Roots of karate

[GNARL04]

Mr. Clayton,

After a bit of reading on other forums, I see that the issue of karate's founding isn't really settled. I have read your work and enjoy your conclusion of karate being formed as an answer to the problem facing bodyguards. Other see it differently, wanted to link you to another forum discussion and possibly get some of your thoughts on this? http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/ ... ing-system

[HanshiClayton]

I skimmed it, but do not claim to have read in depth. I find discussions like that one rather hollow. Karate teachers are mainly still trapped inside the box, meaning they know almost nothing about karate history. Their speculations are entertaining but are not useful.

(Don't take that as a criticism of Iain. Quite the contrary.)

Modern "traditional" karate is a Japanese boxing and dancing art for intermural college competitions. It was invented by taking kendo as a model, and then substituting a small set of Okinawan techniques for the missing sword. Modern karate was never a historical combat art. It was never proven in real combat. It was never practiced as a martial art in Okinawa or anywhere else. Therefore, attempts to dissect the "martial advantages" of the modern art are just pointless. It is like debating the combat advantages of shadow boxing.

My interest is the art that came before "traditional" karate was invented. That art was in deadly earnest, and offers lessons to us all.

When the "traditional" teachers are ready for a broader view, we'll be here. By "we" I refer to the karate-jutsu community in general, and UKAI in particular. In the meantime, the kata are falling one-by-one to persistent historical analysis, and life is good outside of the box.

(I revised this response. There was a bit too much curmudgeon showing in the original.)

[GNARL04]

How important do you think an understanding of the true roots of karate is? In the case of Iain Abernethy, if his understanding is incorrect, it doesn't seem to harm his teaching, which is greatly inline with what you suggest in your book as Shuri II. He teaches application of the kata, drills it in pressure situation sparring, ground fighting, multiple opponents, modern weapons, etc. Granted, most instructors are far from this type of teaching, but do you think that his consideration of karate being civilian and bodyguard and yours of only bodyguard make a huge difference in the training and teaching of karate?

[HanshiClayton]

I think Iain Abernethy is an outstanding teacher, period. He's teaching people to really fight, and he's using the kata to help him get there. I do much the same thing in my classes.

We differ only in that I really want to know what Matsumura and Itosu were teaching their assistants to do. They were in a deadly situation and were training assistants to cover their backs. I think it is clear that most of their teaching was centered on weapons-reversal -- killing the opponent with his own weapon. That kind of application doesn't usually fit Iain's agenda. He seems to be more centered on barfights, which don't usually involve spears, sabers, rifles, bayonets, and katanas. Three of the five Heian katas are just littered with weapons.

This difference in our interests manifests in one really distinct way: Iain seems happy to have a selection of effective techniques he can anchor on a move in a kata. That fits his agenda. I'm not content with that kind of "explanation," however. I want to know what the kata was originally intended to teach. In the new edition of Shotokan's Secret, for instance, I demonstrated that Heian Godan was originally a lesson in how to take down a U.S. Marine in full kit, using only your bare hands. The historical and internal evidence for this interpretation are both overwhelming. There's a whole weapons-reversal lesson there, and every bit of it makes sense in context. As far as I know, Iain isn't looking for that kind of explanation.

You might ask what I expect to do with it? When a student asks what the application of a kata move is, I show him! That's something that most Shotokan instructors just can't do. They tell you that the kata is about improving your balance, or strengthening your ankles. In other words, the describe the kata's benefits as a dance. I want to know the kata's strength for training new recruits to be deadly fighters.

[GNARL04]

Thank you for your interesting and fascinating reply. I see your point on the differences in teaching agendas. Your pursuit of original meaning is important to a proper understanding of karate but in my opinion, one of the most intriguing and "beautiful" aspects of kata is that one sequence can be applied as striking moves, grappling, joint-locking, weapon snatching, etc. In terms of a student asking you about a move in the kata, do you explain the original method or the one most suited to modern day. I would be hard pressed to find anyone needing to find defense from a bayonet but many need defense from aggressive drunks. In your last point about the training of new recruits, it would also be fascinating to see and study how kata would have been an effective base of subsequent training drills for new recruits. Both yours and Iain's teachings are exactly what karate needs, there are far too many false bunkais out there and even more of those who know no bunkai(although I think false ones are far worse and more dangerous, they also make me cringe).

[HanshiClayton]

Your pursuit of original meaning is important to a proper understanding of karate but in my opinion, one of the most intriguing and "beautiful" aspects of kata is that one sequence can be applied as striking moves, grappling, joint-locking, weapon snatching, etc.

You might be intrigued by the first reply to the essay on Occam's Razor. Have fun.