From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Swords, points, etc.
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:34:24 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <43366@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> psc@sei.cmu.edu (Peter Capell) writes:
>
>Yes Steve G., I did have a bad experience with *Shotokan*.  

Thought so. That's really too bad.

>I had a pretty
>good experience with Go Ju however.  My teacher was brilliant in Go Ju.  But
>having experienced Shotokan, Go Ju Ryu, Isshinryu (sp?), I acknowledge them
>only as "Chinese derivatives." 

Well, that's a mistake. It's sort of like acknowledging all Chinese systems
"only as Vajra-musti derivatives". The influence is obvious, and pretty
widely acknowledged, but "influence" and "origin" are not synonymous.

> I was never satisfied until I found the real
>thing.  

No, you were never satisfied until you found *your* Tao. Congratulations!
Most people never do...

>I credit the Japanese for their simplifications, at the same time I 
>criticize the Japanese for their simplifications--if you know what I mean.

Yeah...most *Okinawans* feel the same way. The simple fact is that Karate-do
draws on *two* martial traditions - there is quite a bit of historical/literary
evidence that Okinawa-te *predates* the first performances of Chinese martial
arts in the Ryukyus by at least 300 years. We do not, of course, know much
about what this art looked like in its original form. There is absolutely
no doubt that post-18th century Karate (from the time of Sakugawa and
Iwai)  owes a considerable debt to Chinese arts, especially those from the
Fukien region. That does not mean that Karate is derived solely from Chinese
sources, anymore than the obvious influence of Classical Greek sculpture
on late Indian and Chinese Buddhist statuary means that Chinese art is
of European derivation. Pottery was developed in Mesopotamia -
should we then denigrate Ming porcelain as not being "the real thing"?

>Plus, I have a truely ostentatious hot button about the lack of appropriate
>Japanese attribution to the Chinese.  

That's ok...most Japanese don't know that Karate is a 20th Century import from
Okinawa, either. May I point out that Okinawans have never been reticent
about acknowledging their debt to China.  

>In only one case, a friend of mine from
>Hamamatsu told me that even the Japanese regard their own philosophy as "Giant
>Eagle" (a generic food chain in Pittsburgh) compared to the Chinese.  

I don't understand this sentence. What exactly did he mean? What do you mean
by citing it? Was he referring
to the Japanese tendency to, er, uh, "absorb what is useful" ? ;-)
If so, isn't that an *ackowledgement* of Chinese influence?
Oh, and who nominated him as the official spokesperson for the Japanese 
nation?

>Having
>experienced both the Japanese and Chinese arts, I know that the Japanese, in
>removing many attributes that they either regarded as flourishes, or were
>simply never taught by the Chinese (Funakoshi developed his art directly from
>the Chinese), have in essence eviscerated the form.  

The origin of *most* of the older Karate forms is lost. If you don't 
know the origin, you don't know what (if anything) was removed.

Funakoshi didn't "develop" Karate. It also would have been rather difficult
for him to "develop...directly from the Chinese" since he never went to China
or received any instruction in any Chinese martial art. Yes, he did simplify
what *he* was taught. This does not necessarily mean that he "eviscerated"
it (this harkens back to the old "Funakoshi watered down Karate" thread).
He did adapt it to the needs and capabilities of his students - so, for that
matter, did Bodhidharma and (probably) Yang Lu-chan.

I'm *not* a Shotokan apologist - Bud can do that considerably better than
I. I obviously don't agree with much of what has happened to Karate as
a result of its introduction to Japan. If I did, I'd train Japanese karate. 
That doesn't entitle me to insult an entire art or an entire nation.


>The hot button wouldn't be nearly so sore had it not been for the Shotokan
>experience though.  I have never in my life run into a more arrogant, power
>intoxicated, moronic bunch in my life as I met here in Pittsburgh at that
>time.  

Having lived in Pittsburgh at one time, I must admit a strong urge
to attribute that to geography ;-).

>I did however have one great lesson when a master Oshima came here to
>teach a group class.  

Bad instruction can ruin any art. I've certainly seen my share of brutal,
obnoxious, and poorly qualified instructors - in a number of arts (some of
them Chinese, I might add). I've seen some woefully ignorant TCC instructors,
but that hasn't provoked me to criticize that particular art or an entire,
largely unrelated, martial tradition. 

If I had chosen to generalize *my* rather miserable experience with 
Chinese internal arts, I'd have some *very* unpleasant things to say.
If I chose to attribute the characteristics of this one, particular
"instructor" (and that is quite deliberately in quotes - this guy
had no business teaching anything) to TCC as a whole, I'd consider 
the art to be a den of charlatans and swindlers who had no knowledge
of any martial art of any sort. Fortunately, I know better. I have
the highest regard for Chinese systems in general - and the internal arts
in particular. I prefer to judge those arts by their best exponents,
rather than their worst. 

>And so I don't fault the system, only the local
>egotistical leadership.  

If that were true, I wouldn't have any disagreement with you whatsoever.
The fact is that you *have* faulted the system...frequently, loudly, and
rather snidely. Personally, I find it grating and offensive - and that's 
really too bad. It gets in the way of serious discussion. I'd like to 
hear your comments about how *you* train - I don't particularly care 
for uninformed commentary about how *I* train. You don't know anything
about *that*...and sometimes it shows. The comment about Karate only being
60 years old is a pretty clear example of that... 

>I'm still fighting those dragons, mea culpa.

OH...well, you're using the wrong kind of sword. It takes a lot of
puncture wounds to kill a dragon - if you use a katana, you can
decapitate the sucker in one, clean stroke! ;-)

>Nonetheless, my earlier remarks stand of their own.

Only as evidence of a closed mind.

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts