# Gichin Funakoshi



## Kittan Bachika (Jul 17, 2010)

I have read Karate-Do many times and I find it a very insightful and informative book and it should be read by any serious martial artist, regardless of style.

But I have heard stories that he caused some controversy due to the changes that he made in the style and the way it was being brought into the public.

I am aware of his stance on sparring but apparently he also made some changes in the katas. Does anyone know exactly what changes he made to draw such criticism?

*Btw, this is not a troll Funakoshi thread. I have a great deal of respect for Shotokan and I know who practice the art who are not only excellent fighters but people of very high character.*

I am just curious what issues these people had with the changes he made.


----------



## Omar B (Jul 17, 2010)

I am only aware of small changes in kata (like Sanchin) to more be in line with the rest of the system which is by nature a bit more linear.  Also he adopted Japanese terms into the style.

There could be more, but from what I have seen their Sanchin is a bit different but still the same kata.  Just like in Tang So Do you can still recognize the stances but they are a bit different.


----------



## twendkata71 (Jul 17, 2010)

*Master Funakoshi changed all of the kata from their original Okinawan forms.  Making the stances wider and the hand movements larger. *


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 17, 2010)

twendkata71 said:


> *Master Funakoshi changed all of the kata from their original Okinawan forms.  Making the stances wider and the hand movements larger. *



Some karate historians believe the characteristic low stances (especially in zenkutsu-dachi) and emphasis on hip twist were made by Funakoshi's son, Giko, and other senior students like Nakayama Matayoshi.  Possibly fudo-dachi was introduced also by the younger Funakoshi.


----------



## Laus (Jul 18, 2010)

Aside from changing the names of many kata from Okinawan to Japanese, I can't say I know any technical changes he's made. When I was training in Goju we used to practice some of those kata (not as part of the Goju curriculum but to enhance our training). I assume we were doing them in their pre-Shotokan forms, but not having trained in Shotokan, I can't say for certain. Also, I am not sure how much of our Goju bled into them. Our stances were always very deep, so we tended to do foreign kata that way, grafting our ingrained technique onto the kata wherever the stances and hand techniques were sufficiently similiar. Sometimes the Sensei would say something like "that's actually supposed to be a kiba dachi" where we were doing a shiko dachi (for example), but would not have us change it in practice. What was Shotokan and what was not I couldn't say.


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 18, 2010)

changed names (from pinan to heian, meaning peaceful) changed some of the katas around (i think what we call heian nidan used to be the first one or something, now the first one is the one we Shotokankas call heian shodan)


----------



## K-man (Jul 19, 2010)

Here is a link to an article by Rick Clark describing the removal of lethal technique from the teaching of the martial arts. It refers directly to Funakoski and quotes him as saying "hoping to see karate included in the universal physical education taught in our public schools, I set about revising the kata so as to make them as simple as possible". And on the introduction of karate instruction into the schools, Funakoshi states in 'My way of life', published 1975, that "karate as taught in Japan is not the same karate that was practised even as recently as ten years ago, and it is along way indeed from the karate that I learned when I was a child in Okinawa." 

http://www.usadojo.com/articles/wall-of-silence.htm

The main thing is that when the kata were taught to the school children, they were simplified and taught without the application. Unfortunately, the same problem exists in most karate schools to this day. :asian:


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 19, 2010)

K-man said:


> The main thing is that when the kata were taught to the school children, they were simplified and taught without the application. Unfortunately, the same problem exists in most karate schools to this day. :asian:




Adjunct to that, he officially codified some 26 kata into his system by publishing them in the Karate-Do Kyohan.  IMO, this set the expectation for many karate-ka (and those practicing children styles like tae kwon do) to learn MANY kata.  At the same time, the Kyohan did not explain pattern applications, beyond the superficial level, so this contributed to an entire generation of karate students not knowing that kata were supposed to be taught and drilled on a more meaningful basis.  Then this generation taught their understanding of karate, and so on.

I agree that Funakoshi knew full well what damage he had done to the art of karate as a FIGHTING system intentionally or not.  In his later years, he was regretful of what karate turned into.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 20, 2010)

Here is an example of one of the changes he made to the katas.  Here is a clip of Funakoshi performing Empi (originally Wansu)





 
Look at about the 36 second mark, he does a 180 degree jump in the air.

Look at the original kata Wansu at the same movement.  This version is close to what Chotoku Kyan taught (performed by Zenpo Shimabukuru)




 
At around the 36 second mark again look at the movements and you can see that the move is a throw (fireman's carry).  Why Funakoshi took out the move and replaced it with a jump is unknown.  This is just one example though of the changes he made besides lowering the stances etc.

BTW, Shotokan does not utilize the kata Sanchin as a style although some schools may include it.


----------



## Victor Smith (Jul 20, 2010)

I'm afraid there is much being missed in this discussion.

Of course Funakoshi changed the kata, so did everyone else in karate's history, absoutely nothing different there. Regardless of the version the study of technique application potential makes sure any version will stop an attacker.

In reality Funakoshi is the poster boy for trying to follow Itosu's dream, making karate a tool for the betterment of their Society (Okinawan and Japanese). Forget the fairy tales about schoolboy karate, Chibana dispelled that in that Itosu's changes of the Pinan were to have different applications for the age and intent of the student. In the case of Japan Funakohsi set a new example.

He did not train children, but went into the University System of the 20's and 30's, training young men in the upper middle class destined after 4 years of study to enter the civil service and the officer corps. Japan at that time was a civilized society (they saved their uncivility for other cultures) and self defense for future administrators or officers was not the goal.

When you have 4 years to train college students, you quickly discover you can't do everything. Furthermore Funakosh didn't establish one dojo that he controlled, instead many different karate programs that he kept moving between training each part time and others becoming the instructors (with probably only short time training themselves). So the Karate was focused on just some aspects of the karate potential, mostly focusing on the percusive aspects.

Funakoshi was training is son as his successor, but then he died. And World War II intervened.

Now Funakoshi Didn't hide anyting. His books contained applications, grappling and sections of the Bubishi (in Chinese) concerned with how to defend yourself. His programs just didn't have the time to get into that. Four years is not a long time to train anyone and you have to make choices.

His Karate-do Kyohan only contained 16 kata, the rest were picked up by the JKA later. Did he aprove them, well he was older, he was in his 50's when he first went there, and in time his senior students were calling the shots for all intents and purposes. Especially as he got older, he becaame more a figurehead.

The actual use of karate was clearly documented, especially by one of his student Mutsu in his book 'Kempo Karate' and in Nakasone's "Karate-do taikan". It's just Itosu's vision of karate was not to create 'warriors' and I believe Funakoshi followed that dream.

You must ask yourself which purpose is more noble, to make sure eveyone can break arms or create healthier youth and adults?

As I maintain there are no simple answers.

More so, Okinawa was not one thing. Entire lines of karate did nothing more than study kata, not applciations that the student might be encouraged to work on themselves at their level of study, but not taught.

Looking at all of the works Itosu's students published in the 20's and 30's, the fact is 'bunkai' (not an Okinawan term) may well not have been the way karate was taught. Kata might have just been for physical developmente and a select answers for various attacks may have been taught when a student was ready. Shimpan shows that a kata movement might work when other technique was added to it..... 

Other factors to consider was finding a way to re-install karate during the American Occupation after the war and then realizing they could export their art. Instead of taking long term karate-ka they choose to develop an instructors program taking college graduates, giving them hard short term training (2 years) and then sending them out to deveop the same programs they were trained in. They were successful, but it was karate built upon Itosu and Funakoshi's dream.


I believe our contemporary efforts are making strong karate, but that does not mean that was the purpose or answers of the past.

Likewise all of Funakoshi's Shotokan students didn't follow the same path. I've trained 10 years with Tristan Sutrisno who's father trained in japan in the 1930's and taught Shotokan for the rest of his life. His kata studies contain ultra extensive application studies, all based on extra answers not in the kata.

Funakoshi Sensei did someting new in the world, he showed he could transplant karate into a different culture, adopt new methods and make it work.

In the end even the simple punch, if adequately mastered ought to be able to drop anyone any time. Unless your a technique snob. If one can't make it work then they're just not correctly trained..... hmmm


----------



## K-man (Jul 21, 2010)

I may have to take a differing approach.


> Of course Funakoshi changed the kata, so did everyone else in karate's history, absoutely nothing different there.


Not to the same extent or for the same reason. Funakoshi stated in his book, "Hoping to see karate included in the universal physical education taught in our public schools, I set about revising the kata so as to make them as simple as possible". This does not imply he improved the kata, just that it was made simpler to appeal to a wider audience. 


> Regardless of the version the study of technique application potential makes sure any version will stop an attacker.


True. But, many of the techniques in the original kata are missing.  What is left may be effective, but if the applications are not taught the kata by itself is not overly effective, if effective at all. How many schools threw out the kata as useless in the early days in the West?





> In reality Funakoshi is the poster boy for trying to follow Itosu's dream, making karate a tool for the betterment of their Society (Okinawan and Japanese).


Funakoshi may have introduced his changes to "make karate a tool for the betterment of the Japanese society", but after he left for Japan in 1922 he remained there for the rest of his life. Okinawan karate, as in the style he learned, Shuri-te, was not changed. 





> Forget the fairy tales about schoolboy karate, Chibana dispelled that in that Itosu's changes of the Pinan were to have different applications for the age and intent of the student.


 In fact Chosin Chibana was selected by Itosu to carry on his teaching. I understand, he changed the name to Shurin-ryu to differentiate what he was teaching from what Funakoshi and others were teaching. As all teachers would take into account their students' individual ages and characteristics, I think it is a long bow to link that to Itosu alone. In fact, it is probably the reason that so many people are being taught different things. They have each been given an explanation suited to them in particular and taken it and taught it to all in general.   





> In the case of Japan Funakoshi set a new example.


??


> He did not train children, but went into the University System of the 20's and 30's, training young men in the upper middle class destined after 4 years of study to enter the civil service and the officer corps. Japan at that time was a civilized society and *self defense for future administrators or officers was not the goal.*


Exactly what I am trying to say. The martial application was removed. Itosu had introduced karate into the schools in Okinawa about 1901. Was Funakoshi still Itosu's student at this time, or had Funakoshi already established his own school? I have no idea, but it is a fair assumption that if karate was being taught in the schools in Naha from that time (1901) Funakoshi may have been involved in teaching school children at some stage. 





> When you have 4 years to train college students, you quickly discover you can't do everything. Furthermore Funakosh didn't establish one dojo that he controlled, instead many different karate programs that he kept moving between training each part time and others becoming the instructors (with probably only short time training themselves). So the Karate was focused on just some aspects of the karate potential, mostly focusing on the percusive aspects.


So think back. How much understanding did we have of applications after four years of training? Bugger-all! There was a basic understanding of the techniques and an elementary knowledge of kata.  This is also what was passed on to Allied servicemen after the war and what is still taught in many schools to this very day.





> Now Funakoshi Didn't hide anyting. His books contained applications, grappling and sections of the Bubishi (in Chinese) concerned with how to defend yourself. His programs just didn't have the time to get into that. Four years is not a long time to train anyone and you have to make choices.


He may not have hidden it but he didn't teach it either. And, his books do not give more than simple explanations of application. You have written that after four years a number of his students became instructors and from the quote above, he didn't have time to teach them applications. What does that say about the karate being passed on.  David Oddy calls it 'schoolboy karate'.





> His Karate-do Kyohan only contained 16 kata, the rest were picked up by the JKA later.


How many kata can you learn in four years? How many can you understand basically in that time? How many can you understand well and how many can you understand at the advanced level? Remember, most *masters* only trained two or three kata in a lifetime, if we are to believe what is written as history.





> The actual use of karate was clearly documented, especially by one of his student Mutsu in his book 'Kempo Karate' and in Nakasone's "Karate-do taikan". It's just Itosu's vision of karate was not to create 'warriors' and I believe Funakoshi followed that dream.


I don't believe any of the masters were big into 'creating warriors'. They were teaching self defense skills to their families and select students in the early days and later the student base was broadened. I believe Funakoshi's dream was more to build an empire (JKA).  





> You must ask yourself which purpose is more noble, to make sure eveyone can break arms or create healthier youth and adults?


True, but these are two different objectives. Karate for health or karate for self defence. Personally, I work out in the gym for my health and I teach karate for self defense. But I digress. In effect you are saying here that there is a choice, one or the other. I believe you can have both. Problem is, I don't have time in my classes for a lot of pushups.





> More so, Okinawa was not one thing. Entire lines of karate did nothing more than study kata, not applciations that the student might be encouraged to work on themselves at their level of study, but not taught.


Not quite sure what is being said here. If it is that they weren't teaching the application in Okinawa either, then basically I agree. The Masters only taught application to the advanced students and the total system to their successor.





> Looking at all of the works Itosu's students published in the 20's and 30's, the fact is 'bunkai' (not an Okinawan term) may well not have been the way karate was taught. *Kata might have just been for physical developmente* and a select answers for various attacks may have been taught when a student was ready. Shimpan shows that a kata movement might work when other technique was added to it.....


Would warrant a whole new thread.  If you really believe kata is just for physical development, we have absolutely nothing in common. 





> Other factors to consider was finding a way to re-install karate during the American Occupation after the war and then realizing they could export their art. Instead of taking long term karate-ka they choose to develop an instructors program taking college graduates, giving them hard short term training (2 years) and then sending them out to deveop the same programs they were trained in. They were successful, but it was karate built upon Itosu and Funakoshi's dream.


I doubt that exporting the art was a great priority. Getting it back on track in Japan, I certainly would agree, was paramount. Instructor's with two years training fulfilling Itosu and Funakoshi's dream ... I don't think so!





> Likewise all of Funakoshi's Shotokan students didn't follow the same path. I've trained 10 years with Tristan Sutrisno who's father trained in japan in the 1930's and taught Shotokan for the rest of his life. His kata studies contain ultra extensive application studies, all based on extra answers not in the kata.


Now you're talking!  However, were the answers in the original kata?





> In the end even the simple punch, if adequately mastered ought to be able to drop anyone any time. Unless your a technique snob. If one can't make it work then they're just not correctly trained..... hmmm


True, but against an attacker who looks like Arni, you might need a few extra tools from your kata armoury!


----------



## Victor Smith (Jul 21, 2010)

There is one thing we know the Okinawan seniors did a very good job not documenting their art. They did not want to share what they knew with us.  I salute them in this. 
  Speculation about the past is fun but hardly will prove anything.  Certainly if you possess actual documentation, or secondary level documentation (such as information from the Okinawan Karate Encyclopedia), or even better oral history directly from an Okinawan instructor a much sounder argument can be constructed.

  Perhaps in the past some only did study a few forms, but as I look at the last hundred years many Okinawans took advantage of more studies and systems growing.  I suspect fewer forms in the past were more part of less opportunity to train with others, especially in a walking environment of the past.

  Shotokan is one of the most documented martial systems in the world, but even with those efforts we know so little. Were forms really modified? What does simplification mean?

  More poignant to me because I came from the time nobody was doing any kata application studies and one of my seniors with training from Okinawa in 1972 refused to accept it was part of Isshinryus history.
  On the other hand Shimabuku Tatsuo taught a set of responses to basic attacks, which of course did use kata techniques, but there was no bunkai study. My original instructor was a Marine in 59-62, my other instructor in the USAF trained there as a sho-dan for a year in what was then an almost entirely Okinawan dojo (the Marines then had their own dojo on Camp Foster).

  In fact Kyan only taught kata and did not teach applications (there was no Okinawan term for bunkai).

  Likewise Kyans students who became instructors followed much the same pattern, just kata. That does not imply students didnt work on specific application techniques, but that the complete analysis of kata potential was not the art. (from several friends in different Kyan based systems of study from their own studies on Okinawa).

  So its not impossible that the Itosu lineage was not different. Bunkai was first used by Mabuni in his first book to explain to the Japanese what kata technique might be used for.  Shiroma Shimpan in Nakasones 1938 Karate-do Taikan showed how to use techniques (most frequently adding other movements or perhaps Demuras description of Kakushite  Hidden Hand. Likewise in 1933 Mutsu (originally a Funakoshi student) wrote Kempo Karate and shared a ton of technique applications (1/2 of the book) but didnt tie them to the kata. In 1930 he traveled to Okinawa to obtain more knowledge.

  So its not an impossible concept that Funakoshi did not share what he was never taught.

  As for taking an art he had studied one on one, and turning it to large group instruction, changes may have been made to fit the new model. Harry Cooks book Shotokan a Precise History contains suggestions about that.

  Funny thing even a few words from Funakoshi Ginchin cannot really explain what his part of the process of change really was. We only truly know it just happened.

  The past is done, the reasons not clearly explained just are.

  Funakoshis idea of having karate move into the schools really didnt happen exactly that way. In fact in modern Japan very few people really study the martial arts.

  There is a problem trying to cover too much ground and I apologize if Ive made any of this more complex.

  But to clarify, I practice Isshinryu (on days Im not practicing a wide range of other arts. I was a system extensively modified by its founder  (and in truth simplified) and long ago I struggled to understand how it could be used. On my way I started also training with Tristan Sutrisno and his fathers Shotokan and learned a little of his extensive bunkai entirely of the kakushite variety.

  His sharing among other studies led me to my own analysis of Isshinryus 8 kata, and then meeting and training with the late Sherman Hariill until his death. Only a few short hours but in that time he shared 800 technique applications for Isshinryus 8 kata, and on my own Ive worked out one or two more.

  Thats why I look at Shotokan kata (and not using the Sutrisno model) find hundreds of ways to drop someone with them, who cares what was taken out, theres more than enough there for anyone. But I dont spend my time with Shotokan studies for  the most part

  Sherman used to say Push comes to Shove Id just punch but he spent decades on the makiwara and him and his students dropping each other with hard precise strikes.  He only use one striking point, your body and worked so any strike drops one.. truly  His students still follow that path.

  I dont exactly do the same but one punch should be enough, but the question isnt one punch ,but were you strike with it, such as dropping to your knee and striking into their foot to break it, or striking into their hip joint, or striking from the side into their thigh to drop them or into their arm, etc.

  Well I dont want to ramble. 

  You might check out my blog for some of my current research too:


http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/

  Specific ally these articles:
  April
    Itosu Anko  A New Direction for Toudi
  May
    Itosus Reflections
       The Game is Afoot Watson
       Watson Look for the smallest details
       It is not BUNK   I say  Watson


----------



## K-man (Jul 21, 2010)

Returning to the OP. I think it can readily be documented than first Itosu then Funakoshi changed the kata to make karate more palatable to the authorities they were influencing to get karate training as part of the general education system. Whether much content was removed from kata I do not know.  What I have read though, is that most of the techniques were changed to a closed fist form rather than the previous open hand techniques. At a beginner level and with children this makes a lot of sense as the last thing parents would appreciate is their children arriving home from school with dislocated or busted fingers.  The second change is also quite obvious.  If, as I suspect, the traditional (pre 1900) karate was a deadly art, specialising in targeting vital points and looking to end physical confrontation with the first strike, then, once again it would be totally inappropriate to be teaching it to all and sundry, especially the kids.  
I can visualise the following post-school discussion ...
_"How was school today Takumi?" 
"Great thanks Mama". I got into a bit of trouble with Taro and Goro but they'll be ok. Taro's mum was a bit upset that I gouged his eye but he can still see out of the other!  Goro is still unconscious from my great sleeper hold but they say he should be awake soon."
"That's good news Takumi. I'm really pleased that you are enjoying your karate classes."_

As karate-ka now, we have a choice.  We can move along the Sport path and treat kata as something to perform as an art, or we can choose to do what the masters suggested and analyse the kata to extract the knowledge contained therein and utilise the self-defence aspects.  Either way, we have a responsibility to pass on the kata intact, as they were handed down to us.  Certainly change the parts that need to be changed to make the kata work for you, but make sure you give the next generation the chance to make their own choices and make their own discoveries. 
As a means to an end, simplifying kata, removing the open hand techniques and not teaching the potentially dangerous applications was a very progressive move. What Funakoshi achieved by introducing karate into the schools was huge.  It took a relatively obscure martial art from Okinawa into a world wide phenomenon. There was a thread earlier as to who is the 'father' of karate. There were many differing opinions but it is hard to play down the enormous contribution of Funakoshi.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2010)

K-man said:


> Returning to the OP. I think it can readily be documented than first Itosu then Funakoshi changed the kata to make karate more palatable to the authorities they were influencing to get karate training as part of the general education system. Whether much content was removed from kata I do not know. What I have read though, is that most of the techniques were changed to a closed fist form rather than the previous open hand techniques. At a beginner level and with children this makes a lot of sense as the last thing parents would appreciate is their children arriving home from school with dislocated or busted fingers. The second change is also quite obvious. *If, as I suspect, the traditional (pre 1900) karate was a deadly art, specialising in targeting vital points and looking to end physical confrontation with the first strike, then, once again it would be totally inappropriate to be teaching it to all and sundry, especially the kids. *
> I can visualise the following post-school discussion ...
> _"How was school today Takumi?" _
> _"Great thanks Mama". I got into a bit of trouble with Taro and Goro but they'll be ok. Taro's mum was a bit upset that I gouged his eye but he can still see out of the other! Goro is still unconscious from my great sleeper hold but they say he should be awake soon."_
> ...


 

Yes, yes yes and yes! 

Excellent posts K!


----------

