Newer styles of Karate

[Omar B]

I've got a question for you guys. How important is your Karate's lineage to you? I ask this because I come from a background of Kyokushin and Seido and one style grew out of the other. Now, I gotta say, I'm in love with traditional Karate. If I could I would train in Kyokushin, Seido and Shotokan all at the same time! Not because I wanna become some sort off Karate monster but because I love seeing the differences and similarities in the old styles.

There are however those newer styles that pop up, have very tenuous ties to the older ones. Some look nothing like the old ones too. I'm not saying Karate should become a static thing that never changes, I just know what works for me. After all, a style's effectiveness is not measured by it's age or lineage.

So what do you guys think. Do you go for a more traditional style, or a more modern one, does your style's history matter that much to you?

 

[Monadnock]

I'm not a Karate guy per se, but I can relate to the topic a bit.

I think if the style gives you what you're looking for, go with it. I practice "old school" and "new school" arts because they each offer something valuable to me.

If by history, you mean lineage, I guess it only matters that your teacher is educated, experienced and competant to teach you what you're paying for.

 

[Omar B]

You bring up a great point. The teacher's education. With established, older styles like the ones I've mentioned there are governing bodies that make sure there's a consistent curriculum. Whereas "Jimmy's Karate-Do" might be what Jimmy copied off TV or a couple self defense seminars ... or about 4 years and a first degree Black belt.

I've been to Muay Thai schools my friends attend and see things like really bad form, improper movements an such. All this happening in front of the instructor, like the guy himself does not know the right way to do the techniques.

 

[Monadnock]

Yea, unfortunately that sort of thing is everywhere.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Not a karate guy but as to lineage

In some cases it is good in others it is meaningless.

Having a lineage does not guarantee a good or a bad teacher and not having a lineage does not guarantee a good or bad teacher either.

Now with that said do you have any idea how many Kung fu schools I have seen that have absolutely nothing to do with or any real connection with any Chinese martial art beyond that possibility that many martial arts originated in China or the taiji teacher that not only has no idea of any of the martial applications their form is pathetic too . Now that to me is just a blatant lie to get money when stuff like that occurs

 

[Andrew Green]

I think it's just basic evolution at work. Most new branches will be weak, but sometimes someone comes along and improves things. The stronger new styles survive, and the weaker ones die out.

Change is needed though, because over generations of instructors things will get lost, if nothing new is being added the style is dead and practitioners are just going through the motions at that point.

I think lineage is limited in its importance, I think there is a relationship between good instructors and ho taught them, but I don't think it is a direct causal one. Good instructors where likely good students, and good students will seek out good information, which will lead them to good instructors.

I guess "strong lineage" is kind of like a chain restraunt, you know it will be "good" food, but it probably won't be great. Walk into a smaller one and it could be a dump, or it could be incredible. But to find those great little restraunts you have to shop around for them, and probably eat a lot of poor food in dumpy places.

 

[thardey]

You bring up a great point. The teacher's education. With established, older styles like the ones I've mentioned there are governing bodies that make sure there's a consistent curriculum. Whereas "Jimmy's Karate-Do" might be what Jimmy copied off TV or a couple self defense seminars ... or about 4 years and a first degree Black belt.

Right, that's important to me. I want to know that I've been taught by someone who's been taught.

I study a new style of Karate, in fact, many people don't recognize the style, it's called Chun Kuk Do. It was designed in the U.S., for the U.S. culture, born out of a mixture of other styles, both Eastern and Western.
Normally, that type of description would make many people nervous, including me.

So what changes it? The founder is Chuck Norris.

Since his training is well-known, and he taught my instructor, I can feel confident that I am learning a legitimate martial art.

 

[Grenadier]

Lineage is nice to have, but it's not nearly as prominent as the quality of instruction. The way I see it, there are only so many ways that a human body can punch, kick, throw, lock, etc., and when it comes down to it, almost every decent martial arts system will emphasize similar kinds of mechanics, regardless of whether they're one of the old systems, or one that was recently developed.

Good instruction is going to be good instruction, and if a system is decent enough, then the students really shouldn't have to worry where the specific martial arts system originated, as long as the organization is a relatively decent one.

Let's face it; as great of teachers as Funakoshi, Ohtsuka, Miyagi, et. al., were, I'm pretty sure that they had to have some terrible students along the way, who somehow managed to open up their own schools. These students probably founded their own systems (probably without permission), yet still claimed to have trained under the above teachers. Terrible representatives, yes, but you can see how some people may try to cloak things.

On the other hand, there are all sorts of well-known frauds in the martial arts world, and there are going to be some students of these characters, who may actually be decent martial artists, but are going to be branded according to their association with these characters.



To put it in a more basic term:

A strong lineage is simply the cherry and whipped cream on top of the sundae. It's nice to have, to look at, to behold, etc., but in the end, the cherry and whipped cream doesn't tell you about the quality of the ice cream used in the sundae, which is what the primary constituent of the tasty treat is. Imagine someone eating this sundae, enjoying the top layers, but suddenly realizing that the tasty upper layer was trivial, since someone used pickle-flavored ice cream.

Of course, if you saw a sundae with a moldy cherry, and curdled whipped cream, you'd probably think twice about eating it, no matter how good the ice cream was underneath it. The ice cream may very well be quite good, but that becomes less of a factor.

Finally, if you saw a sundae that didn't have a cherry or whipped cream on it, but took a close look at the ice cream, and realized that it's excellent ice cream, you'd still be happy at having eaten it, despite not having the toppings.

 

[twendkata71]

Eventually it becomes your karate, irreguardless of what your lineage is. I am not saying start a new style or anything. Your karate,(the karate you practice and perform) is going to be slightly different from you teachers karate and his teachers karate, and so on. You do not move or perform moves exactly like your teacher or his teacher. That is why there are so many styles of karate,gong fu, etc.
It is good to have a strong lineage of good martial arts, that way you know it comes from a solid background.
And for the Chun kuk do stylist, isn't it a combination of Tangsoodo, Shito ryu karate,Taekwondo, and Jujitsu? if memory serves me right. I have met Danny Lane several times and have competed against his and Mr. Norrris' student before and they have all been top knotch. Anyway those are my thoughts.

 

[thardey]

][/FONT]Eventually it becomes your karate, irreguardless of what your lineage is. I am not saying start a new style or anything. Your karate,(the karate you practice and perform) is going to be slightly different from you teachers karate and his teachers karate, and so on. You do not move or perform moves exactly like your teacher or his teacher. That is why there are so many styles of karate,gong fu, etc. It is good to have a strong lineage of good martial arts, that way you know it comes from a solid background.

And for the Chun kuk do stylist, isn't it a combination of Tangsoodo, Shito ryu karate,Taekwondo, and Jujitsu? if memory serves me right. I have met Danny Lane several times and have competed against his and Mr. Norrris' student before and they have all been top knotch. Anyway those are my thoughts.

"Chun Kuk Do" means "The Universal Way". Mr. Norris had high rank in Tang So Do, but what was added to it is too varied to really pick out one or two other styles. As far as the core curriculum, I've seen boxing, kickboxing, Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, etc. The Brazilian Jujutsu is a relatively new, but heavily encouraged addition. I'm not familiar with Shito ryu, but I'm sure someone has probably incorporated principles from it.

After your 1st degree Black, you're encouraged to begin developing your own style, so that the core curriculum stays the same, but you are free after that to pursue other things. My path, for instance, is taking strategies and principles from Western fencing, and Spanish knife fighting, and applying them to empty hand and weapon techniques.

In Chun Kuk Do, it truly does become "your karate", like you said.

Yeah, they're a good group of people. Of course, some work harder at it than others, but overall, the conference I went to last year was an incredibly positive experience. It felt more like a family reunion than anything.

 

[Omar B]

All good points guys. I myself am a fan of a strong connection to the origins, not only because of a set curriculum and teaching methods, but you can move to a different and in most cases get the same (or very similar) training. But as you guys said, a bad teacher is just that.

 

[seasoned]

I started in a traditional style in the 60’s and lineage was a big thing. At the time I felt it had the depth and authenticity I was looking for. It was boring at times with a lot of repetitions and not much in the way of new material. Over time when I began to experiment with other arts I realized that the foundation I had built from the lineage laden style with boring reps was paying off. This experimenting only lead me back to my original style and helped me to dig deeper into it. The more I dug into it the more I realized everything I wanted was there. I think some of the newer styles were born of the older arts and styles that were not allowed to evolve because of stuck in the mud traditionalist. In a lot of cases the newer styles are nothing more then a newer twist on older ideas. It boils down to different strokes for different folks. Is instant pudding better then the old fashion kind that cooked for hours? In the end it is what pleases the individual. J

 

[chinto]

I've got a question for you guys. How important is your Karate's lineage to you? I ask this because I come from a background of Kyokushin and Seido and one style grew out of the other. Now, I gotta say, I'm in love with traditional Karate. If I could I would train in Kyokushin, Seido and Shotokan all at the same time! Not because I wanna become some sort off Karate monster but because I love seeing the differences and similarities in the old styles.

There are however those newer styles that pop up, have very tenuous ties to the older ones. Some look nothing like the old ones too. I'm not saying Karate should become a static thing that never changes, I just know what works for me. After all, a style's effectiveness is not measured by it's age or lineage.

So what do you guys think. Do you go for a more traditional style, or a more modern one, does your style's history matter that much to you?

I prefer a very traditinial style of karare .. I find the lineage very imporant, as after all you must know where you are coming from to know where you are going. Also I think that if you know the history and lineage of your art you will have a better feelling and knowledge of the tactics and doctrins of that style and the principles behind them.

 

[twendkata71]

I agree with you Chinto.

 

[Monadnock]

I find the lineage very imporant, as after all you must know where you are coming from to know where you are going.

Yes and no. To continue a traditional style and keep it true to its origins, yes, but to start a modern system for modern applications, no. Modern karate can be just as effective today as the traditional.

Also I think that if you know the history and lineage of your art you will have a better feelling and knowledge of the tactics and doctrins of that style and the principles behind them.

Maybe, if you have a teacher who can impart that to you.

 

[jim777]

I think the instructor is more important than the lineage, all else being equal. I went looking for a school earlier this year and ended up going with the one with the one with the best instructor (in my opinion, based on my limited knowledge). I do like the traditional Japanese ways though, and the strictness and formality (the Martial content, as it were) of the schools where the instructors were brought up that way. You can certainly learn in a laid back atmosphere, but I find that the really strict schools are easier to lose yourself in, so that becoming imersed in the classes is simply easier once the outside world is really removed from the dojo and your practice.
I guess I prefer the old school style of teaching, and as long as the content is sound and applicable I find the actual style of the art (new or old) to be less important. I could have been happy with Seido or Shotokan in that regard, but the Seido school had the old school Japanese 9th Dan

 

[Omar B]

I think the instructor is more important than the lineage, all else being equal. I went looking for a school earlier this year and ended up going with the one with the one with the best instructor (in my opinion, based on my limited knowledge). I do like the traditional Japanese ways though, and the strictness and formality (the Martial content, as it were) of the schools where the instructors were brought up that way. You can certainly learn in a laid back atmosphere, but I find that the really strict schools are easier to lose yourself in, so that becoming imersed in the classes is simply easier once the outside world is really removed from the dojo and your practice.
I guess I prefer the old school style of teaching, and as long as the content is sound and applicable I find the actual style of the art (new or old) to be less important. I could have been happy with Seido or Shotokan in that regard, but the Seido school had the old school Japanese 9th Dan

Hey Jim, you post on the Jackson/Charvel Forum or the Carvin Forum? I remember seeing that avatar with the Ibanez and child somewhere.

 

[jim777]

Yeah, I post on the JCF a lot, and I'm a moderator at Jemsite That's my son Seamus, who is now 6 and testing for his yellow belt on Friday! He was 2 in that pic with my UV. I use that avatar pretty much everywhere I go.

 

[Omar B]

Right on man. I used to post over at the JCF as ChickenScratch man! I have not posted there as much in the past year or so because earlier this year I realized I don't own any Jacksons anyone having completely moved over to Carvin.

In any case, it's cool that you do Seido. That was my first style I did as a kid and loved it.

 

[chinto]

Yes and no. To continue a traditional style and keep it true to its origins, yes, but to start a modern system for modern applications, no. Modern karate can be just as effective today as the traditional.



Maybe, if you have a teacher who can impart that to you.

what "modern aplications are you refering to? sport aplications acording to a set of rules? if so perhaps. but if you are refering to a system for combat and self defence, then no. I have not noticed the human race has added a limb or lost one in the last ohh 20,000 years or so.. so a fight today is the same as it was in 1200AD or 1200BC. now some weapons have changed, but not the fight, and not unarmed combat, or combat with none distance weapons. in short a fight today is the same as it was in 1800 in Naha or Tamri villige or shuri villige, or in shanghi or london. the human body can only move efficently in a few ways in combat. so no matter what system you study you will end up in much the same place if its efficent in real combat. the doctrin and tactics to get there may vary, but not what will work efficently and well.
Traditional systems have been developed at great cost in lives and resorces over a long period of time. they were developed in situations where if they did not work the practioner did not survive! so if you think they do not work today, I myself think you are sadly mistaken. properly trained in any of the traditional systems that are for combat a practioner will be effective today.. or 300 years ago.