Legitimacy of a new style of karate...

[Wado Heretic]

Admittedly, the best source in English I know of is "Foundations of Korean Martial Arts: Masters, Manuals & Combative Techniques" with regards of Tekkyon. It is mostly a collection of essays, but does contain practical knowledge as well.

As one uses Kakedameshi to illuminate ideas from the Kata lost in modern Sundome Kumite, perhaps, one could use the game of Teakkyeon to illuminate lost ideas as well. Just one passing thought.

Rentan Goshin Toudi-Jutsu was Funakoshi Gichin's first book, and is rumoured to be the text that Hwang Gi, founder of Moo Duk Duk Kwan and Subak, lifted his knowledge of Karate from. It also shows the way Funakoshi was teaching karate in the 1920s before his son became the senior instructor at the Shotokan. Plus, before the innovations of Ohtsuka and Konishi became ingrained traditions.

Otherwise, sounds like you are on the right path to me. In terms of Taijiqaun, the late Joanna Zorya was the best source I know of with regards to applied Taijiquan. I must admit Taijiqaun is as far as much of my knowledge of the Chinese Arts go.

I think, in studying Hoplology, we must remember one basic principle: the human body can only move in so many ways. In remembering this principle we must further consider two realities:

1. Violence is violence and there are only so many answers to it that are practical and can be rehearsed.

2. Multiple discovery/simultaneous invention. Many discoveries and inventions have often been made independently and more or less simultaneously by different people.

Bottom line being that there does not have to be a pattern or any reasonable connection for similarities between martial arts to occur by accident. Although, the Asian Arts do have a connectivity that must be considered. After all, we do know that Chinese Arts influence the Okinawan arts, but we must also keep in mind influences from Siam, Indonesia and Japan, when considering the traditions that descend from the RyuKyu Kingdom.

We do know through historic texts that sophisticated martial arts, including Qi Gong, existed in China circa 500 BC before Buddhism and the foundation of Shaolin ever happened. Hence, I am not entirely convinced of the Yoga Qigong connection in full.

I think we must also beware our modern perspectives and bias, and how martial arts have evolved to become exercise routines as much as combative arts. If we look at the way forms are performed in Nippon Karate-Do in contrast to how they were historically performed, this becomes evident.

My concern with whether historical karate was effective is more a "Are we reinventing the wheel?" dilemma when looking at application. Are we taking a longer road than we need to because we are trying to preserve traditions that could and should be left to history

It is a parsing exercise of figuring out what modern practice is best, and what is worth bringing back from history, to place karate in its proper context.

Plus, I think it is always important to remember the old masters were human, and may have been following tradition as blindly as any one else. Just because on paper what they taught sounded as though it was more well-rounded, and adapted to actual training for violence, because of their testimony does not mean it was. We thus have a responsibility to be critical and sceptical, and test all things through experimentation, trial, and error.

[RW]

My concern with whether historical karate was effective is more a "Are we reinventing the wheel?" dilemma when looking at application. Are we taking a longer road than we need to because we are trying to preserve traditions that could and should be left to history

This dillema reminds me a bit of the aikido situation. Sticking to tradition renders an art outdated and it becomes more like a cultural practice than anything else, with no ambition of applicability and practical consideration.

Where does this leave karate? Many would agree that things such as kata, hikite, the stances, etc are not 100% applicable (would someone train for an MMA fight or a street fight by doing kata and focusing on chambered bunches and horse stance / zenkutsu dachi?) So.... should we get rid of them?

I'd say karate already went through the process of doing away with kata, the stances, traditional blocks, hikite, etc. The end result was known as american kickboxing (now largely out of favor, it seems muay thai took its spot) , so in other words... it stopped being karate

[sensei8]

Not to beat a dead horse.

The definition of legitimacy says...Something legitimate is the real deal; according to the law.

"the quality of being allowed and acceptable according to the law"~Oxford Dictionary

With that being said, who's law says that something of the MA is or isn't legitimate? A recognized MA Governing Body? Who said that that MA Governing Body is legitimate? Other men?? Which other men?? Not all noted MA Masters are the powers that be over Shindokan. I respect them wholeheartedly without any reservations. That's where the relationships end.

Yeah, yeah, I know some Governing Body a long time ago formed by a group of men who were practitioners of some MA. They got together, and based on their reputation, that, whatever that was, claimed the necessary legitimacy. All followers thereafter attached themselves to that that was created and formed.

Yes, many noted men have/do determine(d) that which is or isn't legitimate in the realm of the MA. That then turned into, and remains, the naked truth within the MA. MA history is important, yet it shouldn't be much more important than serious training. Oftentimes, a MAist focus is askew.

I believe that the focus on legitimacy will be at the forefront of many MA practitioners minds, for quite a long time, if not, forever; I've been listening to this very same topic for 56 years, so far. Instead of focusing on that which might not ever have the lowdown of an answer for this topic, a MAist should be effectively training to the Nth degree; as if their live depended on it.

In your opinion, what is the most dignified ways of coming up with a new style without disrespecting a current lineage?

Just start teaching it, whatever it is, and if it has quality, it will attract students, and then it will be both taught and learned. Sweep the naysayers under the rug, and do your thing. More than not, us human beings, have a propensity of seek out acceptance and approval from whomever and whatever.

"The term Jeet Kune Do was coined and put into use in 1967 by Bruce Lee in an attempt to put a name to his martial expression. Lee wrestled with putting a name to his art as he constantly veered away from any type of crystallization (and thereby limitation) of its essence, however, the simple need to refer to it in some concrete way won out and Jeet Kune Do was born."~ Bruce Lee Foundation

Imho!!

[bushido_man96]

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

I'm not sure which "style" that is, but even though it says it's a TKD association, I'd be willing to bet it's more rooted in Tang Soo Do. My style of TKD uses the Chang On forms, which don't match any Karate kata verbatim, but do have sections of the forms that are quite obviously taken from some Karate katas.

But, that is just a guess on my part. Or they could have picked from here and there for their syllabus.

[bushido_man96]

I think, in studying Hoplology, we must remember one basic principle: the human body can only move in so many ways. In remembering this principle we must further consider two realities:

1. Violence is violence and there are only so many answers to it that are practical and can be rehearsed.

2. Multiple discovery/simultaneous invention. Many discoveries and inventions have often been made independently and more or less simultaneously by different people.

I think there is much truth in this. Sometimes, things are similar in nature because it is most practical to be so. Thus, whether we are talking about Wrestling, Sambo, or Pankration, we end up seeing many similarities between styles born in different eras and different areas of the world.

Not to beat a dead horse.

The definition of legitimacy says...Something legitimate is the real deal; according to the law.

"the quality of being allowed and acceptable according to the law"~Oxford Dictionary

Don't you just hate dictionary definitions sometimes? I feel that, in the case of talking about the "legitimacy" of a style of MA, the dictionary definition falls short, and indeed, out of context with what many of us MAists refer to as "legitimacy" within the MA world. We don't really care what the law says; we care about different things like lineage, practicality, etc.

I found similar problems with the actual dictionary definition of "Martial Art" when I was writing one of my articles. It was frustrating to me, but the definition basically only defined "Eastern" styles as "Martial Art." So, I think Oxford falls short from time to time.

[sensei8]

Not to beat a dead horse.

The definition of legitimacy says...Something legitimate is the real deal; according to the law.

"the quality of being allowed and acceptable according to the law"~Oxford Dictionary

Don't you just hate dictionary definitions sometimes? I feel that, in the case of talking about the "legitimacy" of a style of MA, the dictionary definition falls short, and indeed, out of context with what many of us MAists refer to as "legitimacy" within the MA world. We don't really care what the law says; we care about different things like lineage, practicality, etc.

I found similar problems with the actual dictionary definition of "Martial Art" when I was writing one of my articles. It was frustrating to me, but the definition basically only defined "Eastern" styles as "Martial Art." So, I think Oxford falls short from time to time.

I'm not in favor much of a dictionary definition either, especially when the MA is concerned. I seem to have tripped all over myself in my explanation in my last post, when in actuality, I was poorly stating that I'm not much of a fan with any Governing Body wanting to insist that without their stamp of approval, that MA holds no water.

My Soke refused to obey the powers that be in Okinawa Karate because Shindokan was his baby, and he wasn't going to jump through their hoops so that he would be blessed with their stamp of legitimacy. Soke didn't need them, didn't want them, and didn't seek them out; the powers that be back then, approached him, and he showed them the door quite unceremoniously. Then, he came to the USA.

I've felt the sting of from Governing Bodies, of which, I've hold my own disdain towards them for my own personal and professional reasons having rose in the ranks all the way up to Kaicho.

So, once again, just train without worrying about what some might or might not ever say; they've their opinions, whomever they are, and you have yours. We are discussing legitimacy, and with that, many opinions will surface without an agreeing consensus across the board on any type of legitimacy and where it can omit from and the like.

The legitimacy will take care of itself by itself; proof is on the floor.

[bushido_man96]

I hear you about the governing bodies. Any more, they seem like they've become a necessary evil, and so many of them are out there now.