JKA...honest to god opinion

[Mark Groenewold]

Defining what is the JKA has been a topic kicked around a lot of internet karate forums.

 

Is it a style? a school? a political organization? Some, a few, or all of the above?

 

It is difficult to say that ISKF or ITKF is the JKA. There may be some positive or negative feelings that exist between the top instructors of these groups. Do they really acknowledge eachother or just all equally hold claim to being the heirs apparent of Nakayama-Sensei? It's a tricky question and the answers may be complex.

 

At a weekend training session here in Japan (about a year ago) we had the pleasure of Osaka-Sensei come and lead us. It was a lot of fun. But during the final speeches the local senior instructor had used the words JKA and then corrected himself to say "Shotokan-ryu" instead when referring to the karate we all did together.

 

I thought that was very interesting, even though I am not completely sure what that meant.

 

Apparently however, there are discussions going on about such things that we know little about.

 

But Chris's questions about what is the JKA are quite provocative, and it seems that the term JKA has been used with increasing abandon.

 

Mark Groenewold

[ZakariRu]

nonono not who is you

 

Your entire response was in 3rd person, and I was merely trying to figure out who you are

 

Im speaking on behalf of myself. when i was in tokyo i was treated as a JKA member (ie i just paid to train, not membership dues etc.)

[chris]

>Your entire response was in 3rd person, and I was merely trying to figure out who you are <

 

You only have to look and you'll find the name clearly marked.

 

>Im speaking on behalf of myself. when i was in tokyo i was treated as a JKA member (ie i just paid to train, not membership dues etc.)<

 

If you look at all the websites of all organizations in the USA, at least, that are related to the JKA, you will see after their name coming a statement such as, ... member of the JKA...

 

Of course they would treat you courteously if you were a member of the JKA, but not the same way if you are a member of an affiliate of the JKA; that is your official title if you pay a membership to an organization affiliated with or to the JKA. The officilaity of the JKA stops at the border of Japan. There is no international law that can control or impose the laws of a country in other countries, therefore the limitations as far as their business in the country that their government has recognized them. Your organization may use the same standards, as it does, may use the same name as the JKA, as it does not at this point in time, but officially, you are not a direct member of the JKA in Japan, unless you pay the membership to them and get a card that they usually give out, to prove that.

 

The kyu rank certificates that you are given, are not from Japan, yet the dan ranks are, but only made for their international liaisons, not for the dan ranks given in Japan. The ones you see around you are the ones for foreigners, nicer, more flashy and in two languages.

 

The only person that has ever allowed the name of the JKA being used freely around the world was Asai sensei, between 1990 and 1999. Every country that was a member of his JKA, had used the name of the JKA linked to the country's logo; and that was officially recognized.

 

It doesn't work the same with the JKA. JKA wants to monopolize and control its members. Mr. Schmidt is the only one who has full monopoly in South Africa for using the name of the JKA. Ochi sensei had followed suit when he formed his own in Germany and a few others still try. Times change and rules of the game will also have to change.

 

The problem in the USA is that the politics between Mr. Nishiyama, Mr. Okazaki and Mr. Mori have come to a stand and at this stage will not resolve any issues and problems in order to facilitate a better cooperation among themelves and their members. When they are gone, I am sure that things will change around.

Edited November 13, 2003 by chris

[chris]

>Defining what is the JKA has been a topic kicked around a lot of internet karate forums.<

 

Defining it is easy and obvious, but defining its legal, political and official limitations within a corporate world it has been indeed a debate, but only among non-Japanese.

 

>At a weekend training session here in Japan (about a year ago) we had the pleasure of Osaka-Sensei come and lead us. It was a lot of fun. But during the final speeches the local senior instructor had used the words JKA and then corrected himself to say "Shotokan-ryu" instead when referring to the karate we all did together. <

 

But not Osaka sensei... hmmm... I do not agree with the term shotokan ryu used in connection to the karate style used by the JKA. If one looks at the footage with Funakoshi sensei's karate and his direct students, the very first generation, and not Nakayama, Nishiyama, Kase and the ones who have sprung out of a younger generation, but Obata, Egami, Okano, Iito, those have a different view than that of the JKA in as far as their karate style was concerned. In short, shotokan ryu, or more precisely, shoto ryu karate is not the same as the JKA karate; the former has a broader sense, the later is specific. Nakayama sensei has made his own style of karate, yet, of course, based on some of Funakoshi sensei's ideas. Funakoshi sensei in fact, didn't do more than a shorin ryu type of karate.

Edited November 13, 2003 by chris

[chris]

>Of course people don't fight in zenkutsudachi or sanchin-dachi.<

 

If you limit the meaning of what zenkutsu dachi means in Japanese to just that stance you do in training that is called zenkutsu dachi, then I will have to disagree. Zenkutsu dachi does not mean just feet down, stiff legs and hips and low stance. When in kamae, most karateka use a so called free style stance(kamae). Technically, that is a zenkutsu dachi called in Japanese, but to make sure all understand the difference in essence, they calle it kamae, which also incorporates your arms position.

 

Relating the same thing to Pangai Noon and/or Uechi Ryu, even to Goju Ryu schools, many of them fight in a very short stance, much like sanchin dachi. Of course it is not as stiff as it is done in Sanchin kata, but I think it is a good stance to use in close combat. Also, their style of fighting and techniques that they use have different applications than the usual competition style.

 

>The stances make your stronger so that you are head and shoulders above whatever clown is trying to clobber you.<

 

!!! Stances make 'you' stronger... perhaps your legs, you mean to say. Your statement is far too general to be applied to just stances.

Edited November 13, 2003 by chris

[Mark Groenewold]

I wrote:

 

>At a weekend training session here in Japan (about a year ago) we had the pleasure of Osaka-Sensei come and lead us. It was a lot of fun. But during the final speeches the local senior instructor had used the words JKA and then corrected himself to say "Shotokan-ryu" instead when referring to the karate we all did together. <

 

And chris wrote:

 

But not Osaka sensei... hmmm... I do not agree with the term shotokan ryu used in connection to the karate style used by the JKA

 

Now I write:

 

Well yes... Osaka-Sensei looked over at the senior instructor when the "error" was made and then the senior instructor corrected his statement. So I am sure there are discussions going on behind closed doors that you and I are not privy to. So whether you agree or not is pretty much irrelavent. It is being used at the highest levels.

 

And now on to stances:

 

I wrote:

 

>Of course people don't fight in zenkutsudachi or sanchin-dachi.<

 

And then chris wrote:

 

If you limit the meaning of what zenkutsu dachi means in Japanese to just that stance you do in training that is called zenkutsu dachi, then I will have to disagree. Zenkutsu dachi does not mean just feet down, stiff legs and hips and low stance. When in kamae, most karateka use a so called free style stance(kamae). Technically, that is a zenkutsu dachi called in Japanese, but to make sure all understand the difference in essence, they calle it kamae, which also incorporates your arms position.

 

Now I write:

 

Of course I don't limit the meaning, but I do stick to the textbook description. Jiyu kamae is not zenkutsudachi. Jiyu kamae is not sanchin-dachi. Jiyu kamae is jiyu kamae.

 

If you say you are in zenkutsudachi when you are in jiyu kamae any Japanese karate instructor will tell you to your face that you are wrong. Zenkutsudachi does mean that you are in the training stance, it does not simply mean that one leg is ahead and one leg is behind. That is just silly.

 

Thanks for your responses chris. They seem pretty thorough. But I have a request. Please put your text through a spell-checker. It is sometimes hard to infer the meaning from your posts as there are a lot of spelling errors. Also, many spell checkers have grammatical suggestions. This may help you not seem to come across in such a strong and blunt manner.

 

Best regards,

 

Mark Groenewold

 

Kanazawa, Japan

[chris]

>Well yes... Osaka-Sensei looked over at the senior instructor when the "error" was made and then the senior instructor corrected his statement. <

 

That being your interpretation of the fact that was indeed a hidden mesage in his looking over his shoulder, right?

 

>So I am sure there are discussions going on behind closed doors that you and I are not privy to. So whether you agree or not is pretty much irrelavent. It is being used at the highest levels.<

 

You are sure of that because you heard the discussion, or that is another presumption of yours just because there must be so at higher levels? By the way, what is a higher level?

 

>Of course people don't fight in zenkutsudachi or sanchin-dachi.<

 

And then chris wrote:

 

If you limit the meaning of what zenkutsu dachi means in Japanese to just that stance you do in training that is called zenkutsu dachi, then I will have to disagree. Zenkutsu dachi does not mean just feet down, stiff legs and hips and low stance. When in kamae, most karateka use a so called free style stance(kamae). Technically, that is a zenkutsu dachi called in Japanese, but to make sure all understand the difference in essence, they calle it kamae, which also incorporates your arms position.

 

Now I write:

 

>Of course I don't limit the meaning, but I do stick to the textbook description. Jiyu kamae is not zenkutsudachi.<

 

Technically, yes it is a form of zenkutsu dachi. Because you know what it means in Japanese, please re-define it and you will see the utter resemblance. It is all a matter of form, not of essence, when it comes to a definition in Japanese.

 

>Jiyu kamae is not sanchin-dachi.<

 

For some, it happens to be. Falacy of composition does not define a valid point for me.

 

>Jiyu kamae is jiyu kamae.<

 

I assumed you may come to this one. So, what does jiyu kamae mean in Japanese?

 

>If you say you are in zenkutsudachi when you are in jiyu kamae any Japanese karate instructor will tell you to your face that you are wrong.<

 

Again, generalizations are not good style of representing facts. Do you know all Japanese instructors and what they say about what jiyu kamae is for each one of them?

 

>Zenkutsudachi does mean that you are in the training stance, it does not simply mean that one leg is ahead and one leg is behind. That is just silly.<

 

Whoever implied that?

 

>Thanks for your responses chris. They seem pretty thorough. But I have a request. Please put your text through a spell-checker. It is sometimes hard to infer the meaning from your posts as there are a lot of spelling errors.<

 

It happened, but again, you might not know the reason, yet you expect the perfect you in all that come your way. Watch your way and let others live by their own, please. If you would be that personal about it, please send a message to my personal box, don't deviate from the subject, which, if it's that hard to read for you and you are not able to understand it, please let it be.

 

>Also, many spell checkers have grammatical suggestions. This may help you not seem to come across in such a strong and blunt manner.<

 

From the way you speak your English, I would not ask you for suggestions. The fact that you want to show off, well, that is your style. People with fat egoes tend to spend a lot of time on their toilette.

 

You may forget here to transcend cultural barriers of language, and that is something you don't seem to get over easily. Mind you, your suggestions would be far too philosophical for my style. None of the blunt or strong manner implied, but you read into all I write with expectations of your own. Keep them at home and see to the subject, please. If you are that eager to commit to helping others, or me, in this case, please refer to my personal box, or to the general chat. That is why they are there. When you do it, please make sure you correct the entire block of mesages from all the forums, so that you show your fairness in assessing a principle, not being judgmental to just one person.

Edited November 29, 2003 by chris

[Mark Groenewold]

I wrote:

 

>Well yes... Osaka-Sensei looked over at the senior instructor when the "error" was made and then the senior instructor corrected his statement. <

 

chris wrote:

 

That being your interpretation of the fact that was indeed a hidden mesage in his looking over his shoulder, right?

 

True, I do interpret things as I see them. It seems bright outside so I say the sun is shining. It gets very cloudy, so I say it might rain. Yes, I did interpret things I saw and also manage to talk to my instructors about such things. Please don't imply that I don't know what I am talking about.

 

I wrote:

 

>So I am sure there are discussions going on behind closed doors that you and I are not privy to. So whether you agree or not is pretty much irrelavent. It is being used at the highest levels.<

 

chris replied:

 

You are sure of that because you heard the discussion, or that is another presumption of yours just because there must be so at higher levels? By the way, what is a higher level?

 

I write:

 

I think you are trying to goad me. I won't bite, so you can knock it off.

 

I wrote:

 

>Of course I don't limit the meaning, but I do stick to the textbook description. Jiyu kamae is not zenkutsudachi.<

 

chris replied:

 

Technically, yes it is a form of zenkutsu dachi. Because you know what it means in Japanese, please re-define it and you will see the utter resemblance. It is all a matter of form, not of essence, when it comes to a definition in Japanese.

 

I write:

 

So, I should re-define it to suit your purposes (whatever purposes they may be, I cannot guess!) Nonsense. Terms and definitions simply do not hvae relative meanings merely because you wish it, or hope to have an image of sage-like wisdom. I was quite clear the first time around. I suggest a re-read of what I wrote previously in its entirety.

 

Finally chris also writes:

 

Again, generalizations are not good style of representing facts. Do you know all Japanese instructors and what they say about what jiyu kamae is for each one of them?

 

So I write:

 

Well, of course I haven't talked to EVERY Japanese teacher in Japan. How ludicrous! Do I have to talk to everyone the sun is shining on to verify that the sun is up?

 

Your notion that zenkutsudachi is jiyu-kamae is just plain wrong. There really is no other way around it. Sorry.

 

Mark Groenewold

 

Kanazawa, Japan

[Mark Groenewold]

I wrote:

 

>Thanks for your responses chris. They seem pretty thorough. But I have a request. Please put your text through a spell-checker. It is sometimes hard to infer the meaning from your posts as there are a lot of spelling errors.<

 

chris replied:

 

It happened, but again, you might not know the reason, yet you expect the perfect you in all that come your way. Watch your way and let others live by their own, please. Not all of us have the time to spend in front of the computer that you do. If you would be that personal about it, please send a message to my personal box, don't deviate from the subject, which, if it's that hard to read for you and you are not able to understand it, please let go of it.

 

So now I say:

 

No. I won't let go of it. If you want to talk, discuss, or debate you must take the necessary time to properly, concisely, and articulately draft your responses.

 

You may not simply spew out vitriol and expect others to merely say that is OK because of a "different style". Say what you mean and mean what you say--clearly, in proper English, or not at all.

 

Style is the message. The medium is the message. We are how we speak. You cannot divorce these two things from eachother. If you are unable to use the English language to an appropriate level of expressing your ideas and thoughts then you ought not debate. If you are unable to express yourself thoroughly and articulately then you have no real claim on having a right to argue.

 

Do it right and do it well. Or don't bother doing it.

 

I wrote:

 

>Also, many spell checkers have grammatical suggestions. This may help you not seem to come across in such a strong and blunt manner.<

 

Then Chris wrote:

 

From the way you speak your English, I would not ask you for suggestions. The fact that you want to show off, well, that is your style. People with fat egoes tend to spend a lot of time on their toilette.

 

Now I write:

 

So now you want to get personal. Too bad. I am not getting into an argument with you about how much time I spend on the toilet (check the spelling please. We are not in France). Move on.

 

And finally Chris writes:

 

You may forget here to transcend cultural barriers of language, and that is something you don't seem to get over. Mind you, your suggestions would be far too philosophical for my style. None of the blunt or strong manner implied, but you read into all I write with expectations of your own. Keep them at home and see to the subject, please. If you are that eager to commit to helping others, or me, in this case, please refer to my personal box, or to the general chat. That is why they are there. When you do it, please make sure you correct the entire block of mesages from all the forums, so that you show your fairness in assessing a principle, not being judgemental to just one person.

 

So I write:

 

I am not "eager" to help you. You need to help yourself. Get some help with your writing. Your style is going to get you in trouble, if it hasn't already in the past. I am not going to go through your grammar or diction. I am already spending too much time on the "toilette" as it is.

 

Good luck with whatever it is you do Chris.

 

Mark Groenewold

 

Kanazawa, Japan

[chris]

As I said, personal matters should be taken someplace else, but if you wish to get your fists in here, there you go. It seems that, or no, for sure you talk the walk but are not able to walk the talk; that, from personal experience with you. It's easy to hide behind a screen and claim benefits with lame credentials.

 

>No. I won't let go of it.<

 

If you are so impatient in getting it close to your face, there you'll have it.

 

>If you want to talk, discuss, or debate you must take the necessary time to properly, concisely, and articulately draft your responses.<

 

Sure, I do, but let personal matters go into another box. As you can see(or did you!!!) the title of the subject is not toiletterie. Get to the personal box and we'll deal with that in there... ahh, perhaps you are not apt for manners at that level... I see...

 

>You may not simply spew out vitriol and expect others to merely say that is OK because of a "different style".<

 

I wasn't talking about others; I was talking about you, and that is a big difference... I mean bigger than your size...

 

>Say what you mean and mean what you say--clearly, in proper English, or not at all.<

 

Strangely, that is exactly what I do and you complain about it, as oppose to you, who ramble about only you know what and how long, not coming to, or making a simple point.

 

>Style is the message.<

 

That much I got! I just mentioned that above!

 

>The medium is the message.<

 

This is not your forum. Be respectful to others. Your ego may make you gain weight and gas, and I know it's hard for you to do it, but keep that to yourself.

 

>We are how we speak.<

 

Hopefully you understand that!

 

>If you are unable to express yourself thoroughly and articulately then you have no real claim on having a right to argue.

 

Do it right and do it well. Or don't bother doing it.<

 

Who the hell are you to tell others, or impose on others how they should go about themselves! Make suggestions is more appropiate, but hey, at your level of mannerism, no real expectations. That is, again, talking from personal experience.

 

>So now you want to get personal.<

 

You seem to also have a poor comprehension skill. If you want to get personal, I proposed that you do it in another place, just to be respectful to others in this forum, but can't seem to control your anal urges.

 

>Too bad.<

 

For whom? Are you sorry already?!

 

>I am not getting into an argument with you about how much time I spend on the toilet (check the spelling please. We are not in France).<

 

It's so easy to set you up(also from personal experience). You missed the cultural barriers transcendence, did you... well, the same word in French meant something different and wanted to be nice to you, but hey, whichever way you took it, I knew you wouldn't have been able to take it in more than one way you knew best. Being narrow minded it helps kicking your own ass, doesn't it!

 

>Your style is going to get you in trouble, if it hasn't already in the past.<

 

With people like you... I am not concerned. It was no trouble at all; just a waste of time. Looking back, I am kind of sorry that I even bothered about spending for such lack of character. I will endeavor for better, I promise.

 

>I am not going to go through your grammar or diction.<

 

Oh, what a relief! Thank you!

 

>I am already spending too much time on the "toilette" as it is.<

 

I know you do; that is why I mentioned it! So, I suggest you cut it off and get to some other place where you can get rid of your personal vendettas. Try a mirror, but for that, you will need some good glasses!

Edited November 29, 2003 by chris