Being a history geek and a martial arts geek, I found this paper on the origins of the need for a history for karate very interesting. Since I practice in a style that touts itself as eclectic, we're not too concerned with sources beyond identifying them. That explains why we teach boxing techniques along side straight karate or total kung fu techniques, not to mention the ju juitsu & judo that gets tossed in. But, having studied three different styles and having learned the same forms, three different times and three different ways, I do get interested in the growth & development of systems in order to try to figure out why, for instance, in what we call Pinan 1, our stance is high, half-moon, and our movements are circular, where as in Goju-Ryu, Taekioko 1 (sp?) is a very low, front leaning stance, but with circular movements, but in Seido (derived from Mas Oyama's Kyoko Shinkai) the stance is again the low front leaning, but the movement requires a very linear, feet on the railroad tracks, kind of movement? I don't know, but I'd be interested.
Anyway, I enjoyed the read, and thought I'd share.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Karate History
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment