What are some differences between Karate and Taekwondo?

[Prototype]

Well, you did make the assertion. Doesn't seem to be correct, though.



Which, once again, contradicts your claim that it didn't exist. If it didn't exist, it would be deemed non-existent.

The Shotokan mechanics of the Mawashi Geri/roundhouse kick did not exist as part of their system. The actual concept of a roundhouse kick in any fashion was not unheard of, but it was deemed radical and thus rejected. Especially roundhouse kicks to the head (!).

 

[Earl Weiss]

It is a fact that he original stances in Shotokan were high (like the Okinawa styles) and that Funakoshis son later lowered them. That's a true/absolute statement. You claimed that there is disagreement, when there isn't. Fact is that General Choi lowered the stances, because Okinawa style stances are ridiculously high.

Please point me to the text that stipulates stances specifications as established by Funakoshi. I have Karate Do Kyohan with a 1956 forward / preface by Funakoshi and the Front Stance has the lower leg from ankle to Knee perpendicular to the floor.
Perhaps if you provide a source I will accept your truth. It is not the first time I heard this. It may very well be true. The issue is "How High is High, or how low is low"? the best I found for a specification in the noted text is that the stance is 3 feet long allowing for height differences. Can you provide another source / specification?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Please point me to the text that stipulates stances specifications as established by Funakoshi. I have Karate Do Kyohan with a 1956 forward / preface by Funakoshi and the Front Stance has the lower leg from ankle to Knee perpendicular to the floor.
Perhaps if you provide a source I will accept your truth. It is not the first time I heard this. It may very well be true. The issue is "How High is High, or how low is low"? the best I found for a specification in the noted text is that the stance is 3 feet long allowing for height differences. Can you provide another source / specification?

Master Wiess, does the source you have specify how this is to be measured? There's a big difference between:
Heel of the leading foot to toe of the rear foot
and
Toe of the leading foot to toe of the rear foot
and
Toe of the leading foot to heel of the rear foot.

The first would, I think, have to be considered a low stance, while the last would have to be considered a high stance. The second one could be argued either way.

The lower leg being perpendicular to the floor doesn't tell us much, I don't think, since this angle can be changed simply by changing the weight distribution.

 

[Prototype]

Please point me to the text that stipulates stances specifications as established by Funakoshi. I have Karate Do Kyohan with a 1956 forward / preface by Funakoshi and the Front Stance has the lower leg from ankle to Knee perpendicular to the floor.
Perhaps if you provide a source I will accept your truth. It is not the first time I heard this. It may very well be true. The issue is "How High is High, or how low is low"? the best I found for a specification in the noted text is that the stance is 3 feet long allowing for height differences. Can you provide another source / specification?

You might as well ask what the stances are for the Okinawa styles Funakoshi trained. It is higher than what General Choi brought to Chang Hon. This is no secret. They were lowered in Shotokan because of war time in which stability was emphasized. What eventually happened is that the Shotokan masters of the day demanded of the students to train in a very deep stance until 4th dan, to build leg strenght, and then change to change to natural stance when becoming masters.

This natural stance is still lower than Funakoshis original Shotokan which Choi trained in.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Master Wiess, does the source you have specify how this is to be measured? There's a big difference between:
Heel of the leading foot to toe of the rear foot
and
Toe of the leading foot to toe of the rear foot
and
Toe of the leading foot to heel of the rear foot.

The first would, I think, have to be considered a low stance, while the last would have to be considered a high stance. The second one could be argued either way.

The lower leg being perpendicular to the floor doesn't tell us much, I don't think, since this angle can be changed simply by changing the weight distribution.

1. No spec vis a vis where measured from Being a Chang Hon guy I was looking for this.
2. Lower leg perpendicular does not tell much except that A. There is a photo, B. Having it perpendicular makes it lower than not having it perpendicular, and C. The reason General Choi made the lead lowered leg angled rearword with kneecap in line with back of the heal was to facilitate lead leg kicking which is another difference from "Many" Karate stances which is why I brought it up.

As you note the vertical line of the lead leg affects weight distribution. I would say this places more weight on the lead leg as opposed to the Chang Hon 50/50 distribution . At a Karate seminar the instructor explained how this was good for powerful rear leg kicks and moving the rear leg forward. (I was thinking OK, but hinders lead leg kicks and moving the lead leg in any direction.)

 

[Earl Weiss]

This natural stance is still lower than Funakoshis original Shotokan which Choi trained in.

It may have been unusual for the time to memorialize specifications for stances, so unless or until you can provide a reference for the "Natural Stance" i.e. length, measured from which part of front foot to which part of rear foot, Leg angles, weight distribution etc. any comparison is between the Chang Hon walking stance and a Shotokan Front or Natural stance as practiced / taught by Shotokan's founder is difficult at best. (the source I cited has minimal specs)

 

[Dirty Dog]

1. No spec vis a vis where measured from Being a Chang Hon guy I was looking for this.

It certainly would be helpful... but that book was written a couple years before the camera phone...

2. Lower leg perpendicular does not tell much except that A. There is a photo,

I didn't know if there was a photo, or text saying 'the lower leg is perpendicular' but if there is a photo, that should help with the "3 feet" measurement too. Unless the photo is too small or grainy.

B. Having it perpendicular makes it lower than not having it perpendicular, and C. The reason General Choi made the lead lowered leg angled rearward with kneecap in line with back of the heal was to facilitate lead leg kicking which is another difference from "Many" Karate stances which is why I brought it up.

It continues to surprise me how much variation there is between arts with similar roots.

As you note the vertical line of the lead leg affects weight distribution. I would say this places more weight on the lead leg as opposed to the Chang Hon 50/50 distribution . At a Karate seminar the instructor explained how this was good for powerful rear leg kicks and moving the rear leg forward. (I was thinking OK, but hinders lead leg kicks and moving the lead leg in any direction.)

Agreed. The front stance as we teach it is long, wide and low, with about 2/3 of the weight on the front leg. It absolutely makes rear leg kicks easier, and front leg kicks more difficult. Similarly, the back stance is shorter, very narrow, and about 2/3 on the rear leg, making front leg kicks easier and rear leg kicks more difficult. The ITF stances as I learned them were, in general, much more centered. This is something I struggled with when I transitioned to the Moo Duk Kwan.

I think that, outside of forms, these weight shifts and balance points are less significant, since you're never "in" a stance so much as constantly transitioning from one stance to another, with all the balances and position changes that would require.

 

[Prototype]

It may have been unusual for the time to memorialize specifications for stances, so unless or until you can provide a reference for the "Natural Stance" i.e. length, measured from which part of front foot to which part of rear foot, Leg angles, weight distribution etc. any comparison is between the Chang Hon walking stance and a Shotokan Front or Natural stance as practiced / taught by Shotokan's founder is difficult at best. (the source I cited has minimal specs)

It was not altered from the Okinawa origins. That came later. Which part of that do you find unsatisfactory? Do you think the Chang Hon stance is higher than the Okinawa Karate-styles?

 

[Tez3]

They were lowered in Shotokan because of war time in which stability was emphasized.

That's one of the most confusing statements I've read for a while. Why would martial arts stances be lowered because it was wartime?

I'm Wado so my stances are high and short.

 

[Prototype]

That's one of the most confusing statements I've read for a while. Why would martial arts stances be lowered because it was wartime?

I'm Wado so my stances are high and short.

Since when did I become a spokesman/laywer for old school Japanese Shotokan masters rationale? Ever heard of "don't kill the messenger"?

 

[Tez3]

Since when did I become a spokesman/laywer for old school Japanese Shotokan masters rationale? Ever heard of "don't kill the messenger"?

You posted up the statement along with other similar ones so you made yourself the de facto spokesman. Well perhaps you could cite your sources so we can understand what you are talking about.

 

[Prototype]

I know all of this due to direct black belt "descendants" of Funakoshis son who've reported it. I don't need any texts to back up what I write. Anybody that disputes it can take a look at photos of Funakoshi and make up their own mind if it looks like an Okinawa stance or not.

 

[Prototype]

It was not altered from the Okinawa origins. That came later. Which part of that do you find unsatisfactory? Do you think the Chang Hon stance is higher than the Okinawa Karate-styles?

And if they were altered by the time General Choi studied Shotokan, it wasn't more than what he ultimately brought over to Chang Hon TKD. That is some variant of the natural stance in Shotokan today (preserved for master levels).

 

[Tez3]

I know all of this due to direct black belt "descendants" of Funakoshis son who've reported it. I don't need any texts to back up what I write. Anybody that disputes it can take a look at photos of Funakoshi and make up their own mind if it looks like an Okinawa stance or not.

I'm sorry but that is actually quite amusing. You don't need anything to back up what you write eh? Well let me introduce myself, I'm the Queen of Great Britain, I am the richest woman on earth, I have a rather dysfunctional family....what, you don't believe me? Tough I don't need any text to back up what I write, I can write anything I like and if you don't believe me I will put on an attitude and stuff the lot of you.

if you say things like stances changed because of the need for stability during the war ( it sounds like people would fall over during wartime when during peace they'd wouldn't) etc you do need to back it up here with some solid evidence, otherwise it just sounds like a teenager's tantrum.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I'm sorry but that is actually quite amusing. You don't need anything to back up what you write eh? Well let me introduce myself, I'm the Queen of Great Britain, I am the richest woman on earth, I have a rather dysfunctional family....what, you don't believe me? Tough I don't need any text to back up what I write, I can write anything I like and if you don't believe me I will put on an attitude and stuff the lot of you.

An I am the Undisputed Lord and Master of the Universe. And what do I have to back up my claim? Because I said so, that's what.

 

[Tez3]

An I am the Undisputed Lord and Master of the Universe. And what do I have to back up my claim? Because I said so, that's what.

I was going to write I'm the mistress but it just gets taken the wrong way..................

 

[Earl Weiss]

It was not altered from the Okinawa origins. That came later. Which part of that do you find unsatisfactory? Do you think the Chang Hon stance is higher than the Okinawa Karate-styles?

To the Contrary. There were variations among the various Okinawan systems, and unlike today where the printed page is easy to come by finding a "Standard" text laying exact specs would be difficult to come by.

So, It is more than likely that 1 or more Okinawan systems taught by one or more pioneers in Okinawa taught a stance similar to the Chang Hon Walking stance.

That is not the issue. The issue is how was the Front Stance of Shotokan originaly specified in relation to the Specs of the Chang Hon walking stance.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I know all of this due to direct black belt "descendants" of Funakoshis son who've reported it. I don't need any texts to back up what I write. Anybody that disputes it can take a look at photos of Funakoshi and make up their own mind if it looks like an Okinawa stance or not.

Thank you for acknowledging a report of information, widely circulated which you received 2nd hand from the son of the founder. I readily acknowledged this by initialy stating some degree of disagreement about the height / length of the Shotokan stances.

And if you think I am slamming your sources I am not. I had trained been with people who trained directly with General Choi, some pioneers etc.) but it was not until 17 years into my training that I trained directly with him. I saw how things got altered as passed from person to person. It's kind of like the old "telephone game."

There is no substitute for the written spec. As far as things being "Passed on directly" goes the MA stories are numerous of seniors changing stuff from time to time with different of their senior students having different recollections. Theories abound as to whether the "Changes" were intentional to keep students dependent or simply recall lapses.

 

[Tez3]

I still want to why a stance was changed because of the war.......................

 

[Earl Weiss]

I still want to why a stance was changed because of the war.......................

Land mines. If it's longer only one leg gets blown off...