Okinawan V Japanese karate

[AngelaG]

When I have been on some other forums I have had people say to me that if they do an Okinawan Karate their kata and bunkai are closer and more true to the "original" style than the Japanese Karate people. And that we just use reverse engineering.

However Karate was only introduced to Japan fairly recently, looking at it in relative terms. And it was introduced by Funakoshi - an Okinawan gentleman. In that case surely he would have been party to the same kata/bunkai as the other Okinawan people training in karate? So therefore how can people say that the Okinawan Karate is more true - surely Funakoshi would have just spread what he knew - and therefore would be teaching the same bunkai as the others?

I suspect that the true bunkai was lost years and years ago. It's a case of Chinese whispers (no pun intended) - no matter how faithfully you try to pass the art down some will get lost; especially without books and modern video etc. Some of the bunkai in karate-do Kyohan is a little "doubtful" but it must have been taught to Funakoshi by his Masters.

Angela

[Sionnagh]

It is my understanding that Funakoshi taught mostly at a surface level. There was emphasis on physical development - create strong bodies in Japan during a militaristic period which was part of the 'sales pitch' to get karate accepted by the Japanese. He said himself that the karate he was teaching was very different to the karate he learnt in his youth, and even different to the karate he had taught 10 years earlier.

Apart from that there is often a "mine is bigger/better than yours" attitude from some people.


Mick

[AngelaG]

Sionnagh said:

It is my understanding that Funakoshi taught mostly at a surface level. There was emphasis on physical development - create strong bodies in Japan during a militaristic period which was part of the 'sales pitch' to get karate accepted by the Japanese. He said himself that the karate he was teaching was very different to the karate he learnt in his youth, and even different to the karate he had taught 10 years earlier.

Apart from that there is often a "mine is bigger/better than yours" attitude from some people.


Mick

I think any karate taught to "outsiders" is going to have been modified in some way. The Okinawans wanted the cash that the conquering armies (Americans) were bringing in but they were hardly going to put themselves out and teach them their best stuff which had been a closely guarded secret for so many years.

[Aefibird]

I have to say that is one of my biggest 'annoyances' (sorry, can't think of a better word at the moment!!) when visiting other MA forums - the whole "Okinawan karate is superior to Japanese karate" thing. Grrr!!!

As you rightly point out, what will have been taught to American servicemen or other foreigners and then subsequently passed on to other foreigners will have been a watered-down version of the system anyway. So a lot of the style-bashers will most likely be training in a watered-down or adapted style anyway. Even if the differences are only minor, their karate aint gonna be the same as it was in Okinawa in the early 20th C, the 19th C or even earlier.

Also, all the folks that want to claim superiority because their karate is 'purer' than Japanese-based karate should go and train in a Chinese art (or even better, an Indian one) as that'll get them even closer to the supposed "purity" of karate.

As long as it works I don't really give a flying ferret about the lineage, heritage, who was the best Te practitioner in Okinawa in 1800 etc etc etc.

My karate style suits me. It may not suit all the other karateka in the world but that's OK. You all have to find what works for you.

I just find it annoying when Okinawan-style karate practicioners (and it isn't all of them, a lot of them are very respectful) do the "mine is better than yours" routine. For goodness sake grow up!!

[AngelaG]

Aefibird said:

As long as it works I don't really give a flying ferret about the lineage, heritage, who was the best Te practitioner in Okinawa in 1800 etc etc etc.

LINEAGE! Don't even get me started on lineage!!
As if it matters who your teacher's teacher's teacher was! All that matters is how good your current teacher is, and how good you are.

Heck, you could have Funakoshi as a teacher but if you only put in 1 lesson a week and then only put in 50% effort you are still likely to be a poor karateka!

[Sionnagh]

Plus you get the occasional person who claims to have learnt from someone who learnt from one of the Old Masters when perhaps the closest they got was looking in on a demonstration while walking past.

Or while there could be "good lineage" at some point in the bottom end of the chain there could be someone who missed the point completely.

It is as you say, it all depends on how good (or not) "you" are. But to some people pedigree is more important.


Mick

[Aefibird]

AngelaG said:

LINEAGE! Don't even get me started on lineage!!
As if it matters who your teacher's teacher's teacher was! All that matters is how good your current teacher is, and how good you are.

Heck, you could have Funakoshi as a teacher but if you only put in 1 lesson a week and then only put in 50% effort you are still likely to be a poor karateka!

EXACTLY!!

Glad to see that I've got company on this particular soapbox...

[Petek]

Alot of people forget that Funakoshi learnt his karate from 2 teachers, Itosu & Ankoh,(I think!). Their styles were not the same. Neither was the style of their teachers. I think that the concept of major styles,(Shotokan. Goju-ryu. Shito-ryu,etc), is a 20th century thing. Back on Okinawa, a Sensei would tailor the karate he taught the student, to what was suitable to the individual.

So the idea of okinawan karate v japanese karate is wrong karate varies from person to person. Same with bunkai, we all have our bunkai, ie techniques that work for us. At the end of the day, it's an extension of a punch is a punch, and a kick is a kick.

A rather circular reply, even though my style is Shotokan

[AngelaG]

It's a nice post!


Angela

[Petek]

Ta ! sometimes people look backwards, when they should just be looking around.

[charmin]

I have very little to add over what Sionnagh already said. I think the main difference between Okinawan karate and Japanese karate is the fact that Okinawa remained more Chinese, more like Kung Fu, and remained more flowy (crap term, I know) and spiritual. The japanese side became heavily militaristic, both as a result of xenophobia (the Chinese influences were removed, making it more rigid), and to encourage people to join the military, as well as physically conditioning them.

[demonwarrior]

I think that sometimes we worry too much about names. It would be stupid to presume you know everything about a club just because they have chosen to label themselves after a certain style.

[Aefibird]

DemonWarrior said:

I think that sometimes we worry too much about names. It would be stupid to presume you know everything about a club just because they have chosen to label themselves after a certain style.

Very true. My own particular karate club calls itself a "Shotokan" club - we're also members of a Shotokan association. However, our particular "brand" of karate is probably nothing like someone elses particular brand of Shotokan - we have emphasis on certain things that perhaps other clubs don't train in. Plus, Sensei has trained in other martial arts and so he incorporates that into our training.

Yet, some people (thankfully no-one on here - folks are too open minded to care what any other club or person does) would look at the fact that my dojo is a "Shotokan" dojo and automatically dismiss it as being "rigid" or "unrealistic" or "only for competition" when it is in fact none of these things.

[AngelaG]

Yeah well, some people, for whatever reasons, are far too preoccupied with what everyone else is doing. The way I see it, if you are so bothered about whether the club down the road is a McDojo (other than a passing interest), you aren't concentrating on your own training enough.

I guess it makes some idiots feel their training is so much better by putting down other people's efforts. To me, it just makes them look like mindless morons

The question you need to ask yourself is, "Are you happy with your own training?" If the answer is "yes" then what does it matter what any other club choose to do or name themselves. Some people want to train in a McDojo, I am not going to waste my time picketing outside trying to "save them from themselves". If they want to spend £100 a month to do something that resembles Tae Bo more than karate that is their perogative - as long as they are happy. If they are not happy they will soon vote with their feet.

regards
Angela

[Sasori Te]

I've seen both good and bad Okinawan, Japanese and Korean schools.

I've been a student in Japanese and Okinawan arts. I'm in a pseudo-Japanese style now. It has it's roots in Shotokan.

When this question comes up I tend to give my usual answer of, "There are no superior martial arts, only superior martial artists."

However, I'm also a martial history buff. Funikoshi physicalized Shuri Te in order to use it in the Japanese public school system. He was teaching kids. I believe that it's not so much that he completely changed the art (although he did make substantial changes), rather he didn't teach all that he knew. Since he was training school aged kids to be physically stronger, he didn't feel that it was necessary to show them the detailed nerve and pressure point attacks that he learned during his own training.

As far as Okinawan arts go, the Okinawans didn't spiritualize the arts like China did. The Okinawans tended to be a practical, no-nensense sort of people. Te was used strictly for self-defense purposes and was evolved along those lines. The Japanese associated karate with Zen Buddhism. Karate-Do became a vehicle to enlightenment and self-discovery much the way the Chinese Taoists used the internal martial arts in China.

I'm rambling now. I'll address other points as they may be brought up.