Talk:Karate/Archive 1

Several comments
This page needs work. It looks like a compilation from many maybe not-so-trustworthy sources. I would like to take quite a few of questionable things out:
 * Pretty much any Chinese art - well not really, but so many Chinese arts are referred to by Shaolin. I very much doubt that the Chinese arts brought to Okinawa can be said to be "Shaolin" by any useful definition.
 * The zen influence on budo in general is according to some writers clearly overestimated. It should be expressed with less emphasis, I think.
 * How can karate be without any kind of weapons, if weapons kata is one of the competition types... Although I do not belive in the first statement I have a clue that most "weapons kata" might not be very authentic.
 * Matsumura Motobu yields some hits in Google, but it does not at all unlikely that it all comes from one source. It certainly sounds more like a person's name to me. Unless some good support for it is found, I would like this one out.
 * The translation of the style names are not necessary. (In karate it is almost always called styles, so Dan Inosantos definitions will be a tad bit difficult to use here.) Kobayashi-ryu, for instance - I guess Kobayashi is a teacher's name.
 * Some facts can bo moved to Shotokan, Wado Ryu etc. Habj 17:29, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Addressing comments by habj: Karate itself is without weapons, there are associated arts, known as kobudo, that have the weapons and weapons kata. The rest of the comments look very good and should be acted on. Adressing the second set of comments the first is right on. The second concerning Jiyu kumite, not so much. What really should happen is the wording should be toned down a bit. Yes some styles go all out and it looks like a real fight but more generally it is a continous flow >controled< flow of sparing to give a better sense of true combat.

Specific comments about belt colors should be left out. There are so many variations that about all that can be said with certainty is that there are >usually< white belts and black belts. Other than that it is anyones guess.


 * Please see section on Kyu/Dan grades. Bihal 22:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, karate on Okinawa was probably well intertwined with weapons training. Why should it have been two different systems? The Okinawan styles often incorporate weapons in their training. I suppose the weapons part fitted worse in the role that karate got to play in Japan. Many people say as you do, but this is a misconception. Habj 09:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with this statement is that what we know as 'karate' is a product of the 20th century. Prior to that, on Okinawa, there were a number of fighting arts know primarily by the names of the towns which practiced them.  As far as the histories I have read go, the concept of a unified item that could be equated to Karate did not exist. Possibly the resolution is break the article into two sections.  Pre 20th century martial arts on Okinawa, and the arts we now know as Karate.


 * I'm not sure why historically accurate information keeps being removed from the article- a short reading of any of the volumes available from Patrick McCarthy, Nagamine Shoshin, Morio Higaonna and Mark Bishop, et al, will show that the most recent revisions were not 'opinions.' The largest problem that karate faces is the general ignorance that surrounds it. Why eschew accurate information in favor of the usual unsubstantiated rhetoric? This site provides us with an excellent opportunity to change part of this problem, for the good of the art.

---

This article is entirely Japan-centric in terms of karate, with no mention at all of Korea. Very serious oversight. Korea has a very rich (and complex) karate history, and is one of the main sources of the popularity of karate in the US: American servicemen stationed in Korea during the wars returned to the states and some brought karate with them. Tang Soo Do, Tae Kwon Do, Hwang Kee, etc etc all deserve mention here; in fact, referencing Tae Kwon Do as something other than "karate" is inflammatory. The strictly-Japanese viewpoint in the article is also inflammatory, as it reinforces a certain "the only true karate is Japanese karate!" attitude that one sometimes encounters in real life. The article also conveys the impression that karate in the West consists entirely of weak, watered down, highly compromised, misunderstood approaches to the art.

I heard Dan Inosanto make a comment once, at a seminar I had the good fortune to attend, and the comment stuck with me. He was discussing the wrist lock that the Japanese call kote-gaeshi; and he rattled off the names by which this technique was known in other systems from other parts of the world. "The Filipinos call it x, in Brazil they call it y." He finished by saying the techique "does not belong to Aikido. It belongs to mankind." Karate is like that. Even if the actual word we use comes down to us from the Japanese pronunciation of the characters, the art itself is not strictly Japanese. It's obvious when reviewing the katas taught in (say) Tang Soo Do and Shotokan that those styles share a common root, with minor differences of interpretation and positioning. At heart they're all doing the same thing. (I'm not quite as convinced that the Tae Kwon Do guys are doing the same thing. ;-)  Jim Hardy 22:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed paragraphs
I removed these paragraphs:

''Yakusoku Kumite starts at Green Belt (Yon-Kyu). Two opponents usually square off and fight until a clean point is scored, as indicated by one of two seated judges by coloured flags or seen by the standing referee. At this point sparring is stopped and the point is awarded. Points systems vary but in general a half-point (wazari) is awarded for a single punch or for a kick to the body. A full point (ippon) is given for an attack such as a head kick, any attack following the opponent being taken to the ground or a combination technique (renrakuwaza).''

''Jiyu Kumite can look more like a brawl or street fight. It is the more serious side of the martial arts, being done more for defense or close-combat "Real Time" training than for sport. Although every technique should be controlled, the fighters do push themselves to be their best. No points are awarded.''

because they probably describe kumite in some specific style or organisation of karate. Most certainly, yokosuku kumite från green belt is something style-specific and as we don't know where it belongs it is better to remove it. 193.10.63.101 12:41, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Randori?
Is randori a common name for sparring in karate? I never heard it. It could be used in some styles, maybe? Habj 09:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I asked around, and found no support for free sparring in karate being called randori. Maybe it is in one or a couple of styles, but hardly more than that. I removed it. Habj 15:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I clarified some of the definitions for kata and removed some of the random sentences. I also added some information on other Okinawans who were teaching in Japan around Funakoshi's time. Randori is a judo term, for free type application of kuzushi. RSimpson


 * I have trained in various karate schools (Shotokan, Wado and Genseiryu) and had (until now) never heard of randori. Sparring in karate is usually refered to as kumite. Now, I did a little research and this is what I have found out:
 * The term randori (乱取り) is mainly used in Judo and Aikido (but also in some karate schools) for the 'free fight' where everything is allowed, but with 'soft' techniques, so usually only done by senior grades only! It is a mock-combat where one moves very fast with a partner, attempting and parrying acts of extreme violence with all four limbs and yet never making other than the lightest contact. For more info, check these sites:, , and . Actually, I just found out there is also an article on Wikipedia about randori!! Regards, Mario R  23:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, in common use I've heard Randori(Rendori?) used to desribe free-grappling and throwing techniques, in arts of Japanese origin (Judo, etc). For BJJ it just translates as "free wrestling."

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art add yourself!
List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art

Federation for Genseiryu-Butokukai
One link in the federations, leading to Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation (Nippon Genseiryu Karate-do Butokukai) is in fact the Official Japanese Genseiryu Butokukai Honbu Dojo, which is in Asaka city, Saitama prefecture. The Honbu Dojo of Genseiryu is in Ito (Shizuoka prefecture, Japan). Peter Lee keeps deleting the Butokukai term (adding offensive notes in the summary where I am called "angry", "vandalist" and a "liar"). This organisation has to use, BY LAW!!, the additional term BUTOKUKAI, to distinguish them from (the original) Genseiryu! So please, stop removing this. Thank you! -- Mario R 10:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Since it only leads to an endless edit war with Peter Lee, I stop adding Butokukai to the mentioned link, "Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation (GKIF) (Official Honbu Dojo of Japan)". However keep in mind this link leads to a site about another style than Genseiryu, namely Genseiryu-Butokukai, derived from Genseiryu... Also would I like to point out that the WGKF and GKIF are two different, totally independant federations, GKIF for Genseiryu-Butokukai, WGKF for the original Genseiryu as was taught by the (late) developper sensei Seiken Shukumine! -- Mario R 12:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * One more comment on Peter Lee's changes (that I reverted a couple of times): Peter Lee changes the comment of the link 玄制流空手道 (Genseiryu Karatedo) every time into "Japan Karate-do and Martial Arts Association site". However this site has nothing to do with this association, it's a Genseiryu site, for Genseiryu ONLY! To be precise: the original or traditional Genseiryu... Peter Lee has absolutely nothing to do with this style nor with this site, for he's training Genseiryu according the 'modern way' of sensei Kunihiko Tosa, that is to say: Genseiryu-Butokukai... -- Mario R 22:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

STOP this edit war over a LINK: Genseiryu Karatedo HONBU!
Dear 212.10.38.223. I know this is you Peter Larsen! STOP using my name in summaries and using INCORRECT quotes with which you are trying to slander my name again! I have never used the term JKBA, what is this anyway??? Japan Kick-Boxing Association??? What does THIS have to do with karate??? I have never used this term!!! According to you, the site 玄制流空手道 (Genseiryu Karatedo) is NOT Honbu. You say you know Japanese, then tell me why it says this on the main page: このホームページは、創始者・祝嶺正献の承認の元に活動している唯一の正式団体である「玄制流空手道本部」のホームページです. This statement says that this homepage is the ONLY OFFICIAL GENSEIRYU homepage of Genseiryu Karatedo HONBU (=本部), approved by the founder Shukumine Seiken. All copyrights are mentioned on that page too!!! On the links you will find certificates, rules for Shibu laid down by this HONBU (=head quarter), the structure of the Genseiryu organization (president, chairman, etc.), pictures of head instructors and so on... So stop this BS edit war and simply acknowledge this IS a HONBU for Genseiryu! I could say THE Honbu, but I am not, 'cause that would give you more reason to keep vandalizing this article. But I will NEVER stop calling this HONBU, because it's the TRUTH! And you know that!!! I am not changing 'your' link (anymore), which is incorrect since your link does NOT lead to Genseiryu Honbu, but to Genseiryu-Butokukai Honbu!!! I therefore urge you to stop being a little boy and act like a grown man! -- Mario R 14:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, I have reverted the 'link correction' by the "anonymous" user. Reasoning of the revert above here. Nothing more to say... --Mario R 18:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Genseiryu external links
I have unprotected this page and deleted the Genseiryu-related external links. External links are not really a necessary part of wikipedia articles as readers are capable of using google to find these webpages&mdash;therefore, rather than have an edit war over these links it is better not to have them at all. JeremyA (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with what this Jeremy fellow did. I did a little research, mostly for comparision purposes.


 * Genseiryu - about 8,120 results.


 * Wado Ryu - about 83,700 results
 * Shito Ryu - about 72,100 results
 * Shotokan - about 546,000 results
 * Shorin Ryu - about 75,400 results
 * Uechi Ryu - about 32,000 results
 * Seido - about 148,000 results
 * Goju Ryu - 139,000 results


 * As Jeremy said, External Links are not really a neccessary part of the article. I invite all wikipedians interested in this article to put their comments here, or just their opinion in a little counter here. I truly believe this article will be better off without these links.


 * Please note this has nothing to do with their own individual pages, but only this Karate page. Bihal 09:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You forgot this one:
 * Genseiryu-Butokukai - about 422 results (interesting where this search string will bring you: Nippon Karatedo Genseiryu-Butokukai Denmark is the first hit. This is the web site of... Yes indeed!!! Mr. Peter Lee!!!)
 * As a matter of fact, I think I agree with Bihal. Maybe Wikipedia is indeed better off without these links. People who are really interested in Genseiryu will find these links elsewhere, inside and outside Wikipedia... If the links are to be removed, I will not put 'our' link back. I will stand 100% behind the removal then! But as long as it is still on the page, the description must be correct and I (we) will not allow Peter Lee to vandalize it every time!  -- Mario R  19:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Genseiryu External Links
Keep them:  10

Delete them: 01

Grading/Ranking Content
Like with the 'Grading' section for Judo, the Karate entry could do with one. I'll list the ranks here, from beginner to master, but I have not cross-referenced these ranks with other styles. As far as I know, these ranks apply to the short-stance style;


 * White (optional)
 * Red (also optional)
 * Yellow
 * Orange
 * Green
 * Blue
 * Purple
 * Brown (1st Brown -> 3rd Brown)
 * Black
 * 1st Dan Black -> 9th Dan Black

Written by: Encrypted Intel 15:36, 21 July 2005 ( Mario R 13:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC) )


 * This list insinuates there's a 'standard' list for ranking with colors. However, there is no way you can talk about the kyu ('beginner grades') in terms of colors! There are many differences between countries and sometimes even between styles/schools! For example in most DUTCH karate schools the system is: white (9/8), yellow (7), orange (6), green (5), blue (4), brown (3-1), 1st dan up to 9th dan. Therefore it's always the safest to talk about kyu, never about color! Also, receiving the first black belt (after 3rd brown, or better: 1st kyu) you always have 1st dan. This is not fully clear in the list above! Extra info: 10th dan also exists, but is only given posthumously to honour great grandmasters (like a creator of a style). -- Mario R 21:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Rather than trying to write out belt colours (since it's always going to be different in every different style) I found no reference to the kyu/dan system that was introduced for Karate to be accepted into Japan. I don't know the details, but it had to be standardised like that before it would be accepted by an organisation. The kyu/dan system comes originally from the ranking system for Go players. The Kyu/Dan system was and is, therefore, well-used in many martial arts from Japan. Typically, a white belt is a 10th or 9th kyu. A black belt is always a 1st dan.
 * The grade before black belt is always a 1st kyu. Kyu grades would be considered amatuer, and Dan grades professional, if you want a broad metaphor. Bihal 00:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I wrote that before registering, therefore didn't sign my name and put it on top instead of underneath, leading you to think I wrote it all. I thought I had gone back and fixed that. Obviously it was misleading.


 * You are right. You said what I said again. Feel free to make comments again.


 * PS: That bit about 10th Dan varies from style to style and martial art to martial art. Bihal 08:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted! I already thought this was not deliberately... And I am sorry I wrote "written by Bihal" under the list, I thought that was you too, because you changed the title of this part (didn't you?). I have also reorganized the messages in the correct chronological order. Always write replies underneath the previous message/reply. Thanks! About the 10th dan, yeah, it sure differs from martial art to martial art. And there are so many different styles in karate, so surely there will be some differences too. Regards, -- Mario R 13:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Biased/Without basis statements
"Many modern (Western) practicioners elect to leave ranks or the formailty of a gi out of their training practices, citing the tendency of students to focus too much on rank, instead of the art itself."

Personally, I would like some kind of reference to support this, since it is contrary to experience.`
 * Nobody has objected, so I'm going in for an edit. Bihal 07:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"The name can be interpreted literally, or as a philosophical reference to the concept of the Void (Tao)."

I haven't really heard of Tao being referred to as the Void. In fact, I'm of the opinion that is completely wrong. Void might be better associated with explaining Zen. Tao is often translated as the Path or the Way. I think Tao as a word stands on its own, especially since it has its own page that is referenced to.

"Many "freestyle" schools in the West (particularly the USA) sell a highly compromised interpretation of the art, and should not be regarded as emblematic of karate. The freestyle approach is oriented heavily towards sport competition, which includes point fighting and demonstration of forms (aka, kata) for entertainment value. Martial practicality is eschewed in favor of gymnastic and musical fashion. As a result of this competitive emphasis sparring is the most prominently featured aspect of many schools.With the removal of practical techniques and the prominence of high and vulnerable kicks, American freestyle “karate” has essentially been rendered into a bastardization of karate and sport style tae kwon do. The ineffectual hand techniques and high, rapid kicking constitute a limited skill base which is potentially finite and very predictable. When the "forms" practiced are compared to the self defense techniques taught in these schools it becomes obvious that the two have little or no relation to each other."

I believe this particular paragraph is highly biased. At least, the use of the term "freestyle" paints a very generalised image of the term. There is a mix of different sub set references in here (freestyle, XMA, Sport karate schools). I think this paragraph needs a re-write. Bihal


 * You are correct. Tao 道 isn't IME used for void. It literally means a path or a road, and by extension a philosophical concept of the course of the universe. The Buddhist Sanskrit term Sunyata is the closest I can come to void. The Chinese character used to translate sunyata is 空, in Japanese kū. Fire Star 06:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Edited to just Tao (Added Dao (alt spl) and Japanese in brackets (Do)). Bihal 07:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, since Karate is Japanese, I've given Do pride of place. Bihal 07:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed the references to Taoism/void back to my original edit. Why? First of all, do some research into Taoism- it's all about void. "From the void comes the substance of the 10,000 things," according to Lao Tzu. Zen is a product of the synthesis of Indian Buddhist dhyana practices introduced to Chinese Taoist thought. "Cha'an" is a Chinese corruption of "Dhyana." "Zen" is a Japanese corruption of "Cha'an." Equating void to Zen and not Taoism is like saying that Jesus introduced the idea of God to the Hebrews. Funakoshi was studying Zen towards the end years of his life, at Engakuji Temple, in Kamakura, Japan. He studied under Chief Abbott Ekun and completed his training around 1929, and it was then that he changed the name of the art from "Tode" (Chinese Hand ) to "Karate-Do." True, Tao is often described as a path, or way. But Lao Tzu also said, "The Tao that can be named is not the true, eternal Tao..." The term "do" is a Japanese corruption of, yet again, "Tao." Be careful no to confuse your references. Finally, karate is not Japanese. It came to them via the Okinawans, who's methods were influenced by the Chinese, etc... It's a human art, not belonging to a particular nationality. RSimpson September 13, 9:55 pm


 * Do you know you put your bit about Tao back in a different spot?


 * Anyways, I understand Taoism, thanks. And I understand the links between Zen and Taoism. I also understand they are seperate entities for a reason. I made the changes because I thought that in the part of the article it was in, it was poorly written and placed, and could be more easily explained to the average English reader without confusing metaphors.


 * I have never heard of the "Empty" part of Karate being a reference to Zen. If you're going to claim that he changed the name of the entire style of martial art with this in mind, some kind of references would be appreciated.


 * The reason Karate has its own catogory is because it is a distinctly different martial art to those from China, or the influences China got from India, or the influences they got from the armies of Alexander the Great, ad infinitum. We have a name that pays tribute to the fact that all martial arts are human arts. Martial Arts. An all encompassing word. Karate is a particular kind of martial art that came in its current form, most recently from Japan.


 * Karate is a Japanese Martial Art. Just like French is a French Language. Try telling them it doesn't belong to them because it comes from Latin that the Roman's spoke.

Bihal 04:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The edit is pertinenet to the section that it's in. I'm not implying that Funakoshi 'changed the name' of an entire martial art- he did! The decision to refer to several different folk arts under one broad name is a matter of historical fact. The name change was an effort to make karate acceptable to a nationalistic culture, the Japanese. That name also happens to have a significance within the ideas of Tao and Zen. I tend to downplay the "karate is zen, yadda yadda" that gets bantered about, but it has still had some infleunce upon the art, and the contemporary name happens to reflect that. Zen and Tao have their own categories, as they ought to, but it is appropriate to mention them in context with an art they've had an effect on. I've included references regarding Funakoshi and the time period in question.

Karate is not Japanese. The Japanese may practice karate as an adopted part of their national culture, however, so do we. But it would be instantly deemed incorrect to say that karate is American, or Indian, or Mexican. There's lots of "Japanese" packaging around the art as Westerners have received it, but it's origins lie elsewhere. RSimpson


 * RSimpson states here that "Karate is not Japanese". This is wrong to say. Anyway, it is wrong to say it in this black-and-white view. Of course karate has its roots in older Chinese martial arts, going back as far as the old Shaolin temple. Should it be said then that karate is Chinese??? Of course not. Karate IS a Japanese martial art, with roots in older Chinese martial arts. Japanese (actually Okinawan) masters of the 19th and early 20th century have changed the art into a new, modern fighting art, just as languages change, like Bihal writes: French is a French language. French does have its roots in Italy (Latin), but it is not an Italian language! There's no doubt about that, so why doubt the fact that (the modern) karate is Japanese? -- Mario R 22:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand that the name was changed, at a "meeting of the masters" to facilitate its spread into Japan. I understand the Zen and Taoist influences on Karate.

But where you say the contemporary name HAPPENS to reflect, that is the essence of the conflict here. I have never been given reason to believe the name was changed to reflect or even due to direct Zen or Taoist influences. Can you confirm this with verifiable references? If not, I don't think it's wise to link the name with anything other than its literal meaning in a factual article. Conject all you want elsewhere, but that's not what this place is about. Bihal 01:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Excerpt taken from http://www.furyu.com/archives/issue3/daruma.html: Funkoshi wrote in "Karate-do, my way of life": "The kara that means "empty" is definitely the more appropriate. This defense makes use of no weapons, only bare feet and empty hands. Further, students of Karate-do aim not only toward perfecting their chosen art but also toward emptying heart and mind of all earthly desire and vanity. Reading Buddhist scriptures, we come across such statements as Shi-soku-ze- ku and Ku-soku-zeshiki, which literally mean, "matter is void" and "all is vanity." The character ku, which appears in both admonitions and may also be pronounced kara, is in itself truth."

That's about as factually referenced as I can get. Again, contemporary karate belongs to who is practicing it- I object to labeling it as blanketly Japanese, because they are simply doing what the rest of us are. RSimpson


 * Thank you. It is polite in future when you are making significant changes to mention and check them here before editing the article. It helps avoid edit wars and makes your edits much more defensible if you have the approval (or attempted to get it) of the others here.


 * When I am going to edit something like that, I usually put up a message about what I am planning to do, or think should be done, and leave it for a week for people to comment. It just makes everything more pleasant. Bihal 21:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good policy. I'm still somewhat new to some of the policies and procedures in this resource, and was only thinking of the document- thanks for the feedback. RSimpson

Karate as a Sport
I changed “Karate as a Sport” with more accurate information regarding karate organization. There are one major world organization on karate and it is recognized by International Olympic Committee as we can see on the website: (http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/if/index_uk.asp) – see recognized sports (karate). The organization is WKF – World Karate Federation and it is the major group for all karate styles. Regarding this, changes about karate competition rules were presented by myself and I’m sure, need some detail correction because my English is not perfect to assume the quality of this encyclopedia.

Abel Figueiredo – Portugal (namban@netcabo.pt)

Links
Ok, I have a little proposal. I am shortly going to remove all the links from this article. They are a source of yet another edit war and there are a crazy number of them.

To replace the 'Associations', we already have List of Karate organizations which is more than enough. Editors fighting here should go to that article and start writing articles for the redlinks there &mdash; provided the organisations listed are notable. To replace the other Karate styles, we in some cases already have articles which no doubt need improving and, where we do not they should be written, or mentioned somewhere appropriate &mdash; such as many already are in the 'Styles' section. WP:ISNOT a webdirectory, and it is not a battleground. I do not see the encyclopedic value in the list of "...with Olympic links" at all. -Splash 22:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Please reinsert them only as they are genuinely appropriate, and consider if they belong better elsewhere. -Splash 03:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The link for "Typical Karate Grading System" should go. It's a link to a commercial advertising group, looking to promote anything under the guise of "Martial art." Not only is it inaccurate, but it is a disservice to the art, and to anyone who visits that site looking for useful information. RSimpson 10/6/05

What about the Karate clips shown here, any value in listing it? http://www.all-karate.com/129/how-to-learn-karate There is also a step by step guide (and a video) on how to tie a Karate belt. Is this useful as a possible reference? -- Wyxel 03:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Styles
Added Karate Style-lines with Okinawa extraction (1372), New Karate-Styles with Japanese extraction, New Karate-Styles with European extraction. -- Robzombie 10:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have moved this new input by Robzombie to the bottom of this (discussion) page to keep it more chronological... -- Mario R 16:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed the addition about "tang so do." It looks like this person was referencing Tang Soo Do, which is not a style of karate, but rather a recent Korean development. The information about that art's focus on "avoiding fights" is redundant- the same is true (in principal at least) for karate as an art, not along stylistic lines. RSimpson

The description of Tang Soo Do as "not a style of karate, but rather a recent Korean development" is not consistent with a NPOV. It's almost as if being a Korean development by definition makes it not karate. Tang Soo Do is no less legitimate a member of the karate family of styles than (say) Shotokan is. The article describes karate by saying "Rather than being the product of any one person, culture or era, karate is a synthesis of various Okinawan fighting methods, enhanced intermittently with admixture from various Chinese martial arts." Most Japanese karate, with its deep stances and its rigidity, represents a distinct evolution from Okinawan practice; the old-style Okinawan practitioners are much more relaxed and loose. A more balanced presentation would be to describe karate as an art with origins in Okinawa, that spread to Japan and Korea, and from there to the West. Jim Hardy 22:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

History and other updates
I reverted the 9/28 edits to the History section back to the earlier version. The writing was in poor English, and not consistent with the context of the surrounding sentences. As a point of historical criticism, Shito ryu was not the originating style of the Bassai kata- Shito ryu's founder, Kenwa Mabuni, had a more detailed knowledge of kata and it's variants than Funakoshi did, so Funakoshi sent many of his top Japanese students (including his son) to learn Bassai, et al, from Mabuni. The information about Funakoshi's educational training and the training of his teachers is noteworthy, but probably would serve better on the page dedicated to him. Secondly, Azato did not train in kendo- he learned the Jigen ryu system of kenjitsu during his stay in Satsuma, before kenjitsu had been converted to kendo. RSimpson

All new stuff is supposed to go at the bottom of the page, or at the bottom of the relevent section.

I agree, I was going to do the way. I'm also going to remove his seemingly random and poorly written blurb on Shotokan. If you have any problems with this Sensei Moo, please disucss them here on the talk page. Bihal 02:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments Please
I've just placed a comment on a stub related to this article. Please have a look and comment if you would like.

Mokuso

Bihal 12:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing to make readable
just begun - horrible to read at moment. what does this mean anyone? "Minimoto Gotente from Tametomo, the latter a Minimoto Samurai whose son Shunten by an Okinawan wife established the Line of Okinawan Kings".. i think i should just delete as it makes no sense. wikipedia is not just for karatedos you know! Grroin 16:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

JJL 18:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Need to standardize whether it's to be Karate or karate in this article. It varies throughout the page.

Martial arts category for Wikipedians
A new category for those interested in martial arts has been created at Category:Wikipedians_interested_in_martial_arts. To add yourself, simply copy the following code to the bottom of your user page:

Shawnc 11:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

karate is from india -SELF EXPLANATORY?
osrry guys pile of **** the heading some unknown person put at top of page. this is a discussion apge where's the info? Grroin 23:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Appropriateness of non-Japanese arts in Karate article
I posted over a month ago on this page that I felt the Japanese-centrism in this article was biased and represented a non-NPOV. There was no direct response, so I went ahead with my (admittedly massive) edit. I think the content of the article shows quite clearly the justification for having non-Japanese arts represented in any historical discussion of Karate. In brief, I think it is justifed by the clear historical evolution of these arts (particularly Tang Soo Do), and by any reasonably objective attempt at doing a systematic classification of the arts based on the content of the style (a taxonomy).

Most US-based practitioners of American Kenpo and Tang Soo Do (and maybe even Tae Kwon Do) would consider their style to be "karate"; to be obviously karate. 15 minutes of Googling ought to make that clear; and it seems justified by the historical record. Any statement from Karateka doing Japanese styles, to the effect that American Kenpo and Tang Soo Do "aren't Karate because they aren't Japanese", would need to be examined very closely. Frankly, I would need to see some support, based either on the historical evidence or a detailed comparison of the contents of the styles, before accepting such a statement.

Jim Hardy 09:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim- Excellent additions to the article. I've been wondering for some time now how to integrate much of the same material. It's also refreshing that you included references, not just more of the same run of the mill karate/bruce lee/ninjas/shaolin nonsense. However, it might be helpful to classify the Korean developments, Kempo, and especially Ed Parker to a subsection, devoted specifically to offshoots from the art. Yes, they are all technically as valid as any other development- but they are lacking something when compared to (physical and written) records of older Okinawan methodologies. It may be more clear in progression to introduce karate as a generic topic first, with the initial history and technical evaluation, and then go on to discuss the other developments at length. Check out Harry Cook's "Shotokan: A Precise History." I am not advocating Shotokan by any means, but the book is exhaustive in terms of karate history, and deals with the Japanese nationalistic/war era and it's effects on karate in general, and Korean developments thoroughly.

RSimpson 10:46, 13 December 2005(UTC)

R -- Thanks for the kind words. And thanks for the book recommendation! I was unaware of that work. (http://www.dragon-tsunami.org/Shotokan/Pages/Shobooks.htm ) I don't know how soon I'll be rushing out to buy it ($75 is a bit steep, though the volume looks to be worth it), but it's definitely something I'm interested in. Seems like it covers the same material I tried to hit here, but in much greater depth and historical detail.

I think in general the article is probably too long. It's almost twice the lengh that Wikipedia recommends for its articles; so it seems clear that some stuff should probably be pruned, or broken off into other articles. I don't know if the specific stuff you pointed out (Kenpo/Kempo and Ed Parker) should be broken out, but probably something should. One idea I had is that the examples of Karate propagation to the West (Trias, Rhee etc) be broken out into a separate article with some title like "Provenance of US-based Karate schools". Then people with information on the lineage of specific clubs/schools could expand that. I think the best way to proceed is:
 * First knock this into shape, make sure we have some kind of consensus about the content, even though we'll need to leave the article too long while we hammer that out.
 * As part of that process, I'd like to get someone who actually knows something about American Kenpo (ie not me) to provide some detail, especially on the characteristics of the art (including its forms).
 * Then, after we have consensus on the overall content, break out some of the more detailed stuff into other articles referenced from here. For example, I have 8 or 9 paragraphs here about how Shotokan became Tang Soo Do became Tae Kwon Do; that stuff could possibly be summarized eventually in one or two paragraphs in the main Karate article, with the greater detail pushed out to the Tang Soo Do / Tae Kwon Do pages.  Probably there are other such changes that could usefully be made.  Note that I'll want to be careful as we do that, that we not re-insert the Japan-centric bias.  For example, I'll object if we push out all the Tang Soo Do detail to the other page, but leave all the Shotokan detail here.  That would reinforce the implication that Shotokan is true "Karate" while Tang Soo Do is not.  Also, if other people think it's appropriate, I'd like to leave some discussion about what is and isn't Karate and what the different ways are of examining the question.

Jim Hardy 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

JJL 23:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC) "That would reinforce the implication that Shotokan is true "Karate" while Tang Soo Do is not." Well...in my opinion, Shotokan is true Karate, and Tang Soo Do (and American Kenpo) are not. Both also have a Chinese influence, and American Kenpo comes principally from Southern Chinese systems. Yes, Tae Kwon Do grew from Shotokan which grew from Okinawan Karate which was a mixture of older Okinawan styles plus Southern Chinese Kung Fu, which is said to have come from India...there's a continuum. But just because everyone uses 'Karate' in the States for its name recognition doesn't make it Karate. I think the Korean systems deserve scant attention here, as they're not Karate but rather arts made from Karate. As to EPAK, Ed Parker himself disliked calling the system 'Karate' and only did it on his studios to bring people in the door. Try starting Tae Kwon Do discussions in the Karate fora at E-Budo and see what they think! All such fora have different Karate and Korean Martial Arts sections, because those are different things. Point the reader to the appropriate page for these other arts. I'd agree that the article is too long.

Jim Hardy 01:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC) start

Yeah JJL, this is the discussion I anticipated when I made the edits to describe Karate as an Okinawan art, Japanese Karate as a descendent of Okinawan Karate, and to include the info on Korea. I think this is going to be fairly contentious. You wrote: Well first let's leave Tae Kwon Do out of it. The Korean masters made a conscious decision and a concerted effort to move Tae Kwon Do away from Karate after about 1960 or so: they changed their art a lot. If we want to say it's not "karate" anymore, I really can't argue. It sure is different from what I think of as Karate.
 * Shotokan is true Karate, and Tang Soo Do is not. Yes, Tae Kwon Do grew from Tang Soo Do which grew from Shotokan which grew from Okinawan Karate which was a mixture of older Okinawan styles plus Southern Chinese Kung Fu: there's a continuum. But just because everyone uses 'Karate' in the States for its name recognition doesn't make it Karate. I think the Korean systems deserve scant attention here, as they're not Karate but rather arts made from Karate. (Note I edited that excerpt a little, it's not exactly a direct quote from what you wrote.)

But the statement "Shotokan is true Karate and Tang Soo Do is not" is obviously flat-out wrong. Tang Soo Do basically is Shotokan. Lee Won Kuk and Byung Jick Ro were students of Funakoshi himself at the Shotokan dojo in Tokyo; when they opened schools in Korea teaching 唐手道 (karate-d&#333;, pronounced tangsoo-do), what else could they possibly be teaching? Shotokan was their only background; in fact, the name Lee Won Kuk used for his school, "Chung Do Kwan", was chosen to show his school as the "child" of the Sung Do Kwan (Shotokan) school. Ki Whang Kim also studied at the Shotokan dojo in Japan. Hwang Kee states clearly in his writings that he learned Okinawan Karate (esp forms) from a book while working in Seoul around 1939. That pretty much had to be a book of Funakoshi's; and anyway he was working out in Lee Won Kuk's 唐手道 school for a year or so before opening his Moo Duk Kwan. How much lineage do we need?

Yes, the Korean Tae Kwon Do masters made changes to their art to create Tae Kwon Do; and Hwang Kee later made some changes and created modern Soo Bahk Do. But Tang Soo Do still exists. When we look at modern Tang Soo Do practitioners, we can see they're doing a style that looks like Shotokan, and they're doing many of the Shotokan forms (but often using the older Okinawan names, rather than the names Funikoshi re-christened them with in the 1930s; or else a Korean name). It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and its grandparents were ducks. What else can it be?

Put another way: when we look at the arts themselves, what the practitioners actually do when they train and perform, there is less difference between Shotokan and Tang Soo Do than there is between Shotokan and Goju-Ryu, or between Shotokan and Wado-Ryu, or between Shotokan and the arts as practiced by traditional Okinawan masters. MUCH less difference. So when we say Shotokan is true Karate and Goju-Ryu is true Karate and Wado-Ryu is true Karate, and Tang Soo Do is not, what exactly are we saying? It doesn't make sense.

You also said: No, I'm interested in a view which is grounded in history or an understanding of the content of the arts under discussion; and as free from bias as is possible. The E-Budo response would be meaningless on this point. "E-budo.com is the Internet's premier bulletin board dedicated to Japanese martial arts and culture. Our moderated forums allow our members to share their interest in the Japanese arts." The bias is self-evident, right? I assume they will think "X is not Karate because it is not Japanese." Not useful. Frankly, it's bigotry. If they're not even going to look at Tang Soo Do to examine the content of the art, then they have nothing to add.
 * Try starting Tae Kwon Do discussions in the Karate fora at E-Budo and see what they think!

I included a section on it only in an effort to be neutral. I don't know much about the style: didn't want to say it wasn't karate, without some input from someone who knows something about it. I did see a reference that Parker wasn't 100% comfortable with using the word "karate". On the other hand, Parker learned from Chow who learned from Mitose, and Mitose was pretty clearly teaching Karate. I'm not positive where exactly American Kempo changes from Karate to something else; if someone knows something about it and wants to edit, they should go right ahead.
 * As to EPAK, Ed Parker himself disliked calling the system 'Karate' and only did it on his studios to bring people in the door.

end Jim Hardy 01:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

JJL 18:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC) I grant your point that TSD compares to Shotokan at least as well as Wado-ryu does. But in my experience most TSD people feel they're doing a Korean art with non-Korean origins, just as Karateka feel they're doing a Japanese/Okinawan art with Chinese origins. On the one hand stuff like from here, http://www.worldtangsoodo.com/index2.asp?PAGE=general, is BS: "The very first evidence of this ancient form of Korean martial arts appeared during the Three Kingdom era (57 BC-935 AD) as Hwa Rang Do." That's anti-Japanese revionism. On the other hand, it shows that TSD people like to think of their art as not Karate. Heck, Uechi-ryu Karate is such literal Southern Chinese Kung Fu that the only reason for calling it Karate is, shall we say, political. But would you put it under CMA rather than here? Also, the TSD page here notes the significant Chinese influence on this art, and categorizes it as a Korean martial art. The only TSD instructor I know personally considers the art to be more Chinese in origin than Japanese. (One must look at more than just the forms to see it as such.) Looking at a wide variety of martial arts web boards, discussions of TSD almost always fall under general KMA headings when there isn't special TSD forum, even where there is a Karate forum. So, to my mind its pratitioners as well as others see it as a Korean art, and as not being (Japanese) Karate. I'm not suggesting promulgating the lie that it's a traditional KMA, but rather recognizing that its practitioners choose to view it as such and we should respect that. It would be a harder call with Kumdo vs. Kendo or Yudo vs, Judo. But saying TSD and TKD are Karate, Hapkido is Jujutsu, etc., is forcing a lineage-bsed viewpoint. The TSD people will say the philosophy, for example, is Korean--how much weight to give that? Bottom line, my opinion is to briefly mention that TSD and TKD grew from Karate and redirect to approrpiate entries. The American Kenpo story is rather more complex, and again I'd principally redirect to another page.

Tsuruoka/Canada
JJL 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) I agree with the revert, but there was some useful info. in there nonetheless. Perhaps the person who posted it should be encouraged to develop it into a stand-alone article, either on Karate in Canada or just on the Tsuruoka style?

I agreed about Tsuruoka. I copy/pasted all of it into Tsuruoka's own article; then condensed one paragraph in the section about how karate propagated from Japan/Okinawa/Korea to the rest of the world. It seems pretty clear Tsuruoka is an important enough figure to warrant a page of his own. The contributor Mr Moledzki (President of Karate-do Shito-Kai in Canada) might disagree about the handling of the Tsuruoka info; I guess we'll discuss it if he does. Jim Hardy 00:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The Karate Punch
The segment on "the karate punch' is questionble in both merit and factuality. Where are the references for it's dubious claims? Debates with MMA folks might serve a better purpose elsewhere. This article should attempt to describe karate as a physical art, not a scientifically based uber-method. A punch is only as good as the person throwing it, statements about homogenity are a sign of misunderstanding. RSimpson 30 December

Suggestions for editing
At the very least, these sections should be deleted:

1) "Karate is Japanese" 2) "Karate is any striking art that calls itself karate" 3) "Karate is a family of martial arts that can be described in a fairly objective taxonomy of martial arts styles"

These are so conversational. It is a mini-debate on the rhetoric of the definition of the word karate. It looks like these happened on the "talk" page and were just plopped onto the article.

Just look at this text:

''"Karate is Japanese

Many people think this is so obvious it need not be said. Of course Karate is Japanese! How else? The modern word for Karate even comes from the Japanese! Sure, Karate has its roots in older Chinese martial arts by way of Okinawa; but do we say then that Karate is Chinese? Of course not. Think of language. “French” is a French language." ''

Does anyone agree?

JJL 18:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Yes, I think there' s a lot of fluff in that section. The fact that the term is used generically (Korean Karate, Chinese Karate) needs to be addressed somewhere, and the it's Okinawan vs. it's Japanese issue should be touched on too. In any event, the article is simply too long.

Wikifying
Please refer to Only make links that are relevant to the context for a guide on wikifying words in the article. Too many words have been repetitively wikified despite already being linked earlier in the article. "What should not be linked: Words that have been linked earlier in the article. This advice follows the standard practice of defining or explaining a term, or spelling out an acronym, on its first occurrence in a text and not subsequently." This goes to words such as "martial arts", "martial artists", places like Okinawa, Korea, Japan and so on. --Fire Star 23:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)veryy good