BLOG
Interviews
Brutally Honest
Technique Videos
Back to Basics
Pressure Points
Practical Ninjutsu
Practical StickFighting
Practical
Karate
Practical Tae
Kwon Do
Practical
Kempo
Practical
JuJitsu
Practical NHB
The Pen
Videos
Mixed
What's New
Links
Disclaimer |
|
|
 |
Iain
Abernethy presently holds the rank of 4th Dan and is a senior
instructor for the British Karate-Do Chojinkai, an A-class E.K.G.B
Kata Judge and is author of Karate's Grappling Methods. |
|
|
The
title of this article is ‘What is Traditional Karate?’
And that may seem like a strange question for a traditional karateka
to ask! But it is my view that we often do not think what ‘traditional’
actually means, and how that impacts upon the art we practice. The
dictionary definition of ‘traditional’ is, “adhering
to a long established procedure.” To play devil’s advocate
for a moment, I’d suggest that the majority of karate practised
in this country today is not traditional! My reasoning is that much
of today’s karate is not “adhering to a long established
procedure” but is in fact only a few decades old.
There can be little doubt that karate does not have the same status
it did in the past. To the wider martial arts community, Traditional
Karate is often viewed as an out-dated relic and a wholly ineffective
system. Karate is often criticised for its lack of realism, its
lack of close-range techniques, its preoccupation with “looking
good”, its omission of ground work, the unrealistic nature
of its sparring, the impracticality of its techniques etc. And I
have to admit that in many cases these criticisms are justified!
However, it is not ‘Traditional Karate’ that is at fault,
but its modern interpretation. The confusing part of all this is
that modern karate is often incorrectly labelled as ‘Traditional’!
Just to be clear, it is in no way my intention to belittle modern
karate, merely to point out that the modern version of karate is
nowhere near as effective in real combat as the karate of old.
If we go back to the dictionary definition of ‘traditional’
we can conclude that the longer a particular ‘procedure’
has been adhered to then the more ‘traditional’ it is.
So to determine exactly what traditional karate is, we should look
at how the art was originally practised.
As you’ll be aware, the people of Okinawa formulated karate
in order to protect themselves from assault in a civilian environment
(which is why most people start practising the art today). If we
examine the older karate texts – e.g. The Bubishi –
we can see references to the various aspects of koryu (old school)
karate. Also remember that in the past, kata would never be studied
without its applications (which is the most common way that kata
is practised today). A study of the applications of the katas –
which are in effect the DNA of karate – also reveals many
aspects of old style karate. The karate of old included the following
combative methods in its curriculum; Atemi-Waza (striking techniques),
Tegumi (Grappling), Kansetsu-waza (Joint Locks), Jintai Kyusho (Weak
points of the human body), Shime-waza (Chokes & Strangles),
Nage-waza (Throws & Takedowns) and Ne-Waza (Ground Fighting
Techniques). I’d now like to briefly look at each of these
aspects in turn. If the karate of today is based upon a “long
established procedure” and is hence traditional, we should
find that the art is the same today as it was when the first records
(texts & katas) were made.
Old-style karate was for use in self-defence in a civilian environment.
For karate to be ‘traditional’ it should also be practiced
for self-defence in a civilian environment. However, the vast majority
of today’s karate is practised in order to win tournaments
in a sporting environment. I’ve written before about the differences
between the sporting environment and real fights, and I don’t
wish to repeat myself unnecessarily. For now it is sufficient to
point out that if your training is predominately focused towards
counters against vertical back-fists, hook-kicks etc. which are
delivered from ten feet away, then you’re not practising traditional
karate. The reason being that you are very unlikely to see those
techniques being employed in a civilian self-defence scenario. If
you are practising traditional karate then your training will be
geared towards defending yourself from a violent and untrained attacker
at close range.
Old-school karate was predominately based upon the application of
the techniques within the kata. Today, the applications of the katas
are rarely practised and the emphasis is placed upon the kata being
pleasing to the eye. And even when the applications are practised
it is often in a non-traditional manner. Remember that old-school
karate is about self-defence in a civilian environment. The great
Choki Motobu – who was one of Okinawa’s most feared
fighters – once said, “The techniques of the kata were
never developed to be used against a professional fighter, in an
arena or on a battlefield.” Hence, when you see bunkai (applications)
that begin with the practitioners starting ten feet away from one
another, and then attacking with an Oi-Zuki, or any other such ‘martial
arts’ technique, you can be positive that the application
in question is not traditional. True kata applications work best
at close range against an opponent who is not another karateka (see
my book “Bunkai-Jutsu” book for more details.)
Both old and modern karate includes striking techniques. Hence in
this regard the karate of today could be thought of as traditional.
However, closer examination shows that the striking techniques of
the past and those of today are quite different. High kicking is
practised today, whereas in the past all kicks were below the waist.
In the past, the emphasis was on power, whereas today the emphasis
is often placed upon control. In old-style karate all the strikes
were aimed at weak points, however, today these weak points are
ignored in favour of scoring areas. The skills associated with close
range control & manipulating a predictable response (combative
use of the ‘withdrawal reflex’) were considered to be
a vital part of old-style striking, but today they are rarely taught.
The biggest difference, however, has to be that of range. Old-style
karate placed a heavy emphasis on close-range strikes, whereas modern
karate places a heavy emphasis on long-range strikes. This is again
down to the move away from effective combat skills (real fights
are invariably close range affairs).
Grappling skills are a must in real combat and they formed a large
part of old-style karate. Practice would have included general grappling
skills (Tegumi), Joint Locks (Kansetsu-waza), Chokes & Strangles
(Shime-waza), Throws & Takedowns (Nage-waza) and Ground Fighting
(Ne-Waza). All of which are now totally missing from modern practice.
In the book ‘Karate-Do Kyohan’ Gichin Funakoshi (founder
of Shotokan) wrote, “…in karate, hitting, thrusting,
and kicking are not the only methods, throwing techniques and pressure
against joints are included.” A little later he writes, “all
these techniques should be studied referring to basic kata.”
Grappling was still a regular part of some karate groups even as
recently as the 1960’s. In the 1967 book, ‘Karate: Beginner
to Black Belt,’ H D Plee (who was one of the pioneers of karate
in Europe) wrote, “One must not loose sight of the fact that
Karate is “all-in” fighting. Everything is allowed …This
is why Karate is based on blows delivered with the hand, the foot,
the head or the knee. Equally permissible are stragulations, throwing
techniques and locks.” I’d ask you to consider how “permissible”
a head-butt, a blow with the knee, a strangle, a throw or a lock
would be in the majority of today’s dojo’s? (My guess
would be “not very!”). As an aside, it is vital to have
an understanding of all of the various aspects of old-style karate
if you are to understand your kata. This is because the katas are
entirely based on old-style karate. If you do not understand throws,
for example, you’ll never see them in the kata. Anyhow, we
can see that in the past, karate was a complete system of fighting,
but today it is often limited to just long-range strikes. (See the
KGM Book & Tapes for more details).
In the past, the weak areas of the body were regarded as a vital
area of study. However, whilst most of today’s karateka could
probably tell you which areas they are prohibited from striking
under the rules of modern competition, they would probably struggle
to list the weak points of the body. Obviously, it is vital to know
where the weak areas of the human body are if the karateka is to
be more effective in a real situation (whilst always keeping in
mind the fact that being accurate in the mess of a live fight is
not as easy as some suggest).
By now it should be fairly apparent that whilst the modern interpretation
of karate is found lacking in real situations, traditional karate
is a highly effective system, that covers all aspects of fighting,
and is very relevant to self-defence today. By studying your katas
and practising the art in its entirety – just as they did
in the past – you are ensuring that you develop the necessary
skills to defend yourself in actual combat. And hence, by definition,
you are a Traditional Karateka! So the next time someone tells you
that Traditional Karate is an out-dated and ineffective art, ask
them exactly what they mean by “Traditional”?
|