PDA

View Full Version : Funakoshi Gichin's Contribution?



MarkF
10th September 2002, 09:31
Funakoshi's Contribution?



A friend of mine who lives to argue with me (and I love him for it) has pointed out that the stylized self-defense practice that is accepted today must be there for a reason, even if we don't know what that reason is yet.

His argument sounds good, but it asks me to just have faith, and I am absolutely incapable of believing anything without reason. As noted earlier, I have occasionally fallen under the spell of wanting to believe, which is close enough to mindlessness (i.e., faith) to render me deaf, blind and stupid. In retrospect, it frightens me to know that I was so impervious to logic, and on an important subject, no less (self defense is about life and death, is it not?), so I am now ultra-sensitive to anyone's suggestion that I "just believe."

But concerning his point that somebody added this stylized self-defense practice to the curriculum for a reason, I agree wholeheartedly. Of course it's there for a reason. Just like kata. But what might that reason be?

We already know who added the Straw Man Attack. It was none other than "the father of modern karate" himself. According to the karate "classic," Karate: the art of "empty hand" fighting, "In the 1920's, under the leadership of Gichin Funakoshi, a system of elementary sparring was devised." Right about the same time as he dumbed down the kata in order to teach them to school children for exercise, I'm guessing.

But why do you suppose he saw fit to throw in this "training technique," without which he and every other master who'd ever lived since the beginning of time had become formidable fighters?

Here's my theory. Funakoshi understood the true applications of his art. He said in his autobiography that, in a confrontation, "once karate enters, the issue becomes a matter of life and death." He spoke of many confrontations in his autobiography, and each time, he spoke of karate as being not dangerous, but deadly. When he was asked to teach it to school children, he jumped at the chance, since karate had been so good for him, physically and psychologically. But (he says in his autobiography), "hoping to see karate included in the universal physical education taught in our public schools, I set about revising the kata so as to make them as simple as possible. Times change, the world changes, and obviously the martial arts must change, too. The karate that high school students practice today...is a long way indeed from the karate I learned when I was a child in Okinawa....What is most important is that karate, as a form of sport used in physical education, should be simple enough to be practiced without undue difficulty by everybody...."

Note the shift from "life and death" to "sport." He made these changes in the 1920s, right after the end of "the war to end all wars." Despite (or because of?) his deadly abilities, Funakoshi was a pacifist. (Incidentally, this is the impression I got from his autobiography; I urge you to read the book Karate-do: My Way of Life and draw your own conclusions.) He would go out of his way to avoid any confrontation, and he seemed to live in fear that one of his students might harm others with something that he (Funakoshi) had taught. Funakoshi repeatedly stressed that use of karate technique is a last resort only. He believed that deadly and debilitating techniques were outdated with the end of the First World War, but that karate still had a place in society--as a sport.

He wanted the children to benefit the way he had from the art, but he didn't want the responsibility of teaching them dangerous techniques. Is it possible that his revolutionary "elementary sparring" was only camouflage? I suggest to you that it is not only possible--it is probable. If it really is an important training tool, why was Funakoshi the first the think of it? And why was it non-existent until karate made the transition from "survival tool" to "sport"? If anybody is motivated to get the techniques perfect, it's the guy whose very life hangs in the balance, not the guy trying to reduce his potbelly.

So Funakoshi teaches schoolchildren some "basic applications," right? If the children had examples of the basic movements in action, they would assume they understood the move, and not look any deeper. And it worked. Today, Funakoshi's calisthenics for children (i.e., karate) has a worldwide following and has blossomed into a multi-million dollar industry, and almost every hard artist I meet says in absolute sincerity that the motion we call a low block was designed to deflect blows to the midsection.

P.T. Barnum was right. There is a sucker born every minute.

Speaking of the low block, I wonder...at what point did our basic movements get their commonly accepted names? The Chinese arts from which karate was derived had esoteric names, like Dragon Wags Its Tail or Cherry Blossom in the Typhoon. In a way, the Japanese found a way to hide the true nature of the art better than the Chinese did, simply by pretending to not hide anything at all. The Chinese names don't presume to tell you how to use the moves; their labels actually encourage you to find your own interpretation. And there's always a chance you'll hit the jackpot.

But the Japanese made the art "more accessible" by providing more descriptive names for each move, didn't they? The best place to hide anything is in full view. Thus, we learn the "low block" and practice it, all the while making the natural assumption that no one would name a move for what it's not. This mislabeling has been so effective that we continue to see this move as a block, even when it is repeatedly demonstrated that such an interpretation is untenable.

Did Funakoshi create and standardize these misleading labels? Well, he altered several aspects of the art. By his own admission, he changed the Japanese characters that represent "karate" from those that meant "Chinese hand" to "empty hand." He changed the names of the forms (some of which, I've heard, originally gave hints for interpretation). He simplified the forms so that schoolchildren could learn them with little trouble, and in the process, he altered hand positions and movements that might be clues to valid interpretation. Changing the names of moves to something more descriptive would definitely fall under the "make karate accessible for everyone" ideal. After all, "outside block" is far easier to remember than "Cat Cleans Its Ears," or whatever the technique was originally called. He certainly had the most opportunity and reason to change the names, so...there's a good chance that it was him.

Funakoshi's contribution was a mixed blessing, at best. We Occidentals may have never learned any Oriental martial arts if it weren't for him, but I question how much we're really getting out of the diluted version we have.



(c) pdb, 15 Jun 2000



http://sezme.twistedpair.net/karate/strawman.html


Mark

Bustillo, A.
10th September 2002, 11:32
Mark F.,

You asked and wonder how much you are getting out of diluted versions of an art. All you need to do is look in your own backyard because the same can be asked about Kodokan Judo. Many people consider J. Kano diluted jujutsu.

10th September 2002, 12:08
Originally posted by Bustillo, A.
Mark F.,

You asked and wonder how much you are getting out of diluted versions of an art. All you need to do is look in your own backyard because the same can be asked about Kodokan Judo. Many people consider J. Kano diluted jujutsu.


The only difference being Funakoshi's art is "ryuha" specific, meaning many styles did not folow Funakoshi's approach to Karate where as Judo has a universal standard.

ozebob
10th September 2002, 12:38
Hi Mark,



Funakoshi's Contribution?

A friend of mine who lives to argue with me (and I love him for it) has pointed out that the stylized self-defense practice that is accepted today must be there for a reason, even if we don't know what that reason is yet...(snip) But what might that reason be?


I'm not sure where you get the idea that there even is stylized self-defense.. do you mean the 5-3-1 step practise? I don't know of anyone that considers that is self-defense.



We already know who added the Straw Man Attack. It was none other than "the father of modern karate" himself. According to the karate "classic," Karate: the art of "empty hand" fighting, "In the 1920's, under the leadership of Gichin Funakoshi, a system of elementary sparring was devised."


My information is that Konishi (Shindo Jinen Ryu) and Ohtsuka (Wado Ryu) were responsible for introducing the 5-3-1 step kumite. Funakoshi introduced Ten no Kata which has both an omote and Ura sections and I believe he was introducing basic partner exercises for novices.



Right about the same time as he dumbed down the kata in order to teach them to school children for exercise, I'm guessing.


Itosu was responsible for revising 14 kata representing all Okinawan Karate for inclusion in his PE Program which was introduced into the Okinawn Teachers College and the schools.

Funakoshi believed in the same philosophy espoused by his teacher and continued his campaign in Japan proper. The self-defense aspects of the kata were relegated to second place as Karate set about becoming part of the new Budo which was heavily promoted in Japan.



But why do you suppose he saw fit to throw in this "training technique," without which he and every other master who'd ever lived since the beginning of time had become formidable fighters?


Karate was being introduced as an activity appropriate for inclusion in the Physical Education program of schools and Universities. Safe partner drills were needed for the students.



Here's my theory. Funakoshi understood the true applications of his art. He said in his autobiography that, in a confrontation, "once karate enters, the issue becomes a matter of life and death." He spoke of many confrontations in his autobiography, and each time, he spoke of karate as being not dangerous, but deadly.


I agree with you. A careful examination of Karate-Do Kyohan clearly shows that he did know.



When he was asked to teach it to school children, he jumped at the chance, since karate had been so good for him, physically and psychologically.


Did you know that Judo and Kendo had been introduced into the Okinawan Schools as part of their PE Program? Can you imagine how the Karate (Toudi) teachers at that time would have reacted to such a thing? Itosu began a vigorous campaign to preserve the traditions of their art and Funakoshi and others were actively involved.



But (he says in his autobiography), "hoping to see karate included in the universal physical education taught in our public schools, I set about revising the kata so as to make them as simple as possible. Times change, the world changes, and obviously the martial arts must change, too. The karate that high school students practice today...is a long way indeed from the karate I learned when I was a child in Okinawa....What is most important is that karate, as a form of sport used in physical education, should be simple enough to be practiced without undue difficulty by everybody...."


And as I said he continued the work already set in motion..



Note the shift from "life and death" to "sport." He made these changes in the 1920s, right after the end of "the war to end all wars." Despite (or because of?) his deadly abilities, Funakoshi was a pacifist. (Incidentally, this is the impression I got from his autobiography; I urge you to read the book Karate-do: My Way of Life and draw your own conclusions.) He would go out of his way to avoid any confrontation, and he seemed to live in fear that one of his students might harm others with something that he (Funakoshi) had taught. Funakoshi repeatedly stressed that use of karate technique is a last resort only. He believed that deadly and debilitating techniques were outdated with the end of the First World War, but that karate still had a place in society--as a sport.


Imagine the fate of karate if the students misused the techniques they had been taught? He was justifiably concerned as there had been some ugly incidents in the red-light districts back home. Karate was not received well by all other arts, Kano was a big help to Funakoshi, as was Konishi and Ohtsuka, it would not have taken much to
have karate excluded from society.



He wanted the children to benefit the way he had from the art, but he didn't want the responsibility of teaching them dangerous techniques. Is it possible that his revolutionary "elementary sparring" was only camouflage? I suggest to you that it is not only possible--it is probable. If it really is an important training tool, why was Funakoshi the first the think of it? And why was it non-existent until karate made the transition from "survival tool" to "sport"? If anybody is motivated to get the techniques perfect, it's the guy whose very life hangs in the balance, not the guy trying to reduce his potbelly.

So Funakoshi teaches schoolchildren some "basic applications," right? If the children had examples of the basic movements in action, they would assume they understood the move, and not look any deeper. And it worked. Today, Funakoshi's calisthenics for children (i.e., karate) has a worldwide following and has blossomed into a multi-million dollar industry,


No argument here..



(snip)
But the Japanese made the art "more accessible" by providing more descriptive names for each move, didn't they? The best place to hide anything is in full view. Thus, we learn the "low block" and practice it, all the while making the natural assumption that no one would name a move for what it's not. This mislabeling has been so effective that we continue to see this move as a block, even when it is repeatedly demonstrated that such an interpretation is untenable.

Did Funakoshi create and standardize these misleading labels? Well, he altered several aspects of the art. By his own admission, he changed the Japanese characters that represent "karate" from those that meant "Chinese hand" to "empty hand." He changed the names of the forms (some of which, I've heard, originally gave hints for interpretation). He simplified the forms so that schoolchildren could learn them with little trouble, and in the process, he altered hand positions and movements that might be clues to valid interpretation. Changing the names of moves to something more descriptive would definitely fall under the "make karate accessible for everyone" ideal. After all, "outside block" is far easier to remember than "Cat Cleans Its Ears," or whatever the technique was originally called. He certainly had the most opportunity and reason to change the names, so...there's a good chance that it was him.


Hanashiro Chomo was the first to use the Kanji that represented 'Empty Hand' and not 'China Hand'. Funakoshi saw an opportunity to promote the art and in the famous 1936 Meeting of the Masters on Okinawa, many others agreed with him.



Funakoshi's contribution was a mixed blessing, at best. We Occidentals may have never learned any Oriental martial arts if it weren't for him, but I question how much we're really getting out of the diluted version we have.


You are about ten years out of date here I think. Because in the last decade many have been able to put back the self-defense aspects thanks to modern pioneers of the art in the East and the West.

Regards,
Ozebob

hector gomez
10th September 2002, 13:02
COMBAT SPORTS TRAINING = REALISTIC SELF DEFENSE TRAINING

Simply by removing the so called deadly techniques,one can train against a live resisting opponent full blast without injury, thus creating a far superior fighter better prepared for the stresses of real live combat.
Thank you Gichin funakoshi & Jigoro kano


Hector Gomez

Bustillo, A.
10th September 2002, 13:56
Originally posted by Robert Rousselot



The only difference being Funakoshi's art is "ryuha" specific, meaning many styles did not folow Funakoshi's approach to Karate where as Judo has a universal standard.


A.B responds,
As mentioned by McMahon and Hector G., both Funakoshi and kano changed certain aspects for specific reasons. Take any particular 'ryu' and we'll see that many people choose not to follow a particular style nor a certain approach to training. Nonetheless, both Funakoshi and Kano's more modern approach does have benefits.

10th September 2002, 14:02
Originally posted by Bustillo, A.



A.B responds,
As mentioned by McMahon and Hector G., both Funakoshi and kano changed certain aspects for specific reasons. Take any particular 'ryu' and we'll see that many people choose not to follow a particular style. Nonetheless, both Funakoshi and Kano's more modern approach does have benefits.


Again, my point is Judo is one "ryuha" that basically went in one direction where karate has many "ryuha" that have gone in different directions, some even going in the same direction at different times, and some even returning to their "roots" as it were. I see many Shotokan people in the US that are more and more interested in the "old style" rather than the sport side.
However, Judo has remained sport oriented for the most part.

Bustillo, A.
10th September 2002, 14:13
Originally posted by Robert Rousselot



Again, my point is Judo is one "ryuha" that basically went in one direction where karate has many "ryuha" that have gone in different directions, some even going in the same direction at different times, and some even returning to their "roots" as it were. I see many Shotokan people in the US that are more and more interested in the "old style" rather than the sport side.
However, Judo has remained sport oriented for the most part.


A.B.
I understand. Even so, for the most part, Mark F.'s original question can apply to both Funakoshi's approach and to Kano's intention for Judo.

'renso
12th September 2002, 02:48
Antonio,

Judo is another story: it's jujitsu refined, not diluted. Remember how Kano could beat his teachers with his own discoveries about kuzushi, and how students by traditional jujutsu ryuha swarmed to train with Kano. The syllabus we learn today is focused on active _practicing_ of kata and randori. Kata as ura and omote of course, and any good teacher will tell you that kata demonstrates PRINCIPLES and not all-working techniques; you learn those in randori, making them yours.

For what I can understand from MarkF's post, the "diluted" katas of karate are supposed to be "fraudulent" as if they teached things which are not realistic. I say, katas should teach principles, not realistic applications. I'm no karateka however, and I won't say if this is the case or not; I just felt compelled to respond to your affirmation that judo is diluted jujutsu.

Bustillo, A.
12th September 2002, 10:40
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 'renso

Judo is another story: it's jujitsu refined, not diluted.

A.B.
I am not trying to downplay the benefits of Judo. However, there are many martial arts traditionalist who view it primarily as a sport. --not that there is anything wrong with that, I am merely giving the view of some traditionalist.--

[Kata as ura and omote of course, and any good teacher will tell you that kata demonstrates PRINCIPLES and not all-working techniques; you learn those in randori, making them yours.

A.B.
I agree.

[For what I can understand from MarkF's post, the "diluted" katas of karate are supposed to be "fraudulent" as if they teached things which are not realistic.

A.B.
I read Mark's analysis to mean something else.

Thanks,

kusanku
12th September 2002, 23:53
Mark F-
Thanks for posting the article by PD about karate, pre and post.Lots of opinions here, and about judo as well.

My takes on this-
Judo is indeed, made safe from practice with resisting partners by randori, with more dangerous waza including jiujitsu waza, taught as goshinjutsu and in kata.

Our instructors used to show us how to turn the sport techniques back into jiujitsu, as:'Seoi Nage is a safe throw when you do it as in contest, provided the opponent falls well.To turn it back into jiujitsu, step to the outside and twist the arm elbow up, now you break the arm or shoulder and they fall on their head.Oh, and let go when you throw.'

Or, Osoto gari:Kick the heel into the back of the knee stomp it to the floor., and strike the chin with ago uchi(rising strike) with palm.

And so on.

Karate, Shotokan in particular, also has been safened, and modern kumite does enable certain training.But Funakoshi's Kyohan, as Bob mentions, does also show that Funakoshi knew and described, how to return karate to its deadly state.By deadly, I mean, doing the techniques in an analogous manner to the judo waza reverting to jiujitsu, karate do reverting to karate jutsu, which can be done regardless of style by following certain principles.

Thus, the karate sparring punch, which can damage, miss or not damage depending, can be made effective for sure, by paying attention to the function of the draw hand or hikite, as Funakoshi even shows, twisting and locking the opponent down as or before you strike a selected area,say the temple or betwen the eyes or over the eye, with the fist.

Or, say you do the kata empi, with the knife hand block along the inside and top of the downward punching arm.This allows ytou to deflect a middle punch as you pull the arm in by the wrist or sleeve, and thus immobilizre the opponent for a punch to the groin. Few will deny the effectiveness of such a technique.

The result will enable the follow up 'dopwn block to become a hammerfist to a descending neck or head.I bet that would hurt.

Lot of this stuff isn't quite as mysterious as some think, eh fellers?As the article Mark quoted said, its a lot of misdirection.Shotei block, grab the arm or sleeve, pull in or go in along it, and blast the groin, hammer the head, , wait for opponent to fall.case he doesn't, repeat the process.Be sure to keep guard up and keep good distance, use good timing, and be ready to change plan in an instant if it doesn't work.That to me, is the m=essage of the old karate, found in kata.

Its true, the older versions do have more clues what is happening.

Its true, sport fighting is really great for conditioning body and mind.

But the old fighters, also had something going on.More of a swordsman mentality, as it was life or death, though.

Then there was this guy I heard about, used to spar, only had one target, your groin, and he was going to get you there come Hell or high water, everyone got very nervous around him, hated to spar him. I guess!:D

There's diluted, and then there's intent.:D