Funakochi and competition

[Toptomcat]

I am given to understand that the split between Shotokai and Shotokan was over a dispute about how to interpret Gichin Funakoshi's philosophy and teachings- specifically, whether competition is compatable with karate. Seeking to better understand this split, I located and read through the first significant work by Funaskoshi I could find, which happened to be Karate-do Nyumon.

Frankly, given the degree of controversy, I was surprised how little verbiage supported the Shotokai position of competition being against Funakoshi's principles: in fact, while he acknowledged that he had as of the date of the book's writing only engaged in kata and exercises, reguarding unprotected sparring as far too dangerous, he expressed great interest in finding a way to make competitive karate matches safe with a set of rules banning strikes to vital points and protective gear.

This leads me to believe that Nyumon was an early work, and in later years he made statements that could plausibly have lead to the kai/kan split. In what work of Funakoshi's could I find more negative statements towards the practise of sparring- or, ideally, a discussion of his previous positive statements and why he had changed his mind on the subject?

[Wa-No-Michi]

I am given to understand that the split between Shotokai and Shotokan was over a dispute about how to interpret Gichin Funakoshi's philosophy and teachings- specifically, whether competition is compatable with karate. Seeking to better understand this split, I located and read through the first significant work by Funaskoshi I could find, which happened to be Karate-do Nyumon.

Frankly, given the degree of controversy, I was surprised how little verbiage supported the Shotokai position of competition being against Funakoshi's principles: in fact, while he acknowledged that he had as of the date of the book's writing only engaged in kata and exercises, reguarding unprotected sparring as far too dangerous, he expressed great interest in finding a way to make competitive karate matches safe with a set of rules banning strikes to vital points and protective gear.

This leads me to believe that Nyumon was an early work, and in later years he made statements that could plausibly have lead to the kai/kan split. In what work of Funakoshi's could I find more negative statements towards the practise of sparring- or, ideally, a discussion of his previous positive statements and why he had changed his mind on the subject?

Hi Toptomcat,

Not being a "Shoto" person, I can only say that it is fairly well documented that "sparring" was at least one of the points that Ohtsuka and Funakoshi did not see eye to eye on.

Maybe look at some of Harry Cook's - "Shotokan - A Precise History" might give you some answers. Certainly has a section on Shotokai.

https://www.dragon-tsunami.org/Dtimes/Pages/ShotokanJNE.htm

WNM

[Killer Miller]

The primary reason of not seeing eye-to-eye on this subject is because many of the other organizations/styles were trying to make it a competitive sport. Funikoshi saw it as an art or primarily a way of life. Being a sport took away from the primary purpose of the life time achievement as a way of life that one is to have the ability to kill at a blink of an eye with perfect execution under any situation and at any time; yet with the ulimate goal of never having to use it period... Karate as a sport of competitive function, was not real in terms of the true way of life for a Karate-ka. True competition would have meant that one lives and the other dies as a result. How could you show a difference in this objective as a sport - this is why Funikoshi did not agree on this concept. By the way, this conversation is a mirror conversation of the Late Hidetaka Nishiyama whom was a student of Funikoshi's. Nishiyama always tried to develop karate as an Art and not with the premise of a sport...

- Killer -

[Toptomcat]

It isn't that simple, though. Funakoshi's comments in Karate-do Nyumon make it plain that he once considered sparring- not merely the drills often called 'kumite' in non-sparring Shoto offshoots, but actual competitive matches- to be compatable with the nature of karate and actually desirable for the development of the art. He was aware of the dangers it posed to the 'purity' and philosphic foundations of karate, but felt it was a neccesary and important way to develop karate nonetheless.

What I want to do is not merely establish the view of Funakoshi generally, as considered across the whole of his life, but to pinpoint when his views on sparring changed- as evidently must have happened at some point during his development as a martial artist.

The relevent quote follows: "The reason that until now there has been no assigning of ranks in karate is that it has not been possible to have shiai (competitive matches) as in judo or kendo. This is because of the devastating power of karate techniques; a strike to a vital point could immediately prove fatal. Likewise, in times past swordsmanship was taught only through kata since a shiai, whether using real swords or wooden swords, was always fought at the risk of one’s life. Subsequently, today’s face masks and wrist guards were developed, and although this brought about a certain amount of degradation in kendo, it allowed it to become that much closer to a sport rather than a martial art. With continuing research it is not unfeasible that as in judo or kendo our karate, too, might incorporate a grading system through the adaptation of protective gear and the banning of attacks to vital points.

In fact, I believe that it is important to move in that direction.”

Quote is from the Teramoto translation. Emphasis is added.

[Killer Miller]

Well, actually it is that simple - if you understand the true essence of the art. Your quotes echo exactly what I stated. They didn't want to develop it as a sport as it would take away from the true essence of the art - which is primarily to kill with perfection. How can that concept become a sport and the techniques derived safely??? How can you test or grade the ability and effectiveness to kill unless you are in a battle environment??? You can't.

I realize you are looking for a historic time frame, which I can't help you with that. Most of the time frames are up to interpretation and belief followings. I think the time frame will be totally up to interpretation of what is said and factual events that occurred as the result. Perhaps an article written of your factual findings would be of interest.

There was a lot of talk and discussions about expanding the art. The difficulty was that there were so many other arts that had taken a turn towards the sports arenas, especially during the Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris movie era, where the question was how to we grow the art and still maintain practitioners that are turning towards the sports for the fame and attention rather than truly learning the art of perfection in Karate? This has always been the primary dilemma... Therefore, there had to be some initiative to grow the art concepts in somewhat of a competitive fashion, yet maintain the values and objectives of the art.

Now...! There is the time frame when ALL the politics started in the arena of competitive martial arts and traditional martial arts. Who’s the worlds best, which is the true art, who has the best technique, who can beat who, who should be in charge and dominate the world of martial arts, who, who, who..... And as a result, we are where we are and everyone is trying to find out where the root is and who is telling the truth or lies in the world of martial arts.....

- Killer -

[Toptomcat]

Well, actually it is that simple - if you understand the true essence of the art. Your quotes echo exactly what I stated. They didn't want to develop it as a sport as it would take away from the true essence of the art - which is primarily to kill with perfection. How can that concept become a sport and the techniques derived safely??? How can you test or grade the ability and effectiveness to kill unless you are in a battle environment??? You can't.

And yet it is evident that, at least at the time of the writing of Karate-Do Nyumon, Gichin Funakoshi was interested in developing karate in precisely the direction of testing, grading, sport, and competition. To read his words otherwise borders on deliberate obtuseness. Historical time frames are up for interpretation, but that Funakoshi wrote Karate-Do Nyumon, and that its words express considerable interest in developing karate along the competitive lines of judo and kendo, is not. I am uninterested in restarting the dead-horse argument about whether or not competition and sparring is contrary to the essence of karate. What I am interested in is the progression of Funakoshi's viewpoint over time- how it came about, how it impacted the development of karate, and how it is documented in his written works.

[Killer Miller]

Perhaps competition, but I don't think the word sport was intended as translated. One problem with Japanese to English translations is Japanese use of words through translations vs. the literal meaning of the word in English. Competition in the form of training as a measurement of improvement has always been part of the learning process - but not from the perspective of being the best over someone else. You can't teach that art of sword, and in competition of training with matches use Real Swords...

That's the side of these types of discussions I have a little trouble with. The discussions are great - don't get me wrong. But, all interpretation of facts are based on today’s terminology, definition and use, and not the intended use in the day of it being spoken or translated. Everyone believes what they read - regardless if it credible or not. And, there has always been the issue of the original spoken tongue and the translation. Translations over the years have always had errors - even today there are still a great deal of errors in translations. Yet, once written, it must be a fact.

- Killer -

[Toptomcat]

Let us perform some textual anylasis.

Modern Japanese defines shiai as a 'match, game, bout, or contest'. There is very little ambiguity there.

However, assume that 'shiai' meant something different in the Japanese of Funakoshi's time and a mistranslation of some sort has occured. What about the context of the word throws that into doubt? To begin with, 'Shiai' is mentioned in the context of judo and kendo, which at the time of Funakoshi's writing had well-established sportive sparring traditions that he would have been thoroughly familiar with. If he had meant 'shiai' to be somehow analogous to shiai in judo or kendo, with some important difference that rendered it non-competitive or otherwise more congruent with his philosophy of karate, then it seems likely that Funakoshi would have pointed out this important difference in the text. He did not.

Furthermore, Funakoshi makes reference to rules banning attacks to vital points and the use of protective gear- immediately after discussing how similar changes made in kendo made it more sportive and enabled competitive sparring.

Such an error would be a vanishingly unlikely one for a translator to make: he would have to drastically mistranslate not merely one word or one sentence, but an entire paragraph loaded with context clues. The weight of the evidence indicates that this is not an error of that nature.

[Killer Miller]

There you go; you interpret the paragraph you cited as full support of competition in terms of a sport. Yet I read the paragraph, and interpret what he is saying as "not" supporting it all by jeopardizing the original essence of Karate and also a safety factor involved - yet he questions a direction that may need to be considered to grow the art due to changing times... Any competition in the old days was a dual to the death - which he also references clearly in the paragraph you site.

So in this case, who is correct - your modern interpretation of analyzing the paragraph, or my interpretation knowing the true essence and teachings of his art being taught to me by one of his students (Nishiyama)??

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no historian and I appreciate the discussion topic, but I do know the essence and philosophies of the art as it was taught.

- Killer -

[Toptomcat]

I am not interpreting the passage as constituting full and enthusiastic support of sportive competition. I interpret it as interest in the theoretical question of how to establish sportive competition. The interest may not even neccesarily have been supportive- but the fact that he was willing to entertain the idea of 'continuing research' into the area suggests stongly that the very idea of competitive karate did not instantly repulse him. If he is concerned that this jeopardizes the original essence of karate and regrets the neccessity of adopting it, but sees it as a painful neccesity to grow the art- then he devotes little verbiage to lamenting it.

This is in contrast to the popular view of Funakoshi's teachings that he was implacably opposed to any sort of competitive karate under any circumstances whatsoever. Notice that I started with the assumption that the popular view of Funakoshi's teachings is the true one, and asked for those in the community with greater familiarity of his written work to provide some idea of where I could find where he had recorded his opposition to competitive karate.

This is not an attack on the idea that Funakoshi opposed competitive karate. This is an expression of surprise that, on review of one of his published works, he seems to have had less than total opposition to competitive karate at at least one point in time, and a request for additional information that verifies and expands on his opposition to competitive karate.

I am not attempting anylasis of this paragraph from any point of view other than the purely textual- what Funakoshi's plain words seem to convey, without any preconceptions about his philosophy or his legacy...ancient, modern, or otherwise. I do this because to view the works of an author through the lens of his later students and critics can distort them. While Nishiyama is a highly respected karateka and a great master, he may have chosen to emphasize certain teachings of Funakoshi and downplay others- as is his perogative as a superbly qualified teacher in his own right. For this reason, when it comes to learning about Gichin Funakoshi's views on karate, I trust the accuracy of Gichin Funakoshi's words over that of even such an authority as Hidetaka Nishiyama.