Caveat: this post is my interpretation of readings and studies therefore errors and omissions are mine and mine alone. It is highly recommended one fact check the data for clarity. My effort here is self-clarity toward a fuller understanding of the subject matter. This is not to disparage Ryan Parker sensei's article, beliefs, meanings, etc. but to simply pose questions for open discussion. In some ways I agree that his perspective in regards to traditional or old style is pretty good.
The Ryukyu Martial Arts blog wrote an article to present, “Old Style Karate, Top 12 Ways it differs from Modern Karate.” The article was written by Ryan Parker Sensei who also administers the FB Wall on Ryukyu Martial Arts. Here are the twelve traits of the old style karate he presents ( http://ryukyuma.blogspot.com/2012/01/old-style-karate-top-12-ways-it-differs.html ):
1) Focus on close range techniques and tactics (which in turn necessarily creates an emphasis on limb control and/or trapping, low-line kicking, and so on)
2) Emphasis on special qualities which often are expressed by somewhat rare Okinawan terminology (muchimi, chinkuchi, gyame, muchi, gamaku, etc)
3) Body Conditioning (kote-kitae, iron sand palm, machiwara training etc)
4) Tenshin / tai-sabaki (evasive body motion/body-rotation, sophisticated footwork)
5) Hojo-undo / kigu-undo (supplementary training especially functional strength training using special implements)
6) Tuidi (aka gyakute or karamidi etc i.e. joint-wrenching and joint-locking)
7) Use of sensitivity drills (kakie, sticky hands, Okinawan versions of "Hubud" etc)
8) Techniques are not “squared off” or enlarged for aesthetic reasons
9) Use of unusual (typically very small) striking surfaces
10) Medical knowledge (bone setting, kautsu, herbal medicine, moxa, cupping, tsubo massage etc.)
11) Kokyu-ho / kiko (breathing methodologies, qigong type training)
12) Chibudi / kyusho (study of anatomical weakness and exploiting body-reactions)
In a sense I am not sure I can actually speak on his view as to the twelve traits given but I do recognize them as considered a part of the, “Old Style Karate” practices of the early to mid 1900’s. I also recognize some of them appear in photo’s but those photo’s may or may not actually be from the late 1800’s.
In that sense are these things actually considered old style karate if they come from the early 1900’s? In other words, what is the definition of “Old Style Karate?” For some, especially those who were born or started practicing karate in the late 1900’s and into the new century those who practiced and taught karate in the early 1900’s, i.e., 1900 to 1954, etc., may seem like old style to them but is that really old style?
I know of Ryan Parker Sensei and have respect for his practice, teachings and beliefs but that sill brings up the question similar to the one, “What is the definition of traditional and/or classical fighting arts or karate or martial arts?” It is way up there in the flame wars type discussions and will continue so for decades to eons from now. That is just the way it is and until everyone comes to some agreement as to what is traditional? What is Classical? What is Old Style? Then that is always going to be a bane of discussions throughout the martial community.
Let me take one at a time:
1) Focus on close range techniques and tactics (which in turn necessarily creates an emphasis on limb control and/or trapping, low-line kicking, and so on)
Whether I would accept this as an indication of old style karate is up for grabs but I will concede the point on the fact that this is the actual way fights or attacks occur except in the more modern social venue and especially in the competitive community. I also personally believe that the indigenous Okinawan system of Ti (pronounced Tee) actually created their systems as close in ranged because of this fact. After all, the way humans fight has not actually changed in the entire human history. The body works a specific way and that is why I believe in the fundamental principles of martial systems since those are the same now as they were hundreds of years past.
I would agree also that due to the nature of violence between humans that the close-in fighting model would and should include joint manipulations, controls, trapping, etc. but does that actually make it old style karate?
2) Emphasis on special qualities which often are expressed by somewhat rare Okinawan terminology (muchimi, chinkuchi, gyame, muchi, gamaku, etc)
I can’t actually tell here because my first impression seems to tie the statement to the rare terms used that come directly from the Okinawan dialect, i.e., hogen/uchinaguchi, etc. When I think of the principles I think of these terms. I do concede once again that most of the more modern versions of karate don’t even know or nor can they explain such things as Parker sensei talks of in this second statement.
I can believe that some either naturally utilize these principles of martial disciplines but often they have no clue yet those that do are not necessarily old style karate practices since this is also about principles, i.e., things like structure, posture, breathing, axis, and so on. They are just referenced using these ore dated terms but does that actually make the karate you use them with old style karate?
I mean, Isshinryu is a fairly new system of karate and the older or more “traditionally minded” practitioners who have had exposure to some of the older practitioners of this system are familiar with and use the teachings of things like gamaku, chinkuchi and other such terms while other practitioners of the same system use the more principle based English terms. As long as the results are the same does that mean one, both or neither are old style karate? Does it mean that even tho Isshinryu has only been a practiced form of Okinawan karate since the early 1950’s that it is not an old style karate? Does it mean if they use the terms as Parker sensei presents that it now becomes an old style karate?
What if those in the west who morphed their versions of karate into the modern but use the terms and practice the principles involved, do they now qualify as old style karate?
3) Body Conditioning (kote-kitae, iron sand palm, machiwara training etc)
Karada-kitae, body conditioning, is not new. It is not exclusive to Okinawan Ryukyu based or forms of karate or martial disciplines. The fact that many other forms of martial disciplines including those of the west and those of European ancestry also rely heavily on conditioning the body, thus the mind, thus the spirit of the individual in its practices and training regimens so does that mean they are old style or old style karate or should the symbolic term of karate even be included. Take a look at the reference to iron sand palm, is that actually a practice of Okinawan origins or is that merely adopted from some other Asian source like Chinese Kung Fu? Then again, since today’s karate is actually a compilation of both Okinawan Ti along with influences from both Japan and China, is Okinawan karate actually old style? Then again, depends on how you define old style.
4) Tenshin/tai-sabaki (evasive body motion/body-rotation, sophisticated footwork)
I tend to think this one might be about the disparity of practices toward teaching as ignorance of sensei who are more recent, say last decade or so, that learned the more sportive or maybe educational versions of karate vs. reality based defense type karate - what some call combative or fighting karate.
This is also seemingly tied to terminology because, as stated earlier, other martial ways also teach and practice and apply these concepts or principles toward fighting, competitive fighting and especially self-defense/defense versions. I don’t see, other than by terms, this as exclusive or indicative of old style karate.
Consider this, many of these terms were not truly known by these actual terms until the advent of the Internet with its plethora of applications that make such things available at the click of a mouse. Looking/remembering the early publications such terms were not used as much as you would think. Most of the early pubs were actually more Japanese based and most of the Okinawan based terms didn’t truly become more known until the advent of the WWW or Internet.
5) Hojo-undo/kigu-undo (supplementary training especially functional strength training using special implements)
Same comments previously made with emphasis on the terms used still applies here. Granted, such terms and equipment are special to the Okinawan systems of karate but not much historic information is known to say it pre-dates the early 1900’s. At least not by much. One of the reasons this type of stuff remains under discussion today is the lack of historical data to support this except the word of mouth.
Word of mouth is always questionable because of the human brains natural way of storing and retrieving information. Information that is influenced and changed according to perceptions, perspectives, new and old knowledge that may affect how that is stored and retrieved, etc. Word of mouth in some cultural ways tends to change according to that cultural influence at the time of a question and its verbal answer. Add in the aging of a practitioner and naturally what they remember and believe changes accordingly. I don’t say that word of mouth is not a good source but it is one that must always be taken with skepticism because of human brain workings.
6) Tuidi (aka gyakute or karamidi etc i.e. joint-wrenching and joint-locking)
Read 1 to 5 above, all of it applies.
7) Use of sensitivity drills (kakie, sticky hands, Okinawan versions of "Hubud" etc)
Read 1 to 5 above, all of it applies.
8) Techniques are not “squared off” or enlarged for aesthetic reasons
Read 1 to 5 above, all of it applies.
9) Use of unusual (typically very small) striking surfaces
Read 1 to 5 above, all of it applies.
10) Medical knowledge (bone setting, kautsu, herbal medicine, moxa, cupping, tsubo massage etc.)
Read 1 to 5 above, all of it applies. Not sure this would qualify any dojo either here or on the island of Okinawa. These are good things to know but not sure they actually had this knowledge base in the “old days.” I suspect this comes from the concerted effort of modern western influences to incorporate them into the training hall. Most of this, even if not actually concered medicine, etc., takes a considerable amount of knowledge, certifications and application/experience. I have a hard time believing any dojo, here or Okinawa, can actually become proficient in these disciplines. If the dojo or training hall merely takes some seminar type classes for “Familiarization” then they are going to do their students a disservice because to apply such things without proper training, education and experience levels is almost criminal or criminal.
This is a bit like earning your sho-dan then going straight out to teach and open a dojo thinking that because you are a black belt that you have the knowledge, etc. that allows you to teach. Ergo, why we have such a large volume of McDojo’s and the like. Yet, we are the first ones to complain when someone teaches and passes along such things.
11) Kokyu-ho/kiko (breathing methodologies, qigong type training)
Read 1 to 5 & 10 above, all of it applies.
12) Chibudi/kyusho (study of anatomical weakness and exploiting body-reactions)
Read 1 to 5 and 10 above, all of it applies.
No comments:
Post a Comment