My point of view — Pt. 4: Anci­ent Mas­ters and Modern Kara­te-Do

ulrike20fox20photography20februar202015-115.jpg
 A thoughtful per­cep­ti­on of deal­ing with tra­di­tio­nal Kara­te-do by Chris­ti­an Wede­wardt

My point of view — Pt. 4

The fol­lo­wing artic­le is a thoughtful per­cep­ti­on of deal­ing with tra­di­tio­nal Kara­te-do.

I am able to find quo­tes and pic­tures of anci­ent Kara­te mas­ters imply­ing important fun­da­men­tals of Kara­te on the inter­net more and more often the­se days. And what hap­pens next? Read, lik­ed, saved and con­tin­ued as usu­al. But why? Why is it we don´t con­ti­nue to think fur­ther? Why don´t we dis­en­ga­ge our­sel­ves and take a look at Kara­te from a dif­fe­rent point of view?

I came to the rea­liza­ti­on that it is often refe­red to tra­di­tio­nal roots wit­hout fol­lo­wing the mea­ning of tho­se tra­di­tio­nal mes­sa­ges behind it, i.e. Mas­ter Funakoshi´s rules and prin­ci­ples for Kara­te-Do.

It is not my inten­ti­on to address cer­tain Kara­te styl­es but take a look at our art as a who­le and only use Funakoshi´s rules as sel­ec­ted examp­les.

Form­er­ly impor­ted from the Japa­ne­se Kara­te Association´s best ath­le­tes in the 1950s to 1970s our tra­di­tio­nal Ger­man Kara­te ori­en­ta­tes its­elf on tho­se trai­ning prac­ti­ces.

Goal of this orga­ni­sa­ti­on was to build and estab­lish a world wide ope­ra­ting orga­ni­sa­ti­on rather than to export the art of Kara­te or pas­sing on a cer­tain form of self-defen­se. Hence we were taught what tho­se coa­ches knew best: Kara­te as a sport. I belie­ve the­re is no need for expl­ana­ti­on that this is not the spi­rit of Kara­te rather than an upri­sing niche to exploit on poli­ti­cal­ly to make Kara­te a world-wide more popu­lar sport and being able to mea­su­re up each other in it.

But back to the real ques­ti­on:

Why are old basic prin­ci­ples often just quo­tes?

The­re is no crea­ti­ve hand­ling of con­tents coming with Kara­te. The recon­side­ra­ti­on of given methods and con­tents, chal­len­ging tho­se methods and the test­ing of tra­di­tio­nal tech­ni­ques towards their prac­ti­ca­bi­li­ty nowa­days is often miss­ing. Though Funa­ko­shi its­elf once sta­ted in his 20 rules of Kara­te: “Time chan­ge, the world chan­ges, and obvious­ly the mar­ti­al arts must chan­ge too.”

I often obser­ve that — inde­pendent­ly wether a tech­ni­que is prac­ti­ca­ble for someone regar­ding their phy­si­cal con­sti­tu­ti­on in terms of age, weight or hight — class con­tents have to be copied by stu­dents to a hair.

Funa­ko­shi said: “Chan­ge depen­ding on who´s your oppo­nent.”
Obvious­ly repe­ti­ti­on is a cru­ti­al part of long-term ori­en­ted Kara­te prac­ti­se in order to reach per­fect form and tech­ni­que. Yet again Funa­ko­shi reminds the rea­ders of his rules to be fle­xi­ble and crea­ti­ve by say­ing that the beg­in­ner needs fixed rules and stances but the expe­ri­en­ced moves free and natu­ral.

Ques­ti­ons that are coming to my mind now are:

  • Why are we prac­ti­cing the same tech­ni­ques over and over again wit­hout any varia­ti­on?
  • Why are we still expec­ting low stances and high body ten­si­on during hig­her degree black belt test­ing though tho­se abili­ties were pre­sen­ted per­fect­ly in past test­ings?
  • Why are we not allo­wing hig­her ran­ked belts to move free, in hig­her stances, crea­tively and fle­xi­ble and take the­se abili­ties as a sign of chan­ge and enhance­ment of past pre­sen­ted tech­ni­ques?
  • Why don´t we often app­ly the old say­ing: Hig­her ran­ked belt = the shorter the exer­ti­on must be?

I am awa­re that this is a high­ly dis­cus­sed topic. But any­way…

Releasing this artic­le I would like to point out grie­van­ces and encou­ra­ge thin­king towards a posi­ti­ve chan­ge. While the sports aspect con­ti­nous­ly grows towards being more pro­fes­sio­nal, the grass-roots level keeps being stuck on old trai­ning methods and miss­ing out on oppor­tu­ni­ties to deve­lop towards being more modern.

I firm­ly belie­ve that Funa­ko­shi if still being ali­ve today would not keep con­ti­nuing to prac­ti­ce the way he did back in the days. And I fur­ther don´t beli­ve he would expect any other coun­try to prac­ti­ce Kara­te like that.

Why am I bra­ve enough to make this point?

The­re is not­hing as endu­ring as con­stant chan­ge. Becau­se the abso­lu­te hol­ding on to old forms — wit­hout careful­ly adjus­ting to modern day´s requi­re­ments — is a step back and the­r­e­fo­re not to be eva­lua­ted as a posi­ti­ve.

I am also bra­ve enough to say this becau­se the ones we remem­ber are the ones that see­ked new paths, thought new things, pushed fur­ther and the­r­e­fo­re impro­ved Kara­te as a who­le. We remem­ber and refer to tho­se who went on to new paths and did things dif­fe­rent for Funa­ko­shi has been one of them. He didn´t con­ti­nue to do what his mas­ters once show­ed him but took the best parts of what Ito­su and Asa­to taught him and built his own style upon that. He prac­ti­ced HIS Kara­te and I am sure he would have wan­ted crea­ti­ve­ness and bra­very to deve­lo­pe his Kara­te pie­ce by pie­ce and let it grow into new strengths.

Your

Chris­ti­an Wede­wardt