This has been getting under my skin for a few years now, and I'm wondering if it's just me. I find that, more often than not, I'm the sole voice of reason (or, at least I'd like to think I am) in these situations.
In particular, a karate dojo may have a public page on facebook or instagram. Or maybe a page for karate enthusiasts posts various videos from many different karate dojos and tournaments on its page.
And it never fails: at least half of the comments on the page say something to the effect of "They just hand out black belts to anybody these days."
I've seen people in the comments say this about famous WKF champions. I've seen people say this in the comments section of a video of Morio Higaonna demonstrating techniques about a year ago, and I saw it just a few days ago in the comments section of Hirokazu Kanazawa performing a kata. Obviously, they didn't know who they were criticizing in these cases.
So I should simply write these guys off as haters who have no clue what they're talking about, right?
Not exactly. When you check out the profiles of some of these haters, there are quite a few renshis and kyoshis among them.
Alot of these guys in the videos are way better than I am or ever expect to be, and they're getting dragged through the mud in the comments.
For those of you who've observed this on social media, is the bashing valid? Or are these guys simply haters trying to feel superior?
Very interesting. I think it depends on both the specifics and your point of view. There's certainly loads of keyboard warriors with lots of opinions and we all know what opinions can be compared to; so let's take them out of the picture and look at people whose appraisal we can think to be somewhat based on some experience or understanding or skill.
There, you have to look at the perspective. Say WKF karate (or Kanazawa, for that matters; Higaonna we can come to later). The cred of karate-do (shotokan in particular, but any japanese -do is really the same) is gained in two ways: one, by doing katas as well and faithfully as possible; and two, by winning points in kumite consistently enough that you stay in the upper echelon of finalists in a number of tournaments, for enough time.
But what's
well? And faithful to
what? For example, if a kata tells you to have an hand at 61 degrees, your ideal is to be able to freeze, get someone up with a goniometer, measure and find that your hand is exactly at 61 degrees. It matters nothing that that 61 degrees are an arbitrary result of some guy 50 years before shooting a still of a kata in a particular day when his hand was out at 61 degrees, and the hand could be at 40 or 70 with no functional impact on the combative effect that originated that kata. That combative effect is fairly irrelevant (to the point that it's not even stated at all) and - beyond fitness - the essence of -do is that you grind and grind and repeat until you get as close as possible to an
arbitrary template of perfection. This shows character, discipline, commitment, unquestioning adherence to your sensei/commander - all
damn good things in the Japanese culture which originated it - pre-II WW2 Japan. While making good soldiers is not anymore an explicit aim, the japanese culture and its arts still value lots of these a lot.
Now by itself that it's not problematic. If someone idea of fun is to spend 40 years perfecting certain sequences of movements because of it (and it's certainly a way to show determination to yourself and the rest of the world), so be it. Dancers do it, musicians do it, anyone learning any skill does it.
The difficulty is only that, since (unlike say music or craftsmanship) there is not outer "product" to the effort (other than fidelity to the template by itself),so a lot of people think it's a bit weird - especially when that fidelity comes with boastful declaration of a combative effect that - if you just try - you can easily see it's not really there.
Another difficulty is that fidelity to the template depends on the template: if it changes, previous perfect performances become flawed. There's plenty people looking at early karateka b/w movies and going "that's bad". They're different, and probably were good for the templates of the time, but for most that's a very hard thing to keep in mind when you are used to the templates of
your time.
In fairness, modern kata competition has mostly done away with the combative aspect altogether, which is quite honest and good; but of course that will attract puzzlement (if not derision) to anyone who is convinced they should be looking at a combative art, not marvel on how fast people can move limbs without knotting into themselves.
So what makes Kanazawa good? Why is his kata particularly better than, say, an unknown but damn good black belt in a random dojo?
The honest answer is that, of course, it isn't. At least not in a way that is discernible from a video. He's known, famous and he has dedicated his life to his art, spending a large amount of his living days practicing, teaching and living off karate - which is remarkable and exceptional but only if you know about it. The katas of your average regional champion today are miles sharper, faster and crispier than Kanazawa's ever were. We celebrate the man more than his art, and the halo effect is big. Since he's famous, he must be good, and wise and all that.
In a way, that people looks at a Kanazawa video and diss it, is not a bad thing at all (hurtful? Oh yes, to who knows and appreciate the man). Appeal to authority is human and intuitive but ultimately not a great idea at all: in the West we discovered it about 600 years ago, and we now dismiss it (or try to) for most things that matter. Alas, a fun sporting activity does not really matter much (aside to them who make a living off it) so you still find it all over the place because there's no pressure to eliminate it. But it's just as pointless as it was when "Aristoteles says" was the trump card to conclude any discussion.
To be clear, Kanazawa may well still have had a very clear combative intent when performing the a(even though it does not emerge from what he
says). It just cannot be seen in a video - you would see it only if he were to actually
have a fight.
For kumite, it's even simpler. The very fact that in the most widespread kumite style almost nothing of the myriad techniques in the kata and kihon is used is ridiculous to everybody, except to the people who - for some reason - have
decided that it isn't.
Again, if people expect to witness a combative art - the (incredibly athletic and physically demanding) karate kumite sport simply aint it - to say nothing of the n-steps drills. Even the celebrated kyokushin sparring is rather difficult to relate to ("no punches to the head"), and every time (not often) that I watch a clip of Karate Combat, I always wonder where the heck is the karate
That all this happens a lot in social media is simply the effect of the fact that now more people with intuitive expectations about combat arts are exposed to the kata and kumite sports formats. There is a mismatch, there always has been a mismatch, but now way more people witness it, simple as that.
That's what often leads people to either ditch the art, or (like it led me) to attempt do rediscover the "real" thing, taking the -do benefits in terms of athleticism, flexibility, health and overall fitness (which are enormous) but ignoring the entire "one kata per semester" thing and rather spending time retracing, practicing and identifying the clinching/short distance combat methods that the katas so well illustrate. And there are no black belts for that.
Another important aspect is that for well over a century now the main selective pressure on karate has not been its combative effectiveness, but the ability of masters to get classes full of students. There's nothing wrong with it, but they do sell a product - an ideal - and all too often when doing so still play on the confusion between self defense and sport to keep getting pupils (or that good old friend of humanity, self-delusion). Little wonder that - with more witnesses due to social media - the practice is more often revealed for what it is, a little sneaky.
Finally, Higahonna. There's definitely more nuance there, but a lot of the same forces are at play. This day and age, you cannot dedicate your life to karate unless it's a business. A lot of karate practices emerged
because the pioneers were trying to find a way to live off it, (from Funakoshi father onwards) and that sorts of imposes certain results.
If I see someone doing a three-step kumite and the person even hints that has some practical use beyond the very minimal, or using karate biomechanics at the completely inappropriate distance, he can be whoever he wants, but it would not inspire much respect in me.
Being the person I am, I will probably say nothing and keep walking. On the Internet, not everybody is like that.
