# Was Funakoshi Gichin a "sell out"?



## isshinryuronin (Jul 13, 2020)

Funakoshi, "The father of modern karate", was a traditional Okinawan master who studied with Itosu Anko in the "old ways" of _toude/todi.  _His time predates the wearing of a gi and even the name "karate", itself.  It was his efforts in popularizing this art that are responsible for all of us practicing and treasuring it today, 100 years later.  But at what cost?

It was Funakoshi who transformed the art by introducing it to the public schools in Okinawa, and later, Japan.  To do this, as most of us know, he simplified the kata, removed many of the truly dangerous techniques, and even changed the names from the native Okinawan language (Hogan or Uchinaaguchi) to Japanese.  Karate became something different and was sent on a new trajectory.

It was this "watering down" of the art for the masses that eventually allowed it to reach millions.  But, at the same time, what was passed on was a shadow of the original.  It is only since this new millennium, what was lost is gradually being rediscovered thanks to a realization that there is more to karate than we thought.  

Did Funakoshi sell out the Okinawan legacy in order to popularize it and make it more acceptable to Japanese sensibilities?


----------



## O'Malley (Jul 14, 2020)

This resonates with me. Aikido also has a similar history. Its founder, Morihei Ueshiba, was by all accounts the best martial artist in Japan. His strength attracted many talented martial artists as he rose to fame. But the person who popularised the art worldwide was his son, Kisshomaru Ueshiba. He did his best to create a viable aikido organisation and sent teachers abroad, among which his father's students, to spread aikido.

Yet, Morihei's art was very esoteric. He talked about "standing on the floating bridge of heaven" as the foundation for aiki, a harmony of energies within the body. This was actually a technical description but no one had the necessary knowledge to properly decipher it: it was a classic Chinese concept coated in Oomoto-kyo terminology, on which he put his personal spin. The art required a lot of severe ascetic solo training and the techniques were hard.

Because of this, Kisshomaru simplified aikido. He took away the esoteric language and changed the form and concepts behind the techniques. It is because of Kisshomaru that most aikidoka talk about "blending with the opponent's ki/attack". It is his doing if techniques look so circular. And, if aikido is seen as "the art of peace", it is because he thought that it was great marketing: the whole "peaceful martial art"/"we protect the opponent"/"we never attack first" thing is a gimmick to differentiate aikido from judo or karate.

Was Kisshomaru a sell out? I don't think so. While he definitely created something different, he managed to spread the art to an extent that his father would probably never have reached. He allowed people to practice a simple, cooperative martial art that one can learn in a couple of years. Everybody can learn it, no matter their physical condition. And it looks nice as well.
The price to pay, for those of us interested in Morihei's ways, is a continuous - and perhaps impossible - struggle to revive old school aikido, even in the lineages not affected by Kisshomaru.

I'll conclude with some short videos. The first one shows the founder. The next two show lineages independent from Kisshomaru, while the last one features Kisshomaru's grandson, the future head of the Aikikai. I hope this brings a useful perspective to your interrogations.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 14, 2020)

Would he have had a choice for the changing the names to Japanese?   I didnt think what ever the body that regulated martial arts in the 1900's would have recognised it with Okinawan. (i dont know its name)

That just doesnt seem like something that you can soley pin on him, given that body probbly wouldn thave recognised it without adjustment, like they also removed the grappling because it would have competed with judo and jujutsu.


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 14, 2020)

Very interesting thoughts @isshinryuronin!

Not much to add, but yeah whilst true that he may have removed aspects, watered things down etc, it's quite possible that not one of us would be practicing karate if he didn't do that. All compleeeetely hypothetical of course haha, who knows how things would have progressed!

And I wonder how many things have been watered down, but as a result, resulted in its mass spread? And whether that was beneficial, or detrimental to the art/subject?

I love the direction and evolution karate has taken, and more importantly I feel its division into having different appeals (sport, self-defence, "way") may be a good thing, and perhaps it's up to the individual as to what aspect of karate we wish to focus on or delve into.

It's interesting... I've seen the effects of what a short-term watering down does to a martial art, but long term you see what people it brings, and then a portion of those want to delve into it more.

Curious what others think


----------



## wab25 (Jul 14, 2020)

Funakoshi did make changes to the art, in order to get it to Japan and to make it popular. However, he also understood the changes he made and why. He did teach and explain the more realistic / dangerous parts. He did show where they are in the Shotokan kata. (I don't know if he got 100% of the old ways and applications in there... but he got a lot of them in there) I believe that his hope was that if more people were able to train, more people would look deeper, and find the older original teachings... which was preferable to the arts dying out.

The issue is that those who came after Funakoshi watered it down significantly more. Today, if you go down to a random Shotokan school, with a million karate competition trophies in the window... and suggest that gedan barai is a throw or that age uke is an arm break / dislocation... they will giggle at you and shrug it off. If they allow you to demonstrate those applications, they will tell you that you are stretching to far away from the kata, or the original intent. At best, they will say its possible, but definitely outside the norm. What is interesting is that those applications, gedan barai as a throw and age uke as an arm break / dislocation... come from Funakoshi himself. If you read Funakoshi's own description of the Shotokan kata, and of the different techniques... he describes them much closer to the original arts and applications. 

Somewhere between Funakoshi and what we have today, many things got lost. I think much came from people not understanding and many times being too afraid to admit they don't understand... so they take their best guess, and we take it as gospel. Yes, "uke" could mean "block." Yes, this "block" would be blocking down. So, what comes up that you would want to block? Oh... a kick. This "block" is in the middle... so is this punch... therefore, mid "block" blocks mid punch... Sometimes it works out, even if its not the most efficient way to do the task. Other times, it breaks your arm.

In order to more fully understand what Funakoshi put together, we need to better understand what he created... not what many other people interpreted, in the telephone game manner, from what he taught. The biggest key here is humility. You have to accept the possibility that you do not yet have the right answer. Your instructor / master might not have the right answer. Only then will you be able to go back and research, to see what was in Funakoshi's art. Until we understand the art that Funakoshi created, we won't be able to truly know how much he may have watered it down, or sold out or whatever. 

The first step is to realize and accept the possibility, that you might not be right, and that even your instructor / master might have it wrong. If you and your instructor / master are the type that cannot be wrong... well, you are kind of stuck. If you can accept the possibility of being wrong... then you have the opportunity to start researching and studying and learning.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 14, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> This resonates with me. Aikido also has a similar history. Its founder, Morihei Ueshiba, was by all accounts the best martial artist in Japan. His strength attracted many talented martial artists as he rose to fame. But the person who popularised the art worldwide was his son, Kisshomaru Ueshiba. He did his best to create a viable aikido organisation and sent teachers abroad, among which his father's students, to spread aikido.
> 
> Yet, Morihei's art was very esoteric. He talked about "standing on the floating bridge of heaven" as the foundation for aiki, a harmony of energies within the body. This was actually a technical description but no one had the necessary knowledge to properly decipher it: it was a classic Chinese concept coated in Oomoto-kyo terminology, on which he put his personal spin. The art required a lot of severe ascetic solo training and the techniques were hard.
> 
> ...


Videos of the Founder are always intensely interesting to watch.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jul 14, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> I love the direction and evolution karate has taken, and more importantly I feel its division into having different appeals (sport, self-defence, "way") may be a good thing, and perhaps it's up to the individual as to what aspect of karate we wish to focus on or delve into.


Yes, one important point from karate's expansion into the masses is that the masses are not homogeneous.  Just like if 10 very different people look at a painting, they will like it and interpret it in different ways.  So, some see karate as an art or way, a sport, or a self-defense system.  Maybe a blend of these and other facets.  If this evolutionary trend continues, will karate diverge into 3 or 4 different entities to the point we will need to have different names for each?  Or can they co-exist under the same umbrella?

Several masters during the 1930's (some of whom aided in the popularization of karate) lamented the new emphasis of sport competition, even back then, and the lack of heart in many of the ever increasing number of practitioners, so this discussion is nothing new.  I don't know if one can put a label of "good" or "bad" to the changes in the art (except for crap instructors.)  Maybe it's just natural evolution and it will take us wherever it goes. 

Part of it may go full circle and lead us back to the "original" Okinawan _toude_ style of pre-1920.  Other parts may continue to diverge in other, hopefully beneficial, ways. 
I started this thread with the idea of bringing karate's past, present and future together to be seen as a whole and get a better grip on my own views, and for others to do the same.  I have mixed feelings about the whole thing from an intellectual POV.  So, I'll stop thinking about it and do my MA the way I feel like.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jul 14, 2020)

wab25 said:


> Funakoshi did make changes to the art, in order to get it to Japan and to make it popular. However, he also understood the changes he made and why. He did teach and explain the more realistic / dangerous parts. He did show where they are in the Shotokan kata. (I don't know if he got 100% of the old ways and applications in there... but he got a lot of them in there) I believe that his hope was that if more people were able to train, more people would look deeper, and find the older original teachings... which was preferable to the arts dying out.



Agreed.  I think this is where his mindset was, but maybe he overestimated his hope in people.  Plus, people don't know what they don't know.  But in recent years this is finally changing (thanks to the discovery and translations of historical writings on karate) and we are starting to really appreciate what karate was and can be.


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 15, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> Yes, one important point from karate's expansion into the masses is that the masses are not homogeneous.  Just like if 10 very different people look at a painting, they will like it and interpret it in different ways.  So, some see karate as an art or way, a sport, or a self-defense system.  Maybe a blend of these and other facets.  If this evolutionary trend continues, will karate diverge into 3 or 4 different entities to the point we will need to have different names for each?  Or can they co-exist under the same umbrella?
> 
> Several masters during the 1930's (some of whom aided in the popularization of karate) lamented the new emphasis of sport competition, even back then, and the lack of heart in many of the ever increasing number of practitioners, so this discussion is nothing new.  I don't know if one can put a label of "good" or "bad" to the changes in the art (except for crap instructors.)  Maybe it's just natural evolution and it will take us wherever it goes.
> 
> ...



Well said 

And yeah I guess it's up to the individual practitioners as to their interest levels, and if curious enough want go deeper. Some will want surface level, others will sense there's more to it all and look further into it.

But good point at the end there too, and it helps me assess it as a whole and see what it means for me to, and how I want to proceed.


----------



## O'Malley (Jul 15, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> Yes, one important point from karate's expansion into the masses is that the masses are not homogeneous.  Just like if 10 very different people look at a painting, they will like it and interpret it in different ways.  So, some see karate as an art or way, a sport, or a self-defense system.  Maybe a blend of these and other facets.  If this evolutionary trend continues, will karate diverge into 3 or 4 different entities to the point we will need to have different names for each?  Or can they co-exist under the same umbrella?
> 
> Several masters during the 1930's (some of whom aided in the popularization of karate) lamented the new emphasis of sport competition, even back then, and the lack of heart in many of the ever increasing number of practitioners, so this discussion is nothing new.  I don't know if one can put a label of "good" or "bad" to the changes in the art (except for crap instructors.)  Maybe it's just natural evolution and it will take us wherever it goes.
> 
> ...



Maybe one can see all the variations as a sign of the art's richness. It allows one to pick and choose from many "flavors" of karate in order to build one's own. For example, if you're interested in self defense, learning the traditional toude would be useful but doing sports karate may teach you about timing, footwork and speed in a safe environment. Plus, it would pit you against trained fit opponents. Likewise, by working with a kata-oriented teacher, you may learn about proprioception in a way that you can then apply to your whole technique. As long as you stay true to the art's principles (e.g. you don't make up BS techniques), it's good IMO.


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Jul 20, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> Funakoshi, "The father of modern karate", was a traditional Okinawan master who studied with Itosu Anko in the "old ways" of _toude/todi.  _His time predates the wearing of a gi and even the name "karate", itself.  It was his efforts in popularizing this art that are responsible for all of us practicing and treasuring it today, 100 years later.  But at what cost?
> 
> It was Funakoshi who transformed the art by introducing it to the public schools in Okinawa, and later, Japan.  To do this, as most of us know, he simplified the kata, removed many of the truly dangerous techniques, and even changed the names from the native Okinawan language (Hogan or Uchinaaguchi) to Japanese.  Karate became something different and was sent on a new trajectory.
> 
> ...



i found the following title very helpful in researching the evolution of karate into modern times :

*Hidden Karate: The True Bunkai For Heian Katas And Naihanchi*


----------



## Acronym (Aug 1, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Very interesting thoughts @isshinryuronin!
> 
> Not much to add, but yeah whilst true that he may have removed aspects, watered things down etc, it's quite possible that not one of us would be practicing karate if he didn't do that. All compleeeetely hypothetical of course haha, who knows how things would have progressed!
> 
> ...



I think he made the Katas flashier and some of the mechanics more "to the point". If you watch old Okinawa mechanics it looks like salsa mechanics when they punch, and very upright. Better or worse, it's a very plausible alternative.. 

But It is also quite possible that Funakoshi removed some of the more violent elements in the grappling.


----------



## Patience (Aug 17, 2020)

O'Malley said:


> Maybe one can see all the variations as a sign of the art's richness. It allows one to pick and choose from many "flavors" of karate in order to build one's own. For example, if you're interested in self defense, learning the traditional toude would be useful but doing sports karate may teach you about timing, footwork and speed in a safe environment. Plus, it would pit you against trained fit opponents. Likewise, by working with a kata-oriented teacher, you may learn about proprioception in a way that you can then apply to your whole technique. As long as you stay true to the art's principles (e.g. you don't make up BS techniques), it's good IMO.



I prefer a traditional setting where kata and their bunkai are emphasized. But I started in a sport setting, and there are many, many benefits of free sparring. The ultimate goal of any MA should be competence at self defence (jmo), but all the "flavors" of MA have something beneficial to offer.


----------



## tigercrane (Aug 17, 2020)

No one truly knows what was on his mind. I have yet to read about his religious or spiritual inclinations. Perhaps he thought Karate would transcend all the martial aspects and would lead to a betterment of humankind, whoever knows? Didn't he also lay out some 20 rules for his students on how to become better human beings? He must have practiced or leaned towards Buddsim or something like that. Besides, at that time Japan was relatively peaceful and there were no more Shoguns to fight each other, hence no need to study lethal applications by the masses. As in saying, "Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times". Funakoshi must have been that "Strong Man" creating the good times...


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 22, 2020)

In a book, that I purchased written by Toyama Kanken, has the transcript of the meeting by the early okinawan masters. They discuss the name and several other topics concerning the spreading of Karate.


----------



## Hanshi (Aug 23, 2020)

Unfortunately, this "evolution" extended to other martial arts as well.  I spent a lot of time training in "sport" dojo.  In one, that I enjoyed, I was basically forbidden to teach any old, rough techniques used in combat which, to my way of thinking, were vitally important to make the art "martial" and effective.  It was obvious, and sad, that so many schools teach only "art" or "sport".  I made many dear friends but even the senior dans would NOT be able to protect themselves in real world scenarios.  Most of my training has been very street oriented with tough training and demands from the sensei.  And I'm not talking about brawling; I'm referring to kata training, drills and sparring but with a knowledge of dangerous techniques/strategies that can't be fully used (person to person) in the dojo.  The aikido I practiced was considered more of a hard style and more "aiki-jujutsu" than the more common and softer styles.  People turn to martial arts for a wide array of reasons, and it's not always "fight training".  At my last dojo the owner/grandmaster frequently allowed me to teach these things that are the flip side of the sporting martial arts.  It worried me that so many black belts never develop that mindset one needs to react instantly when grabbed from behind, for instance.  Even getting a strong KIAI from many of them was ultimately impossible.  So mental preparation is the core, in my opinion, and not simply the technique.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 23, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> In a book, that I purchased written by Toyama Kanken, has the transcript of the meeting by the early okinawan masters. They discuss the name and several other topics concerning the spreading of Karate.


I have not read this book (sounds great), but have read of various meetings of the early Okinawan masters from other sources.  Several groups were formed and some of the membership changed over the years.  The topics of these meetings included the following:

     1.  Combining the various styles into a more standardized generic form. (1930's) While the old masters knew and cross trained with each other, it is hard to give up traditions, as well as control.  Anyway, the coming of World War II put a halt to that goal.  Unification of styles was never seriously taken up again.

     2.  In about that same time frame, talk began regarding standardizing testing by committee composed of masters of various styles (karate belt colors were not fully developed at first, promotion being recognized, sort of, as teacher, sr. teacher, expert teacher and master teacher.  If a Goju, Shorin, and Tomari master all agreed you were an expert instructor, there was no question regarding your credentials.  This peer recognition did succeed and more or less still lives on in Okinawa.  There are few phony masters there, unlike in the USA.

     3.  A few years earlier than the above meeting, I believe, *the most intriguing meeting* is said to have taken place (can you say "conspiracy theory"?)   The topic of this one supposedly was how much of the true, secret, Okinawan fighting style and hidden kata bunkai should be shared with the Japanese.  Only 50 years earlier, Okinawa was the Ryukyu Kingdom under King Sho, although had been subjugated and abused by the Satsuma clan for a long time and had no love of the Japanese.

Sounds like the making of a great movie.  These committee members were NOT pencil pushers or politicians, but mostly proven fighting masters of respected Okinawan Samurai lineage.  Karate as we know it today is due in large part to these early meetings.  Or, maybe they just sat down to discuss what kind of pizza to order before the start of the Sumo tournament.


----------



## Buka (Aug 24, 2020)

Funakoshi could have hung with us. I'll bet you he would have had fun, too.

Now don't go getting all "ancient master" on me, it's meant as respect.


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 24, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> I have not read this book (sounds great), but have read of various meetings of the early Okinawan masters from other sources.  Several groups were formed and some of the membership changed over the years.  The topics of these meetings included the following:
> 
> 1.  Combining the various styles into a more standardized generic form. (1930's) While the old masters knew and cross trained with each other, it is hard to give up traditions, as well as control.  Anyway, the coming of World War II put a halt to that goal.  Unification of styles was never seriously taken up again.
> 
> ...


Ni


isshinryuronin said:


> I have not read this book (sounds great), but have read of various meetings of the early Okinawan masters from other sources.  Several groups were formed and some of the membership changed over the years.  The topics of these meetings included the following:
> 
> 1.  Combining the various styles into a more standardized generic form. (1930's) While the old masters knew and cross trained with each other, it is hard to give up traditions, as well as control.  Anyway, the coming of World War II put a halt to that goal.  Unification of styles was never seriously taken up again.
> 
> ...


You should purchase the book, it has the minutes for the 1936 meeting by those old instructors.


----------



## Steve (Aug 24, 2020)

What if, instead of selling out, the masters were just the last instructors in a long line of instructors who actually used what they were taught?  There is a point where you can't teach someone anything more until they have accumulated enough experience to understand more. 

I think "selling out" is looking at this the wrong way around. The only way you can pass a system of any kind down more or less intact from generation to generation of students who become teachers is by having a continuous line of application.  At a certain point, for someone to be an expert in anything, experience drives the questions, and the emphasis moves from overt instruction to a kind of mentoring/troubleshooting phase.  Said the other way, if you don't have the experience, you don't know what questions to ask.

Out of curiosity, I thought about someone like Lyoto Machida.  He's a karate guy from a line of karate guys.  He's also a BJJ black belt, and has effectively applied his fighting skills at the highest level of MMA.  So, what makes someone like him different from most instructors?  And what differences can we see in how he teaches?  Was he taught this way by his father?  Was his karate training influenced by his sumo or BJJ training?  Vice versa?

Here's a video I found:





All that to say, I'm not a karateka.  My rusty penny's worth is that they didn't sell out.  I just think this is what happens when you teach something to folks who don't use the skills, or maybe don't use them in the same way.  We see over and over that, when application is reintroduced into the training model, the skill level increases.  The better the training, the shorter this period of time is.  And when a person with real experience teaches other people who are gaining real experience, the system can be transmitted largely intact.  Conversely, when a person with real experience teaches other people who do not gain real experience, the system breaks down very quickly.

The good news, though, is that reintroducing application into the system can pretty quickly address a lot of issues.  However, the risk is that the longer the gap, the less likely the system will be "intact."

Edit:  Rather than add another post, just editing to add this video of Machida, demonstrating several examples of technique in application:  






how much of his ability to execute those techniques was a result of technical instruction and how much was a matter of experience?


----------



## letsplaygames (Feb 8, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Funakoshi, "The father of modern karate", was a traditional Okinawan master who studied with Itosu Anko in the "old ways" of _toude/todi.  _His time predates the wearing of a gi and even the name "karate", itself.  It was his efforts in popularizing this art that are responsible for all of us practicing and treasuring it today, 100 years later.  But at what cost?  It was Funakoshi who transformed the art by introducing it to the public schools in Okinawa, and later, Japan.  To do this, as most of us know, he simplified the kata, removed many of the truly dangerous techniques, and even changed the names from the native Okinawan language (Hogan or Uchinaaguchi) to Japanese.  Karate became something different and was sent on a new trajectory.



There was no cost.   Funakoshi (a disciple of two of the top 10 karate-ka in Okinawa at that time i.e , Itosu & Azato,  was a skilled teacher. Funakoshi's karate was above par (he wasn't the best but... his karate was of high caliber)   Let me highlight  *he was chosen to demonstrate Karate to the crown prince/future Emperor Hirohito. *Not Motobu Choki, not his older brother Choyu  etc..etc..  Some have floated Funakoshi was chosen to demonstrate karate to the Prince, because he was educated and cultured.  Chances are he would not have been permitted even to talk to the Prince... (at the time, one wasn't allowed to look at the Emperor i.e. the Prince's father, who was viewed at the turn of the century as a religious figure/demi god/king) Funakoshi was not going to be permitted to carry on a two way conversation. (high % the theory his education was the "why"  IMO is laughable when you know your Japanese history)

Funakoshi also produced excellent Karate-ka. e.g. Gigi Funikoshi was probably the most talented Karate-ka of his age.  Together with Motokuni,  they  produced the quality of:  Nakayama, Nishiyama, Kase, who produced the likes of  Ueki, Okazaki, Ohshima, Asai, Enoeda, Kanazawa, Osaka, Ozawa, Tanaka, Kagawa.

*I could end post right here...  these gent's karate speak for themselves*

These karate-ka traveled the world subjecting themselves to peer review, competing etc...

These master have produced western karate-ka like Berteli and Hotton.. master t karate-ka themselves


 Itosu Anko is the founder of the Pinan kata and it was him that introduced the kata to public schools, Funakoshi-O'Sensei facilitated only, being a teacher.  Nor did Funakoshi O'Sensei simplify the Pinan kata.  Later on in the late 40's early 1950s Gigo,  along with Nakayama and Nishiyama and a few others would "Shotokan" or "Japanese"  some of the kata.. This had as much to do with the influence of Konishi Yasuhiro 1893-1983 than anything.... Konishi Yasuhiro , a traditional Taijutsu/Jujitsu  master,  had a lot of influence on Gichen and Gigo. Some example: Instead of neko-ashi dachi... kokutsu dachi was employed.  Kenjustu and Kendo (which at that time  had grappling)  was also an influence, in Ashi Sabaki as well as kumite tournamnet rules.   Nor did Funakoshi remove dangerous techniques.  * Understand this if anything .... Funakoshi's skill met Jigoro Kano satisfaction. * Both men had great respect for each other.  Judo was forged by extreme competition with many jujitsu ryu. It's a safe bet, *no it's a NO brainer* that Jigoro Kano could have perceived if Funakoshi was lacking in skill.  No one ever talks about the ban of martial arts after the War, the US occupation, the shutdown of the Dai Nippon Butokukai, then the reestablishment of sports late 40's early 50's.  These are the man factors the sent "dangerous techniques" behind closed doors... not some "lack of skill or selling out" or "watering it down"... changing the terminology and nomenclature  to fit the Japanese culture is hardly selling out.

There has been in the last 10 yrs or so.. _In print media and on the internet.._ some weird Okinawan karate history revision by some, who have attempted to down play Funakoshi's O'sensei (the father of modern karate) his contributions, or his legacy, by calling into question his skill or knowledge of karate.  The names of the extremely highly skilled Karate-ka I listed above, revered Funakoshi O'sensei, there skill,  and what they thought of Funakoshi should lead all but a fool to comprehend.... that the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Feb 9, 2021)

Paul Calugaru said:


> No one ever talks about the ban of martial arts after the War, the US occupation, the shutdown of the Dai Nippon Butokukai, then the reestablishment of sports late 40's early 50's. These are the man factors the sent "dangerous techniques" behind closed doors... not some "lack of skill





Paul Calugaru said:


> by some, who have attempted to down play Funakoshi's O'sensei (the father of modern karate) his contributions, or his legacy, by calling into question his skill or knowledge of karate.



Welcome to the forum, Paul.  That was quite a debut posting.  Your passionate defense of Funakoshi O-Sensei is admirable, but, from my point of view, he is not in need of such a champion.  I am not familiar with any widespread doubts or challenges on his skill or knowledge, so I'm not sure why you spent so much of your post on this. 

He was an exceptional karate-ka and his efforts, (along with Master Itosu Anko,) was perhaps responsible for us, here and now, even being exposed to, as he once described karate, "...the heavenly technique of the Southern Seas..."

Considering Funakoshi was a public school teacher and was the spearhead into the system, especially in Japan, and had a curriculum designed for large groups of kids, things were necessarily simplified and made safer to practice.  Yes, it is said that Itosu either developed or adapted the Pinans, but as you said, Funakoshi facilitated them getting into the school system.

By the 1930's, karate was entrenched into the universities and karate clubs sprang up on many campuses.  This was the beginning of sport karate.  Several old masters lamented this evolution of karate as more of the "original" Okinawan karate was peeled off, and a new layer imposed, changing the art in Japan, and eventually the rest of the world.  Such was the trajectory for which Funakoshi was a catalyst.



Paul Calugaru said:


> Let me highlight *he was chosen to demonstrate Karate to the crown prince/future Emperor Hirohito.*



All styles have their lore and stories, and one may suppose some get exaggerated in the telling.  That demo in 1921, to my understanding, was jointly put on by several masters as the prince made a pass thru Okinawa.  As it was considered a "back water" territory, I doubt the crown prince would even know his name, if that is your inference.  But Funakoshi was recognized as being one of the top handful of guys by his peers at the time.

Evolution happens unplanned.  Bushi Matsumura would never have guessed his arts would be taught to thousands of common kids, and Funakoshi would be shocked by the celebrity of Chuck Norris and the universal embracing of the art he was so instrumental is popularizing.  I think we can all agree, karate now is a future he could not have imagined.


----------



## letsplaygames (Feb 9, 2021)

You will have to excuse my passion. 

“Sellout” “Watered down” 

Terms like these Imo...don’t fit a man who in his 30s, quit his job as a teacher, shutdown his prosperous dojo in Okinawa and left his family, moving 300+ miles away to live and teach in a 1 room dormitory, sweeping floors during the day to make money so he could bring Karate to Japan. 

Hard not to get passionate about a person who never wavered, who’s life was all about karate. Wasn’t a drunk, a bully, never lied... who’s students became extremely great Karate-ka and who hero worship him. (This is a guy who went decades not seeing his wife, who’s students built him a dojo!) 

I get passionate when people in print media or on the internet take Funakoshi’s life out of context.  

I apologize for my passion..


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 9, 2021)

Paul Calugaru said:


> I apologize for my passion..


That's silly. Unless it involves actively harming others, being passionate about something isn't something to apologize for.  And most of us are passionate about some aspect of martial arts..otherwise we wouldn't spend our time on here talking about it.

BTW-welcome to the forum!


----------



## tigercrane (Feb 10, 2021)

Paul Calugaru said:


> You will have to excuse my passion.
> 
> “Sellout” “Watered down”
> 
> ...



Your post appears to really overglorify a man and his deeds in the karate realm. However, you need to look no further than his real fight against Motobu Choki in 1930, and his subsequent defeat in order to understand what Funakoshi's karate might have been like in practical terms. In 1925 King Magazine had showcased a fight between Motobu Choki and an Estonian boxer names Jan/John Kantel (George). Motobu Choki was the winner of that fight, however King Magazine showed Funkashi's picture with the name of Motobu Choki right under it. This is not clear whether magazine did it intentionally or not. I could neither find any information pointing to the fact that Funakoshi had publicly rejecting him being the winner. Remarkably, Motobu Choki thought of Funakoshi as being too soft, and I'd tend to believe to what a real fighter Motobu Choki would have to say on this matter.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Feb 10, 2021)

tigercrane said:


> Your post appears to really overglorify a man and his deeds in the karate realm. However, you need to look no further than his real fight against Motobu Choki in 1930, and his subsequent defeat in order to understand what Funakoshi's karate might have been like in practical terms. In 1925 King Magazine had showcased a fight between Motobu Choki and an Estonian boxer names Jan/John Kantel (George). Motobu Choki was the winner of that fight, however King Magazine showed Funkashi's picture with the name of Motobu Choki right under it. This is not clear whether magazine did it intentionally or not. I could neither find any information pointing to the fact that Funakoshi had publicly rejecting him being the winner. Remarkably, Motobu Choki thought of Funakoshi as being too soft, and I'd tend to believe to what a real fighter Motobu Choki would have to say on this matter.


 
I agree with your first sentence, tigercrane, but I do not believe you have enough info regarding Funakoshi's response to the article you refer to, although Motobu's fight with the boxer is not disputed.  "Karate" had barely been introduced as a word in 1925, and outside Okinawa, it was still in its Infancy.  Thus, it was probably not a huge topic in print media.  I can't find any reference to "_King_" magazine.  Do you mean _Ring?_

Any follow up comments by Funakoshi (assuming you are correct about the photo and mistaken ID) would most likely have been in local papers and printed in Japanese, or maybe Hogan dialect.  Hard to research.  Adding in the fact of massive bombing and fires suffered there in WWII, plus, we're talking 96 years ago, how did you expect to find such a minor reference under such circumstances???  Just how did you research such a thing?  So, I think using the fact that you can't find it as a basis for criticism is not sound.

Motobu _was_ a "real fighter," a terror even, and he probably thought _everyone_ else was "too soft."  The videos I've seen of Funakoshi and his top students were impressive and gave me no concern regarding his skills.  Having been trained by the esteemed Itosu Anko and the legendary "_Bushi_" Matsumura, Funakoshi was accepted by his peers as accomplished.


----------



## Syeed Ali (Feb 11, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Did Funakoshi sell out the Okinawan legacy in order to popularize it and make it more acceptable to Japanese sensibilities?



Well.. yes. Obviously.

I feel that every martial art which finds a reasonably wide audience can, in hindsight, be thought to have been watered down to what is now the lowest common denominator. Perhaps that denominator is practitioner ability or audience marketability.

I like to think of things like evolutionary biology guesswork. It looks at a feature, then supposes that it the feature is either a legacy leftover or that it has served or does serve some value for fitness/survival.  (Or that it is a new feature which has not had any trial for value)

In a martial art, why does feature *x* exist or why was it removed?  Maybe it was popular for a generation of students.  Maybe it was the insistence of an influential instructor.  Maybe there was a martial need.



I have myself, in person, been told by an instructor of the intentional withholding of a thing. A reason was given -- there is always some reason -- but the result is the same:  Maybe some other learn-ed master will teach it, or maybe it will end with that instructor and exist (if at all) in rumor, story or writing (or, these days, video).

When I was told the story, I was too shy to have an opinion (rightly; I was a beginner), but time has passed.  I have developed a fierce archivist's mind, which is truly offended at knowledge being forced, let alone allowed, to go extinct.  I recently learned of one man who was long ago given copies of ancient VHS tapes with rare scenes, and he just sits on them.  VHS is not a good format; those tapes are rotting by the minute.  I am so very upset.

This mindset is something I care so strongly about that I'm actually writing a work of fiction from this archivistic perspective.

I have thought of that story many times over the years.  I wondered why I would have been told without even knowing about it in the first place.  At one point I probably thought it was the teller helping themselves make the decision.  Now maybe it was seen that I could have been stumbling in its direction.. and that I ought to one day consider if I myself ought to show or talk about it myself.

It is a very unsettling feeling to have this antagonism to my fundamental values, because _I despise yet actually agree with the silence_.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 13, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Funakoshi, "The father of modern karate", was a traditional Okinawan master who studied with Itosu Anko in the "old ways" of _toude/todi.  _His time predates the wearing of a gi and even the name "karate", itself.  It was his efforts in popularizing this art that are responsible for all of us practicing and treasuring it today, 100 years later.  But at what cost?
> 
> It was Funakoshi who transformed the art by introducing it to the public schools in Okinawa, and later, Japan.  To do this, as most of us know, he simplified the kata, removed many of the truly dangerous techniques, and even changed the names from the native Okinawan language (Hogan or Uchinaaguchi) to Japanese.  Karate became something different and was sent on a new trajectory.
> 
> ...


The foundation of Japanese Karate was done by the Japanese government to create its own version of Western Boxing. Boxing was surging in popularity at the time due to the supermatch between Jack Dempsey and a Frenchman whose name I have forgotten. This match was so anticipated, that it was aired in cinemas across the whole world, for months or perhaps even years.

Funakoshi purposely removed any techniques that involved locks and grappling and created a version of Karate that only works at punching and kicking range. Was what he did selling out his culture? I honestly don't know how to answer that - but another master of Okinawan Karate certainly thought it was. He was enraged at Funakoshi's teachings and kicked his *** multiple times. This was Motobu Choki.

However, some could argue Motobu Choki was more jealous of Funakoshi's success, rather than angry at his Karate. Choki was an amazing fighter, but he had little success when attempting to spread his Karate in Japan.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Feb 13, 2021)

A couple of suggestions for you as you work toward your writing/blogging career.  First, beware of making sweeping broad statements.   Second, when you do,_ especially_ when they may be accusatory or controversial, you need to document those statements.

Question them yourself to see if it is supposition, deduction, guesswork, gossip, or factual.  If you see that it is not an obvious fact that most here should know, provide sources to back up your claims or thoughts.  This will be a great step towards you being, and being perceived as, a serious commentator (and perhaps someday an authority!)  Here are a few examples and questions you can ask of yourself:



Ivan said:


> The foundation of Japanese Karate was done by the Japanese government to create its own version of Western Boxing.



Doesn't seem to me this was the driving reason.   Karate was introduced to Japan via the public schools for PE so those foundational students were mostly 7-16 years old.  Why would they want a weird version of boxing instead of just training Western Boxing and allowing them to compete (and be accepted) on the world stage?  Weren't there other reasons for karate in Japan?



Ivan said:


> Funakoshi purposely removed any techniques that involved locks and grappling and created a version of Karate that only works at punching and kicking range.



Not fair to say "any."  Many, yes.  And there were still techniques that worked at close range:  elbows, knees, sweeps...



Ivan said:


> He was enraged at Funakoshi's teachings and kicked his *** multiple times. This was Motobu Choki.



Enraged?  Why?  Is this something you read from a documented source, or just what others may have posted on their own?  I've read a bit in the field and don't remember any of these incidents.  May have happened.  Motobu kicked everyone's a**.



Ivan said:


> However, some could argue Motobu Choki was more jealous of Funakoshi's success, rather than angry at his Karate. Choki was an amazing fighter, but he had little success when attempting to spread his Karate in Japan.



Based on what factors could one argue he was jealous of Funakoshi?  Motobu, unlike many karate masters, was not highly educated, probably not trained in business, and was concerned with fighting more than marketing.   He did not coddle his students - his teaching was hard core (brutal).  As a parent, I would never put my kid in his class (But I'd have loved to go out drinking with him!).  These are, I think, the main reasons his teaching did not blossom into many students.

I believe you are currently a college student, right?  Developing good scholarship / research habits will serve you well in the future.  Keep on writing, videoing, blogging, or whatever you do.  Just as in MA, it takes time to refine your technique.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 14, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> A couple of suggestions for you as you work toward your writing/blogging career.  First, beware of making sweeping broad statements.   Second, when you do,_ especially_ when they may be accusatory or controversial, you need to document those statements.
> 
> Question them yourself to see if it is supposition, deduction, guesswork, gossip, or factual.  If you see that it is not an obvious fact that most here should know, provide sources to back up your claims or thoughts.  This will be a great step towards you being, and being perceived as, a serious commentator (and perhaps someday an authority!)  Here are a few examples and questions you can ask of yourself:
> 
> ...




For starters, I am grateful for your tips they were very helpful.

Most of my information on Karate comes from this channel: (40) Jesse Enkamp - YouTube
I would also argue it's not so impalpable for Japan to decide to make their own version of Boxing instead of teaching Western Boxing, as they were known throughout history to be prideful of their culture. How could such a prideful country allow Western Boxing (a foreign art) to be the brunt of the youth's physical education curriculum?

My information on Motobu also comes from the channel above. He challenged Funakoshi to a Kumite, and threw him to the floor with the exact same technique three times. Motobu was specifically enraged as he did not see Funakoshi's karate as "real karate". He thought he was a sellout.

Moreover, the channel above also states that the reason Motobu's classes did not succeed, was because the curriculum was easily picked up and learnt by his students, which meant he could not keep a student for more than a couple of months before they became great fighters.

And personally, if I was in Motobu's shoes, I would have been quite jealous. He had been practicing his whole life to fight and yet "failed" to succeed in teaching, and suddenly, someone takes the art he had spent years perfecting and throws out half of its techniques whilst becoming one of the most famous figures in the country.


----------



## Syeed Ali (Feb 14, 2021)

Not to stray too off topic, but I was recently learning about Bartitsu, the first western MMA, for it's cane defense. I had one storyteller say that it failed because it was made expensive, marketed toward that crowd then found itself competing with a budding fascination in east Asian martial arts. That and probably infighting (style, at least, and likely business or publicity as well).

It had some judo / jujutsu forms, but I suppose it didn't capitalize on that trend.  After it's demise, one participant helped continue the public's awareness of jujutsu.

Bartitsu survived extinction via interest in the fictional "baritsu" of Sherlock Holmes.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 14, 2021)

Ivan said:


> For starters, I am grateful for your tips they were very helpful.
> 
> Most of my information on Karate comes from this channel: (40) Jesse Enkamp - YouTube
> I would also argue it's not so impalpable for Japan to decide to make their own version of Boxing instead of teaching Western Boxing, as they were known throughout history to be prideful of their culture. How could such a prideful country allow Western Boxing (a foreign art) to be the brunt of the youth's physical education curriculum?
> ...


So I don't know enough about karate to give any statements on the validity of jesse enkamp, besides that he's supposedly good. But it sounds like all your information is from him. Having only one source, no matter how reputable, is a very bad idea. Especially for something as modern as karate where there is a lot to draw from.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Feb 14, 2021)

Ivan said:


> For starters, I am grateful for your tips they were very helpful.
> 
> Most of my information on Karate comes from this channel: (40) Jesse Enkamp - YouTube
> I would also argue it's not so impalpable for Japan to decide to make their own version of Boxing instead of teaching Western Boxing, as they were known throughout history to be prideful of their culture. How could such a prideful country allow Western Boxing (a foreign art) to be the brunt of the youth's physical education curriculum?
> ...



Now your post has more substance, having provided some quoted sources and details.  I reviewed your main source video blog and consider Jesse a respected student of karate, always providing interesting and useful information.  This piece was one I hadn't seen, but did remind me I had read years ago (and forgotten) of his encounter with Funakoshi.  It supported some of your comments and some of mine, though our interpretation of some may differ.

Motobu may not have been the most likable guy, but was one tough karate man.  Contrary to the impression Jesse left us with that Motobu was not a kata guy, 10th dan founder of Matsubayashi Shorinryu, Nagamine Shoshin, (student of Motobu and Kyan) wrote, "Master Motobu had enormous respect for orthodox kata."  He just emphasized the combat applications, especially of _naihanchi _kata.

Thanks to your inclusion of Jesse's video, we can understand the dynamics involving Motobu and Funakoshi.  Its roots, in part, a result of their different social classes, education and life styles.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 15, 2021)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> So I don't know enough about karate to give any statements on the validity of jesse enkamp, besides that he's supposedly good. But it sounds like all your information is from him. Having only one source, no matter how reputable, is a very bad idea. Especially for something as modern as karate where there is a lot to draw from.


When it comes to history, all of my stuff comes from Jesse Enkamp and Wikipedia. I bought some books on the matter but I haven't gotten round to reading them yet.
But for technique and kata and application a personal favourite of mine is Fiore Tartaglia. I just bought his new book in which he explains every single technique in Shotokan Karate with great depth, detail and hand-drawn illustrations. You should look him up on YouTube.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 15, 2021)

Ivan said:


> When it comes to history, all of my stuff comes from Jesse Enkamp and Wikipedia. I bought some books on the matter but I haven't gotten round to reading them yet.
> But for technique and kata and application a personal favourite of mine is Fiore Tartaglia. I just bought his new book in which he explains every single technique in Shotokan Karate with great depth, detail and hand-drawn illustrations. You should look him up on YouTube.


You should really use more than just the one (and a half) sources for the history. At least if you're going to be writing about it.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 15, 2021)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> You should really use more than just the one (and a half) sources for the history. At least if you're going to be writing about it.


I've not written anything on this topic. Don't worry, I at least know that much.


----------



## Hakkan Mordrake (Feb 15, 2021)

Funakoshi was a sellout. Anko was an insecure man-child.

Idiots, idiots everywhere.


----------



## letsplaygames (Feb 21, 2021)

tigercrane said:


> Your post appears to really overglorify a man and his deeds in the karate realm. However, you need to look no further than his real fight against Motobu Choki in 1930, and his subsequent defeat in order to understand what Funakoshi's karate might have been like in practical terms. In 1925 King Magazine had showcased a fight between Motobu Choki and an Estonian boxer names Jan/John Kantel (George). Motobu Choki was the winner of that fight, however King Magazine showed Funkashi's picture with the name of Motobu Choki right under it. This is not clear whether magazine did it intentionally or not. I could neither find any information pointing to the fact that Funakoshi had publicly rejecting him being the winner. Remarkably, Motobu Choki thought of Funakoshi as being too soft, and I'd tend to believe to what a real fighter Motobu Choki would have to say on this matter.



* Just using fact checking and logic... First let me say " Many of you really....  need to do your fact checking."  It's the age of the internet... "anyone can say or print anything!"  

Yes I'm a Shotokan guy... seeing some weird unfounded revision of Funakoshi's karate.. leaves me itching to respond. 
*
Respectfully:  No real variable (primary or even secondary source material)  supporting evidence outside Motobu Choki's small.... small...  inner circle,  that any confrontation happened between O"Sensei Funakoshi.  Then...* what little rumor there is ..*. doesn't describe it.  Motobu had a reputation of a bully and a drunk..(that's factual ) known to fight in taverns and bars on the sea docks. (again factual)   How many here are aware of that?  It also is known that Motobu was kicked out of every dojo he trained in for his bad behavior... including Itsou's...(again factual! )   The ONLY kata  Motobu is in on record knowing is Naihanchi  (His own admission!!)  (Factual again... )  He admits he learned it spying on Itsou's dojo through a hole in the fence.  If..   if .... he did get physical with Funakoshi* .. It wasn't in an official challenge form.  

Why do we know that? *

 Because if it was... a lot more people other than a few select students of Motobu's would have recorded it!

LOGIC  101.

So what was it? (again if it really happened)   Given Motobu's reputation of a drunken brawler. (i.e less than a honorable reputation)   Given that Funakoshi wouldn't have lowered himself to Motobu's level. (or accepted challenges, which he didn't )

What was it? For all anyone knows Motobu in one of the many ceremonies captured on pictures, he turns to Funikoshi "say's  "What would you do if...  and jumps him."

Yep, it could have been that lame...  we don't know!  but given Motobu's reputation at that time?  Gives a cause for pause "if" it really happened.

*Let me Pile Drive this revision attempt  into the dirt even more.   *

_IF.... Funakoshi's Karate was junk and Motobu Choki's was such the master and thus better...  WHERE are the cadre of master level karate-ka of the CHOKI MOTOBU RYU that traveled the globe.?_
*
Where are they?*

Where are the Karate-ka that rival Funakoshi's karate-ka?  _E.G.   Gigo Funakoshi, Nishiyama, Nakayama, Kase, Okazaki, Tanaka, Enoeda, Asai, Kanazawa, Oshima, Osaka, Yahara   (That's just the Japanese for starters)_

*Where are they?*

Here is another FUN FACT!   There is NO RECORD of a WESTERN BOXER traveling in Japan at the Time MOTOBU CHOKI supposedly defeated a boxer.  NONE!~

  Any evidence that documented  the fight,  was in a Newspaper article, now long gone... there are no original copies of the newspaper to be found!  NONE survived the war.   *NORE any record of an Estonian boxer named Jan/John Kantel (George) ever being real, or in Japan at the time! (let alone fighting Judo-ka) *
_
Little fact checking (and asking where these stories come from will debunk 99% of them) _

(My favorite of the Motobu fight:  *the fine print  of the bogus article circulating the internet:  * where it said Judo ka where challenging the boxer, but no throws or grappling was allowed!  Hmmmm...LMAO!  "_what judo-ka is going to challenge a striker/boxer if they can't grapple and throw ?   _None in any era that I know.  Doubt me?  Just jump over to the Jit and Judo forum and ask those guys what they think of that!

That alone should give most of you a red flag!

Most martial art historians correlate the "Motobu Choki  defeats Boxer" story with myths of similar Chinese kung fu experts exploits of the day... they typically never happened, all ype similar to Professional Wrestling  WWF stuff!   (i.e. think Huo Yuanjia...  most of his exploits are nothing but tall tales) ...   (Jet lee... movie all fake...

Ya, think maybe Jesse the Karate Nerd didn't do his homework?

_Some Italian dude on the internet, states he saw a car with the logo "Bruno's Garage"  lap a Ferrari in the 1950s .. but can't tell you the race, can't tell the year... all he knows is that Bruno had a garage.  Officially there is no record of Bruno's Garage ever racing,  or being in a race with Ferrari...  SO is it....   "we believe Ferrari is junk and Bruno's Garage built a better race car?"  cause a dude on the internet said it?   (Yet, ignore the decades of Farrari racing excellence! and Bruno's absence in professional racing ?)  And in the mix ... we also want to believe that Bruno built a better car too._

_crazy... but.... _
* That's the logic on display here! 
*
_Nothing against Motobu Ryu... Nothing against Okinwan Karate... just stating verifiable facts.
For all we know... Motobu Choki and Gichen Funakoshi had mutual respect for one another._


Logic and common sense and not believing everything you read on the internet (or in print for that matter..)  Goes a long way...


----------



## isshinryuronin (Feb 21, 2021)

I agree with some of your posting as you can tell from mine, earlier on this thread.  For a newcomer here, you come on pretty strong whilst few of us know if you have any cred.  Much of your posting and "verifiable facts" have been put out, perhaps, with not as much authority / accuracy as you may think.



Paul Calugaru said:


> The ONLY kata Motobu is in on record knowing is Naihanchi (His own admission!!) (Factual again... ) He admits he learned it spying on Itsou's dojo



He is on record of TEACHING only one kata, naihanchi.  He KNEW several and respected them.  I supplied an authoritative quote in support of this on my post #33 on this thread.  Before getting accepted at Itosu's home (not dojo, I believe) he did spend some time observing (uninvited, before being accepted as a student.)



Paul Calugaru said:


> IF.... Funakoshi's Karate was junk and Motobu Choki's was such the master and thus better... WHERE are the cadre of master level karate-ka of the CHOKI MOTOBU RYU that traveled the globe.?



Motobu was not an easy teacher (very tough and uncompromising) and did not retain many students.  This was also discussed earlier.  As I again said earlier, what I have seen of Funakoshi and his top students, their skill level was high.



Paul Calugaru said:


> Where are the Tournament Champions of MOTOBU RYU?



Much of what Motobu taught would not be allowed in tournaments.  He was, as you noted, an actual combat master and did not train for sport karate.  Sport karate in Japan did not get popular till the 1930's and Motobu was near the end of his active training.  Many of the old masters, and some current guys, recognized sport karate required some compromise of the original style and did not embrace it. 



Paul Calugaru said:


> (My favorite of the Motobu fight: the fine print of the story where it said Judo ka where challenging the boxer, but no throws or grappling was allowed! (what judo-ka is going to challenge a striker if they can't grapple and throw ?



Karate was little known outside of Okinawa (and even in Okinawa) and was grouped in with Judo as a martial art.  So, to the uninformed of that time, would have been described as a striking form of Judo.


Your "facts" are partially true, but do not reflect the full story / truth which is quite different.


----------



## letsplaygames (Feb 22, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> I agree with some of your posting as you can tell from mine, earlier on this thread.  For a newcomer here, you come on pretty strong whilst few of us know if you have any cred.  Much of your posting and "verifiable facts" have been put out, perhaps, with not as much authority / accuracy as you may think.
> 
> He is on record of TEACHING only one kata, naihanchi.  He KNEW several and respected them.  I supplied an authoritative quote in support of this on my post #33 on this thread.  Before getting accepted at Itosu's home (not dojo, I believe) he did spend some time observing (uninvited, before being accepted as a student.)
> 
> ...



Street cred?   I'm a Nidan in Shotokan currently working towards my sandan, my sensei is a Rokudan. I'm also a Nidan in Rokukai Aikido ( a blend of Aikido and Judo )  I have 3  BA's in Economics, History and Political Science.  Which translates: I'm  very immersed in sifting though primary, secondary and tertiary historical documents ...

There just isn't enough primary or secondary sources to draw from.  Plenty of tertiary... but that amounts to hearsay... and not provable. 


I think  (not sure it's been a while since I read it) most of what I've typed about MOTOBU CHOKI came directly from Shochin Nagamine's book  "Tales of Great Okinawan Masters"  I believe it is in the *"fine print"  If my memory serves me he * diplomatically paints Motobu (or his brother) Not in a decent light.   IF you read Nagimani's book and took from his words a different perspective than me ,  that's ok, we all comprehend differently * Yet, *_*still doesn't refute anything I have highlighted about Funakoshi*._ 

I will say at this point ... I don't play the internet semantics game that so many do when their premise is found to be suspect.

*The Wikipedia site on Motubu Choki is suspect....  * Click on the link to *King Magazine (*the magazine some here have cited as being the primary source of Motobu's defeat of the Boxer...  You get taken to an African American Men's magazine.  Why is that?   I assuming because the King magazine never existed... I believe the origin story (the primary source) stems from an article in an Osaka Newspaper. Osaka like other major cities in WWII was utterly destroyed through fire bombing.  The result.... There are NO primary sources existing of Motobu fighting a boxer in Japan, or for any Karate-ka fighting a Boxer at that time.  (at least with my research... I couldn't find any)   I also couldn't find  any proof that a western boxer was touring Japan at that time.  (other people also have looked... not being able to locate the Osaka newspaper article... people investigated the western boxer avenue... NOTHING!  Ouch!

Most would say this is the end of the story, for Motobu Choki appears to have even less historical credibility than Funakoshi.

So many holes in this story line... Most  skeptics doubt the claim he defeated (let alone fought) Funakoshi.

*WE just don't know...*

As a Shotokan karate-ka  I find, the added  "Drawn conclusion that Funakoshi's Karate was suspect to be a massive leap in non-fiction."

Not saying you personally have drawn that conclusion  .. but some here have.  You... IMO  might be guilty of perceiving  greatness  in  Motobu Choki  that never was, (don't forget there is less actual primary source material on him than Funakoshi)   There is no verifiable proof Motobu Choki had prowess other than at the tertiary level.     An honest perspective research will yield he was not any better than any other Sensei teaching at that time.

 If...we judge a sensei by what he leaves behind, his legacy ...i.e.  Motobu Choki falls way short of Funakoshi (heck anyone outside of Kenwa Mabuni falls short... )    *As you have acknowledge,* One can not find the cadre of great masters that Motobu taught.  This huge fact should have ended any debate on Motobu Choki Vs. Gichen Funakoshi long ago... it is insurmountable.. *drives a stake right through any hypothesis that Funakoshi karate wasn't legit, that he sold out... etc etc...*

I can't type anymore on this

 Anymore would be to entertain the game of semantics, let the casual reader formulate their own opinion(s)


----------



## isshinryuronin (Feb 22, 2021)

Paul Calugaru said:


> *As you have acknowledge,* One can not find the cadre of great masters that Motobu taught.



Just a note, while there was not a "cadre" of masters Motobu taught, there are a couple of notables:  Isshinryu founder Tatsuo Shimabuku (for a short time) and Matsubayashi Shorinryu founder, Sochin Nagamine   The latter provided an earlier quote of mine attesting to the fact that Motobu had appreciation and respect for traditional kata.  (Yes, I've read his book you referred to.)

Little karate history can be attributed to primary sources due to its secretive nature and the cataclysm of WWII.  There are just a handful of such and thus highly valued.  What largely remains are legends and orally transmitted stories no doubt embellished over the decades, though often with some spark of, if not truth, at least of value as illustrative myth.


----------



## Koryuhoka (Aug 17, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Funakoshi, "The father of modern karate", was a traditional Okinawan master who studied with Itosu Anko in the "old ways" of _toude/todi.  _His time predates the wearing of a gi and even the name "karate", itself.  It was his efforts in popularizing this art that are responsible for all of us practicing and treasuring it today, 100 years later.  But at what cost?
> 
> It was Funakoshi who transformed the art by introducing it to the public schools in Okinawa, and later, Japan.  To do this, as most of us know, he simplified the kata, removed many of the truly dangerous techniques, and even changed the names from the native Okinawan language (Hogan or Uchinaaguchi) to Japanese.  Karate became something different and was sent on a new trajectory.
> 
> ...


I think it was a concerted decision and effort. I believe, from things said throughout the years, that he was sent to intentionally keep Japan from the real knowledge of karatejutsu. He was not a sellout. He was highly educated and well known for his literary work. He was sent to achieve what resulted in Shotokan today.


----------



## letsplaygames (Aug 17, 2021)

Koryuhoka said:


> I think it was a concerted decision and effort. I believe, from things said throughout the years, that he was sent to intentionally keep Japan from the real knowledge of karatejutsu. He was not a sellout. He was highly educated and well known for his literary work. He was sent to achieve what resulted in Shotokan today.



Quite the contrary: 

From all the documented evidence from primary sources (i.e. first person accounts, to include verifiable eye witness accounts from creditable sources in and outside of Shotokan circles  )  Funakoshi went to the mainland to popularize and spread Okinawan Karate... he in no way tried to keep any knowledge from the Japanese populace. 

A country with a thousand Taijutsu (i.e. Samurai battle arts) Karate was initially seen as a back water hillbilly red neck pugilistic art that lacked culture and sophistication.  Experienced Taijustu practitioners who first experienced the art came away thinking it was lacking.   

IMO A much clearer picture of Funikoshi's Shotokan should entail Takeshi Shimoda:  a Ninpo *Taijutsu* master, who became one of Funakoshi's best student, (basically his 2nd)  unfortunately he dies early,  I think in 1934 (which is why his influence is over looked... even by some scholars of Shotokan)   he heavily influenced Yoshitaka Funakoshi and others like Genshin Hironishi, Shigeru Egami, Isao Obata  (Note Hironishi, Egami and Obata were also experienced in various Taijutsu already before they studied under Funakoshi)   that's when the departure from what people think of as Okinawan karate and to Japanese karate happened.  At that point in time we see Kokutsu Dachi supplanting  Neko Ashi Dachi   Note:  Kokustu dachi is a heavily used stance in many mainland Japanese Taijustu... same goes for Hangetsu and Sochin dachi which are now relied upon over the more Okinawan in nature  Sanchin dachi..  (let us also note:  neko and sanchin dachi were never removed)  

The last paragraph is to emphasize the change  to Japanese's karate  wasn't a random act, but more influenced by other Japanese martial arts at that time period (various Kendo , some Jujitsu, some Ninjitsu and Aiki Jujutsu respectfully) 

​


----------



## Koryuhoka (Aug 17, 2021)

Paul Calugaru said:


> Quite the contrary:
> 
> From all the documented evidence from primary sources (i.e. first person accounts, to include verifiable eye witness accounts from creditable sources in and outside of Shotokan circles  )  Funakoshi went to the mainland to popularize and spread Okinawan Karate... he in no way tried to keep any knowledge from the Japanese populace.
> 
> ...


Who in Japan practices and teaches the principles of Okinawan Karate outlined by Masters like Tetsuhiro Hokama, the Late, Great Seiyu Oyata, Katsuhiko Shinzato and others? Who is teaching the body mechanics taught in styles like Kishaba Juku, and Kyudokan Shorin Ryu? These schools teach principles of "Ti", Kyusho, Tuidi. Their movements and applied dynamics are based on  concepts from Bubishi. What Japanese karate organization is teaching these things? Everybody has opinions but the truth lies in the knowledge that is passed down, or in what is left out. The evidences point to gaps in the knowledge base of what was transmitted through the lineages, compared to what was transmitted to Japan.


----------



## letsplaygames (Aug 18, 2021)

Koryuhoka said:


> Who in Japan practices and teaches the principles of Okinawan Karate outlined by Masters like Tetsuhiro Hokama, the Late, Great Seiyu Oyata, Katsuhiko Shinzato and others? Who is teaching the body mechanics taught in styles like Kishaba Juku, and Kyudokan Shorin Ryu? These schools teach principles of "Ti", Kyusho, Tuidi. Their movements and applied dynamics are based on  concepts from Bubishi. What Japanese karate organization is teaching these things? Everybody has opinions but the truth lies in the knowledge that is passed down, or in what is left out. The evidences point to gaps in the knowledge base of what was transmitted through the lineages, compared to what was transmitted to Japan.


A) you are assuming there are gaps in knowledge… there is not. (Visit the JKA Hombu dojo, or the SKIF Hombu dojo etc etc.. you assume what is taught in Okinawa is site specific… again it is not. Only the terminology.

B) You also walk into a Conundrum by ignoring Funikoshi’s linage predating most of Shorin Ryu in Okinawa (I think his linage predates all of what is viewed as Shorin Ryu.. but I could be wrong on that

Who departed from what?  Who isn’t teaching what?  Since Shotokan predates what is viewed as modern Shorin Ryu … did Shorin Ryu break from established dogma?

Drawing contention between styles, weighing them to find one style wanting is a waste of time…


----------



## Koryuhoka (Aug 18, 2021)

Paul Calugaru said:


> A) you are assuming there are gaps in knowledge… there is not. (Visit the JKA Hombu dojo, or the SKIF Hombu dojo etc etc.. you assume what is taught in Okinawa is site specific… again it is not. Only the terminology.
> 
> B) You also walk into a Conundrum by ignoring Funikoshi’s linage predating most of Shorin Ryu in Okinawa (I think his linage predates all of what is viewed as Shorin Ryu.. but I could be wrong on that
> 
> ...


Im not ignoring Funakoshi's history. *I actually pointed it out*. But all these things are easily researched, as they have been written about from various researchers.


----------



## letsplaygames (Aug 18, 2021)

Koryuhoka said:


> Im not ignoring Funakoshi's history. *I actually pointed it out*. But all these things are easily researched, as they have been written about from various researchers.


What has been researched?  And By whom?

_*Quote "From things said throughout the years, that he was sent to intentionally keep Japan from the real knowledge of karatejutsu."*_

"Do have a primary source either from Funakoshi himself, or a key player in the historical events in question that says exactly that?

*We both know the answer to that question*


If you scroll through this thread you see a cautionary example of "so called" research. I.e. "The Motobu Fight with Funakoshi."   You see a layman of history ... i.e Myself...  (with B.A in American History from a major university, who knows where and how to look for primary, secondary sources,) expose the story as fiction, and unprovable.

* Jesse the karate nerd didn't do his homework.

The internet is not consistent, factual nor unbiased.  People today confused opinion editorials as fact, typically they do not realize there are no primary or secondary sources to back up the article.  *

There are people out there that have researched Funakoshi, who have spent a lot of time on him, who know way more than I do about Funakoshi.  That does NOT mean all print media on Funakoshi are truthful, and un-biased.  In the early 2000s,  IMO there seems to be an attempt to revise Funakoshi's legacy and his contribution to Japanese Karate and Karate as a whole by many in the Okinawan camp.  (as a American historian I saw the revisionist attempts for what they were, having often seen similar techniques with American history in published Journals )

You know its a revisionist attempt when you note the people doing the hit piece on Funakoshi all practice a form of Okinawan Karate.   And... they never put their magnifying glass over any Okinawan masters of that era...



Let's do a quick recap of what we do know about Gichen Funakoshi to stabilize this thread and keep it on topic. 

* Born in 1868 (three years after the end of the American Civil War)
* Student to two of the top 10 Karate-ka living at the time in Okinawa  *(Anko Azato & Anko Itosu* )
* Classically Educated for that era (in the 5 classics)
* 1890s  Given teaching credentials by Anko Azato Sensei & Anko Itosu,  *Funikoshi opens his own Dojo *
* 1890s-to early 1910s  teaches in the Okinawan school system, maintains his Dojo also gets married and starts a family.
* 1921 was chosen to participate in a prestigious Cultural Demo at Shuri Castle for the Prince (the future Emperor) in which he demonstrates the Okinawan indigenous fighting art called Tode (soon to assume the name "Karate" )
* Late 1921 the Okinawan Prefectural Board of ED (Directed by the Okinawan Ministry of Education) organizes the first Kobujustu-Taiiku-Tenrankai (Okinawan Athletic Exhibition of Ancient Martial Arts) in Tokyo.  The Prefectural Board of ED petitions Funakoshi Sensei for the role (and here I am quoting the famed* Nagamine Karate Sensei's book "Tales of Okinawan Great Karate Masters"* _they chose Funakoshi sensei because he was known to be intelligent, a reputable teacher, *and an expert in Karate!*_ (_*Nagamine's words not mine!*_)
* 1922 *at the age of 54!* (he's been teaching karate at his dojo for more than 30yrs at this point!) Quoted to have said " My responsibility to Karate and our nation far exceeds my own personal interests. Departs for mainland Japan _(he will not be reunited with his wife till years after the war.. 20+yrs later)
* 1922 authors Tode Ryukyu Kempo and earns the respect of one of the most esteemed Taijutsu practitioners in the country *Kanō Jigorō*  founder of Judo 
* 1922 open first Karate Dojo on the mainland at Keio University, under Kano Jigoro's influence, adopts a Dan ranking system to include similar uniforms. 
* 1925  authors second edition of Tode Ryukyu Kempo and befriends famed Taijutsu/Kendo swordsman * Nakayama Hakudo ..*. who introduces Funakoshi and okinawan Karate to many well established practitioners in Koryu bujitsu ..(traditional Samurai martial arts)  around this time *Takeshi Shimoda:* a Ninpo *Taijutsu* master, becomes  one of Funakoshi's best student,   unfortunately he dies early,  in 1934  Shimoda  heavily influenced *Yoshitaka Funakoshi* and others like *Genshin Hironishi, Shigeru Egami, Isao Obata *(Note Hironishi, Egami and Obata were also experienced in various Taijutsu (kendo, judo Jujitsu etc)  before they studied under Funakoshi) that's when the departure from what people think of as Okinawan karate and morphed to Japanese karate happened.
* 1936 *at the age of 68 *Karate as a Japanese budo is established Karate-do Kyohan is puplished
*1938 *at the age of 70*  Shotokan dojo is built
*1956 *at the age of 88 *publishes Karate-do My way of life
*1957 dies at the age of 89

Sell out? 

Not even close, nor was he a subpar Karate-ka!  (would not have befriend and earned the respect of  either Kano Jigoro or Nakayama Kakudo if his Karate was subpar)  

The man took his words "My responsibility to Karate and our nation far exceeds my own personal interests." to the extreme! _


----------



## Koryuhoka (Aug 18, 2021)

Paul Calugaru said:


> What has been researched?  And By whom?
> 
> _*Quote "From things said throughout the years, that he was sent to intentionally keep Japan from the real knowledge of karatejutsu."*_
> 
> ...


Jeez... you are insinuating that I am saying that Funakoshi was not an accomplished practitioner. I know for a fact that he was. That said, name ONE Japanese Karateka, as in NON Okinawan(Funakoshi was Okinawan), that has an in depth understanding of Karate on the level of Seiyu Oyata. I'll wait for your answer.


----------



## letsplaygames (Aug 19, 2021)

Koryuhoka said:


> Jeez... you are insinuating that I am saying that Funakoshi was not an accomplished practitioner. I know for a fact that he was. That said, name ONE Japanese Karateka, as in NON Okinawan(Funakoshi was Okinawan), that has an in depth understanding of Karate on the level of Seiyu Oyata. I'll wait for your answer.


No of course not.
I’m highlighting that much of what has been stated about Funakoshi on the internet, is opinion not fact.. and at the same time raising a flag on where you got your information (Funakoshi held back instruction)

As for your question: thats for another thread. Start another thread and I be glad to list many


----------



## Koryuhoka (Aug 21, 2021)

Paul Calugaru said:


> No of course not.
> I’m highlighting that much of what has been stated about Funakoshi on the internet, is opinion not fact.. and at the same time raising a flag on where you got your information (Funakoshi held back instruction)
> 
> As for your question: thats for another thread. Start another thread and I be glad to list many


The things I heard regarding Funakoshi was waaaaaaaay before the internet was even open to the public... before anyone even had a computer in their home. So please do not assume I am some sort of "keyboard warrior".

Also your education does not make you more capable of discerning truth from BS. The things I heard were through word of mouth, but the truth lies in the results.

If you are familiar with who's who of karate, you will know the names I mentioned, and you will know the depth of skill and knowledge associated with these men. And I only mentioned a 2 or 3.

There is not need for another thread to give 2 or 3 names of Shotokan practitioners or karateka from Japan, who are on the level of the aforementioned practitioners. But you should understand that I am referring to the sub-arts of karate. If you claim these persons exist, they should be adept in these sub-arts.


----------



## letsplaygames (Aug 21, 2021)

Koryuhoka said:


> The things I heard regarding Funakoshi was waaaaaaaay before the internet was even open to the public... before anyone even had a computer in their home. So please do not assume I am some sort of "keyboard warrior".
> 
> Also your education does not make you more capable of discerning truth from BS. The things I heard were through word of mouth, but the truth lies in the results.
> 
> ...





Sub arts???
Your just not prepared to admit Shotokan is a legit Karate possessing all the nuisances within "whatever Okinawan style you practice are you.  Like I said before... Ya got to stop comparing karate styles, weighing them, trying to find a reason why your style is the best.  It's a total waste of time... *It's a kyu mentality.*

On my education:  *On the contrary:* My education, when it comes to history (I minored in Asian History also  ... Han (i.e  Chinese)  I failed to mention that... my bad) It gives me the tools to fact check subjective information, through Web Based periodicals, University journals, and museum databases...  As much as the internet isn't based in fact, a large proportion is.. Sometimes Internet is a great tool.   

I leave you with this...  I_t's a sign of intelligence and wisdom and courage  to admit when you are wrong or that you may have heard or interpreted something wrong.  _


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 22, 2021)

Paul Calugaru said:


> You also walk into a Conundrum by ignoring Funikoshi’s linage predating most of Shorin Ryu in Okinawa (I think his linage predates all of what is viewed as Shorin Ryu.. but I could be wrong on that





Koryuhoka said:


> Jeez... you are insinuating that I am saying that Funakoshi was not an accomplished practitioner. I know for a fact that he was.


Guys, we all agree Funakoshi was VERY accomplished, in karate and in letters.  He was selected to be the point man for karate introduction to Japan's school system based on his experience as a teacher, his communication/diplomatic skills, as well as his martial arts.  His main goal was to popularize the art so all could reap its benefits.

Both of you are correct in many points and agree on more than you differ.  On those points in contention:  I do believe there was an agreement of sorts by the Okinawan Karate Kenkyukai composed of the main masters such as Mabuni, Chibana, Shiroma (Gusukuma) and Miyagi to name a few (Funakoshi NOT included) to hold back a few of Okinawa's karate "secrets" from Japan.  While Okinawa wanted to be accepted into Japanese culture, some of the older masters still remembered when Okinawa was a semi-independent kingdom.  And even the younger ones had experienced Japanese prejudice against them, so there was a love/hate relationship.

On the other hand, the shotokan karate taught by the JKA was NOT the same as what Funakoshi originally introduced; it changed, I believe, due to the sportification of the art and the necessities required by competition rules.  Thus, many of the changes made in Japan's karate was not of Funakoshi's doing.  Additional changes were perhaps influenced, as Paul noted, by the prevailing Japanese arts already being practiced in structure and organization.  And in technique as well.

The earliest shotokan had considerable grappling and other Okinawan traits.  But Japan had judo and jujitsu, and grappling was in their ballpark.  Funakoshi also had skills in Okinawan weapons, but Japan had iaido, kendo, yari and other koryu weapons and already had staked out that territory.  So such skills in Japanese shotokan karate were downplayed so every art had their own turf.  Japan = organizational harmony.

Last comment - Funakoshi (shotokan) and Kyan and Chibana (shorinryu) were contemporaries. While the formal names of individual karate styles came about in the early 1930's, the flavor of shotokan was established in the late 1920's.  The flavor of shorinryu started with the Shuri-te of Matsumura in the later 1800's.  So I'd say shorin predates shotokan. 

In fairness, it deserves to be noted that Funakoshi and Kyan both had a couple of years study with an aged Matsumura.  Itosu spent more time with him, as well as teaching Funakoshi.  Itosu had some Naha influence as well, so there was cross pollination throughout karate history.  So no matter what branch of Okinawan karate one may be, we are mostly all family related in one way or another.


----------



## Koryuhoka (Aug 22, 2021)

Paul Calugaru said:


> Sub arts???
> Your just not prepared to admit Shotokan is a legit Karate possessing all the nuisances within "whatever Okinawan style you practice are you.  Like I said before... Ya got to stop comparing karate styles, weighing them, trying to find a reason why your style is the best.  It's a total waste of time... *It's a kyu mentality.*
> 
> On my education:  *On the contrary:* My education, when it comes to history (I minored in Asian History also  ... Han (i.e  Chinese)  I failed to mention that... my bad) It gives me the tools to fact check subjective information, through Web Based periodicals, University journals, and museum databases...  As much as the internet isn't based in fact, a large proportion is.. Sometimes Internet is a great tool.
> ...


Shotokan IS legitimate and formidable. You keep insinuating I am talking about the art or Funakoshi not being legit. You can learn a kata's movements, and not know a damned thing about the original intention of the movements, as the creators of the kata intended them. Which is why I ask to name a Japanese Shotokan karateka that can interpret the original intention of the movements. So far, you have not. This discussion has become something it should not have. If you name one, and show that person demonstrating deep understanding of application to Shotokan kata, then you would prove that I have missed, or looked over someone of great interest.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 22, 2021)

Koryuhoka said:


> You can learn a kata's movements, and not know a damned thing about the original intention of the movements, as the creators of the kata intended them.


Unfortunately, the creators of the katas - of most all styles - are long dead and since they passed on their bunkai orally, there is no record of their original intent.  Much was lost in transmission over the decades. More was lost as kata became a tournament competition of form overfunction. 

Some of their intent can be inferred by those _truly well_ versed in the principles of traditional Okinawan karate. Some can be replicated thru reverse engineering, though this may produce a variety of results; the original intent may or may not being one of those. And some techniques may remain undecipherable and be subject to pure guesswork. (And there are those uneducated and egotistical instructors that just make up crap and try to pass it off as real karate so they don't seem ignorant about bunkai.)

But, we have to consider that the masters did not intend there to be just one bunkai for each technique or series.  There are so many variables in combat that it is impossible to learn specific counters to every possibility.  So I think the katas were designed to be flexible, the base techniques being able to be adapted to the specific given situation.  In other words, there may be multiple bunkai for a kata's movements.

Itosu said to "perform kata exactly; actual combat is another matter."  Mabuni wrote, "A kata is not fixed or immovable.  Like water, it is ever changing..."  Motobu wrote they are "just templates." So we can see that kata is a main road, but with different detours allowed depending on the road conditions.  It is still important to practice kata exactly as passed on so those side roads can be easily and effectively accessed.

To close with another quote from Mabuni:  "If one practices kata correctly, it will serve as a foundation for performing any of the infinite number of variations."  Without understanding this and the other concepts above, one does not understand kata.


----------



## Koryuhoka (Aug 22, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Unfortunately, the creators of the katas - of most all styles - are long dead and since they passed on their bunkai orally, there is no record of their original intent.  Some of it can be inferred by those _truly well_ versed in the principles of traditional Okinawan karate. Some can be replicated thru reverse engineering, though this may produce a variety of results; the original intent may or may not being one of those. And some techniques may remain undecipherable and be subject to pure guesswork. (And there are those uneducated and egotistical instructors that just make up crap and try to pass it off as real karate so they don't seem ignorant about bunkai.)
> 
> But, we have to consider that the masters did not intend there to be just one bunkai for each technique or series.  There are so many variables in combat that it is impossible to learn specific counters to every possibility.  So I think the katas were designed to be flexible, the base techniques being able to be adapted to the specific given situation.  In other words, there are often multiple bunkai for a kata's movements.
> 
> ...


This statement eludes to that the masters were also obscuring the content of their art for obvious reasons. They served in government and within the kingdom. The fact that people like Oyata, Hokama and others of that calibre came to be is that the information was transmitted to them. It just didn't evolve from nothing. They understood anatomy and physiology. These teachings were lost by the hush-hush mentality and in recent years, it has made a comeback. The 36 Families - Sappushi, from China exchanged information on martial and medical sciences, as well as cultural interchange. There is so much more to explore.


----------



## Ugh (Nov 20, 2021)

First of all, most of what you said was done by someone else.

But yes Gichin was partially at fault for the loss of Toudi.


----------



## Ugh (Nov 20, 2021)

tigercrane said:


> No one truly knows what was on his mind. I have yet to read about his religious or spiritual inclinations. Perhaps he thought Karate would transcend all the martial aspects and would lead to a betterment of humankind, whoever knows? Didn't he also lay out some 20 rules for his students on how to become better human beings? He must have practiced or leaned towards Buddsim or something like that. Besides, at that time Japan was relatively peaceful and there were no more Shoguns to fight each other, hence no need to study lethal applications by the masses. As in saying, "Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times". Funakoshi must have been that "Strong Man" creating the good times...


 LMAO tell that to Motobu Choki.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 22, 2021)

Funakoshi greatly altered Okinawan karate when he exported it to Japan.  He says as much in his book about removing things to make it safer for school children.  His karate was to be used as a tool to prepare young males for military service and it was designed as such.  Lining up according to rank, doing kata by the numbers etc.

Funakoshi greatly altered the katas, for example Wansu became Empi and removed the famous throw from it to add in a spinning jump to emphasize athleticism.  Funakoshi stopped sharing application(s) of a grappling nature and stuck to the very basic block/punch/kick application(s) of kata.  Later, things were changed in kata to reflect the competition sparring that was brought into it after Gichin Funakoshi's death.  Originally, in Okinawan karate, you didn't have the side kicks (especially above the waist) like you see in Shotokan.  It exposes the groin too much (although some styles do have those as karate was "exported" back to Okinawa after the war and the sparring was popular with the military men).

These are all verifiable facts.  I think arts like Shotokan have gone back to the roots and tried to bring back some of the removed knowledge.  I don't think it has been there all along.  

*“Hoping to see Karate included in the physical education taught in our public schools, I revised the kata to make them as simple as possible. Times change, the world changes, and obviously the martial arts must change too. The Karate that high school students practice today is not the same Karate that was practiced even as recently as ten years ago, and it is a long way indeed from the Karate I learned when I was a child in Okinawa.” Gichin Funakoshi, 1956*


----------



## caped crusader (Nov 25, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Funakoshi, "The father of modern karate", was a traditional Okinawan master who studied with Itosu Anko in the "old ways" of _toude/todi.  _His time predates the wearing of a gi and even the name "karate", itself.  It was his efforts in popularizing this art that are responsible for all of us practicing and treasuring it today, 100 years later.  But at what cost?
> 
> It was Funakoshi who transformed the art by introducing it to the public schools in Okinawa, and later, Japan.  To do this, as most of us know, he simplified the kata, removed many of the truly dangerous techniques, and even changed the names from the native Okinawan language (Hogan or Uchinaaguchi) to Japanese.  Karate became something different and was sent on a new trajectory.
> 
> ...


Bump this thread...
no i do not think he was. He was really a master. Look at one of his students who i think is filmed in Poland. amazing stuff.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 26, 2021)

Considering that Shotokan spawned Kyokushin and Machida Karate, he did something right.


----------



## caped crusader (Nov 26, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Considering that Shotokan spawned Kyokushin and Machida Karate, he did something right.


Wado Ryu too...  with Ju jitsu


----------



## isshinryuronin (Nov 26, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Considering that Shotokan spawned Kyokushin and Machida Karate, he did something right.


Not knocking Funakoshi, but just noting a couple of things:

Modern shotokan is much different than the one Funakoshi developed and taught pre-WWII, as he, himself, stated with some remorse before his death.

Most of kyokushin founder Oyama's training was goju karate.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 26, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Not knocking Funakoshi, but just noting a couple of things:
> 
> Modern shotokan is much different than the one Funakoshi developed and taught pre-WWII, as he, himself, stated with some remorse before his death.
> 
> Most of kyokushin founder Oyama's training was goju karate.



You called him a “sell out”. I would consider that a “knock”.

While he spent more time in Goju, Kyokushin contains kata from both. I’m also pretty sure the Goju he practiced was more the Japanese (aka “watered down”) variant instead of the more traditional Okinawan style.

And of course there’s Machida style….


----------



## caped crusader (Nov 26, 2021)

so what was the main difference in the Japanese Goju ryu from the "Cat"


----------



## caped crusader (Nov 26, 2021)




----------



## isshinryuronin (Nov 26, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> You called him a “sell out”. I would consider that a “knock”.


I DID NOT. 
I posed the question, "Was Funakoshi a sell out?" to open up discussion on this remarkable man and his legacy as his story had various effects on the art of karate.
Perhaps your enthusiasm for him kept you from differentiating a statement from a question.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 26, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> I DID NOT.
> 
> I posed the question, "Was Funakoshi a sell out?" to open up discussion on this remarkable man and his legacy as his story had various effects on the art of karate.
> 
> Perhaps your bias kept you from differentiating a statement from a question.



You posed a rhetorical question on the grounds that he supposedly “watered down” Okinawan karate for the Japanese masses. Again, that’s knocking his achievements, and showing a bias towards “traditional” karate.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Nov 26, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> You posed a rhetorical question on the grounds that he supposedly “watered down” Okinawan karate for the Japanese masses. Again, that’s knocking his achievements, and showing a bias towards “traditional” karate.


Your critical thinking process is messed up.  I have repeatedly praised him and his abilities and I am an advocate of traditional karate.  Just for a moment, Hanzou, try to be objective and see things for what they are.  _Mizu no kokoro_.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 26, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Your critical thinking process is messed up.  I have repeatedly praised him and his abilities and I am an advocate of traditional karate.  Just for a moment, Hanzou, try to be objective and see things for what they are.  _Mizu no kokoro_.



You start a thread questioning whether Funakoshi is a sell out to Okinawan karate and then proceed to explain how he watered it down for the Japanese. When I point out that you’re knocking Funakoshi, you say that MY critical thinking skills are messed up for even suggesting such a thing….. 🤣

Okay bud, carry on….


----------



## isshinryuronin (Nov 26, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> You start a thread questioning whether Funakoshi is a sell out to Okinawan karate and then proceed to explain how he watered it down for the Japanese. When I point out that you’re knocking Funakoshi, you say that MY critical thinking skills are messed up for even suggesting such a thing….. 🤣
> 
> Okay bud, carry on….


None is so blind as he who refuses to see.


----------



## caped crusader (Nov 26, 2021)

what i disliked about shotokan was all the deep stances.  I know they stand higher with fighting but i hated the low snail like stances.  maybe they mean it to strenghten your lower body and i never understood it.  I liked Wado much better. Indeed as was wrote on this thread the original shotokan had much higher stances in kata.


----------



## caped crusader (Nov 26, 2021)

I remember i spoke to Suzuki Sensei in the UK and spoke about shotokan and "Oyama Karate". He said, only with power. talking about the 2 mentioned styles.  I might come over as a ranting macho but i liked the Wado Ryu principles of yielding and attacking.  very nice style.


----------



## caped crusader (Nov 26, 2021)

I still have a letter from him.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Nov 26, 2021)

caped crusader said:


> what i disliked about shotokan was all the deep stances. I know they stand higher with fighting


This is a good example of how kata, kumite and kihon have diverged in some styles (and in some schools within a given style) over the years when once they were much in accord with each other.  Originally, they were one and the same, coming to be seen as individual things only at the beginning of the 20th century.

Why should the stance in kumite be higher than in kata?  The higher stance gives more agility and speed.  Lower stances help build leg strength, but for this, why not just practice the kihon (basic drills) in a lower stance and keep the higher stance in kata?  After all, kata is supposed to simulate actual combat.

There is no doubt that the low stances look more dramatic in competition.  I, once performed a "great" kata in a tournament, but didn't even place.  Asking one of the judges, "Why?" he answered, "Your stances were too high."  (This was before I realized the lack of understanding some judges had and the need to "play" to them for scoring.)

So between competition and the progressive separation in thinking of how kata relates to kumite, the style of performing each became different in many cases. IMO, kata, kumite and kihon should be practiced following the same principles. They should not be viewed as three separate things, but different ways of practicing the _same_ thing.

The exception is that some techniques in kata deal with a specific kind of attack that one won't often find in kumite, and thus will use a unique stance one would not normally use in a fight. Also, in basic kihon, I see no problem in drilling with exaggerated form as form is the first thing to go in combat.  But it should be realized that doing it that way is just for practice.

So, my view (and there _may_  be valid contrary views) is that the 3 K's should be unified and taught as similarly as possible.


----------

