# Karate history



## ahmad abou taleb (Jun 15, 2017)

* Karate* (空手) (English /kəˈrɑːtiː/) is a martial art developed on the Ryukyu Islands in what is now Okinawa, Japan. It developed from the indigenous martial arts of Ryukyu Islands (called te (手)) under the influence of Chinese martial arts, particularly Fujian White Crane.  Karate is now predominantly a striking art using punching, kicking, knee strikes, elbow strikes and open hand techniques such as knife-hands, spear-hands, and palm-heel strikes. Historically and in some modern styles grappling, throws, joint locks, restraints, and vital point strikes are also taught. 
[5:46 AM, 6/15/2017] Me: A karate practitioner is called a karateka (空手家).  Karate developed in the Ryukyu Kingdom. It was brought to the Japanese mainland in the early 20th century during a time of cultural exchanges between the Japanese and the Chinese. It was systematically taught in Japan after the Taisho era.  In 1922 the Japanese Ministry of Education invited Gichin Funakoshi to Tokyo to give a karate demonstration.  In 1924 Keio University established the first university karate club in mainland Japan and by 1932, major Japanese universities had karate clubs. In this era of escalating Japanese militarism, the name was changed from 唐手 ("Chinese hand" or "Tang hand") to 空手 ("empty hand") – both of which are pronounced karate – to indicate that the Japanese wished to develop the combat form in Japanese style.  After World War II, Okinawa became an important United States military site and karate became popular among servicemen stationed there.   The martial arts movies of the 1960s and 1970s served to greatly increase the popularity of martial arts around the world, and in English, the word karate began to be used in a generic way to refer to all striking-based Oriental martial arts.  Karate schools began appearing across the world, catering to those with casual interest as well as those seeking a deeper study of the art.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 16, 2017)

Oh and I may sound sarcastic here, why are you posting pieces from somewhere else? I have been a karateka for decades, why would I need to read this now? Is there something I'm missing in your cutting and pasting these posts? Most people on here are very experienced martial artists, I don't understand why you are posting this and not commenting so we can discuss whatever it is you want to say.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 17, 2017)

I will wholeheartedly disagree with the thought that grappling was not incorporated in karate...it is an integral part...if you know what you are looking at and for.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 17, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> I will wholeheartedly disagree with the thought that grappling was not incorporated in karate...it is an integral part...if you know what you are looking at and for.



It certainly is in Wado Ryu. I don't know about other styles of karate because I've only done Wado.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 17, 2017)

It is in all of them.  Whether one recognizes it or not does not negate that ALL have equal weapons, percussion, and grappling.



Tez3 said:


> It certainly is in Wado Ryu. I don't know about other styles of karate because I've only done Wado.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 17, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> It is in all of them.  Whether one recognizes it or not does not negate that ALL have equal weapons, percussion, and grappling.



Do you mean weapons as in actual physical ones or weapons as in having an arsenal of techniques to use? Not sure what you mean by 'percussion' either.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 17, 2017)

I am talking about actual weapons.  Percussion...striking.



Tez3 said:


> Do you mean weapons as in actual physical ones or weapons as in having an arsenal of techniques to use? Not sure what you mean by 'percussion' either.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 17, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> I am talking about actual weapons.  Percussion...striking.



Ah, I see. The weapons thing is difficult. My style certainly doesn't have weapons nor do I believe did many as it was designed for civilian unarmed self defence.
Another 'version' of karate history History of Karate | British Karate Federation


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 17, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> I will wholeheartedly disagree with the thought that grappling was not incorporated in karate...it is an integral part...if you know what you are looking at and for.


I will disagree with your premise.
But first you will need to define grappling.
I do hope you understand that "karate" is a general term, you might want to reel that in a bit and be more specific before you make that statement.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 17, 2017)

Yes it does...you may not learn it or not know it...they all have weaponry, percussion, and grappling.




Tez3 said:


> Ah, I see. The weapons thing is difficult. My style certainly doesn't have weapons nor do I believe did many as it was designed for civilian unarmed self defence.
> Another 'version' of karate history History of Karate | British Karate Federation


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 17, 2017)

You can disagree, and simply ignore the truth.  What do you mean by "reel that in a bit".  I think the statement is pretty specific.

What is grappling?  Grappling is simply sustained contact.

Weaponry / percussion / grappling are an intrinsic equally proportionate part of martial studies.



hoshin1600 said:


> I will disagree with your premise.
> But first you will need to define grappling.
> I do hope you understand that "karate" is a general term, you might want to reel that in a bit and be more specific before you make that statement.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 17, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Grappling is simply sustained contact.



I'm not following that, are you saying that sparring/fighting using strikes is grappling because it can be sustained contact? I also don't understand why you keep saying 'percussion', the definition may be 'striking one object with another' but it's not something I've heard used in martial arts because it doesn't accurately describe what we do.



MI_martialist said:


> Weaponry / percussion / grappling are an intrinsic equally proportionate part of martial studies.



This has me puzzled, are we talking about 'martial studies' or 'karate' here because I know not all karate styles use weapons.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 17, 2017)

If you employ sustained contact...for example you grab someone, then percuss (strike), then you are using grappling and percussion.

Just because you have not heard it, doesn't mean it's not the appropriate term.  Why does it not describe what "we" do?

Are you saying that styles of karate are not martial studies.  I am saying that included in martial studies, is karate...and all martial studies include weaponry, percussion, and grappling.  Just because they are not "used' or "taught" or whatever defect or hole there is in the transmission, does not mean it's not there.

When you learn history in kindergarten, does the stuff you learn when you do PhD studies not true because you did not learn it in kindergarten?



Tez3 said:


> I'm not following that, are you saying that sparring/fighting using strikes is grappling because it can be sustained contact? I also don't understand why you keep saying 'percussion', the definition may be 'striking one object with another' but it's not something I've heard used in martial arts because it doesn't accurately describe what we do.
> 
> 
> 
> This has me puzzled, are we talking about 'martial studies' or 'karate' here because I know not all karate styles use weapons.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 17, 2017)

In fact, name a "karate" style that does not have weapons.




MI_martialist said:


> If you employ sustained contact...for example you grab someone, then percuss (strike), then you are using grappling and percussion.
> 
> Just because you have not heard it, doesn't mean it's not the appropriate term.  Why does it not describe what "we" do?
> 
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 17, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> then percuss (strike),



Incorrect. 'percuss' is a medical term not one used in martial arts.
_ 'To percuss' gently tap (a part of the body) with a finger or an instrument as part of a diagnosis: 
"the bladder was percussed"
_
I imagine if I haven't heard it being used in many decades of doing martial arts it isn't used very much in fact at all.



MI_martialist said:


> Are you saying that styles of karate are not martial studies. I am saying that included in martial studies, is karate...and all martial studies include weaponry, percussion, and grappling. Just because they are not "used' or "taught" or whatever defect or hole there is in the transmission, does not mean it's not there.
> 
> When you learn history in kindergarten, does the stuff you learn when you do PhD studies not true because you did not learn it in kindergarten?



You are getting tied up in knots here and are unintelligible, I can't answer because you seem to have ideas about karate that I don't think are actually true.



MI_martialist said:


> In fact, name a "karate" style that does not have weapons.



I already have, Wado Ryu and I think you'll find there are others.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 17, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> If you employ sustained contact...for example you grab someone, then percuss (strike), then you are using grappling and percussion.
> 
> Just because you have not heard it, doesn't mean it's not the appropriate term.  Why does it not describe what "we" do?
> 
> ...


Not quoting the line since on my phone, but you generalized it to all martial studies. I don't know about karate, but not all martial studies have all 3 aspects. Boxing only has striking, possibly grappling if you count the brief clinch, no weapons. Olympic fencing (different than HEMA) only does weaponry. Both are martial in nature and you study them.


----------



## ahmad abou taleb (Jun 17, 2017)

in karate, we won't use any kind of weapon! karate mean the empty hand! where we learn how to defend ourselves without using any kind of weapon! our hand's legs and ankles are our weapons!Also in Kyokushin karate we won't use any kind of grappling,on the other hand in shotokan we use grapling , and i don't have any idea about the other karate styles


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 17, 2017)

ahmad abou taleb said:


> in karate, we won't use any kind of weapon! karate mean the empty hand! where we learn how to defend ourselves without using any kind of weapon! our hand's legs and ankles are our weapons!Also in Kyokushin karate we won't use any kind of grappling,on the other hand in shotokan we use grapling , and i don't have any idea about the other karate styles


No, in YOUR karate, you don't use weapons.  In some styles of karate, weapons are indeed included, and (eventual) training with them is an essential part of the syllabus. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 17, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Yes it does...you may not learn it or not know it...they all have weaponry, percussion, and grappling.


"All" is a dangerous word. Do you actually know the background and content of all Karate styles?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 17, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Weaponry / percussion / grappling are an intrinsic equally proportionate part of martial studies.


Not really. Many styles do not have weapons in any significant measure. In another group, the weapons are significant in the training, but some are largely for training movement (not for actual weapons use).

The key issue I have is the "intrinsic equally proportionate" statement. There are plenty of areas where this is demonstrably inaccurate.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 17, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> What is grappling? Grappling is simply sustained contact.


ok that is a kindergarten level description. can you try again?


kempodisciple said:


> Boxing only has striking, possibly grappling if you count the brief clinch,



 ok.. adding to Kempodisciples comment...your definition then, boxing has grappling.
 would you then say that if i grab someones shoulder or behind the head while punching them repeatedly in the face that because i have seized them, that i am doing grappling?
if that is your definition then yes everything has grappling.  but that definition would be your own and not common nomenclature.




MI_martialist said:


> all martial studies include weaponry, percussion, and grappling. Just because they are not "used' or "taught" or whatever defect or hole there is in the transmission, does not mean it's not there.


 the error in your thesis is that you are making the presumption that martial arts are an actual "thing".  we do often talk like this but it is an error in ones critical thinking.  martial arts or karate in this case, is not an inanimate object that can contain something.  karate is a practice that allows the practitioner to acquire a set of skills. in actuality it is the skills that is the thing not the art.
your presumption that karate can contain something is in direct contradiction to the idea of evolution within the practice.  the Chinese had in ancient times Jiao Di.

_The earliest Chinese term for wrestling, "jǐao dǐ" (角抵, horn butting), refers to an ancient sport in which contestants wore horned headgear with which they attempted to butt their opponents.
Shuai jiao - Wikipedia_

it can be assumed that other arts that arrived after this also were influenced by Jiao Di and may have possibly been derived from it.  but over time as one style gave way to the next, if these techniques were not taught and practiced then it cannot be said that they also are Jiao Di. they have their own name and their own identity.
as an example... it is thought that the nunchucku was derived from a horses bridle.  i would challenge anyone to bridle a hose with a nunchuck.

also by your premise.. if i were to sit in a race car and drive it around town going grocery shopping that i am the equivalent of a race car driver. this is of course ridiculous. just by driving to the store does not give me the skills to be a race car driver.
the problem comes back to the fact that karate is a practice.  if you practice punching you are a puncher.  without actively engaging in grappling you are not learning grappling thus not acquiring the skills of a grappler.
now the basis of your idea (all though most likely taken from writings of  Ian Abernathy) is kata.  What do the movements mean?  Is there bunkai to suggest that the kata included grappling.  this brings me back to the definition of grappling. without defining the word we can not come to any agreement on the subject.

we would also have to take into consideration the diversity of karate and its genealogy of lineage.  where many styles of Okinawan karate have a lineage to Sokon Matsumura other styles are relatively new like Goju-ryu and some are uninfluenced by older Okinawan culture and practices like Uechi-Ryu. then there is Japanese karate which has its own spider web of genealogy.
the genealogy is important if you are going to dissect kata.  what Abernathy is trying to do is reverse engineer meaning into the kata.  while it can be a useful learning tool it is a mistake to make any conclusion on the history of kata and how the practitioners of the past understood the kata.  the reason being that kata changes over time.  any one kata has several versions to it and due to our current limited historical knowledge and documentation of the kata we cannot know how the kata was actually done in the past. just one generation of teacher to student has a significant impact on the performance of kata.

ok back to the thesis of grappling in kata.  it may be true that Matsumura had studied Tegumi (i dont know if he did but lets assume for the sake of the conversation)  and being a Pechin and official of the kingdom could be assumed he knew grappling.  but we do not know where his kata originated. some suggest the kata were of his own creation others say they were past to him intact from the Chinese that he encountered. if we take the idea of the kata being of his own creation then he may have included some grappling into his kata but we do know for a fact that for the past few generations grappling bunkai was not shown.  we can then assume that either it was not present or that the understanding was lost.   if it was lost ,we can then conclude that the kata would have changed over time to coincide with the understanding of the practitioner. thus present day kata would not include grappling.
on the other side of the problem if the forms were of Chinese origin then we are going further into the abyss of the unknown.  all i can say on this is that the Chinese to my knowledge called this art a form of boxing not Jiao Di.
many southern kung fu styles had a heavy influence of Qin na, seizing and controlling.  while it may not be prominent in todays Uechi ryu doing a genealogy comparative study you can identify the common actions and see the Qin na.  however seizing a wrist and/or  elbow is a different classification than grappling.  Shuai Jiao (jacket wrestling) is predominantly a throwing art like judo. these actions are not practiced in Uechi ryu.
as to weapons,  it is known that Kanbun Uechi did learn weapons in China as well as healing herbs.  but these weapons were not taught to the next generation. Thus Uechi ryu as a style of karate does not include weapons or herbal medicine.
 i would also make that same assumption about Goju ryu.  Kanryo Higaonna went to China and if he did learn weapons he did not teach it to Miyagi or anyone else. so no weapons there either.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 18, 2017)

The style of karate I do has 'grappling' in because the founder specifically put it there. The fact he had to put it in means it's fairly certain it wasn't intrinsically part of 'traditional' karate before.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 18, 2017)

I should stop trying to have these conversations.  Your thinking is so fragmented, convoluted, and tainted by styles that it is almost impossible to even see where you are coming from.

How many of your "styles" (karate, or whatever) has an inner forearm inside to outside movement type of "block"?






Again, some version of, some semblance of...using the inner forearm to "block".


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 18, 2017)

or could it be that the "founder" of your "style" understand that it was there and simply instructed it?




Tez3 said:


> The style of karate I do has 'grappling' in because the founder specifically put it there. The fact he had to put it in means it's fairly certain it wasn't intrinsically part of 'traditional' karate before.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> or could it be that the "founder" of your "style" understand that it was there and simply instructed it?



As you have founder in inverted commas I assume you don't think he existed. The same as you have style in inverted commas.
Rather than take the history from any one Wado site I've taken it from Wiki.
Hironori Ōtsuka - Wikipedia

_"On April 1, 1934, Ōtsuka opened his own karate school the Dai Nippon Karate Shinko Kai at 63 Banchi Suehiro-Cho, __Kanda__, Tokyo.__[1]__ He blended Shotokan karate with his knowledge of Shindō Yōshin-ryū jujutsu to form __Wadō-ryū__ karate"_


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> I should stop trying to have these conversations.  Your thinking is so fragmented, convoluted, and tainted by styles that it is almost impossible to even see where you are coming from.
> 
> How many of your "styles" (karate, or whatever) has an inner forearm inside to outside movement type of "block"?
> 
> ...



Who is this aimed at? I'd suggest that you have not so much understanding as you think you have.  Styles like Judo and boxing don't have those blocks, why would they? And if they were to have, what's that got to do with anything?


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 18, 2017)

I used the quotation marks because there are no "founders".  There are people who studied martial activities, movements, and took their preferences and opened schools that were stylized because there were preferences.



Tez3 said:


> As you have founder in inverted commas I assume you don't think he existed. The same as you have style in inverted commas.
> Rather than take the history from any one Wado site I've taken it from Wiki.
> Hironori Ōtsuka - Wikipedia
> 
> _"On April 1, 1934, Ōtsuka opened his own karate school the Dai Nippon Karate Shinko Kai at 63 Banchi Suehiro-Cho, __Kanda__, Tokyo.__[1]__ He blended Shotokan karate with his knowledge of Shindō Yōshin-ryū jujutsu to form __Wadō-ryū__ karate"_


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 18, 2017)

Again...all this does is show a lack of basic understanding.  I can communicate all I want but if you are unable to think basic enough...what I showed is not a block...it is a position that the body finds itself in...is there a "style" that never sees anyone ever in that position?

Call it what you want, I really do not care.  Look at the "blocking" arm...does that exist in every "style"?  Does that position, not the movement to get you there, etc., but simply the position...does it exist?



Tez3 said:


> Who is this aimed at? I'd suggest that you have not so much understanding as you think you have.  Styles like Judo and boxing don't have those blocks, why would they? And if they were to have, what's that got to do with anything?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> I used the quotation marks because there are no "founders".  There are people who studied martial activities, movements, and took their preferences and* opened schools* that were stylized because there were preferences.



That makes them founders of the schools. My martial arts school is Wado Ryu hence we have a founder. My instructor was a student of one of the founder's students.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Again...all this does is show a lack of basic understanding.  I can communicate all I want but if you are unable to think basic enough...what I showed is not a block...it is a position that the body finds itself in...is there a "style" that never sees anyone ever in that position?
> 
> Call it what you want, I really do not care.  Look at the "blocking" arm...does that exist in every "style"?  Does that position, not the movement to get you there, etc., but simply the position...does it exist?



You're right of course, it does show a basic lack of understanding...on your part. What you are saying has nothing to do with the OP. In martial arts one shouldn't find your body in a position, one puts the body in the position it needs to be in, there's no randomness which is actually symptomatic of your theories.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 18, 2017)

The person who opened the school, yes...but you first made reference to a  founder of a style.

Let us be consistent.



Tez3 said:


> That makes them founders of the schools. My martial arts school is Wado Ryu hence we have a founder. My instructor was a student of one of the founder's students.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 18, 2017)

As you wish...continue on in your stylistic darkness...if course you find yourself in a position...I did not say it is random...so, back to my question...is it possible that in each "style" the "martial artist" can be in this position?  You don't seem to want to answer.




Tez3 said:


> You're right of course, it does show a basic lack of understanding...on your part. What you are saying has nothing to do with the OP. In martial arts one shouldn't find your body in a position, one puts the body in the position it needs to be in, there's no randomness which is actually symptomatic of your theories.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> The person who opened the school, yes...but you first made reference to a  founder of a style.
> 
> Let us be consistent.



I was humouring you.



MI_martialist said:


> As you wish...continue on in your stylistic darkness...if course you find yourself in a position...I did not say it is random...so, back to my question...is it possible that in each "style" the "martial artist" can be in this position?  You don't seem to want to answer.



'Stylistic darkness, mmmm are you the martial arts whisperer then, the only one with the 'truth' sent here to teach us the errors of our ways? Look, climb down off your perch and actually engage in conversation rather than lecturing people who frankly don't give a damn. I love my style, I admire and respect the founder of my style immensely. There's people such as Hoshin who know far more than I do ( though I could have an interesting discussion with him about Iain Abernethy lol) , listen to what he says, I do. That way we both learn.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> I should stop trying to have these conversations.  Your thinking is so fragmented, convoluted, and tainted by styles that it is almost impossible to even see where you are coming from.
> 
> How many of your "styles" (karate, or whatever) has an inner forearm inside to outside movement type of "block"?
> 
> ...


You really shouldn't, you're right. But not for the reason you give. You make over-arching statements, which purport to speak of all styles. There are martial arts that lack each of those three. Unless you're going to call incidental grabbing (like holding a sleeve while you punch) "grappling", there are many that do not grapple. If you are going to say that's grappling, then you're ignoring common usage, holding to your own definition so you can be "right" instead of trying to actually communicate. 

Mine has a block like that. I put it there. And if you're arguing that's necessarily a grappling move, you're wrong. We are predominantly a grappling art and wouldn't use that block to get to anything grappling that we do. I added that block as an auxiliary tool for odd situations.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 18, 2017)

OK.  When you want to have the glasses taken off and your eyesight upgraded, let us know.

Think more basic and more core and not about your style...the style is the human mechanism and how it is  used to defeat the human mechanism.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> OK.  When you want to have the glasses taken off and your eyesight upgraded, let us know.
> 
> Think more basic and more core and not about your style...the style is the human mechanism and how it is  used to defeat the human mechanism.


You were the one who made the claim about styles. If you don't like it, correct your original point.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Think more basic and more core and not about your style...the style is the human mechanism and how it is used to defeat the human mechanism.



This is nonsense. Write properly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> It is in all of them.  Whether one recognizes it or not does not negate that ALL have equal weapons, percussion, and grappling.


Here, in case you've forgotten who said "all of them" (in this case, based on the preceding posts, apparently "them" is "styles of Karate").


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 18, 2017)

Listen, I am sure your systems, methods, schools are all fine...and do a good job of instructing and teaching the curriculum that has been established.

If you are happy with that, good for you, continue on...if you have ever wondered "where does it all come from" and what was before, then you should want to open your eyes and look at what is really there.  Why be satisfied with the order of the curriculum, with the content of the curriculum?  Have you ever wondered why your curriculum does a certain thing and not another?

Answering those questions, and removing the preference of style is the core...the use of the mechanism to defeat another human mechanism.  When you look at the core, the equal emphasis of weapons / percussion / grappling is revealed in the movement.

Would it not be great to let go of teaching and get into the realm of programming action based on core bio-mechanical functions and movements?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Listen, I am sure your systems, methods, schools are all fine...and do a good job of instructing and teaching the curriculum that has been established.
> 
> If you are happy with that, good for you, continue on...if you have ever wondered "where does it all come from" and what was before, then you should want to open your eyes and look at what is really there.  Why be satisfied with the order of the curriculum, with the content of the curriculum?  Have you ever wondered why your curriculum does a certain thing and not another?
> 
> ...


What, in all that is sacred, has this rambling to do with your original statement that all [styles of karate] contain equal proportions of striking, grappling, and weapons???


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 18, 2017)

Everything, but you cannot see it.



gpseymour said:


> What, in all that is sacred, has this rambling to do with your original statement that all [styles of karate] contain equal proportions of striking, grappling, and weapons???


----------



## Sojobo (Jun 18, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> then there is Japanese karate which has its own spider web of genealogy.
> 
> the genealogy is important if you are going to dissect kata.  what Abernathy is trying to do is reverse engineer meaning into the kata.  while it can be a useful learning tool it is a mistake to make any conclusion on the history of kata and how the practitioners of the past understood the kata.  the reason being that kata changes over time.  any one kata has several versions to it and due to our current limited historical knowledge and documentation of the kata we cannot know how the kata was actually done in the past. just one generation of teacher to student has a significant impact on the performance of kata.



The transmission and study of karate kata through different schools and lineages has always been a tricky subject to get your head round.

The parable of the blind men and the elephant - springs to mind!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Everything, but you cannot see it.


You're now rambling that it's not about the style, when you started out saying something about styles. You can't now say it's our fault that we're looking at styles, when you started out there.

Now, if you want to discuss what a well-rounded approach is, that's entirely different, but that's not where you started in this discussion. When you are inconsistent, it's not your audience's fault that they can't understand what you're rambling about.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> I should stop trying to have these conversations.  Your thinking is so fragmented, convoluted, and tainted by styles that it is almost impossible to even see where you are coming from.
> 
> How many of your "styles" (karate, or whatever) has an inner forearm inside to outside movement type of "block"?
> 
> ...






MI_martialist said:


> Look at the "blocking" arm...does that exist in every "style"? Does that position, not the movement to get you there, etc., but simply the position...does it exist?



you are more than welcome to put forth a logical argument.  asking round about questions with no follow up does not help your position nor does it convince anyone or sway them to take your opinion seriously.  if your stick man has a point to it then please explain further.



MI_martialist said:


> what I showed is not a block...it is a position that the body finds itself in...is there a "style" that never sees anyone ever in that position?


i will have to assume that your point is that all styles use this arm position, this position is for grappling, thus all styles do grappling.

in the stick man figure on the right he is holding his left hand and arm in a particularly well known position. this position is common not because of any application but rather due to the structure of the human body.  (i will try not to go to deep into physics, biology and bio mechanics) the arm is held at an approximate  90 degree angle because the arm is a 3rd class lever and this position has the most mechanical advantage for both isometric and concentric actions.  in other words if you look at the arch of the distal segment of the arm, the center of the arch is where the muscles are at their strongest. also due to the way the muscles contract this is also the strongest point for isometric contraction.  in application terms this is the sweet spot for any action the arm needs to make. 

in Choki Motobu's 1926 book okinawan Kempo there are 32 pictures all explaining different applications of karate moves.  19 of which use this arm position. not one application, not one picture shows anything that could remotely be described as or mistaken as grappling. there are however 10 pictures that show him grabbing the attacker wrist as he strikes with the other hand.  and to your comment...all 19 pictures showing him using this action, he is using it as a block as a response to a punch,  but i digress....

the simple fact is that solo kata would not be the most efficient way to pass along or teach grappling. the most effective way to teach grappling skills is thru partner drills or paired kata.  if karate was designed to impart grappling skills then the curriculum would include paired drills specific to grappling, and these are absent.  i would not go so far as to say that past masters did not know Jiao Di or tegumi they most likely were familiar with it but that does not mean that there are hidden techniques in the kata that are grappling.


----------



## Sojobo (Jun 18, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> the simple fact is that solo kata would not be the most efficient way to pass along or teach grappling. the most effective way to teach grappling skills is thru partner drills or paired kata.  if karate was designed to impart grappling skills then the curriculum would include paired drills specific to grappling, and these are absent.  i would not go so far as to say that past masters did not know Jiao Di or tegumi they most likely were familiar with it but that does not mean that there are hidden techniques in the kata that are grappling.



Hand me back my drum please sir!


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 18, 2017)

A different discussion...solo kata should never be done without a complete and thorough of the actual applications of the movements and components.  This way, the transmission has been done, and is reinforced by kata, not transmitted by kata.



Sojobo said:


> Hand me back my drum please sir!


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> A different discussion...solo kata should never be done without a complete and thorough understanding of the actual applications of the movements and components.  This way, the transmission has been done, and is reinforced by kata, not transmitted by kata.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 18, 2017)

Sojobo said:


> Hand me back my drum please sir!


Sorry I don't understand your post.  I'm sure it's not ment to be obscure but I missed the point.


----------



## Sojobo (Jun 18, 2017)

Define complete and thorough!

Not possible!

Principles of movement, stratagems and mindsets....


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> A different discussion...solo kata should never be done without a complete and thorough of the actual applications of the movements and components.  This way, the transmission has been done, and is reinforced by kata, not transmitted by kata.


Have you been around karate much?  There is a huge gap in knowledge about the kata bunkai.  Most people have no idea what anything means other than performing basic kihon in different combinations on different directions and vectors.


----------



## Sojobo (Jun 18, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Sorry I don't understand your post.  I'm sure it's not ment to be obscure but I missed the point.


I've banged that drum!

I'm a Wado karate-ka and have always struggled with the bunkai/grappling link.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 18, 2017)

Sojobo said:


> I've banged that drum!
> 
> I'm a Wado karate-ka and have always struggled with the bunkai/grappling link.


Better a drum than a forehead which is about where this thread is going.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 18, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> ...solo kata should never be done without a complete and thorough of the actual applications of the movements and components.



without a complete and thorough what exactly? Shower, neat whisky downed in one?



MI_martialist said:


> This way, the transmission has been done, and is reinforced by kata, not transmitted by kata.



Transmission of what?


----------



## Buka (Jun 18, 2017)

Once again.....I am thread confused.


----------



## Sojobo (Jun 18, 2017)

Buka said:


> Once again.....I am thread confused.


 I'm in my 50's - everything's confusing'


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 18, 2017)

Buka said:


> Once again.....I am thread confused.


ugg,, i do wish you would listen ...it's perfectly simple. if your not getting your hair cut, then you don't have to move your brothers coat to the lower peg. you simply collect his note, before lunch, after you"ve done your scripture prep,when you've written your letter home, before rest, move your own clothes to the lower peg, greet the visitors and report to Mr. bindey that you've had your check signed..........................


----------



## Buka (Jun 18, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> ugg,, i do wish you would listen ...it's perfectly simple. if your not getting your hair cut, then you don't have to move your brothers coat to the lower peg. you simply collect his note, before lunch, after you"ve done your scripture prep,when you've written your letter home, before rest, move your own clothes to the lower peg, greet the visitors and report to Mr. bindey that you've had your check signed..........................



Finally, somebody that understands me.

Mahalo, my brother.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 19, 2017)

Most of this simply because I posted that karate includes, and in fact is comprised of, weaponry / percussion / grappling.  Amazing what happens when one if afraid to take the blinders of style and "what we do and do not do" off.  Take them off, see martial movement for what it is...it is common to all "styles", systems, methods, schools...there are definitely some peculiarities to each, but if you look at the similarities, look at the core...the core moving the core...there are core fundamentals that do not belong to "style", they belong to the human mechanism.  If you see these movements, poses, postures, bases, etc., clearly and with a core, basic mind, you see the equal use of weaponry / percussion / grappling.

Sorry you don't want to see it...it is life optimizing!!!


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 19, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Most of this simply because I posted that karate includes, and in fact is comprised of, weaponry / percussion / grappling.  Amazing what happens when one if afraid to take the blinders of style and "what we do and do not do" off.  Take them off, see martial movement for what it is...it is common to all "styles", systems, methods, schools...there are definitely some peculiarities to each, but if you look at the similarities, look at the core...the core moving the core...there are core fundamentals that do not belong to "style", they belong to the human mechanism.  If you see these movements, poses, postures, bases, etc., clearly and with a core, basic mind, you see the equal use of weaponry / percussion / grappling.
> 
> Sorry you don't want to see it...it is life optimizing!!!


Again, you stated all styles, not just karate, teach all 3 in an equal amount. Even ignoring the equal amount, boxing does not teach weapons, and (Olympic) fencing does not teach striking or grappling. Those two examples were off the top of my head earlier, and you conveniently ignored both of them. I'm sure there are a ton of other arts that also ignore one or more of the areas.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 19, 2017)

For a long time, electrical engineering was not taught...does that mean that electricity did not exist?  Your argument is flawed.




kempodisciple said:


> Again, you stated all styles, not just karate, teach all 3 in an equal amount. Even ignoring the equal amount, boxing does not teach weapons, and (Olympic) fencing does not teach striking or grappling. Those two examples were off the top of my head earlier, and you conveniently ignored both of them. I'm sure there are a ton of other arts that also ignore one or more of the areas.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 19, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Most of this simply because I posted that karate includes, and in fact is comprised of, weaponry / percussion / grappling.  Amazing what happens when one if afraid to take the blinders of style and "what we do and do not do" off.  Take them off, see martial movement for what it is...it is common to all "styles", systems, methods, schools...there are definitely some peculiarities to each, but if you look at the similarities, look at the core...the core moving the core...there are core fundamentals that do not belong to "style", they belong to the human mechanism.  If you see these movements, poses, postures, bases, etc., clearly and with a core, basic mind, you see the equal use of weaponry / percussion / grappling.
> 
> Sorry you don't want to see it...it is life optimizing!!!



Ok, so basically you think we are all idiots and you are the only one with the 'truth', Good, glad that's settled. I'm off to the Judo class for my Jo fighting lesson then I'm off to the boxing class for my grappling one. Where shall I go next? Any ideas people?


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 19, 2017)

I never said you were all idiots.  I said that you unfortunately walk around with martial blinders on.  I will go back to my statement that you are not thinking basic enough.

BTW...I don't have the truth...the truth exists in pure martial science training.  I have access to pure martial science training and have been exposed to the truth, have trained and continue to train in a purely core fashion.  It is available to everyone who is willing to put their ego and bias aside.



Tez3 said:


> Ok, so basically you think we are all idiots and you are the only one with the 'truth', Good, glad that's settled. I'm off to the Judo class for my Jo fighting lesson then I'm off to the boxing class for my grappling one. Where shall I go next? Any ideas people?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 19, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> I said that you unfortunately walk around with martial blinders on



How many years have you been training, how many people have you trained under, how many styles have you trained with to investigate their styles? Are you willing to bet that you know more than all of the posters on here who have trained their styles for decades AND have studied martial arts history, writings and spoken with and learnt from the many reputable martial artists out there?

You have ideas in your head that haven't coalesced into rational statements. You say we have martial blinders on (as opposed to Peaky Blinders a rather good British television series) yet you have nothing to say that would lift these supposed blinkered views. if all you can say is 'we need to be more basic'. Nope you need to be more specific and made rational statements that can be discussed, these 'mystical' sayings are getting you nowhere.



MI_martialist said:


> the truth exists in pure martial science training. I have access to pure martial science training and have been exposed to the truth, have trained and continue to train in a purely core fashion. It is available to everyone who is willing to put their ego and bias aside.



This is a sales line that someone has pitched at you and you've swallowed hook, line and sinker. How much is the monetary cost us to have 'this truth' unveiled to us?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 19, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> For a long time, electrical engineering was not taught...does that mean that electricity did not exist?  Your argument is flawed.


It existed, but it was not part of scienrific study, just like in boxing weapons are not part of their study. Just because it exists doesn't mean a specific group studies it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 19, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> For a long time, electrical engineering was not taught...does that mean that electricity did not exist?  Your argument is flawed.


Also,
Your statement: All martial arts study 3 areas equally.
My statement: no, here are 2 that don't study them equally.
Your statement: Your argument is flawed, something can exist without being studied.

If anything, that line would support my statement, as I'm not doubting all 3 exist, just that all styles will study them.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 19, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Most of this simply because I posted that karate includes, and in fact is comprised of, weaponry / percussion / grappling.  Amazing what happens when one if afraid to take the blinders of style and "what we do and do not do" off.  Take them off, see martial movement for what it is...it is common to all "styles", systems, methods, schools...there are definitely some peculiarities to each, but if you look at the similarities, look at the core...the core moving the core...there are core fundamentals that do not belong to "style", they belong to the human mechanism.  If you see these movements, poses, postures, bases, etc., clearly and with a core, basic mind, you see the equal use of weaponry / percussion / grappling.
> 
> Sorry you don't want to see it...it is life optimizing!!!



the problem my friend is that your posts come off as a bit patronizing rather than enlightening.  im sure you dont mean it that way.  the issue i have with posts like this is that it uses rhetoric..


MI_martialist said:


> Amazing what happens when one if afraid to take the blinders of style





MI_martialist said:


> Take them off, see martial movement for what it is.


you may be 100% correct in your view but rather than tell us we are blind it would be better for you to explain.  that of course would require you to use some critical thinking and have a good depth of knowledge of your view point.  that is something most people dont have because we all have a tendency to just mimic and repeat what was told to us.  if someone holds a view point and they want others to understand it then you have to be able to articulate it in a way others can understand.  i am very open to your thoughts, i have no blinders on as you say, i just need you to be able to express your ideas fully without just repeating words that have been told to you.


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 19, 2017)

Folks, I'm simply going to ask that you keep it civil.  

Remember, you do have some leeway when it comes to attacking the message, but attacking the messenger is forbidden.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 19, 2017)

Of course there is a huge gap in understanding...is that not what I have been saying?



hoshin1600 said:


> Have you been around karate much?  There is a huge gap in knowledge about the kata bunkai.  Most people have no idea what anything means other than performing basic kihon in different combinations on different directions and vectors.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 19, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Of course there is a huge gap in understanding...is that not what I have been saying?



You add on though that you have the answers and we don't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 19, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> Most of this simply because I posted that karate includes, and in fact is comprised of, weaponry / percussion / grappling.  Amazing what happens when one if afraid to take the blinders of style and "what we do and do not do" off.  Take them off, see martial movement for what it is...it is common to all "styles", systems, methods, schools...there are definitely some peculiarities to each, but if you look at the similarities, look at the core...the core moving the core...there are core fundamentals that do not belong to "style", they belong to the human mechanism.  If you see these movements, poses, postures, bases, etc., clearly and with a core, basic mind, you see the equal use of weaponry / percussion / grappling.
> 
> Sorry you don't want to see it...it is life optimizing!!!


I remind you that you were the one who originally applied that statement to styles. I don't think many people would argue that the movements can't cross-over, and that martial studies can/do involve all three. But there are plenty of styles that do not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 19, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> For a long time, electrical engineering was not taught...does that mean that electricity did not exist?  Your argument is flawed.


No, but it does mean that Engineering didn't include Electrical Engineering.


----------



## MI_martialist (Jun 20, 2017)

To follow this to logical conclusion...Ok,they did not know so it could not be studied.  On the other hand, most of the martial artists know but choose to ignore the study and remain bonded in their training.



gpseymour said:


> No, but it does mean that Engineering didn't include Electrical Engineering.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 20, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> To follow this to logical conclusion...Ok,they did not know so it could not be studied.  On the other hand, most of the martial artists know but choose to ignore the study and remain bonded in their training.



and this would the study of what exactly or is this one of those big martial arts secrets we have to pay someone to 'teach' us?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 20, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> To follow this to logical conclusion...Ok,they did not know so it could not be studied.  On the other hand, most of the martial artists know but choose to ignore the study and remain bonded in their training.


You're still missing the point. Nobody is saying those things can't be studied. But you made the claim that every style of Karate includes all three in equal measure. That is patently untrue.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 4, 2017)

MI_martialist said:


> It is in all of them.  Whether one recognizes it or not does not negate that ALL have equal weapons, percussion, and grappling.



True. Very true.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 4, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You're still missing the point. Nobody is saying those things can't be studied. But you made the claim that every style of Karate includes all three in equal measure. That is patently untrue.



Classical karate was influenced by tegume wrestling. Modern karate became a sport and most schools ignore the full range of karate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Classical karate was influenced by tegume wrestling. Modern karate became a sport and most schools ignore the full range of karate.


Okay.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 5, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Classical karate was influenced by tegume wrestling. Modern karate became a sport and most schools ignore the full range of karate.


Oh well....here we go again...


----------

