"No, I'm not Practicing a Martial art!"

[Ezomatsu]

https://www.patreon.com/posts/no-im-not-art-104978477

I'm curious what people here think of this well-written piece by Mario McKenna (a highly experienced and knowledgeable karateka).

[KorroddyDude]

I can't say that I agree with most of this.

First, this article gives the impression that the term "martial arts" was coined in English, and that Anglospherians somehow took it upon themselves to translate it to "bugei" and falsely attribute usage of the term to the Japanese.  This isn't true at all.  Not saying he said this, but it's easy to get the impression that he's implying it.  If he's not suggesting this, I wish he would have clarified.

The word "bugei" dates at least as far back as the 14th century, and was exposed to the Anglosphere in 1918 in a Japanese-English dictionary where it translated to "martial arts."  In other words, the term was either coined by the Japanese or in another nearby language and then translated to Japanese.  In either case, it came to English from Japanese.

Secondly, there's that "do" vs "jutsu" claim; where "do" allegedly comes at the expense of "jutsu."  I'm sure that this debate has been had ad nauseam on this message board, so I'm not gonna go any farther than simply pointing it out.

Lastly, he says to stop being a karate apologist when someone compares karate unfavorably to MMA.  That's not gonna happen, at least not from me.  To that, I say this: the rigorous training that MMA fighters go through to preparare for upcoming fights definitely isn't a life for everyone.  Those of us who train in traditional martial arts do not need to be able to beat an MMA fighter.  We just need to be able to beat the trouble-maker on the streets who can't keep his hands to himself.  The odds of such a trouble-maker being an MMA fighter are probably lower than the odds of winning the Mega Millions or Powerball jackpot.

[Zaine]

McKenna takes a very Funakoshian approach to martial arts (to be a little tongue-in-cheek) in this post. He argues that, in being a "-do", karate is meant to be about self-perfection instead of defending oneself. This is a fine approach to take, of course. Karate, and martial arts at large, can mean a myriad of different things for a whole spectrum of people. I have met many people who do martial arts not because they want to defend themselves, but because they wanted to pursue a betterment of their lives. Kata becomes meditation through movement, sparring becomes a fun, low stakes practice, etc. This is certainly not the reason that I got into karate, nor is it why I am still involved in martial arts at large. For me, a part of preserving and growing martial arts is taking part in the actual defense part of martial arts. It is important to have bunkai. It is important to know how to handle oneself in stressful situations where de-escalation is no longer an option. Not only practically, but I think culturally, as well. Movements in kata don't (or, at least, shouldn't) exist in a vacuum. He compares karatedo to sado and shodo but I think fails to understand the implications of this preservation. While it is true that no one is learning sado to become a better tea drinker, or shodo to become a better fiction writer, they are learning it to understand better the context in which these things exist. They find use in the preservation of this cultural staple.

Overall, I am not a karate apologist. When people way "you would never beat an MMA guy," I believe that our reaction shouldn't be to argue, but to educate. Karate doesn't teach you how to be an MMA fighter, it teaches you how to defend yourself. MMA fighters care about lasting in a fight with multiple rounds; karate wants everything but a confrontation to last longer than 5 seconds. We shouldn't be comparing different martial arts because different martial arts, especially those focused on the sport of fighting, want to accomplish very different means.

[Wastelander]

8 hours ago, KorroddyDude said:

I can't say that I agree with most of this.

First, this article gives the impression that the term "martial arts" was coined in English, and that Anglospherians somehow took it upon themselves to translate it to "bugei" and falsely attribute usage of the term to the Japanese.  This isn't true at all.  Not saying he said this, but it's easy to get the impression that he's implying it.  If he's not suggesting this, I wish he would have clarified.

The word "bugei" dates at least as far back as the 14th century, and was exposed to the Anglosphere in 1918 in a Japanese-English dictionary where it translated to "martial arts."  In other words, the term was either coined by the Japanese or in another nearby language and then translated to Japanese.  In either case, it came to English from Japanese.

Secondly, there's that "do" vs "jutsu" claim; where "do" allegedly comes at the expense of "jutsu."  I'm sure that this debate has been had ad nauseam on this message board, so I'm not gonna go any farther than simply pointing it out.

Lastly, he says to stop being a karate apologist when someone compares karate unfavorably to MMA.  That's not gonna happen, at least not from me.  To that, I say this: the rigorous training that MMA fighters go through to preparare for upcoming fights definitely isn't a life for everyone.  Those of us who train in traditional martial arts do not need to be able to beat an MMA fighter.  We just need to be able to beat the trouble-maker on the streets who can't keep his hands to himself.  The odds of such a trouble-maker being an MMA fighter are probably lower than the odds of winning the Mega Millions or Powerball jackpot.

I didn't get the same impression that you did regarding the terminology. The way I read it, he's very specifically talking about terms used to refer to karate, and the fact that bugei, while it has existed in the Japanese lexicon for a long time and has been used to refer to martial arts, has not historically been used to refer to karate. Instead, karate has been almost exclusively referred to as a budo (bearing in mind that karate, as a term, only really existed after 1905, and wasn't mostly-universally adopted until 1936), with a few exceptions prior to 1936 where it was referred to as karate-jutsu, specifically.

I also tend to think that the "apologist" bit is mostly just encouraging people to ignore insults and understand that karate doesn't have to be about fighting. The way he words it suggests that karate has never been about fighting, which I would not say is strictly true, but I would say that during the lifetime of the art under that name that has definitely not been the most important aspect of it for quite some time. A great many Okinawan masters have said, time and time again, that they consider karate to be a budo, and that the most important thing about karate is how it improves character and health. Even Itosu pointed out that it didn't have to be purely for self-defense.

[Ezomatsu]

13 hours ago, Zaine said:

McKenna takes a very Funakoshian approach to martial arts (to be a little tongue-in-cheek) in this post. He argues that, in being a "-do", karate is meant to be about self-perfection instead of defending oneself. This is a fine approach to take, of course. Karate, and martial arts at large, can mean a myriad of different things for a whole spectrum of people. I have met many people who do martial arts not because they want to defend themselves, but because they wanted to pursue a betterment of their lives. Kata becomes meditation through movement, sparring becomes a fun, low stakes practice, etc. This is certainly not the reason that I got into karate, nor is it why I am still involved in martial arts at large. For me, a part of preserving and growing martial arts is taking part in the actual defense part of martial arts. It is important to have bunkai. It is important to know how to handle oneself in stressful situations where de-escalation is no longer an option. Not only practically, but I think culturally, as well. Movements in kata don't (or, at least, shouldn't) exist in a vacuum. He compares karatedo to sado and shodo but I think fails to understand the implications of this preservation. While it is true that no one is learning sado to become a better tea drinker, or shodo to become a better fiction writer, they are learning it to understand better the context in which these things exist. They find use in the preservation of this cultural staple.

Overall, I am not a karate apologist. When people way "you would never beat an MMA guy," I believe that our reaction shouldn't be to argue, but to educate. Karate doesn't teach you how to be an MMA fighter, it teaches you how to defend yourself. MMA fighters care about lasting in a fight with multiple rounds; karate wants everything but a confrontation to last longer than 5 seconds. We shouldn't be comparing different martial arts because different martial arts, especially those focused on the sport of fighting, want to accomplish very different means.

Regarding MMA training etc, most people who train MMA are not professional or even amateur fighters, same with boxing, or BJJ and others. I appreciate where you're coming from with respect to having a prolonged consensual fight versus some kind of self-defense situation, I get that. However, it's not like in MMA one is training to prolong the fight. There's a difference between training to prolong a fight and training to have the stamina to last five rounds. That's not to say some fighters will intentionally prolong a fight, but that's a different thing.

I'm not sure it's really totally accurate to characterize McKenna as arguing that the do is XYZ, he's just stating the facts about it, its history, it is what it is: karatedo, not karate, not karate-jutsu, the "original" karate founders made this decision. Of course one can train for whatever reason they want, but that's not the same thing as saying karatedo is karatejutsu or something along those lines.

If you're not familiar with McKenna, he's the real deal. He lived in Japan for awhile, is fluent in Japanese, and has probably forgotten more about karatedo than most, if not all, of us here know.

[KorroddyDude]

22 hours ago, Wastelander said:

I didn't get the same impression that you did regarding the terminology. The way I read it, he's very specifically talking about terms used to refer to karate, and the fact that bugei, while it has existed in the Japanese lexicon for a long time and has been used to refer to martial arts, has not historically been used to refer to karate. Instead, karate has been almost exclusively referred to as a budo (bearing in mind that karate, as a term, only really existed after 1905, and wasn't mostly-universally adopted until 1936), with a few exceptions prior to 1936 where it was referred to as karate-jutsu, specifically.

The list of Bugei Juhappan (18 Martial Arts) was created during the Tokugawa era, and yawara (grappling) is listed as one of them.  So there is a precedent of unarmed fighting being considered bugei before the Meiji Restoration.  It would've been impossible for karate to be listed, as it was unknown in Japan at the time.

[KorroddyDude]

9 hours ago, Ezomatsu said:

If you're not familiar with McKenna, he's the real deal. He lived in Japan for awhile, is fluent in Japanese, and has probably forgotten more about karatedo than most, if not all, of us here know.

I'm not sure where we're going with this.  Are we flashing credentials to silence people who disagree?  Remember, our responses were not unsolicited.

Furthermore, the word we're really looking for is "kakutogi" - as that is the word that is used to mean "martial arts" the way we mean it in English.  The literal translation of the word is "fighting arts," which I've noticed has been growing in use in English anyway.

[Ezomatsu]

4 hours ago, KorroddyDude said:

I'm not sure where we're going with this.  Are we flashing credentials to silence people who disagree?  Remember, our responses were not unsolicited.

Furthermore, the word we're really looking for is "kakutogi" - as that is the word that is used to mean "martial arts" the way we mean it in English.  The literal translation of the word is "fighting arts," which I've noticed has been growing in use in English anyway.

Uh no, I'm just pointing out that McKenna knows his stuff and is worth paying attention to. I don't know what gave you the impression I'm trying to silence anyone.

[Wastelander]

6 hours ago, KorroddyDude said:

The list of Bugei Juhappan (18 Martial Arts) was created during the Tokugawa era, and yawara (grappling) is listed as one of them.  So there is a precedent of unarmed fighting being considered bugei before the Meiji Restoration.  It would've been impossible for karate to be listed, as it was unknown in Japan at the time.

Right. I believe that's basically McKenna's point--some people, today, have taken to calling karatedo a "bugei," when it has never historically been considered a bugei. It could have been, had the Japanese known about it, but even then it wouldn't have been called karatedo, but more likely Todi, Ti'gwa, or Ti, with or without the "-jutsu" suffix, depending on when it was imported and by whom. The art we know of as karatedo is and always has been a budo, because that's where the "-do" suffix came from, and the budo culture of Japan was inserted into karate on purpose. Karate-jutsu, Todi, etc., were largely not classified as anything, they just existed as their own entities and everyone knew what you meant when you spoke about them.

As to Ezomatsu's point about McKenna's background, I suspect they were just adding context to the source material. I have followed McKenna's work for a very long time, and I have found him to be a thorough and earnest researcher and translator with a strong understanding of karate, its history, and its culture. This experience with him and his work is why I feel I understand the points he was trying to make in this particular article.

[bushido_man96]

It's an interesting article, and the insight into the language is helpful.  As has already been mentioned, people study their style for many different reasons.  Some lean more martial, and some lean more art; and some have done more one way that the other based on where they were in their lives at the time of their study.

Approaches to training and outlooks on aspects of life ebb and flow; I see this article as a picture of that.  We all may have a different outlook on what we are doing and why 10 years from now, and 20, and 30.