Continuing Steps in Karate

This is a follow-up to my earlier post: What was the original kata? We know that kata have changed - even a cursory glance at youtube will show you the huge variety of ways that any given kata can be performed.  This appears to not be just a modern development, as even by looking at books from the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s etc... we can see that there have been changes to kata since then, and even at the time (compare, for instance, the earlier publications of Funkoshi such as Tote-Jitsu (1922) with his later publication, the Karate-do Kyohan (1931) and then with its re-working in the 1950s; or compare the two earlier works and their rendition of naihanchi kata with Motobu's Karate - My Art (1932)).  Even within the students of the same teacher, we can see variance that cannot all have been contained within what was originally taught (see the different schools of the students of Choshin Chibana, for instance - the differences in kata between Kyudokan and Matsubayashi-ryu are a good ...

This post is related to, but is not a direct follow-on from the previous post on the original kata. In my school, and within its parent tradition, many of the kata have different variations.  For instance, in the kata Saifa, there are two different starts, two different ways to do the first section and two variants on the turn/sweep/hammerfist that are not only different from each other, but from other traditions as well.  Similar (accepted and taught) alternate variations exist in sanseru, shisochin, suparinpei, kururunfa, sepai, and seienchin.  Some of these kata have only one or two minor alternatives, others have more, with varying degrees of difference. Why? And what does it mean for understanding the origins and purpose of kata? There are obvious advantages pedagogically for teaching only one version of a kata, particularly to large groups of individuals.  Having a standard approach for everyone and every time makes it easier for the instructor to not onl...

I have spent entirely too much time on the internet over the last 20-odd years, and entirely too much of that time on martial arts discussion boards.  Starting with e-budo.com back in the late 90s, I must have been either a member or regular lurker of all of the major forums and some of the not-so-major ones too.  Now, I still check out a couple of forums regularly (mostly Martialartsplanet.com), but most of my online martial arts fix comes from facebook where I'm a member of 8 different, active groups.  Funnily enough, some topics just keep coming up again and again and again and again.  Probably because one of the not-so-great things about the internet is that many people like to talk and don't actually listen to the other side; spouting off is more important (my view on that is that if you want to pontificate, don't do it in a forum, create your own blog to do it in! Forums should  be for exchanging ideas and holding conversations - not that they ever have be...

For the last 7 years I have been attempting to 'translate' Ohtsuka Tadahiko's book "Goju Kensha Karatedo Kyohan", as he is the founder of the particular tradition I am in.  As far as I am aware, it has not been translated before into English, so this is the only way I can read it. I don't speak Japanese, but with a combination of Google Translate, Wiktionary, knowledge of the martial arts and its terminology, youtube videos to teach myself the basics of japanese grammar, and using duolingo to start to get used to the language, I have made a slow, intermittent attempt at turning 1970s technical Japanese into something vaguely comprehensible in the English language.   The original kyohan was published as a series of 13 booklets in the 1970s and then collated in a single volume in the late 1970s.  It was reprinted in 2009 with additional notes on the Bubishi and with the thirteenth booklet replaced with material on shorin-ryu kata from Higa Yuchoku (with ...

Karate and Evolution. Over on the Blitzmag forum, I have been peripherally involved in a few conversations recently regarding karate, its efficacy, what constitutes "real" karate, and the concept that much karate that is being done is either not true to its origins (either okinawan, or if talking about okinawan karate, to China), or not true to the principles of "real" karate. What follows are my musings on issues and points raised in some of those conversations, from an evolutionary perspective. None of which, by the by, is of the least importance to the training or practise of karate. (And is, quite possibly, very wrong).  But it's fun to think about. Social v. biological evolution. Evolution in biology is inter-generational and Darwinian - in other words, the inheritance of characteristics caused by genetic mutation and 'favoured' over other characteristics in a population due to the influence of selection pressures.  Individuals cannot evolve; th...