How did General Choi create Taekwondo, if it was a unification of styles?

I don't agree. It's a vague comparison. Comparing Physical movement to words, for a start is not relevant.

 

It's called an analogy - look that up if you need the definition

I will make it simpler then; Does a fencer need to know how to kill someone or have any grasp of reniassance sword method?

("No" is the answer by the way)

 

That's what I thought you said. What do you mean by understand?

While Chinese systems played a key role in the formation of karate, they did not do so in isolation and those family systems of CMA themselves have either died out or evolved to different states just as karate itself has continued to evolve in different directions. As a result I don't believe any currently practised CMA style exists in the same form as those that influenced the formation of karate. I don't know of any Chinese system that can provably be the same as one that influenced the training of 19th C karate pioneers.

That said, I think your viewpoint is flawed in any case. Karate was the MMA of late 19th C Okinawa. Practitioners absorbed new ideas from lots of different teachers and tried to find the best approaches. You understand karate by drilling it, analysing it and testing it. Looking at related systems is interesting but not necessary.

 

There's no comparison with going from Latin to English and Chinese systems being watered down, changed, etc to eventualy became karate. English makes sense to every one speaking English. Karate doesn't make sense to every one practicing karate nor is Everyone taking the same meaning from the same thing.

Make it simpler by explaining the history of Latin to English and then explaining the history of Chinese systems to karate and pointing out the similarities along the way.

A fencer is just doing fencing and claiming nothing else.
If a karate guy claims a move is this or that but doesn't understand what's been changed/taken out/misunderstood about that move or concept ..that's different. That's the confusion and why I said some changes between parent styles and their offspring are sometimes just misunderstandings.

It's different between older jujitsu, Judo and BJJ because they are not based on forms or katas but alive ever changing movement, trial and ever through sparring and competition.

 

Tode was changed when it was introduced into the Okinawa school systems. So from then on its been practiced by many as it was meant for a child. If that now becomes the norm it can be seen that a misunderstanding has taken place, rather than deliberate change to make something better. When karate was introduced to the Japanese military ,it became one move one at a time, to a command stiff movement, simply to teach a lot at same time. So again, if it's practised like that from then on just because of that....It's a misunderstanding not a change to deliberately make it better.

 

Some elements of Toudi were changed, others weren't. That depends on the kata and the systems in question.

A number of karate systems were taught by instructors who predated the school system and some of their students went through that system, others did not. Some only trained in school or university, others did not. To try and draw anything negative from this is rather akin to saying that over 150 years ago schools (in England at first) started having cadet forces where students were taught weapon handling, shooting and basic infantry tactics - thus from that moment onwards things were misunderstood by the military. The two overlap, support each other and coexist - the existence of one does not necessarily mean that the other is dumbed down.

The idea that the simplification of karate has made it worse, or that karate is merely a simplification of some CMA is flawed. When it comes to combatives in almost every case simplification represents improvement and refinement.

In my opinion the simplification of a number of karate forms, represent a codification of the most important elements and a stripping away of some of the less practical less useful stuff retained in other forms. This is why I have devoted more time to explaining the Heian / Pinan to people than Kushanku, Passai and Jion. The most important stuff is taught first. Few practitioners of styles that still do Naihanchi as their first kata would regard it as merely 'beginners' stuff - it was/is a foundation that could function effectively in its own right. Kata were changed and created continuously as an instructor changed - that was a normal process. The two forms I teach are not the same now as they were 6 months ago, I have refined them more to my liking for what I want to teach.

The karate taught in schools was intended to be done there as physical exercise, the forms taught there are much much more than that. Their intent and skill sets are available to those who choose to study and drill them. The Karate that was predominantly taught around the world has done so to the extent it has because it has primarily been taught as a physical exercise - there's no misunderstanding there. There are enough good karateka round the world teaching good applications for forms for students to gain a deeper knowledge of karate without recourse to looking at other systems. I don't know if the applications I teach are the ones the form's creator had in mind, or if they are the ones that the creator of the form they were taken from had in mind, or the ones the creator of the form they in turn were taken from had in mind. It doesn't matter. What matters is that my applications work and fit together holistically.

The changed method of teaching for large groups can lead to rigidity in both beginners and more experienced grades, varying from style to style and person to person, but crucially depending to a large degree on how how much or little the practitioner introspects what they are doing. I see that in Aikido and CMA as well as in karate. We've no evidence that the 'one move at a time by numbers' approach came in with the military or the schools - it is a logical way to teach physical skills initially. In a karate class you'll often see the beginners doing one movement to one count while the more experienced practitioners are doing eight to the same count - it's a learning stage. I teach weapon handling the same way: an NSP is learned by calling out the individual elements one at a time before the student moves on to doing the whole sequence freely on a single command.

A lot of the karate that is taught around the world is simply karate for exercise, and there is nothing wrong with that. The students never progress to a deeper study to learn more about the art, even though that information is there in the forms if they looked in depth. That also applies to a lot of other TMA out there, because students and instructors do not have time or the inclination to scratch beneath the surface of what they've been taught.

With TKD you can take the forms, which are heavily adjusted karate forms, and pull them apart to get high quality applications and drills because the information is still there. You don't need to know karate to do this. You don't need to know CMA to do this. While a lot of these skill sets are not regularly taught in TKD (or in some karate styles) we are now at a time where there are instructors in those styles with these skill sets. The wheel has turned and the non exercise or non sport version of these arts is readily available to people because there have been practitioners, just like those in the late 19th and early 20th century, who have studied their arts in depth. It may have been true 25 years ago that you had to look outside Japanese karate or TKD (to Okinawan karate, Ju Jitsu, Judo, Aikido etc) to gain a better understanding of your art - it's not true now.

 

Hate to say the same phenomena can be seen in TCMA, especially training methods designed for children being used to teach adults.

 

Do I see value in exploring Fujianese arts in developing Karate? Yes. Do I think it's essential? No.

 

Also where do you draw the line? Do you need to understand the system that gave birth to the system that gave birth to the system? is it necessary to go back to "Clag hit Tharg with rock"?

Either something functions or it does not - the theory in a combative system is irrelevant next to the praxis.

Firearms Instructors and users do not need to be black powder experts or even know how the gun actually fires - all the need to know is point and shoot and which is the dangerous end.

 

Agreed. There are many ways to look at what TKD is & what it isn't. Surely it is clear to me that the Independent TKD is the largest group, followed by the WTF & with the ITF coming up in the rear. They all have their various concepts of what TKD is.
Often the confusion is made even more confusing by the different ideas, which can lead to circular arguments........

 

If he has been banned, that's unfortunate. He had an opportunity here to learn that some myopic opinions he was fed were far from what the general consensus or facts showed.

He is not the only one who has broadened his knowledge and had opinions debunked here.

 

You make a very good point Master Weiss. I wonder if he was actually learning though. He made quite a few sweeping statements and to be honest offered nothing in terms of backing up his arguments.

In essence though i feel you are correct. But the term "flogging a dead horse" springs to mind.

Baza

 

Doesn't prevent him from reading MAP. If he wants to broaden his horizons, that's still on the table.

 

If some didn't change, then the original ideas or concepts would of been included and so they would have had the understanding and basically be practising a Chinese based system on Okinawa. Those that were trAining or passing on a watered down system lacking in important concepts would need those concepts to understand or they carry on misunderstanding or they just interpret it any how they want.
By your post your saying it's ok for anyone to interpret things any way they want,as long as they are effective. So weather what they do is good or bad, fully understanding these concepts would be helpful.
The problem is alot is actually not effective. Going back to TKD , it's generally accepted that some of the application laid out by Choi and TKD seniors are utterly unusable in a real violent encounter. Even knowing this these are still taught today. The same with some karate.
Any one interpreting anything how they see fit is good but also not good as its kind of a con. It makes any system untouchable in terms of questioning it's effectiveness, which I guess is the point, because everything can be interpreted and changed to suit.

In terms of karate inclusion in the military and schools, it was not included for its combat effectiveness but for exercise, like you agreed, but also ,as well as other martial arts under the Bushido banner, to unified every one under one spiritual banner. Doing everything as one to a command. Nothing to do with effectively teaching combat.