Martial Arts Change
There has been a pretty interesting discussion going on in the comment sections of my last two articles (Changing the Perception of Karate and Adapting Karate to the Local Culture) and I thought I would continue my thoughts in a full post rather than just a response to the comments. The main comment I am responding to is from Dan Killingsworth:
“Why not celebrate Karate for what it is instead of trying to market it as something else? Why not strip out all of the parts added when it was brought into the schools, standardized the same way that Judo and Kendo, was commercialized for the Westerners as a way to earn money for a ravaged Okinawa after the war, and teach it with an emphasis on how the Okinawan military class learned it? Not only would it open eyes as to what is really there and the value that it has, it would also go a long way towards removing the stigma that has been brought to the word Karate by bad b-movies and snake-oil selling pseudo-sensei. My feeling is that would be better for Karate as a whole rather than trying to rebrand it into something else. Rebranding still stinks of snake-oil practices – Just think about all the MMA ‘masters’ out there schilling only the most rudimentary techniques that they learned from a few seminars, Youtube, and books. Snake-oil indeed.”
Selling Snake-Oil
I know Dan meant this with the best intentions, and it brings up an interesting point – I would never sell lessons in Open Hand Combatives (karate-do). If I were thinking of changing the name in order to increase my revenue, then I would have to agree with Dan 100%. What I am suggesting is a name change to help spread the good that Open Hand Combatives provides to people’s lives. In the same way that Funakoshi changed the name to help spread Karate, I would like to change the name to spread Open Hand Combatives. Most serious karateka know that karate was once called tuidi (tode). Why wouldn’t serious students of Open Hand Combatives learn that it is entirely based on karate. Based on? I thought this was just a name change? No.
How the Okinawan Military Class Learned It
While my attempts to change how I teach application of kata are meant to “return” to the way karate used to be taught, the reality is that no one knows exactly how it was taught. We are not removing extra things and returning to our roots, we are developing techniques independently in an attempt to mimic what we think the Okinawan Military Class would have learned. This is a change to the curriculum to make karate more appealing and effective (both to ourselves and our perspective students).
Karate Changes
“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 not the same Karate that was practiced even as recently as ten years ago [this book was written in 1956], and it is a long way indeed from the Karate I learned when I was a child in Okinawa.” – Gichin Funakoshi
I am hoping to see karate included in a list of respected martial arts along with krav maga, brazilian jujitsu, and other popular arts. For that to happen, karate needs to change. The commonly taught application needs become more realistic, the sparring needs to become more physical, and this needs to happen fast. I am ready to make these kind of changes. The problem is that most instructors aren’t because they make the majority of their money from kids classes. Changing would mean going broke.
If this change isn’t universal, then any good we do will be overshadowed by McDojos. With all of this in mind, I am going to start doing open hand combatives (name pending) and if people want to make fun of the childish practices of McDojos teaching karate – I don’t have to care because open hand combatives will be just that – combative.
I look forward to the responses to this.
Excellent, Open Hand Combatives! Osu! // This is why I refer to my Karate-do as the Adaptive Curriculum!
Hi Ted- Thanks for spending some time to think about and respond to my comment. I tend to have strong opinions, but yes, it was meant in the best way. The reason I responded so strongly is because of my love of Karate and the unfortunate reasons for why so many people don’t understand what Karate really is. To put it into perspective, let me give a little background- I have been practicing martial arts for a little over 20 years now, beginning in college with Tae Kwon Do. I was fortunate enough to go to a school with several arts to choose from in our club, including Tae Kwon Do, Sombo, American Karate, and Danzan-Ryu JuJitsu, so naturally we all trained together on weekends. I became a black belt instructor in Tae Kwon Do, took classes in Sombo and JuJtisu, and generally enjoyed the training and camaraderie in that environment but the more we shared techniques and opinions, the more I realized that my Tae Kwon Do was far from being a ‘complete’ art. Over a summer break, I was home looking for a group to train with and came across a small Dojo training traditional Okinawan Kenpo and Kobudo. The focus was not on competition- it was on ‘preserving the old ways’ and seeking what the old masters sought. My eyes were slowly opened as I went deeper into this art, and into this group. And as luck would have it- this group also encouraged cross training in Daito-Ryu Aiki JuJitsu, Motobu Udundi, Shorin-Ryu, Shotokan, and more. We examined and dissected kata. We discussed the origins of the arts in China, and how the Okinawan people shaped them. We had (and still have) opportunities to train with some of the masters from Okinawa and several of their direct students. Even now- we have a small group that meets weekly of senior-level students to train, explore, and experiment with our art to continue to grow. This, in my opinion, is where Karate needs to be. People need to see and understand that many of the techniques embedded in kata are from old Chinese grappling arts like Chin-Na. They need to experience the feeling of finding the ‘hidden’ hand (which was actually never ‘hidden’ but instead was misunderstood) in kata. They need to practice the two-person drills like the folks in Koryu Uchinadi practice to know the practical nature of what Karate has in it. But they need US to show it to them. Once someone truly understands how practical Karate really is there will be no need to rename it to satisfy the current fashion of re-branding techniques and styles, because seeking what the masters of old sought is exactly what will bring Karate into the future.
I’ve read these articles five times now and I still feel conflicted. Funakoshi and the Okinawan masters did change the name from China hand to Empty Hand in order to make Karate more accessible to the Japanese community. But there was also the philosophical foundation of changing the kanji to “Empty” which reflected those masters understanding of the spiritual aspect of martial training (karate as budo) as well as the fact that Karate was an empty handed discipline of combat. In other words, the change of the name karate from China hand to empty hand was done both for convenience and as an improvement – it was more appropriate to call it “empty hand”. I want karate to be as popular as MMA but I worry about changing the name simply for that purpose alone. I realize also however that “Empty handed combatives” is more or less simply a translation of ‘karate’ into english – so ultimately it isn’t even a name change, it is simply taking advantage of the layman’s ignorance.
I feel strongly however that the main problem isn’t what karate is called – it’s the perception of it that is perpetuated by bad practice. The name isn’t what causes it to deteriorate or keeps it from deteriorating. 100 years from now, if “Empty-handed combatives” is being practiced badly, will a name change be the order of the day? It seems like we should be more concerned with providing quality, dedicated training in the spirit of those old masters than naming it something fashionable to get more people in the door.
Having said that, “Empty-Handed Combatives” does sound cool!
I think Dan, once again, has some excellent points. There is no doubt that we should continue examining and dissecting kata. Calling it “form” instead of a kata shouldn’t effect that. I believe we should continue discussing the origins of our art. We can start in China, move to Okinawa, discuss Japanese influence if it applies, and then talk about how American culture had an influence on the art too – because it did. There is never a reason not to train with other, quality, instructors. If your students can practice with Okinawan masters – or any masters – they should, and they should incorporate anything useful into their own system, rather than considering it a different style. I it works, let’s use it. Again I agree, having a small group that meets, trains, explores NEW ideas, and tries to help karate GROW is exactly what the masters had in mind when they met themselves in the 20s and 30s.
“This, in my opinion, is where Karate needs to be.” – Unless I misunderstood you, I agree 99%.
The next part is where I disagreed. People do need to understand that kata has roots in the Chinese arts, but I don’t think that is as big of a deal as understanding how to do the kata or that the techniques are meant for defense not brawling. I see your point about finding the “hidden” movements in kata, but that is something most people do as black belts – no? I don’t see why black belts in Open Hand Combatives wouldn’t do the same, by that point, you realize it is based on karate, just like we realize karate is based on kung-fu. I want us to show people these things as well, but I think a name change is critical to showing MORE people this.
Let me now turn to Kamil’s comments. I don’t think there was a philosophical change when “China Hand” became “Open Hand”. I think the masters made it more clear to the lay person that Karate was a budo, but they knew that all along. I think calling Karate “Open Hand Combatives” makes it more clear to the lay person that our art is a true combative art and not just dancing – but we knew that all along too.
Kamil’s second point is huge – the problem with karate is the bad practices that are more common than the good practices. While I think a name change would be very useful in spreading karate and “taking advantage of the layman’s ignorance”, it should be noted that I posted this on a blog dedicated to practical karate and the budo lifestyle. It was meant to spark discussion among quality traditional karateka – and I think it did. If the entire karate community changed its name, little would be accomplished, but I think using the word “combatives” would prevent karate schools who target children from tagging along. Not too many parents want their 7 year old in “open hand combatives”. For those of us who want to teach children in the manner that most schools currently teach everyone (defending from lunge punches and such), simply have a separate class “open hand defense” for children and young teenagers.
My intent is “providing quality, dedicated training in the spirit of those old masters” AND changing the name to get more people in the door. Again, thank you both for making this a conversation for others to think about instead of just my rantings. If nothing ever changes, I still think the points we have all made are things karate instructors need to be thinking about.
I am conflicted on changing the name of your art.
I agree you cannot surpass or even match the image created
by kid’s, ascetic, or point sparring karate.
But without a recognizable name you will get questions, quizzical looks,
or possibly disregarded. This can work
for you by “taking
advantage of the layman’s ignorance” or people may be drawn to
something more recognizable if only in name.
I have some
experience with this as I do Chung Do Kwan Tae Kwon Do and many people have
expectations of Olympic style competition or crazy kicking when in fact using a
term like “Korean Karate” would be more fitting. Whether a person with expectations sees us in
person or just in speaking, some explanations are needed because we don’t fit
those expectations. So far very few of
those people have come back to practice.
For you I could see many people asking two questions, what is open hand
combatives all about? And after a short
explanation the follow up, why don’t you just call it karate? Here’s where expectations may come into
play. Without a physical or video
demonstration to combat, simple explanations could lead to some extreme
conclusions, either not differentiating what you do from other karate or being
seen as a maverick that is just making things up.
Looking over my thoughts hints at need to inform/teach
people about the range of expressions of karate. That would neither be a small or easy task with what is currently advertised and televised. I see you have started adding applications on
youtube. I think putting good
applications out there for people to see is a good first step for realistic
karate’s growth, no matter what name it goes by. It’s nice to hear someone
trying something new as I echo a number of your sentiments and look forward to
hearing some more.
Jim thanks for the thoughts. I think the most important thing going forward is, like you said, explaining what makes open hand combatives different from mainstream karate. I will make a bigger effort these next few months to upload more bunkai.
In my own experiences, when people come down looking for a combative art (there are a few more offered at my school), they ask me what karate is all about – my first point is that I don’t do the mainstream thing, and after one lesson they are pretty hooked. When people come down looking for a way to win a trophy, I give them the same speech, and find them in a different club a few days later.
I suspect that people who like their interpretation of karate (sport karate) will consider me a maverick no matter what I do. Those who want karate to be more effective and applicable are all currently “conflicted”, as you put it, with my approach, but have all been pretty open minded. Just my thoughts on it.
On a side note – if you haven’t already heard of it, I highly recommend joongdokwan.com Colin Wee teaches what I would refer to as “Korean Karate”. Was the first thing I thought of when I saw you use that term. Thanks again for your insight.