Empty hand flows from weapons...

Agreed. I actually enjoy Exile's and others' input...it just seemed odd that they would spend so much time in a karate forum when there are perfectly good forums for their own arts. Sometimes they are re-discovering the wheel that many of us in traditional arts have been rolling for decades.

But that's the very point, from my point of view—rediscovering that wheel! It's true that there are fora for TKD and other KMAs, but what you may not realize is that there is a kind of split in the view that TKDists have on their own art. This is, I think, important to understand if you're trying to figure out why a KMAist would hang around a karate forum. It has to do with a kind of world view:

  • do you see TKD as being, more than anything else, a fighting system for CQ self-defense, and if so,
  • do you see the technical content of TKD as being embedded in the hyungs—basically the Korean analogues of karate kata, and made up of the same subsequences of movements as those in karate kata (especially Shotokan), such that the logic of these sequences—why these particular movements are put together—is derived from the original logic of the bunkai for the source kata which gave rise to the Korean forms; and
  • do you see the optimal way of thinking about bunkai—the one that gives you the greatest practical advantage—to be that which the founding masters of Okinawan karate had in mind in designing the kata that then went to Japan, then Korean (where they were subsequently dismantled and reassembled in many cases)?

If you answer 'yes' to all three of these (and many, if not most TKDists do not, I'd guess), then it's very likely you're going to be interested in the karate threads because, in a way, you're going to closer to the original source meanings of those hyung sequences. Imagine that you're an academic, specializing in the French language. You are certainly going to want to keep up with the work of scholars of Latin, because a lot of what you see in the grammar of French is going to reflect patterns and idiosyncracies present in the grammar of Latin. For those of us who, to a greater or lesser extent, adopt the three-part package I just sketched, reinventing the wheel is exactly what we want to do because, if we succeed, then we'll have the wheel—and with the pressure to teach TKD from a sport-sparring/form performance (as vs. analysis) perspective, we're pretty sure that at the moment we don't actually have the wheel, or at least, all of it.

You said something in an earlier post about people like Abernethy in effect rediscovering what at least people in Okinawa have been doing all along. But those of us in the TKD camp who I'm talking about don't have access to the Okinawan perspectives, any more than the Korean MAists who founded the original Kwans had access to the deepest bunkai when they were learning their MA in Tokyo in the 1930s, under Funakoshi or Kanken (apart from Hwang Kee). Someone like Abernethy or Rick Clark provides concepts and tools of analysis that we can use to get a much deeper insight into the combat meaning of the forms we've learned than is normally provided (given that, as one of our most experienced TKD practitioners on MT, Kwan Jang, has pointed out, the Kwan founders really didn't have a very deep understanding of the combat applications of the kata they brought home from Tokyo were, and that pretty much determined what their students and students' students knew). In a sense, what at least some of us in the KMAs are interested in doing—including, I think the OPer in this thread—is rethinking the KMAs so that they regain the depth of combat content inherent in their descent from a system with both strikes, tuite and kyosho components, but in addition the very well-developed kicking weapons that have developed over the past half-century. I'm not talking about the complex 540s and high-glitz tournament point-scorers, but the basic power kicks, the hard roundhouse, back- and side-kicks using the open-hip biomechanics that so many of practice devotedly.

Let me quote a passage from one of Kwan Jang's posts, part of a reply to a query of mine, where the issue had to do with effectiveness at various fighting ranges:

Kwan Jang said:
My point on the topic of patterns/forms is that there is a significant and growing percentage of practioners of the martial arts in general and TKD in particular that feel that forms are a time buster and just a filler. And that they could be using their training time to better use. A popular point that is brought up is that you would never fight for real in a static front or horse stance with your hand at your hip when you block or punch. Practitioners will often question why spend time practicing "basics" that do not resemble the striking that you would use in a real fight. The way you train is the way you react.

To me, this is a VERY valid point...if you are going by the karate-do bunkai or the Korean-ized variation of it. Neither is anywhere close to being realistic and I would hope that no one around here would actually try to fight or defend themselves in such a manner. I have actually seen people who tried to do this and thought that they were being "true to their art" by trying to fight that way. I had one guy at the gym I worked out at who spent months trying to sell me the virtues of this type of fighting everytime he saw me there.

Contrast this with the applications/bunkai when you include the kyusho and tuite including the close quarter joint locks, grab and strikes, ect. This system is very similar to many schools of JJ and has a very strong proven track record both in combat and in self defense. If you break this down, then build it up through the scales of force and resistance with a partner, then the movements in your form become a syllabus for giving much greater depth to your TKD practice. IMO, if you use the forms the way they were originally intended, they are a valid and important part of your training and if you master the material in this syllabus, then TKD (and karate-do) become far more complete combative systems rather than just kick/punch systems.

I am not trying to "bash" TKD, but I do see some wrong turns that it has taken IMO. There are things that are already part of the system that most students have already had training in, but few practioners are putting it to effective use. Low kicks, sweeps, takedowns, elbow and knee strikes, joint locks, trapping and infighting,... these are all a part of TKD. However, I see so many instructors only giving a token effort or ignoring all these altogether. Many TKD students even know much of this even exists in their art, all some of them know how to do is slap a hogu with a cut kick.

(The whole post is here.) This passage expresses nicely my personal 'take' on the kind of TKD I want to do (I am not for a moment saying that I think anyone else must, or needs to, think of things in the same way; it's just my own personal interpretation of TKD that I'm talking about here). In view of that, you can see perhaps just why it is that I, and a few other of us KMA types, hang around karate discussions. We don't feel that we have anything to tell you about your own art, I don't think; on the contrary, we're trying to apply what karateka know (at least, the ones who themselves are similarly minded about their own art) to the understanding and practice of our own....
 
I guess I simply feel that you find information wherever you happen to find it.

The originator of this thread is not himself a karate guy, but rather practices and teaches Tang Soo Do. This has not been a discussion among karate seniors.

If a group of karate "seniors" (however that may be defined) is having a discussion in which they do not want potentially side-tracking input from non-seniors, then they would be better served having the discussion in private, and not in a forum such as this, which welcomes respectful input from all members.
 
But that's the very point, from my point of view—rediscovering that wheel! It's true that there are fora for TKD and other KMAs, but what you may not realize is that there is a kind of split in the view that TKDists have on their own art. This is, I think, important to understand if you're trying to figure out why a KMAist would hang around a karate forum. It has to do with a kind of world view:
  • do you see TKD as being, more than anything else, a fighting system for CQ self-defense, and if so,
  • do you see the technical content of TKD as being embedded in the hyungs—basically the Korean analogues of karate kata, and made up of the same subsequences of movements as those in karate kata (especially Shotokan), such that the logic of these sequences—why these particular movements are put together—is derived from the original logic of the bunkai for the source kata which gave rise to the Korean forms; and
  • do you see the optimal way of thinking about bunkai—the one that gives you the greatest practical advantage—to be that which the founding masters of Okinawan karate had in mind in designing the kata that then went to Japan, then Korean (where they were subsequently dismantled and reassembled in many cases)?
If you answer 'yes' to all three of these (and many, if not most TKDists do not, I'd guess), then it's very likely you're going to be interested in the karate threads because, in a way, you're going to closer to the original source meanings of those hyung sequences. Imagine that you're an academic, specializing in the French language. You are certainly going to want to keep up with the work of scholars of Latin, because a lot of what you see in the grammar of French is going to reflect patterns and idiosyncracies present in the grammar of Latin. For those of us who, to a greater or lesser extent, adopt the three-part package I just sketched, reinventing the wheel is exactly what we want to do because, if we succeed, then we'll have the wheel—and with the pressure to teach TKD from a sport-sparring/form performance (as vs. analysis) perspective, we're pretty sure that at the moment we don't actually have the wheel, or at least, all of it.

You said something in an earlier post about people like Abernethy in effect rediscovering what at least people in Okinawa have been doing all along. But those of us in the TKD camp who I'm talking about don't have access to the Okinawan perspectives, any more than the Korean MAists who founded the original Kwans had access to the deepest bunkai when they were learning their MA in Tokyo in the 1930s, under Funakoshi or Kanken (apart from Hwang Kee). Someone like Abernethy or Rick Clark provides concepts and tools of analysis that we can use to get a much deeper insight into the combat meaning of the forms we've learned than is normally provided (given that, as one of our most experienced TKD practitioners on MT, Kwan Jang, has pointed out, the Kwan founders really didn't have a very deep understanding of the combat applications of the kata they brought home from Tokyo were, and that pretty much determined what their students and students' students knew). In a sense, what at least some of us in the KMAs are interested in doing—including, I think the OPer in this thread—is rethinking the KMAs so that they regain the depth of combat content inherent in their descent from a system with both strikes, tuite and kyosho components, but in addition the very well-developed kicking weapons that have developed over the past half-century. I'm not talking about the complex 540s and high-glitz tournament point-scorers, but the basic power kicks, the hard roundhouse, back- and side-kicks using the open-hip biomechanics that so many of practice devotedly.

Let me quote a passage from one of Kwan Jang's posts, part of a reply to a query of mine, where the issue had to do with effectiveness at various fighting ranges:



(The whole post is here.) This passage expresses nicely my personal 'take' on the kind of TKD I want to do (I am not for a moment saying that I think anyone else must, or needs to, think of things in the same way; it's just my own personal interpretation of TKD that I'm talking about here). In view of that, you can see perhaps just why it is that I, and a few other of us KMA types, hang around karate discussions. We don't feel that we have anything to tell you about your own art, I don't think; on the contrary, we're trying to apply what karateka know (at least, the ones who themselves are similarly minded about their own art) to the understanding and practice of our own....


The why didn't the TKD folks seek out Okinawan karate schools and practitioners as soon as they had the "Aha!" experience that they were not getting the real deal?

Most comments like Kwan Jang's are frustrating to many karate practitioners because these people continue to view kata as a mere compendium of techniques and they focus only on the surface, becoming upset about "static" stances and what they see as unrealistic sequences. He does have some understanding that there is more there than meets the eye, but too many of these folks still have a "technique" oriented view of karate.

The fighting techniques in kata, or bunkai, are only a small part of the kata...I would almost say they are merely incidental to the kata, but that would be misunderstood. Focusing primarily on applications is like viewing a great work of art and focusing only on the brush strokes, or visiting the Louvre only to remain outside counting the bricks in the wall.
 
The why didn't the TKD folks seek out Okinawan karate schools and practitioners as soon as they had the "Aha!" experience that they were not getting the real deal?

Most comments like Kwan Jang's are frustrating to many karate practitioners because these people continue to view kata as a mere compendium of techniques and they focus only on the surface, becoming upset about "static" stances and what they see as unrealistic sequences. He does have some understanding that there is more there than meets the eye, but too many of these folks still have a "technique" oriented view of karate.

The fighting techniques in kata, or bunkai, are only a small part of the kata...I would almost say they are merely incidental to the kata, but that would be misunderstood. Focusing primarily on applications is like viewing a great work of art and focusing only on the brush strokes, or visiting the Louvre only to remain outside counting the bricks in the wall.

With you saying this, I would be very interested on what you think of this...

This really is the culmination of my martial arts practice. From the time when I was 11, when I first started martial arts, this is my conclusion.
 
I am going to interject myself in this thread for a moment
the thread is titled empty hands flows from weapons and the opening post has some interesting points and views that can be discussed.

If anyone wants to discuss how and why seniors in any art should only discuss that art then start a separate thread on that subject.

This is an open forum and all have a right to post their thoughts on any subject here, be they correct of way misinformed.

as a side note how many seniors do you think are here in any system and what is a senior.

ok this is off topic so lets get back to the topic of the thread please
 
I meant that sometimes discussions among karate seniors get sidetracked by non-karate guys who are going over already plowed ground. If you are a TKD student, the wheels you need to be discovering are not in a karate forum.
One of the facets that I enjoy when I make the time to frequent this portion of the world wide web is this places normal tolerance to what some call "newbies" as they walk among the giants. This may irk you as some are not as knowing nor as experienced as you. Not all who seek are at your level yet. Only by seeking further wisdom and guidance will they hope to be so.

Perhaps you should meditate for a time on that and yourself seek further enlightenment.
 
I am going to interject myself in this thread for a moment
the thread is titled empty hands flows from weapons and the opening post has some interesting points and views that can be discussed.

If anyone wants to discuss how and why seniors in any art should only discuss that art then start a separate thread on that subject.

This is an open forum and all have a right to post their thoughts on any subject here, be they correct of way misinformed.

as a side note how many seniors do you think are here in any system and what is a senior.

ok this is off topic so lets get back to the topic of the thread please
My apologies for continuing the tanget. I will refrain from additional deflection here.
 
With you saying this, I would be very interested on what you think of this...

This really is the culmination of my martial arts practice. From the time when I was 11, when I first started martial arts, this is my conclusion.

I'm not sure what you are asking.
 
I'm not sure what you are asking.

I am a KMAist trying to explore my roots. The link I posted is the culmination of my research into those roots and how I have attempted to shape my curriculum around them. Just take a look and comment from an Okinawan Karateka perspective.
 
I am a KMAist trying to explore my roots. The link I posted is the culmination of my research into those roots and how I have attempted to shape my curriculum around them. Just take a look and comment from an Okinawan Karateka perspective.

I think it is a nice outline which still focuses primarily on technique. The stuff about Itosu is only part of the story. Itosu learned his kata, at least a lot of it, from Matsumura. These kata are not in any way "sanitized." Many like to speak of the Pinan as "sanitized," but, if you know the other kata Itosu taught the Pinan do not seem sanitized at all. They are actually full of rather brutal techniques. Itosu trained in strict privacy, and his students reported that his classes were spartan and sometimes almost brutal. Although there are no recorded fights of Itosu's, it is said that his punching power was truly phenomenal.

I believe any effort to help people understand KMA is good. I am sure that your analysis will be helpful to people.

Kata, if practiced regularly over years, create a state of mind...mushin is the Japanese word. You can win a fight with one or two techniques...forget about technique. Most people only master a few of the techniques in kata, anyway. Think about mushin...do you know the story of the tea master and the samurai?
 
sometimes almost brutal. Although there are no recorded fights of Itosu's, it is said that his punching power was truly phenomenal.

So you regard the story of his fight with Tomoyase as apocryphal?
 
So you regard the story of his fight with Tomoyase as apocryphal?

Nagamine doesn't mention it, Bishop doesn't either. Most of the people I ever mentioned it to (including Kuniba) think it is questionable. Who knows for sure. You'd think Nagamine would have mentioned it in his book, though. He specifically states there are no recorded fights of Itosu.
 
Nagamine doesn't mention it, Bishop doesn't either. Most of the people I ever mentioned it to (including Kuniba) think it is questionable. Who knows for sure. You'd think Nagamine would have mentioned it in his book, though. He specifically states there are no recorded fights of Itosu.

Maybe... I don't really have a horse in this race; but an alternative possibility is that Nagamine thought that it might reflect poorly on Itosu? Protection of reputation might have trumped historical accuracy. It's not really critical to the argument, but you do see the story around a bit. Richard Kim retells it in The Weaponless Warriors—what's your take on the accuracy of his history?
 
I think it is a nice outline which still focuses primarily on technique. The stuff about Itosu is only part of the story. Itosu learned his kata, at least a lot of it, from Matsumura. These kata are not in any way "sanitized." Many like to speak of the Pinan as "sanitized," but, if you know the other kata Itosu taught the Pinan do not seem sanitized at all. They are actually full of rather brutal techniques. Itosu trained in strict privacy, and his students reported that his classes were spartan and sometimes almost brutal. Although there are no recorded fights of Itosu's, it is said that his punching power was truly phenomenal.

This is something I still seek to understand. In TSD, we still practice the Shotokan kata. From that standpoint, when I compare lineages, the kata "seem" sanatized. And I have practiced shotokan. It was my first art. My teacher's teacher was Master Fusaro in St. Paul.

I believe any effort to help people understand KMA is good. I am sure that your analysis will be helpful to people.

Thank you. I kind of fell into TSD because of my current teacher. If he hadn't been on the level that I expected, I never would have stayed as long as I had. Fortunately, we are both on the same plane of existence regarding our conceptions of this martial art.

Kata, if practiced regularly over years, create a state of mind...mushin is the Japanese word. You can win a fight with one or two techniques...forget about technique. Most people only master a few of the techniques in kata, anyway. Think about mushin...do you know the story of the tea master and the samurai?

I am very familiar with this story. I used it as part of a 500,000 word science fiction story I am currently writing. Here is the exerpt...


Suddenly, an old mutoi story came to Yoshua. It was that of the Tea Master. According to the legend, even though he had had no training in the martial arts, he was still required to dress as a member of the warrior class because he was a courtier of the Monastery. The High Priestess, impressed with the professionalism and austerity in which the man performed his ceremony chose to send the Tea Master to other Monasteries in order to teach others his great skill.

Well, one day, while this man was walking on the Highway close to another Monastery, he met up with a poor looking Ronin. The man, thinking to scare the poor Tea Master into giving him some money, promptly challenged him to a duel. The Tea Master knew that to refuse the duel and give the money would bring great dishonor to his Monastery, so he accepted the challenge even though he knew he was going to die. The only thing he asked for was a brief postponement so he could prepare. In reality, he wanted to learn how to die with honor, or as the Mutoi called it, the Art of Dying. The Ronin agreed and the Tea Master ran back to the Monastery he just came from.

He immediately approached their training hall and asked to see the sensei of the Monastery. Normally requests of that kind needed to come through channels or by invitation, but the students, seeing the need painted on the Tea Master’s face, forewent protocol and escorted him to see the sensei.

The Tea Master promptly explained his situation to the sensei and asked him to teach him the Art of Dying. The sensei, who was an old and wise man, thought for a moment and then asked the Tea Master to make him some tea. Shocked, but willing to do anything to learn the Art of Dying, the Tea Master asked for the fixings and carefully began the ceremony. He calmly performed the ritual of mixing the tea with a professionalism that gave the various miniscule parts of the complicated ceremony an easy look. When he poured the tea for the sensei, the man explained that the Tea Master already knew the Art of Dying.

“When you fight your duel with your masterless castaway,” the sensei explained, “Do it as if you are making tea. Calmly take off your coat and fold it up. Tie your hair back with a ribbon and hitch up your hakama. Next, draw your sword and hold it over your head like this. When you see your opponent move or shout and strike. It will probably result in a mutual slaying.”

Bowing deeply, the Tea Master graciously thanked the sensei and then headed back to where he had left the Ronin. The Tea Master prepared for his own death just as he would have performed the Tea Ceremony and the Ronin, seeing an entirely different man in front of him revoked his challenge and begged the Tea Master’s pardon.

Yoshua looked at the Daemonlord facing him with an even and steady stare. Even though he knew nothing of the powers that were supposedly inside of him or the powers that the Daemonlord could bring to bare on him, he prepared with all confidence and aplomb of one who knew his own worth and was not afraid to show it.

“Are you ready to die, Human?” Narishma spat as he took a step forward.

“Are you?” Yoshua answered with such calm assurance that the Daemonlord stopped in his tracks and dissipated into nothingness, leaving only swirling gray mists. The Nephilim, Narishma Furazana, had fled the field.



What do you think?
 
I'd like to revisit the original issue of weapons-based vs. empty-hand MA relations from maybe a different point of view. We've been thinking in terms of weapons, from what I can see, as battlefield weapons, right? Close–quarters edged weapons, most likely. Now doesn't this mean that the question of the relationship between weapons-based skills and empty-hand skills is really, in a sense, about the origins of the MAs, specifically, whether the empty-hand arts had their origins in military or civilian contexts?

What I mean is, if you say that there's a systematic linkage between the two, then you're suggesting that the empty-hand arts were ultimately created by military combat experts, since those are the ones with the technical weapons training. If you think that kenjutsu and empty-hand bujutsu are systematically linked, then you seem to be more or less committed to the idea that the latter was introduced by practitioners of the former. And conversely, if you think that, in a certain culture, civilians created the empty-hand MAs, then you are a good part of the way to saying that it would make sense to see nothing beyond a generic relationship between weapons-based and empty-handed technique sets in that culture.

This is a bit of an oversimplification—there are hybrid stories conceivable; I suggested one earlier—but these will do for the sake of argument.

So now, what do we know about the origins of the empty hand MAs in Japan as vs. Okinawa? Isn't it the case that, as in the case of Daito-ryu Aikijutsu and other ryu-proprietary unarmed fighting systems, the sources do seem to be military in nature, derivative from, or at least parallel to, the weapons techniques? Whereas in Okinawa, although the picture is muddy, there's some reason to believe that the sources of karate were largely civilian in origin (given that the whole indigenous Okinawan poplulation was essentially relegated to civilian status after the Satsumas showed up)?

So as a simple beginning to an approach to the question, would we not suppose that in Japan there would be a fairly close parallel between the indigenous empty-handed combat arts on the one hand and the main weapon-based arts on the other, whereas in Okinawa there would be much less of a resemblance—and therefore that the karate which reached the Japanese mainland in the 20th century and was given the Funakoshi treatment during the 20s and 30s would look much less like any formal weapon system that we know?

So how do the observed facts tie in with this very rough, oversimplified picture?

OK, fire away! :)
 
Maybe... I don't really have a horse in this race; but an alternative possibility is that Nagamine thought that it might reflect poorly on Itosu? Protection of reputation might have trumped historical accuracy. It's not really critical to the argument, but you do see the story around a bit. Richard Kim retells it in The Weaponless Warriors—what's your take on the accuracy of his history?

Kim's stuff is very unreliable. The kata in his book are doctored from the originals, Kim's background is questionable, and he has been known to fabricate. Without getting into a shouting match with any Kim advocates on here, I would not use him as a reliable source.
 
I'd like to revisit the original issue of weapons-based vs. empty-hand MA relations from maybe a different point of view. We've been thinking in terms of weapons, from what I can see, as battlefield weapons, right? Close–quarters edged weapons, most likely. Now doesn't this mean that the question of the relationship between weapons-based skills and empty-hand skills is really, in a sense, about the origins of the MAs, specifically, whether the empty-hand arts had their origins in military or civilian contexts?

What I mean is, if you say that there's a systematic linkage between the two, then you're suggesting that the empty-hand arts were ultimately created by military combat experts, since those are the ones with the technical weapons training. If you think that kenjutsu and empty-hand bujutsu are systematically linked, then you seem to be more or less committed to the idea that the latter was introduced by practitioners of the former. And conversely, if you think that, in a certain culture, civilians created the empty-hand MAs, then you are a good part of the way to saying that it would make sense to see nothing beyond a generic relationship between weapons-based and empty-handed technique sets in that culture.

This is a bit of an oversimplification—there are hybrid stories conceivable; I suggested one earlier—but these will do for the sake of argument.

So now, what do we know about the origins of the empty hand MAs in Japan as vs. Okinawa? Isn't it the case that, as in the case of Daito-ryu Aikijutsu and other ryu-proprietary unarmed fighting systems, the sources do seem to be military in nature, derivative from, or at least parallel to, the weapons techniques? Whereas in Okinawa, although the picture is muddy, there's some reason to believe that the sources of karate were largely civilian in origin (given that the whole indigenous Okinawan poplulation was essentially relegated to civilian status after the Satsumas showed up)?

So as a simple beginning to an approach to the question, would we not suppose that in Japan there would be a fairly close parallel between the indigenous empty-handed combat arts on the one hand and the main weapon-based arts on the other, whereas in Okinawa there would be much less of a resemblance—and therefore that the karate which reached the Japanese mainland in the 20th century and was given the Funakoshi treatment during the 20s and 30s would look much less like any formal weapon system that we know?

So how do the observed facts tie in with this very rough, oversimplified picture?

OK, fire away! :)

I think your assessment is quite on the money with no further elaboration.
 
Given that we now have a much clearer picture about the relationship between Fukien martial arts and karate, and can see them in practice, many of these arguments rely on a degree of historical ambiguity that doesn't exist any more. We can see people practice the original Chinese versions of many kata and see that there isn't really an FMA-style methodology.

(This is not to say there aren't armed and unarmed resemblances or specific concepts that resemble FMA - I personally think there are more than many people think - but I don't think the weapons-first methdology is present.)

Also, consider that a lot of Okinawan kobudo is actually fairly new, synthesized from very short one and two person exchanges to modern parallels to karate forms. Versions of the original practices survive as performance arts. See a documentary here:

http://bunkashisan.ne.jp/search/ViewContent_e.php?from=10&ContentID=252
 
Back
Top