Legitimacy of a new style of karate...

[Nevinyrral]

Sure, many karate schools out there are very good and teach you real fighting, but being honest, these schools are not the norm. It doesn't mean these average karate school isn't legit or real, it's just not a good school.

Thats what I was trying to explain. You can have legit schools that dont teach real fighting. Schools that dont have legitimacy but teach great stuff. And also schools that have both legitimacy and effectiveness and those that have neither.

[bushido_man96]

The registration of black belts with the Kukkiwon doesn't really have anything to do with legitimacy. I believe it's necessary for Olympic competition. You just have to meet their requirements to be "registered" with them. It's more about money than legitimacy.

Interesting.

Say joe next door decided to open a TKD school tomorrow. He teaches stuff he learned from playing as kim kaphwan from the SNK videogames and from watching youtube videos. He mostly teaches young kids and plays games and makes them break boards. Can he register with the kukkiwon and be officially recognized as a TKD school?

that would be really bad, LOL

No, it's not quite that simple. I think you still have to test to the equivalent of their black belts, and meet their requirements. It wouldn't be overly difficult for an ITF black belt to test and meet the requirements to get a black belt through the Kukkiwon.

High ranks (black belt at least) in other Kwans (I'm guessing Kwans they recognize; Ji Do Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan, Chung Do Kwan) can apply to transfer their Kwan certification over to Kukkiwon. Someone from an independent organization, like me, would probably have to apply to test and learn the appropriate forms requirements, and then test (and pay the fees, of course).

[Wado Heretic]

A problem with the word “Legitimate” in martial arts circles is that it tends to be used in two, often conflicting ways:

1. A demonstrable lineage to a historical source to confirm claims to teaching a specific style.

2. Proven efficacy in situations involving actual violence.

Neither are mutually exclusive, but they do appeal to different authorities in their meaning, and thus it is important to clarify how we are using the phrase legitimate in this case.

In traditional martial arts we often appeal to lineage to confirm legitimacy – “Did this person train with X and thus can be said to be legitimately teaching x style?”

My teacher was recognised as a Yondan by the Kodokan in Okinawa and was taught by the founder of the Kodokan. My Nidan grade was registered with and recognised by the Kodokan in Okinawa. From the perspective of Lineage, I study and teach Shorin-Ryu Kodokan. From the perspective of legitimate lineage, I am legitimate.

However, if someone were to visit my dojo floor, and judge whether I was teaching something “legitimate” based on the criteria of efficacy against actual violence, none of the above lineage means anything to them. Only what they see happening on the training floor based on their own perspective and biases as to what is effective training.

I think any martial artist coming from a traditional background that is claiming to teach self-defence, however, needs to aspire to both meanings of the word. If you are claiming to be part of a tradition you need to have a demonstrable, authentic lineage. If you are claiming to teach self-defence, then you should aspire to be working to the methods that the experts in dealing with actual violence say need to be part of such training.

Thus, with the above said, and to return to my earlier post on a definition of karate: “Karate is a cultural artefact of the Okinawan People descending from RyuKyu Tode. If a system employs the forms (Kata) as developed on Okinawa, and derives its fighting methods from an interpretation of the kata through following the knowledge left by the innovators and preservers of Tode-Jutsu it can rightly be called Karate.”

You need to take the tradition and evolve it appropriately towards your goals. For self-defence this is as simple as taking the kata movements and applying them against common forms of attack against a training partners offering both unskilled (Using Brute Strength) and skilled (Using positioning and leveraging) resistance. Eliminating what does not work and what does work in a paradigm of experimentation grounded in active resistance. Then framing these movements inside a broader system grounded in the broader skills of self-defence, such as the “Soft Skills” of de-escalation and precautionary skills (The Fence et cetera), and the “Hard Skills” of self-defence that are not addressed by standing kata: the ground phase for example. Finally, doing all this with drills and conditioning exercises that prepare people physiologically and psychologically for actual violence. Then treating the kata as movement exercises which evolve from the partner work, rather than have partner work evolve from the kata: transform the kata into Shadowboxing instead of cultural dance.

For efficacy in combat sports, you need to ask what sport you are training for, and then work from there. Parse the kata down to those which are brief and explosive and are grounded in the basic techniques and involve kicking techniques. Create Kiso-Kumite (Kata based drills) that are grounded in the Miai (range and distance) of the sport you are training for. If it is for sport karate per WKF rules, then you need to drill against the big lead hand strikes and high kicks, and drill throwing with the single hand grip. If it is for knock-down karate it needs to deal with low kicks and fighting in the pocket. If it is for kick-boxing then you need to decide on which rule-set and incorporate glove work, because the gloves change a lot of what you do with your hands. If it is for Free-Fighting or MMA then you need to focus on the wrestling phase in both offensive and defensive terms.

Do the above and I think one can create a form of karate that is legitimate according to the two broad meanings of legitimate. It will be grounded in the Okinawan tradition, while evolving to meet the demands of the modern meaning that has been framed by Vale Tudo and the evolution of the sport of MMA. The key thing is making it effective at what you claim it is effective at: be it self-defence, or the combat sport you want your club to participate in.

With regards to the truism that “It is not the style but the individual” I do think that needs to be understood as having a caveat. It does all come down to the individual, but styles do have an influence on the individual. Styles are not just collections of techniques and forms, but also strategies, tactics, schemes of movement, and methods of conditioning. Some of these much better fit the triangle of performance: techniques appropriate to the sport/activity, physical conditioning that is sport/activity specific, and psychological conditioning that prepares the person for the stresses involved. Royce Gracie and Rickson Gracie both triumphed in the early UFC and Vale Tudo Japan events respectively because they trained for Vale Tudo. Gracie Jujutsu was designed for Vale Tudo. They both had superior scores in each aspect of the triangle of performance in comparison to their opponents.

If you take a person trained for full-contact fighting and someone who has not trained for full-contact fighting and set them up in a full-contact challenge match: the person with the appropriate training will win. In this way it is down to the individual, but we can look at styles trained in and get some idea of likelihood they have received appropriate training. Most three-K, traditional style training, does not prepare someone for a full-contact fight in comparison to Boxing, Muay Thai, or Submission-Wrestling.

It is all about sport specific training rather than style, but some styles, when it comes to Vale Tudo have a leg up over others on paper.

[bushido_man96]

Those are some great points, once again, Wado Heretic.

In your experience, are you seeing more Karate instructors leaning into this "modern meaning" of "legitimacy," or are they staying more focused on "the three Ks" style of training that many were likely brought up with?

Another question: how do you feel about the types of training that people like Iain Abernethy for Karate and Stuart Anslow for TKD are doing? When it comes to the approaches of these two individuals, and others that are taking on their approaches, seem to be focusing in on the self-defense aspect of the arts, and not as much on sport fighting like MMA.

[Wado Heretic]

The trend I see in most schools is very much what I call middle of the road. They are retaining the "Three K" model while trying to absorb and take from the Paradigm being set by the likes of Mr Abernathy and Mr McCarthy. Which is looking at the kata as artefacts of a pragmatic system of self-defence.

Only the most ardent traditionalists, in my experience, continue to reject the notion of Bunkai as essential for training for self-defence. That continue to argue kata have value in of themselves without putting them in context. Also, that one can train and be effective without full-contact training and conditioning, or that traditional Yakusoku makes sense when one looks at actual violence.

Generally speaking from what I see of most schools the majority are keeping the Kihon, Kumite, Kata tradition but are giving a nod to the concept of Bunkai by touching on Oyo occasionally, or introducing Yakusoku Kumite based on movements from the Kata to their syllabi. Some pad-work is introduced, and some grappling such as take-downs, some clinch fighting, and some positions like Knee-on-Belly. They might do continuous sparring or bogu Kumite instead of classic sundome point sparring. It is very much face value additions to the training. It is this middle of the road approach I see most often being adopted. It is better than what it was but it is not really going far enough to say it is sufficient, adversity-specific training.

Iain Abernathy was once my go to resource for Bunkai when I was a Wado-Ryu adherent. I think, especially for anyone that considers themselves a Wadoka, he is the best source for elucidating the pragmatic knowledge contained with the kata. I do think he is one of the best authorities, and I think he is taking the most rationale approach to making karate a pragmatic art of self-defence without throwing the baby out with the bath water, to use an analogy. He is looking to history, and we know from history that the kata were designed to retain and model pragmatic self-defence techniques. Bringing that to the fore through application work, while framing it in resistance training, an understanding of sophisticated martial arts, and the other essential skills of modern self-defence is the quickest and most efficient route to a karate you can trust to work in self-defence.

From the sport side, I have to say I think Nippon Kempo, Ashihara Karate, Enshin Karate, Taido and Daido Juku Kudo already did that that. Nippon Kempo evolved from Shito-Ryu, through hybridisation of other arts too, and its kata were developed for sport-specific training. Ashihara and Enshin followed a similar mindset in their evolution of their kata training, grounding the movements in style closer to the pace of kumite and and developing good habits for kumite such as always resolving in fighting stance. The Hokei of Taido are structured around the techniques legal in Taido competition, and are sport specific in that they are structured around principles of movement rather than self-defence techniques. Kudo of course eventually got rid of Kata practice entirely, as it became Free-Fighting Combat Sport rather than a discipline unto itself but it still has shadowboxing routines that descend from its kata practice.

I personally am currently on the quest of asking "Was historical karate even effective, and should we be looking to it for answers in the first place?"

As far as I have got with it, I do think the sensible thing to do as karateka is focus on pragmatic self-defence. That is where the kata begin based on what we know of their history, and ultimately the kata are what make our martial traditions karate. Without them we are just doing Self-Defence in Karategi, and if we do not do the historical kata we are just doing our own cultural dances.

[bushido_man96]

I appreciate your thoughts, Wado Heretic. I've been searching for the pragmatic self-defense in our TKD forms, as well. It's a bit more difficult to flesh out at times, mainly because the forms I do are, in many instances, rearranged versions of some Karate kata. We have "sections," so to speak, of the forms that are reminiscent of Karate kata, and I look to some Karate sources in order to flesh things out.

[Wado Heretic]

No problem, it is always a pleasure and privilege to be asked.

For Tae Kwon Do I would not necessarily look to karate for clues and solutions. I would consider the theree particular sources:

1. Shotokan/Shotokai-Ryu as practiced in the 1930s as outlined in Rentan Goshin Toudi-Jutsu and Karate-Do Kyohan and Nyumon. I would look to how Funakoshi Gichin was teaching the application of the techniques he was teaching, because that is where the majority of the seniors of Tae Kwon Do gained their karate instruction.

2. Taekkyeon and its throws and application of kicking techniques. This was the main source of the kicking techniques that differentiate Tae Kwon Do from Nippon Karate-Do.

It is from these two sources that the founders created their forms, and thus, from these ideas about the technique applications. Though, it is also important to study what the founders claimed about their art, and techniques. You are not going to make a functional application from a sequence that is pure fantasy, so trial and error, and discarding what is useless is going to be part of the process.

A third source, as you have mentioned, are the novel sequences found in the Kata of Karate that have been retained in the Hyeong/Poomsae/Tuel, which carry forward the applications of karate into Tae Kwon Do in spirit and substance. I think it is also important to consider Hwa Sun, Jie Quan, and the Yang Long Form which are the most prominent Chinese Influences. Looking to applications of movements carried forward from these sources might also help.

All I would caution is not getting caught up in the Traditionalist/Revisionist debate which tries to paint Tae Kwon Do as wholly Korean or just a Korean version of Karate. It is its own modern creation grounded in both Korean and imported sources.

[RW]

I personally am currently on the quest of asking "Was historical karate even effective, and should we be looking to it for answers in the first place?"

As far as I have got with it, I do think the sensible thing to do as karateka is focus on pragmatic self-defence. That is where the kata begin based on what we know of their history, and ultimately the kata are what make our martial traditions karate. Without them we are just doing Self-Defence in Karategi, and if we do not do the historical kata we are just doing our own cultural dances.

My reflexions have taken me that path, and I've noticed certain things. These are just theories of mine, but worth a thought....

Karate came from certain chinese martial arts styles brought to okinawa from china. Said chinese styles (I am reluctant to call them 'kung fu" because it's probably quite different from what today's kung fu looks like) were developed based on certain Indian health exercises, correct?

We're talking health exercises, not necessarily self defense. It is my understanding that stuff like the 18 hands of lohan were part of those chinese arts that later developed into the kung fu-ish systems brought to okinana.

Why is this significant? Take a look:

http://qigong15.com/blog/qigong-exercises/18-lohan-hands-qigong-set/

These stances... the second one is pretty much a kiba dachi, the 6th one is pretty much a shiko dachi, the 10th one is pretty much a kokutsu dachi, and the 15th one reminds me a bit of zenkutsu dachi.

apparently at some point it all came from india too, right? Take at look at this yoga stuff:

https://www.mondaycampaigns.org/destress-monday/add-warrior-yoga-pose-wellness-routine

that's a heisoku dachi followed by zenkutsu dachi!!!

Yoga even has a horse stance too:

http://themostdangerous1.blogspot.com/2016/09/horse-pose-horse-pose-full-power-that.html?m=1

Nobody would think qigong (18 hands of lohan) or yoga are fighting martial arts. But I feel this is where our karate stances came from.

So why would we assume the karate stances have an application? I see a lot of very good and very well known karateka like Ian Abernathy or the karate nerd guy talk about stances and coming up with all sorts of rationalizations of why the stances have an application, e.g. 'they're transitional" and things like that. Maybe we're trying to find an application to stuff that doesn't?

Maybe the purpose of stances is literally "to strengthen your legs and give you limber limbs" or something like that.

just a theory

Also, if you want to hear a similar rant, ask me about nukite LOL

[bushido_man96]

For Tae Kwon Do I would not necessarily look to karate for clues and solutions. I would consider the theree particular sources:

1. Shotokan/Shotokai-Ryu as practiced in the 1930s as outlined in Rentan Goshin Toudi-Jutsu and Karate-Do Kyohan and Nyumon. I would look to how Funakoshi Gichin was teaching the application of the techniques he was teaching, because that is where the majority of the seniors of Tae Kwon Do gained their karate instruction.

Those are two books I've thought about picking up, but just haven't yet. I believe Nyumon has gone up in price, but will have to check. Rentan Goshin Toudi-Jutsu I am not familiar with; are you speaking of an art, or a book about it?

Yes, you are correct in that many of the senior founders of TKD were Shotokan stylists initially, and have looked in that direction, as well.

For Tae Kwon Do I would not necessarily look to karate for clues and solutions.

Well...there aren't many "TKD original" sources that contain much. However, many of the hand/arm techniques in TKD have similarities to those in many styles of Karate, so I start by sourcing things from there. Based on what you suggested in the first quote I listed above, I believe this is what I am doing.

2. Taekkyeon and its throws and application of kicking techniques. This was the main source of the kicking techniques that differentiate Tae Kwon Do from Nippon Karate-Do.

I have yet to find much that is reliable or helpful in regards to what Taekkyeon actually was. I have a copy of the Muye Dobo Tonji that contains drawings of what was called Su Bak, and have looked those over. The problem with Taekkyeon is that it got suppressed during the occupation, and I think it pretty much died out, and I'm not sure there are any good sources that exist. If you know of some in print form that are affordable, please let me know. What I also know about it is that it was primarily referred to as a game, but I imagine it could have been something similar to the way Capoeira is done.

It is from these two sources that the founders created their forms, and thus, from these ideas about the technique applications. Though, it is also important to study what the founders claimed about their art, and techniques. You are not going to make a functional application from a sequence that is pure fantasy, so trial and error, and discarding what is useless is going to be part of the process.

Yes, this is what it has been; considerable amounts of trial and error. I've come to the accept the idea that some of the sequences in the forms I do just might not have much to offer in the way of applications. But, a single technique, like a knife hand strike or a double knife hand block, has applications in itself.

A third source, as you have mentioned, are the novel sequences found in the Kata of Karate that have been retained in the Hyeong/Poomsae/Tuel, which carry forward the applications of karate into Tae Kwon Do in spirit and substance. I think it is also important to consider Hwa Sun, Jie Quan, and the Yang Long Form which are the most prominent Chinese Influences. Looking to applications of movements carried forward from these sources might also help.

These are the sections of form that I focus on the most for working applications. As for the Chinese styles you mention, I don't have much exposure to them, nor do I have any literature on them.

All I would caution is not getting caught up in the Traditionalist/Revisionist debate which tries to paint Tae Kwon Do as wholly Korean or just a Korean version of Karate. It is its own modern creation grounded in both Korean and imported sources.

Agreed here, and I've long since taken this into consideration. There are still some instructors that I know that cling to the idea that TKD is solely an "ancient Korean art that is 5000 years old." The cat is out of the bag on this, and it's time to let it be.

Thanks again for your time in responding. I am truly enjoying the conversation.

[RW]

I don't know how anyone can say that taekwondo is a 100% korean art that has nothing to do with karate when stuff like this can be observed:

a 5000 year old martial art that happens to have some of the very same katas as karate? Hmmm