# TRADITION AND KARATE



## Limasogobudo (Jul 14, 2015)

What makes karate traditional?? And How?? How do you make it better?? Is it then still traditional?? What in your idea is the most traditional style of karate??


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 14, 2015)

The dictionary defines traditional as something that has been passed down thru generations, something long established. If I use this as a guide line, I would say only the okinawan styles and maybe shotokan would be traditional. But in martial arts what is a generation? Passing the style teacher to student may only be 10 years.  
How to make it better?
Again by definition if you change it you would not be holding up the tradition.
For me the bigger question is, is change publicly accepted in martial arts that are considered traditional?
Since I am in this very predicament the answer I received is no. While an art may mold itself to an individual, over time these arts have refined themselves and set down standards and a type of cast system.  Only the top of the pyramid has the authority to make changes. It has been the common practice that if you want to change somthing in a fundamental way you are free to do so but you are not allowed to use the "traditional " namesake.


----------



## Limasogobudo (Jul 14, 2015)

Thank you Hoshin 1600 that was vary good to read. My problem I have is their are so many Shotokan groups and Goju groups that are split off and i know it is because of money but I think karate has fallen off from where it should be. It has been dumbed down and made for a light sport rather then combat. I try to keep the tradition alive. I think the most of the tradition is structure and earning your rank.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 14, 2015)

While it is possible many are motivated by money, I think the primary reason for splinter groups is more about politics.  One reason for a spit is that the curriculum set down by the established style does not fit everyone's value system. Other times it may be personality conflict but in that instance the curriculum usually does not change much.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 15, 2015)

There is nothing traditional about karate except the kata and the use of certain training implements.

Beyond that the arts as they exist now are modern creations, most Okinawan ryu are younger than the 3 major Japanese ryu having been created in the 1940's or 50's and each generation (master to student) spawned new Off-shoot ryu.

The karate passed down by itosu that spawned half of what we think of as Okinawan karate was derided as no good by some masters of the day and even some of his teachers suggest that he wasn't very good, implying a whole world of karate knowledge that was not passed on.

Goju and Uechi karate are off-shoots of the modern Fujian kungfu schools with obvious questions over how much their founders could really have learned through visits; so they are also devoid of long tradition.

In fact the Okinawan teaching paradigm of shu ha ri, dictates that individualisation away from your teacher's path is a requirement of mastery. And while the Japanese culture/requirement makes tradition of everything done by a master, even they spawn countless off-shoots and associations as individuals go their own way. 

As such I suggest that the real traditional aspect of karate is it's lack of tradition (and the kata).


----------



## Jacky Zuki (Jul 15, 2015)

Would it be fair to say that the kata *are* the tradition? As long as the kata are at the heart of the style then to pass on the kata as you learned them is to pass on the tradition. Individualisation is personal and depends on factors such as ability, body shape and personal interest but the kata remain the core of the style. If you drop kata altogether or make your own completely new kata then you are no longer carrying on the tradition. Having a slightly different emphasis on training but keeping the kata is still traditional to me.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 15, 2015)

In my observation over the years of various self-proclaimed advocates of martial arts traditions, "traditional" typically means "the way I remember learning it when I started training that I imagine goes back centuries, even though a bit of history study would prove me wrong."  This especially applies to window-dressing such as the style of uniform worn or training hall etiquette.

I'll mostly exempt the koryu folks from that observation, but in terms of numbers they make up only a tiny percentage of self-proclaimed "traditional" martial artists anyway.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 15, 2015)

DaveB said:


> There is nothing traditional about karate except the kata and the use of certain training implements.
> 
> Beyond that the arts as they exist now are modern creations, most Okinawan ryu are younger than the 3 major Japanese ryu having been created in the 1940's or 50's and each generation (master to student) spawned new Off-shoot ryu.
> 
> ...



Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But your facts are a little confused.   I'll leave it at that.

Or maybe I should say misleading and misunderstood.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 15, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But your facts are a little confused.   I'll leave it at that.
> 
> Or maybe I should say misleading and misunderstood.



That’s irritating. 

Not that you disagree with my reading of things, that's to be expected, but that you'll do so without putting up your own explanation. Casting doubt from the shadows from whence your own knowledge/beliefs can't be questioned. 

Most unsporting. 

For the record, my post was a general one, encompassing as it did over a hundred years of an art practiced by hundreds of thousands of people. I'm sure there are inaccuracies, but I stand by the general thrust.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 15, 2015)

I'm not hiding in the shadows. However I am on my phone app at work and didn't want to get into the line by line disection (Ala the Chris parker breakdown) my point was that your post paints a picture that may not be fully accurate. Not necessarily wrong but can be misleading to people.


----------



## TimoS (Jul 15, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But your facts are a little confused.   I'll leave it at that.


No, they're mostly correct. The first named karate styles came in late 1920's and many of the off-shoots have been formed quite a lot later, e.g. Shorin ryu Seibukan was officially formed in 1962


----------



## Buka (Jul 15, 2015)

There's all kinds of Martial Arts. There's all kinds of different ways, means and methods in any particular Martial Art of the same name.

In every case, the people teaching are teaching what they believe in - and are doing so in the best way they know how.

Caveat emptor in one hand, faith in the other. Fer Christ's sakes, just train.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 16, 2015)

Buka said:


> There's all kinds of Martial Arts. There's all kinds of different ways, means and methods in any particular Martial Art of the same name.
> 
> In every case, the people teaching are teaching what they believe in - and are doing so in the best way they know how.
> 
> Caveat emptor in one hand, faith in the other. Fer Christ's sakes, just train.




The trouble with the "just train" mentality is all the BS you end up training and believing as a result of the lack of questioning.

Faith is a powerful thing and should be reserved for those truly deserving and never offered blindly. The instructor of the karate club down the road may look cool doing kata but taking his teachings on faith is just foolhardy.

So in response I counter: Don't just train, discuss!!!


----------



## DaveB (Jul 16, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> I'm not hiding in the shadows. However I am on my phone app at work and didn't want to get into the line by line disection (Ala the Chris parker breakdown) my point was that your post paints a picture that may not be fully accurate. Not necessarily wrong but can be misleading to people.



And mine was that it's not fair to cast doubt, without qualifying your statements with at least a cogent counter argument whose merits can be assessed. 
Like this quote above is doing. 
Again.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 16, 2015)

DaveB said:


> There is nothing traditional about karate except the kata and the use of certain training implements.


please...can you give your definition of "traditional" if it is different than the one i already proposed.  using my definition it only means passed on from generations to generations...i then asked the question what would a generation be in martial arts?



DaveB said:


> the arts as they exist now are modern creations,


well yes..but not only as they exist now....
there are four major styles of Okinawan karate  all of which were from around the turn of the century. if 1900 is modern then all karate styles are modern.  modern compared to what?  there were fighting arts on Okinawa before this but generally that would be considered tode / tui-te or just ti.  non of which exists as a system today or was ever known as a complete "system"



DaveB said:


> most Okinawan ryu are younger than the 3 major Japanese ryu having been created in the 1940's or 50's


  not sure what you consider the 3 major japanese ryu.  
Shotokan-started in 1922 but official school opened in 1936
Wado-ryu was registered as an art in 1938
Shito-ryu  Mabuni Sensei moved to Japan to teach karate in 1938
Kyokushin  founded in 1964
Goju kai  formally started in 1935

Okinawan styles are a little harder to date its easier to date the founders themselves 
Higaonna of Goju returned to Okinawa in 1882 and taught his art
Miyagi took over teaching after Higaonna death in 1916

Kanbun Uechi began teaching in 1904 in China and moved to main land Japan and formally named his style in 1925 (he did not name his style after himself his son and students did that in 1948)

Matsumora Sokon, hard to date this but its thought he was born 1809 and died 1901.  i would have to take a guess on the teaching years.

Norisato Nakaima of Ryuei-ryu introduced to Okinawa about 1875



DaveB said:


> The karate passed down by itosu that spawned half of what we think of as Okinawan karate was derided as no good by some masters of the day and even some of his teachers suggest that he wasn't very good, implying a whole world of karate knowledge that was not passed on.


  so to restate ....Itosu was a lousy martial artist? and therefore doesnt qualify in your opinion to have passed on any traditions?


DaveB said:


> Goju and Uechi karate are off-shoots of the modern Fujian kungfu schools with obvious questions over how much their founders could really have learned through visits; so they are also devoid of long tradition.


 so to restate ...Higaonna and Uechi didnt learn much...the fact that they both got teaching certificates doesnt mean anything?  the fact that Kanbun Uechi studied under his teacher for 10 years and was teaching in China  ...meaningless?   would i be right in assuming your position is that Fujian Kung-fu is the real art and that anything from Okinawa is inferior and incomplete.  news flash all karate can follow its roots back to China.  but this does not negate the OP's question as pertaining to traditional karate. nor does it disqualify karate from being called as such.  the common view is that some karate is traditional and some in more current. karate doesnt have to have an unbroken linage back to the 1600 shaolin temple to be called traditional.
 Christmas ..is that traditional?  Christmas was not even celebrated in America until after the civil war in 1865 and its a hodge podge of different stuff all thrown together.  so how long does something need to exist to be considered traditional???????
i seem to remember a thread here on the forums that all Chinese kung -fu systems are really not that old either. maybe someone can remember that thread and chime in.



DaveB said:


> In fact the Okinawan teaching paradigm of shu ha ri, dictates that individualisation away from your teacher's path is a requirement of mastery


  Shu - Ha - Ri is not Okinawan.
From Wiki
"The _Shuhari_ concept was first presented by Fuhaku Kawakami as Jo-ha-kyū in Tao of Tea. Then, Zeami Motokiyo, the master of Noh, extended this concept to his dance as _Shuhari_, which then became a part of the philosophy of Aikido._Shuhari_ is part of the philosophy of Shorinji Kempo."


----------



## TimoS (Jul 16, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> the fact that they both got teaching certificates doesnt mean anything?


In and of itself, a teaching license doesn't really prove anything. It all depends on who issued the license and how strict are his qualifications. Even today, it's not that difficult to get a teaching license from Okinawan masters, although not from all.


> news flash all karate can follow its roots back to China.


Kind of, yes. It isn't quite that clear in most cases, e.g. Shorin(ji) schools' (potential) Chinese origins are a mystery


> Shu - Ha - Ri is not Okinawan.
> From Wiki
> "The _Shuhari_ concept was first presented by Fuhaku Kawakami as Jo-ha-kyū in Tao of Tea. Then, Zeami Motokiyo, the master of Noh, extended this concept to his dance as _Shuhari_, which then became a part of the philosophy of Aikido._Shuhari_ is part of the philosophy of Shorinji Kempo."


True, but it is followed there nonetheless, eventhough they might use different words for it. I think I still have a paper given to us by Joen Nakazato sensei, where he explains that there are three levels of kata. I can't remember the terms he used, but they correspond with Shu-Ha-Ri


----------



## RowdyAz (Jul 16, 2015)

I actually view traditional as how you personally perceive it. The deeper you go into it the more questions you want answered, the more answers you get, again more questions you want answered. Where do you draw the line and take it for what it means to you and you only. I enjoy karate but the headaches I can do with out.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 16, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> please...can you give your definition of "traditional" if it is different than the one i already proposed.  using my definition it only means passed on from generations to generations...i then asked the question what would a generation be in martial arts?



I think that your definition is fine but for me I would add a level of historic precedent, I.e, give it a few generations before you call it a tradition. Without the time requirement it's just a fad.

I think a tradition has to be something that survives periods of change and upheaval before it earns the weight of that word. 



> well yes..but not only as they exist now....
> there are four major styles of Okinawan karate  all of which were from around the turn of the century. if 1900 is modern then all karate styles are modern.  modern compared to what?  there were fighting arts on Okinawa before this but generally that would be considered tode / tui-te or just ti.  non of which exists as a system today or was ever known as a complete "system"



Exactly. I'll point out now that you seem to think there are some negative ideas about karate expressed in my post. You are mistaken.  I was simply highlighting the points of impermanence in karate history that are incongruent with the idea of tradition. That to-di wasn't as modern ryu based karate shows that any tradition that there may be can't stretch back very far.




> not sure what you consider the 3 major japanese ryu.
> Shotokan-started in 1922 but official school opened in 1936
> Wado-ryu was registered as an art in 1938
> Shito-ryu  Mabuni Sensei moved to Japan to teach karate in 1938
> ...



I was referring to the first three, but the dates of the others confirm my point. 



> Okinawan styles are a little harder to date its easier to date the founders themselves
> Higaonna of Goju returned to Okinawa in 1882 and taught his art
> Miyagi took over teaching after Higaonna death in 1916



Well there is our first point of disagreement. I think dating the schools is sufficient and better than giving someone's life span.

All of Shorin ryu is conspicuously missing from your list. And most relevant of all is that I said most, not all. Listing the exceptions doesn't disprove the statement.




> so to restate ....Itosu was a lousy martial artist? and therefore doesnt qualify in your opinion to have passed on any traditions?



There's no need to restate anything, I was quite clear. 

Itosu’s karate was looked down on by some karate masters, suggesting that there were things missing, or at least that it represented a departure from the established way.

I.e. Not traditional. 



> so to restate ...Higaonna and Uechi didnt learn much...the fact that they both got teaching certificates doesnt mean anything?  the fact that Kanbun Uechi studied under his teacher for 10 years and was teaching in China  ...meaningless?   would i be right in assuming your position is that Fujian Kung-fu is the real art and that anything from Okinawa is inferior and incomplete.



Nope, you'd be dead wrong. 

Again you are looking for derision where there is none. The untwisted suggestion I made was that. Kanbun Uechi learned 3 forms, and Miyagi brought back nothing recognisable from the Chinese systems he studied, which he studied for much less time than Uechi.

So again we have a point where what was passed from one generation was not what was passed to the next, I.e. a lack of tradition. 



> i seem to remember a thread here on the forums that all Chinese kung -fu systems are really not that old either. maybe someone can remember that thread and chime in.



They could but it would be a bit off topic and make no difference to my point. 



> Shu - Ha - Ri is not Okinawan.
> From Wiki
> "The _Shuhari_ concept was first presented by Fuhaku Kawakami as Jo-ha-kyū in Tao of Tea. Then, Zeami Motokiyo, the master of Noh, extended this concept to his dance as _Shuhari_, which then became a part of the philosophy of Aikido._Shuhari_ is part of the philosophy of Shorinji Kempo."



Demystifying the Philosophy of Shu-Ha-Ri 2 Awesome Stories KARATE by Jesse

Jesse disagrees.

Wherever the idea came from, numerous sources have stated it to be integral in Okinawan teaching. Even if that's not true, the lack of a spiffy term doesn't change the fact that Karate mastery has been shown to involve restructuring kata to suit the instructor and in some cases the student. Hence we have many versions of most Shorin kata. 

As I said before, you're assumptions are sending you off the mark because I love karate even though I've trained both karate and Fujianese kungfu. But history is history. 

Some folks thought Itosu sucked, that's the truth. 
With the possible exception of Uechi, the Okinawans who went to China or trained with Chinese didn't bring back complete arts. 
Many Shorin ryu folks who call their styles original and old skool, fail to notice that their styles were founded decades after Shotokan. 

Actually in acknowledging that change and growth are integral to karate I think we recognise a feature that gives the art strength and legitimacy far above those who treat their style as a time capsule.

It should also serve as warning to avoid doing stuff just because it's traditional,  if it's not moving us towards our goals.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 16, 2015)

TimoS said:


> In and of itself, a teaching license doesn't really prove anything. It all depends on who issued the license and how strict are his qualifications. Even today, it's not that difficult to get a teaching license from Okinawan masters, although not from all.


to clarify the teaching license was given by their Chinese teachers.  yes this really means nothing but we were not there so we need to take this at face value that Uechi and Higaonna must have had some level of proficiency after studying for 10 -15 years. either way it is not a good basis for the argument about being a traditional style.




TimoS said:


> Shorin(ji) schools' (potential) Chinese origins are a mystery


the Shorin styles all lead back to one man.  Matsumura Sokon
Matsumura was a body Gaurd to three successive Ryukyuan Kings.  we know his knowledge of fighting comes from three sources.  Chinese that settled and lived on Okinawa, the old ways of Okinawan tode reserved for royalty and officials and we know he made many visits to Fukian China and learnt there.
as i previously stated the old Ti was absorbed and was a building block to karate. it was this Ti that dates back to the 15th century.  the term karate was not used. 
Shoshin Nagamine in his book explains the historical evidence that there is a defined separation between karate and Ti and that karate is a chinese style of self defense.  Ti was created thru the interchange between China and Okinawa but they are not the same.
in a letter to his student Matsumura Sokon says this about Ti.
"The court styles are practiced in a very unusual way; the movements are never the same, formless and light, becoming feminine and more and more dance like as the proponents mature"

after Funakoshi and Motobu began introducing Okinawan fighting arts to main land Japan there was a meeting in 1936 between Chojun Miyagi, Chomo Hanashiro, Choki Motobu and Chotoku Kyan. they decided that their art of fighting should be known as karate (empty handed self defense)

with this information we can make the conclusion that the term karate was meant to define the Chinese influenced self defense styles that existed when the term was first used.  (the wording Chinese hand VS empty hand is for another discussion)
thus the OPs original post questioning about what is traditional karate, in my opinion i would then make the argument that a traditional karate system would be one that was in existence in 1936.  its not really about time but rather anything that existed before this point is not really karate and that these styles are the purest form of karate that by them selves are a distinct style and the styles that develop after are splinters and mash ups and mixtures of these original systems.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 16, 2015)

DaveB said:


> Again you are looking for derision where there is none. The untwisted suggestion I made was that. Kanbun Uechi learned 3 forms, and Miyagi brought back nothing recognisable from the Chinese systems he studied,


Chojun Miyagi was the long time student of Kanryo Higaonna. that is where the tradition is passed.  Miyagi''s trip to China was to find Higaonna's teacher (which failed) but the point is mute.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 16, 2015)

DaveB said:


> All of Shorin ryu is conspicuously missing from your list.


i mentioned Matumura Sokon.  you would have to be more specific the term Shorin-ryu is used in many ways by multiple systems


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 16, 2015)

DaveB said:


> I think that your definition is fine but for me I would add a level of historic precedent, I.e, give it a few generations before you call it a tradition. Without the time requirement it's just a fad.
> 
> I think a tradition has to be something that survives periods of change and upheaval before it earns the weight of that word.



i think i already addressed this in a prior post but this is where i feel we are in disagreement.  if you want to term karate as modern i am fine with that but there is no karate before these "modern times" so is there really no such thing as traditional karate?
if we agree on the passing from generation to generation, then as an example there are 7 teacher to student generations from Kanbun Uechi to myself.  that seems like it should qualify as a tradition to me.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 16, 2015)

And you say I'm misleading?

To-te is karate they are different pronunciations of the same words.

I can't remember my dates but karate is at least a generation older than Matsumura, who is only the founder of one ryu that is definitely an exception (in most ways, not all) to my comment. One person rumoured to have taught Matsumura was known as Karate Sakugawa, because he was good at karate, which clearly existed.

Miyagi changed what his teacher taught him and gave it a new name. 

Nothing you've written invalidates any of my arguments and by my reading you are even more misleading and confused than I am. 

Perhaps Uechi does qualify as a tradition, as I said, there are undoubtedly exceptions. On the other hand are all Uechi schools teaching as Kanbun taught? Either way I was speaking generally, not personally. You can call what you do whatever you like.

As I said,  I believe in embracing the fact that change is the only constant.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 16, 2015)

Buka said:


> In every case, the people teaching are teaching what they believe in - and are doing so in the best way they know.   .



Here's the problem with absolutes. This statement can he refuted simply by saying
Ashida Kim. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 16, 2015)

*Tradition:
*
1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice: a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.
2. something that is handed down: the traditions of the Eskimos.
3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting: The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition.
4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.
5. a customary or characteristic method or manner: The winner took a victory lap in the usual track tradition.

*Traditional:*

1. of or relating to tradition. 
2. handed down by tradition. 
3. in accordance with tradition. 
4. of, relating to, or characteristic of the older styles of jazz, especially New Orleans style, Chicago style, Kansas City style, and Dixieland. Compare mainstream (def 4).


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 16, 2015)

My apologies I do think I put the word "tode"  in place of what I ment "ti" in one sentence.  But like I said the wording chinese vs empty is for another thread but the point was that earlier ti is separate from karate.

You are are correct about Sakugawa. I belive historically he was the first to be mentioned to practice "chinese hand"  but we do not know if what he knew was a complete system or just a kata. Either way it would have been passed down to Matsumura which is where I made my starting point  for the karate he passed on.


----------



## TimoS (Jul 16, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> You are are correct about Sakugawa. I belive historically he was the first to be mentioned to practice "chinese hand"  but we do not know if what he knew was a complete system or just a kata.


Which is one of the reasons I personally have a hard time accepting any lineage that goes beyond him. After all, we don't know for certain that Sakugawa taught Matsumura. He probably did, but nobody knows what exactly he taught. Our karate has two kata from Matsumura, but we don't really know who taught those to Matsumura.


----------



## Seizan (Jul 22, 2015)

Apart from strict (and restrictive) dictionary definitions, in our style the term "traditional" means basically "that which is commonly accepted as...".  So "traditional UechiRyu" has 8 kata beginning with Sanchin, plus some conditioning drills, some bunkai, and sparring.    Please note that five of the "traditional" kata were not finalized by Uechi Kanei Sensei until the early 1960's (maybe as early as the late 1950's).  My group practices the "traditional" forms plus a few "non-traditional" forms consisting of techniques taught by the Founder, but not seen in the other forms.

Interesting -- we have "non-traditional" forms that were created to preserve old-style techniques that no longer exist in the modified "traditional" version of UechiRyu...

"Traditional TKD" is that which is accepted by the general TKD population as representative of TKD .  "Traditional GojuRyu" is that which is commonly taught and understood to be GojuRyu by the general population of GojuRyu practitioners.

Sometimes a dictionary definition does not quite equate with the cultural application for a term.

Purely a Zankyokai point of view, and not intended to change or direct anyone's practice or understanding provided by teachers in other systems or styles.

Best,

Seizan


----------



## Zero (Jul 28, 2015)

DaveB said:


> It should also serve as warning to avoid doing stuff just because it's traditional,  if it's not moving us towards our goals.


 Unless your goal is studying in a traditional martial art or continuing in the teachings of a family lineage or the generation(s) before you.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 29, 2015)

[But TE="Zero, post: 1717858, member: 11161"]Unless your goal is studying in a traditional martial art or continuing in the teachings of a family lineage or the generation(s) before you.[/QUOTE]

But since we often allow the labelling of any new idea as traditional if it comes from someone with a high enough rank, we can end up doing something as traditional that really isn't. The whole of Shotokan is evidence of this. Three 'k' Karate, Nakayama's idea of kime, long stances;  none were trraditional, but they were was sold as such around


----------



## Zero (Aug 26, 2015)

DaveB said:


> But since we often allow the labelling of any new idea as traditional if it comes from someone with a high enough rank, we can end up doing something as traditional that really isn't. The whole of Shotokan is evidence of this. Three 'k' Karate, Nakayama's idea of kime, long stances;  none were trraditional, but they were was sold as such around



You mean to say I spent all those years sweating in horse stance for no real reason?!  I was duped!!


----------



## DaveB (Aug 27, 2015)

Yes and no.

The "why?" of what you learned was probably manufactured, but the exercise and technique itself was sound.


----------

