Historical origins of karate.

[Hoshin]

Matsushinshii,

i enjoy the discussion and debate.

if i misunderstood you , my apologies.

you seem to hesitate to give any kind of backing or proof (for lack of a better term). i understand about people coming to their own conclusions but that is exactly why i engage in the forums. one person can only know so much though their own experience, so i come here to learn from others. my posts are not to prove others wrong but to back why i believe what i do. i know full well that some of what i believe will be incorrect. i expect others to point out my misconceptions and correct me. i would appreciate if you would make some points that would help me see your point of view better.

as to my posting video's of Muay Thai, i understand your point. i post them knowing that these are public forums and others will be reading and learning and to give a visual to what i am thinking in my mind. sometimes the written word is not enough.

a lot of how i make my conclusions is based on the study of the evolution of the arts. there are facets of combative behavior i call "Genetic Markers". it is very much like looking at human DNA genetics. there are behavior patterns that get passed down. even within the evolution of an art often there are recognizable markers that indicate past genealogy.

however with this, it becomes a matter of percentages and probabilities.

so i need to break things down like ,,,

what part of karate comes from Muay thai? what aspects? or is it the pre cursor arts of karate that evolved from Thai boxing,, again what aspects?

how long ago did this influence take place? was it direct teaching or someone merely see a Muay Boran festival fight and incorporate the concepts?

all these factors will sway my opinion and how i analyze the data.

thanks for replies so far.

[JazzKicker]

The origins and histories of so many martial arts always seem cloudy and confused, poorly documented to downright inaccurate. I've seen arguments, political infighting and even deliberate obscuring even with contemporary arts, when many of the people involved are still alive!

As a westerner, I've only seen documented history that goes back to the late 19th century (like Kano, Funakoshi, Usehiba), and this is for homogenous, non-obscure arts. I've heard of older texts such as the "Bubishi"., but I have to wonder, how do you find reliable history when documentation is so often non-existent or wrong?

[Hoshin]

The origins and histories of so many martial arts always seem cloudy and confused, poorly documented to downright inaccurate. I've seen arguments, political infighting and even deliberate obscuring even with contemporary arts, when many of the people involved are still alive!

As a westerner, I've only seen documented history that goes back to the late 19th century (like Kano, Funakoshi, Usehiba), and this is for homogenous, non-obscure arts. I've heard of older texts such as the "Bubishi"., but I have to wonder, how do you find reliable history when documentation is so often non-existent or wrong?

all i can say is that its like archaeology and it takes a lot of time. your right that anything before 1900 is hard to look into.

so for me i find little nuggets of information. the average person would look at it and move on. i like to keep it, and over time i find another nugget and notice that they go together. so with time puzzle pieces start to go together. sometimes that gap between pieces is decades. and like i said earlier that for me a lot of it comes down to percentages and probabilities more than a fact.

its also important to define what it is your looking to know or understand. i am less interested in names and dates then the evolution of an art. in school i always detested the fact that i had to remember that Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. it hasnt helped me in life to know that and i dont even know what a cotton gin is. lol

[MatsuShinshii]

I appreciate your point of view and quest for knowledge whether in agreement or contrary to your beliefs.

I will give examples of why I feel that this art or one like it influenced Ti (Di).

As far as examples go... In our art we still teach the old techniques which my Shinshii refers to as Tii (Ti'gwa). The way we employ our fists, forearms, elbows, shoulders, head, knee's, shins and feet are in contrast to modern day Karate. This is not to say that the CMA's arts did not influence Ti and as a result, utilized to improve the original techniques. However after studying the arts that were to have influenced our art via Yara, Takahara and Matsumura (at least in my lineage line) I see very few examples that I can point to directly as direct examples.

Side Bar - when I speak of Tii, I am merely speaking of the striking element and grappling element. I am not speaking of what some would call the Tuidi element of the art.

We implement our forearms as a protective barrier and form our fists with the thumb on the side vs under the fingers. I am told this came from a different country and was not a product of Chinese or Japanese MA's. In looking at old books (drawn pictures) of different arts I have only been able to find an example of this formation of the fist in old Muay Boran texts. Again the "pictures" are drawings so they are subject to debate. However it also shows the arms presented as a protective shield not unlike what we are taught.

We do not utilize high kicks as modern Karate does. I know that Muay Thai utilizes some high kicks, but I also know that after reading or observing a few texts that Muay Boran targeted the legs and joints specifically as we do. The execution of the kicks are the same in many instances, although not all.

Do I have concrete proof that Muay Boran influenced Tii? No sir I do not. It is my understanding that Annan (to name one person that has been captured as historically documented, was thought to be from Vietnam. In reading historical accounts countries like Vietnam, Laos, Burma and others were heavily influenced by the Saim empire (Thailand). It stands to reason, although later in time, that this person and others may have taught their skills to the Okinawan's and most certainly did as the influence was strong enough to create a Kata to store the techniques that were taught.

It is the small things like movements that don't fit into the obvious places but examples are found in looking at older examples of the art.

As stated before in my previous posts I also look to the fact that our weapons are examples of those that come from Siam and Indo-China. Knowing that pre-Japanization of the Ryukyu Islands, weapons and empty hand arts were practiced as one rather than being individual arts, it stands to reason that if they were influenced by their weapons (feel free to look up examples of early Saim/Indo-china weapons - start with Mai Sun Sawk as one example off the top of my head, but there are obvious others) they would also pick up their empty hand arts as well.

Can I or anyone definitively state that Muay Boran was the art that influenced Tii? No, I don't think that is possible without documented proof in the form of a book or scroll or some other form of proof from that time frame. Unfortunately no such proof exists as far as I know.

Yes Kerr, McCarthy and others have suggested this because of examples found that point to this influence but unfortunately there is little hard proof.

It boils down to your own experiences and things that you notice that you can not connect to the obvious places. Its the examples that you use to form opinions which obviously this is.

For all I or anyone else knows the influence could have come from India, or one of the other countries in indo-china or it could be indigenous to Okinawa itself. I like your example of DNA markers. Like you I look at what I feel are obvious signs from one culture or another and make an assessment based on the evidence. Am I right? Who knows? It's my opinion.

I'll give more examples next week as I am rushed for time, but I think I gave enough for a little food for thought for now. Happy researching.

[RW]

You know what would be really interesting?

If somebody did a comparative study of martial arts trying to find a genealogy of them based on their techniques (not history), sort of like people do to classify animal species based on their body structures.

For example, people realized that a bunch of animals have retractable claws and a specific skull shape and decided "well, these must be cats".

People could have mistaken a bat for a kind of bird (wings, right?) but they realized that female bats have mammary glands and that bat wing bones seem to be modified finger bones and realized "hey, these are not birds, these are mammals!".

I think we could discover a thing or two about the origin of different martial arts based on similar concepts. For example, karate kicks tend to be chambered, as opposed to the muay thai style of kicking.

What about chambering? Some styles chamber punches on the waist, some higher than that(ribs). Some styles have deep stances (e.g. zenkutsu dachi), some have similar stances but higher... this is where the nuance begins.

This kind of comparative study can also uncover some things that history does not necessarily want to see, e.g. if you look at many taekwondo kicks and other techniques, especially in the ITF style, you will find a HUGE resemblance with shotokan karate, this can be no coincidence.

[DaveB]

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.

[sensei8]

I love and greatly appreciate the historical factors of the MA, especially Shindokan Saitou-ryu; knowing the history unlocks much beneficial components that provide ones connecting the dots.

However, I know, I know, I know...but please allow me to be honest as to how I feel about this...

I just don't give a bent pins about the historical factors!! Why?? Official or not, as to the historical factors are concerned, I wasn't there, and I wasn't there because I wasn't born yet.

I accept the historical facts, both in and out of the MA, because throughout history, records have been kept, and verified and cataloged and who knows what else.

In Shindokan, we've historical factors out the wazoo: Our By-Laws and our Densho Scrolls, both written by our Soke, as well as our Archived Records. BUT I WASN'T THERE WHEN THESE THINGS OCCURRED!!

By faith, I have to believe their accuracy across the board.

I'm more of a nowadays historian, but not until I was a pre-JBB, did I peak an interest of the nowadays MA history outside of the Shindokan circle. Even with that, my heart just really isn't in it...if I learn something historical, great, and if I don't learn anything historical, that's great too.

I don't yell out to the top of my lungs if MA history can or can't be verified because I came to learn effective MA, and history means nothing to my being able to execute effective MA. History has its place...effectiveness has its place, however, I don't mix them together.

Who did what when to whom is the furthermost thing in my mind whenever I'm training, teaching, administrating, or defending myself/family/friends/innocent. I didn't come to learn about MA history, mine or others, and important as it might be, that's up to the individual practitioner, but I came to learn effective MA. If one thinks that I'm not complete in my MA totality, on and off the floor, because of my personal views of MA history, are mistaken.

Is my believe going to meet with both approval and disapproval?? Sure, but irregardless, it's still my believe.

[Hoshin]

I love and greatly appreciate the historical factors of the MA, especially Shindokan Saitou-ryu; knowing the history unlocks much beneficial components that provide ones connecting the dots.

However, I know, I know, I know...but please allow me to be honest as to how I feel about this...

I just don't give a bent pins about the historical factors!! Why?? Official or not, as to the historical factors are concerned, I wasn't there, and I wasn't there because I wasn't born yet.

I accept the historical facts, both in and out of the MA, because throughout history, records have been kept, and verified and cataloged and who knows what else.

In Shindokan, we've historical factors out the wazoo: Our By-Laws and our Densho Scrolls, both written by our Soke, as well as our Archived Records. BUT I WASN'T THERE WHEN THESE THINGS OCCURRED!!

By faith, I have to believe their accuracy across the board.

I'm more of a nowadays historian, but not until I was a pre-JBB, did I peak an interest of the nowadays MA history outside of the Shindokan circle. Even with that, my heart just really isn't in it...if I learn something historical, great, and if I don't learn anything historical, that's great too.

I don't yell out to the top of my lungs if MA history can or can't be verified because I came to learn effective MA, and history means nothing to my being able to execute effective MA. History has its place...effectiveness has its place, however, I don't mix them together.

Who did what when to whom is the furthermost thing in my mind whenever I'm training, teaching, administrating, or defending myself/family/friends/innocent. I didn't come to learn about MA history, mine or others, and important as it might be, that's up to the individual practitioner, but I came to learn effective MA. If one thinks that I'm not complete in my MA totality, on and off the floor, because of my personal views of MA history, are mistaken.

Is my believe going to meet with both approval and disapproval?? Sure, but irregardless, it's still my believe.

i would guess that if ones style has its history spelled out and everything is codified and its a well formated system then history would not be that important. For myself and Uechi ryu there a lot of shrugging shoulders and "we dont know's" as a result it fosters a desire to figure it all out.

but other than looking backwards in time for clues on bunkai its really an academic entertainment.

[MatsuShinshii]

You know what would be really interesting?

If somebody did a comparative study of martial arts trying to find a genealogy of them based on their techniques (not history), sort of like people do to classify animal species based on their body structures.

For example, people realized that a bunch of animals have retractable claws and a specific skull shape and decided "well, these must be cats".

People could have mistaken a bat for a kind of bird (wings, right?) but they realized that female bats have mammary glands and that bat wing bones seem to be modified finger bones and realized "hey, these are not birds, these are mammals!".

I think we could discover a thing or two about the origin of different martial arts based on similar concepts. For example, karate kicks tend to be chambered, as opposed to the muay thai style of kicking.

What about chambering? Some styles chamber punches on the waist, some higher than that(ribs). Some styles have deep stances (e.g. zenkutsu dachi), some have similar stances but higher... this is where the nuance begins.

This kind of comparative study can also uncover some things that history does not necessarily want to see, e.g. if you look at many taekwondo kicks and other techniques, especially in the ITF style, you will find a HUGE resemblance with shotokan karate, this can be no coincidence.

We do exactly that. Once you reach the grade of Sandan and have been granted the right to teach you are encouraged to delve deeper into the art. Not to say we are not encouraged before this point but we expect the student to form their own opinions based on individual research, whether it enforces our views or not. We believe it makes for a better, more knowledgeable teacher.

To give an example - While I was still a Yondan I was seeking out instructors from the arts that we had been told influenced our art. I happened to strike up a friendship with one instructor that taught Five Ancestor. We exchanged videos of our Kata/Hsing and of their applications as he was several thousand miles away. What I learned is that what we thought was a founders application was altered at some point in our lineage and that the application that he taught was actually 100 times more effective. Essentially we were performing the same posture but in a different/less effective way. Essentially it had been altered at one point for one or another reason.

I have, through my own research debunked and proved many idea's that we have about our art throughout the years. Our instructors and students have done the same. Not based on what was passed down as history but in actually studying other arts that were to have influenced ours. And nothing mind shattering like "it's all been a lie" but small details that lead you to what we feel is the truth.

Another example - One of our Kodansha studied in Taiwan for two years and came back to teach us Jioa Di(Li) and Qin Na techniques. The techniques he showed us mirrored what we taught and thought was Muto. Again not all techniques but enough to make us take pause and re-look at what we believe.

So I agree with your statement and think everyone studying the arts should take it upon themselves to prove or disprove what they have been told and delve deeper into the art to gain a deeper understanding.

Actually I feel that this is healthy for both the practitioner and the art. As we all know instructors take a certain amount of control over what they teach and what they feel is right. In doing so things change and techniques and applications are altered. Sometimes the changes make it more effective and sometimes they are not.

Either way it's up to the individual to prove or disprove rather than to take everything as the truth. I doubt if any art is "pure", as in no one changed anything in the lineage line that the founder passed down. There is always something to learn that you did not know. The best way of doing so is to discover it for yourself.

[RW]

You know what would be really interesting?

If somebody did a comparative study of martial arts trying to find a genealogy of them based on their techniques (not history), sort of like people do to classify animal species based on their body structures.

For example, people realized that a bunch of animals have retractable claws and a specific skull shape and decided "well, these must be cats".

People could have mistaken a bat for a kind of bird (wings, right?) but they realized that female bats have mammary glands and that bat wing bones seem to be modified finger bones and realized "hey, these are not birds, these are mammals!".

I think we could discover a thing or two about the origin of different martial arts based on similar concepts. For example, karate kicks tend to be chambered, as opposed to the muay thai style of kicking.

What about chambering? Some styles chamber punches on the waist, some higher than that(ribs). Some styles have deep stances (e.g. zenkutsu dachi), some have similar stances but higher... this is where the nuance begins.

This kind of comparative study can also uncover some things that history does not necessarily want to see, e.g. if you look at many taekwondo kicks and other techniques, especially in the ITF style, you will find a HUGE resemblance with shotokan karate, this can be no coincidence.

We do exactly that. Once you reach the grade of Sandan and have been granted the right to teach you are encouraged to delve deeper into the art. Not to say we are not encouraged before this point but we expect the student to form their own opinions based on individual research, whether it enforces our views or not. We believe it makes for a better, more knowledgeable teacher.

To give an example - While I was still a Yondan I was seeking out instructors from the arts that we had been told influenced our art. I happened to strike up a friendship with one instructor that taught Five Ancestor. We exchanged videos of our Kata/Hsing and of their applications as he was several thousand miles away. What I learned is that what we thought was a founders application was altered at some point in our lineage and that the application that he taught was actually 100 times more effective. Essentially we were performing the same posture but in a different/less effective way. Essentially it had been altered at one point for one or another reason.

I have, through my own research debunked and proved many idea's that we have about our art throughout the years. Our instructors and students have done the same. Not based on what was passed down as history but in actually studying other arts that were to have influenced ours. And nothing mind shattering like "it's all been a lie" but small details that lead you to what we feel is the truth.

Another example - One of our Kodansha studied in Taiwan for two years and came back to teach us Jioa Di(Li) and Qin Na techniques. The techniques he showed us mirrored what we taught and thought was Muto. Again not all techniques but enough to make us take pause and re-look at what we believe.

So I agree with your statement and think everyone studying the arts should take it upon themselves to prove or disprove what they have been told and delve deeper into the art to gain a deeper understanding.

Actually I feel that this is healthy for both the practitioner and the art. As we all know instructors take a certain amount of control over what they teach and what they feel is right. In doing so things change and techniques and applications are altered. Sometimes the changes make it more effective and sometimes they are not.

Either way it's up to the individual to prove or disprove rather than to take everything as the truth. I doubt if any art is "pure", as in no one changed anything in the lineage line that the founder passed down. There is always something to learn that you did not know. The best way of doing so is to discover it for yourself.

That is really, really cool!