A different origin of Karate?

[ShoriKid]

http://irkrs.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/siamese-boxing-original-source-of.html

Now, the above is a bit of a read. But, as with a lot of things from Patrick McCarthy, it is worth the time. He posits a different origin than many others for the base striking art that formed the core of Okinawan karate. He also looks at the development of the art as it crossed to Japan and how that move changed the art of karate. Mr. McCarthy can appear to be a bit of a radical in some people's eyes. Siamese boxing forming the base of karate's striking, the 3 Ks of karate being a Japanese adaptation/invention that were not related to the art's roots etc? Madness. However, it is hard to deny that he has spent more researching karate's origins, history, and formation in an unflinching fashion. He isn't so tied to "style" that he is afraid to question what his instructors have told him. And, he doesn't claim to know it all, but he will lay out his evidence clearly and let others step up and decide.

Now personally, I would love to have the language skills and time to commit to the research he is doing. The points he lays out are sound on the surface. And, I admit to being a bit biased when approaching some of the things that he talks about changing when Karate was taken from the back yards of Okinawa to the budo halls of Japan's main land. You've seen me express the desire to cut the number of kata taught and trained to a handful from the dozen plus that is so common at this point in order to have some actual understanding of them in a fighting context. That the majority of time in the dojo should be in partnered drilling and application work. Very little should be given over to the actual practice of kata. You should be taught the kata, have it checked for ability later on, but it shouldn't eat up large chunks of time in the dojo. That, like physical conditioning, can and should be done mostly outside of class. I also favor stealing techniques and methods from outside of karate as long as they fit into the strategic frame work of what we are doing and the method is sound. This is something that used to happen all the time in karate, but became a terrible thing later on. I have more crazy views (for a "traditional karate-ka"), and I'll share them when anyone willing to stand still and listen. I'll even nail your boots to the floor given a chance. I suppose I don't have a problem accepting mister McCarthy's views since they aren't all that far from some of my own. Or am I open minded enough to not dismiss them out of hand if they don't conform with what I was taught or perhaps believe? I don't know for sure, and that is a matter that might be worthy of discussion all on it's own.

So, is mister McCarthy's opinion a radical one? Does Okinawan Karate have a stronger tie, in it's fighting origins, to Siam than China? The 3 Ks of Karate, are they really "traditional" or an addition/alteration made to karate when it crossed into Japanese budo culture? Do we even consider the changes made to karate when it's cultural purpose changed, or have those been so ingrained that everyone consider's the karate of the 1930/40s to be traditional, instead of what pre-dated that period? Never mind the changes that we think of after the early US invasion in the 1950/60s. Weren't those just as much cultural in nature and not a "watering down" by westerners who didn't "get" karate?

[Kusotare]

Nice find Shorikid!

I think McCarthy's hypothesis is entirely reasonable in this respect.

K.

[sensei8]

Nice find Shorikid!

I think McCarthy's hypothesis is entirely reasonable in this respect.

K.

I wholeheartedly concur here!!

[Wastelander]

When I read this article on McCarthy Sensei's old blog, a couple years ago, it was definitely a huge eye opener for me. It's good to see it getting passed around, again!

[yamesu]

That the majority of time in the dojo should be in partnered drilling and application work. Very little should be given over to the actual practice of kata. You should be taught the kata, have it checked for ability later on, but it shouldn't eat up large chunks of time in the dojo. That, like physical conditioning, can and should be done mostly outside of class. I also favor stealing techniques and methods from outside of karate as long as they fit into the strategic frame work of what we are doing and the method is sound.

I can't agree more here!

[ShoriKid]

I meant to get back to this a couple of days ago, but life around the holidays can be a little crazy.

Now, as a second part to what McCarthy presented, as there doesn't seem to be too much objection to his hypothesis. If Muay Boran could be considered a sister art to the striking skills of karate, how does this change what you teach? Does it aim your research for application and understanding of karate in a different direction? Do you tell your student's your thoughts? Do they care? What, if any, changes take place in your own training? In your teaching methods?

How does a link to a culturally different art alert your view of karate? Or will nothing change for you?

For my own part I doesn't alter what I teach. For now. I would/does point my research for application of the striking part of karate in a different direction. I'll likely share this with my students when I have a firmer grasp on it all. I don't know if any of our students are far enough along to realize what it means, so it's likely they won't care. I don't think things will change in my training or teaching methods. At least not yet. Looking into this for myself is part of my martial journey and the evolution of my training. Until I have enough information to form my own views on this, I don't want to give it a ton of weight. Finding that without the ability to read closer translations makes something like this harder, as do limited resources to do the research with. However, men like mister McCarthy aren't generally the types to put something that "radical" out in the karate world without plenty of evidence to back up the claim.

The cultural shift for the close sister to karate shifting to South East Asia, does change a few things in my mind. I strips a little of the polish from the surface of karate. Breaking some of the connection to China doesn't lessen the art, but it does put it back in a more rough and tumble area. For me, that seems more suited to karate as it was before the refinement it received in Japan.

Thoughts and ideas folks?