can only be answered by applying generalities to both Okinawan and Shotokan ways of doing things. Individual schools will vary, but these will most likely hold true for the majority of schools out there.

 

First: Shotokan, as you know, has its origins with Gichin Funakoshi. My criticism with most Japanese systems (even though Funakoshi himself was trained in Okinawa) was that it was introduced first to the Japanese elementary school system in what I believe to be a watered down fashion. When Itosu and others developed the Pinan (Heian) kata for xample, they were vastly simplified from their origins to make it easier or the practitioner (and indeed the instructor) to perform or correct. For example, the full rotation punch (there's an old thread on this that I posted on a year or two ago). The full rotation punch was introduced because it was simply less effective. The body is designed to take blows at a full 90 degree angle. The Okinawan 3/4 rotation turn (in between the vertical tate and full rotation punch) takes advantage of these angles. One of my instructors always used to say that the body is strongest and weakest at 15 degree angles....This applies in this case. The biomechanics of the arm are optimum at the 3/4 punch. In the full rotation, the bones cross one another and there are pressure points that are vulnerable with the full rotation punch that aren't vulnerable with the 3/4 punch.

 

Second: Most of the level of study is not as in-depth. By that I mean there are many Shotokan fighters that can punch hard, kick fast and have a good knowledge of distance and timing. However, they lack an advanced perspective on close range fighting, to include grappling and joint or pressure point manipulation. It simply isn't there in most Shotokan stylists that I have encountered. This also goes into the kata. Generations of Japanese who learned a simplified version of karate saw "kick, punch, block, maybe a throw here and there" in there kata, but that is the depth of their analysis. True Okinawan styles have this level of analysis, including the basic level, grappling, pressure points, breathing and energy.

 

Third: Speaking of energy. My opinion is that most Shotokan stances and fighting are deadlocked in terms of energy. That means that when techniques are executed from a Shotokan stance, the energy can not flow. You can view this energy as ki or biomechanics. Arakaki wrote an interesting book in which is fundamental theory was that ki was merely the utilization of gravity. Take it as you will. My point is that Shotokan has unrealistically deep stances that require pure muscle strength rather than optimum body mechanics to fight or shift from. I knew a Shotokan stylist that had an unbelievably deep front stance. Yet he could kick with his reverse leg extremely fast, but it would require much more muscle power (that he had gained from years of practice). Muscle power helps in martial arts, you must strengthen the body. However, muscle power must always be a supplement, never the foundation. True, there are Okinawan styles that have deep stances, yet these are always in a grappling context or some sort of body manipulation or center of gravity transition. I believe this to be a mistake on the Japanese part. Japanese karate was developing in the era that many of the practitioners were witness to the Industrial Revolution in Japan or enamored of its effects. During the Taisho era in Japan, there was an even greater attempt to study Western sciences, such as physics. I believe they misapplied many of its principles to karate. Yes, Force = mass x acceleration, but biomechanics means the body must be relaxed to function properly. Shotokan is an extremely "hard" style, meaning it relies heavily upon muscle and physical fitness. That isn't entirely bad, but there needs to be more of a balance.

 

Fourth: Related to the last point. Shotokan looks strong. It does. The static stances require muscle and strength. Yet it is too hard in my opinion. It needs to be softer. I know they teach about relaxation in Shotokan and other styles. There is a need to work more angles and more circles into the techniques. It really is a matter of efficiency. When you get old, you won't be able to be as fast or as strong. You simply need to be more efficient. Softer styles teach efficiency via body mechanics, stances, that sort of thing (not referring to timing, as both types of styles do this). Harder styles teach that you need to train harder. I think a mix of the both is beneficial, but I believe the softer to be superior. The debate on this alone is the substance of many books, but suffice it to say, Shotokan needs to rely less on pure muscle.

 

Fifth: Related to the second point. Pressure point manipulation and close range in-fighting is such a huge part of Okinawan karate. I find it heavily lacking in Shotokan and many Japanese styles, as they are more oriented towards sport fighting or pure stand-up fighting. I would be lying if I said there was not a big sports contingent on Okinawa. In fact, some styles are more traditionally taught in American then even in Okinawa! Fuse Kise, head of one of the brances of Matsumura Shorin Ryu even remarked that soon to find true traditional Okinawan karate, you may have to go to America (although his English wasn't quite so good...the meaning is the same)! Sports in karate aren't evil. I think it is a reason that has helped it flourish around the world, and that is good. Yet many places, even if sport is not the main emphasis, have devolved into sports- level analysis. There is such a wealth of pure fighting technique in Okinawan karate for all ranges of combat, yet even some styles in Okinawa are losing that range, I regret to say. Pressure point manipulation, and I don't mean tap at a point and a person dies, but I mean honest-to-goodness (in some cases, even scientifically verified in a lab) pressure point theory and practice that require contact and precision. Pressure point doesn't just mean pain, but also unbalancing and internal injuries/nerve damage. Pressure point theory includes activating pressure points to make joints vulnerable or manipulating joints to make activating pressure points vulnerable and have a full range of effects on bone, muscle and the nervous system. I find this lacking in most all Japanese styles. It is truly a higher level of understanding (along with the more internal aspects of martial arts).

 

Sixth: "Yes, but Gichin Funakoshi was Okinawan, wouldn't he have taught it one way if it was superior?" The sad fact of it is, that he did teach it differently than it is practiced today. His emphasis did shift later to a more philosophical approach. At the same time, he did want to maintain functionality. But his students vastly changed his teachings. Look at his stances in old photos, they are way higher than practiced today. Even during his lifetime, he remarked that his teachings (technique-wise) were changed (negatively). I think he was pleased with the philosophical aspects of it, but after watching a demonstration by his students performed at the Budokan, he said that he was ashamed. He could not recognize what they did as the karate that he taught them. I think that is a pretty condemning statement.

 

Seventh: The simple things, like the block. I believe there is no "block" in karate, that they are strikes. In Japanese styles (with the exception of certain ones, like Wado Ryu for example) the blocks are lower in front of the body. In Okinawan systems, they are much higher. Sometimes they teach the block with the fist at eye level. It seems ridiculous to have a block that exposes you so much. But it isn't a block, it is a strike to the face, for example, that happens to also make sure that your hand doesn't reach me. Or the shuto (knife-hand). In many cases, it is taught as a two-count motion. Both or one hand goes back, then it goes forward. It "chambers" then strikes. There is no such thing as a "chamber" in my opinion (same as the chambered punch). Depending on how it is performed, the first movement is the block, one hand retracts the opponent's hand while the other strikes a pressure point on the wrist. The actual "block" is a strike to a corresponding pressure point in the neck that can cause unconsciousness with much less force. I believe the chamber to be a pull inwards, never a preparation.

 

Eigth: Thus everything is done for a reason. Even the yoi or ready position. I ask many people, "why do you do that?" They say "it is for respect", or, "it shows I have an empty hand." I believe that to be hogwash. The bow is for respect. Just like there is no chamber position, even the motions into a ready position have several explanations in Okinawan karate styles. I seriously ask people why they do it, explain to them my background or it is people I know so it isn't a trust issue, and they can only give me explanations like the fist at the side of the body is merely a chamber and their yoi position is merely a symbolic gesture. Going back to levels of interpretation....it is too simplistic.

 

Ninth: As a general trend, there are more Shotokan dojo that do not do weapons training than Okinawan dojo that do not, for whatever reason. Perhaps this is due more to the name "empty hand" given to karate in 1936 and a philosophical consideration.

 

Tenth: More Shotokan dojo seem to teach classes in a much more "rigid" fashion where people are mostly at strict attention and in solid lines, etc. This isn't so much a Shotokan thing as it is a Japanese thing. It has influenced many Okinawan styles as well (the influences have gone both ways), but I've seen a lot more "casual" Okinawan dojo then Shotokan dojo. Primarily due to the idea that "traditional" always meant hardwood dojo floors and large masses of karateka, which is a relatively new thing in karate.

 

I could go on and on. I really don't mean this as an all out bash against Shotokan. But these are just differences I have noted in between Shotokan (and more Japanese styles of karate) and Okinawan karate. Feel free to pm me, email me or contest me here if you disagree with anything I said. Once again, these are criticisms of a system as a whole, not necessarily individuals or individual dojo, which vary.

[Chirath]

Wow Shorin Ryuu your posts these couple of weeks have been of high quality. I would just like to take the time to thank you for putting so much of your time writing such good posts. They are much appreciated. Your argument about the 3/4 punch intrests me. I know you mentioned there are no advantages over the full rotation punch. But I find it hard to believe. Maybe it's because I do a japanse style. But does anyone know any advantages to them? If it so flawed why has it been taught for so long? Sorry if it's annoying that you may have to repeat yourself from the thread Shorin Ryuu mentioned. But I really would appreciate it.

 

Thanks In Advance

[Shorinryu Sensei]

Once again, I bow to Shorin Ryuu's knowledge.

 

Bud...I'm really hoping our gathering turns out and you can make it up here to Montana.

 

Not to take away anything that Shorin Ryuu said, as I agree 100% with it, but a simpler explanation might be a comparison between a novel (the Okinawan systems), and a 2 hour movie (Shotokan). The novel (Okinawan systems) goes much more in detail and depth than a movie (Shotokan) will ever be able to do, and the movie just hits the high points and doesn't get into the tiny, more complex details of the entire story.

 

Again (where's the applauding icon when we need it?), I bow again to Shorin Ryuu's expertise and knowledge. Keep it up bud!

[shotochem]

Hi Shorin,

 

 

 

In regards to the 3/4 punch, we do use a 3/4 punch it's just that we turn

 

it over and rotate on contact at the end of the strike.(driving the corkscrew into the bottle). We always try to strike with proper bone alignment.

 

The lack of inside fighting, locks, throws and pressure points varies form school to school though is is not emphasized. It is also taught more at the higher ranks.

 

Shotokan stances are deep. They are more difficult and it is definately harder to move from them. However, we use them for training and kata.

 

We do not fight from those stances. A higher more natural fighting stance is employed by most. The thinking is that if you can move and perform techniques in a deep stance, you can easily do it more quickly and just as strong in a shorter higher natural stance.

[karatekid1975]

You got good advice here, but I think if this was in the Karate forum, you would get more replies

[Shorin Ryuu]

Shotokan stances are deep. They are more difficult and it is definately harder to move from them. However, we use them for training and kata.

 

We do not fight from those stances. A higher more natural fighting stance is employed by most. The thinking is that if you can move and perform techniques in a deep stance, you can easily do it more quickly and just as strong in a shorter higher natural stance.

 

Thanks for the response. My only concern about this is that in doing so, you train yourself to move relying more on muscular strength, thus the emphasis on "strong" whenever people talk about Shotokan stances. You are right in this sense. Those deeper stances allow for muscle development that make shorter stances "stronger", but it is making you rely more on the muscles than on biomechanical efficiency. It is because more natural stances do not rely on muscle that they will always be quicker and in my opinion, more combatively stable and effective with regards to muscle transition stances, even if those muscle transition stances are "higher and more natural". Relying on muscle is okay for people who are young and energetic in some cases. But when we talk about refinement and betterment of technique, you have to shift your training. Don't get me wrong, I am all for working out and getting stronger. But when it comes to something so combatively oriented as kata, I want to train the way I fight. Anything else would be detrimental in terms of efficiency in training.

 

I'll go into depth about my thoughts on the punch later once I summon enough motivation.

[KungFuMan]

Shorin Ryuu,

 

Very interesting and informative post. I have always curiously looked into the difference between okinawan and Japanese styles of karate. I am looking forward to reading your thoughts on the the differences between the Shotokan and Okinawan karate punches.

 

kung fu man