“Shotokan’s Secret” by Bruce D. Clayton, Ph. D.

 

It was amost 30 years ago that I found out about this book. A friend sent it to me because he has questions and he found I was quoted in a footnote about Isshinryu. I knew nothing of the book , author, system he studied, rank he held. And I never looked him up.

 

But much of the book ran counter of the studies I experienced over my decades of work and I undertook reading the book as a challenge for myself.

 

Martial books fall into categories. This one was making big assumptions about various karate histories. IMO based on many faulty assumptions. So I began to  study what was there.

 

 Technically it is a challenge to the right of Shotokan to be considered real karate based on a premise that Kyan’s karate was purer further based on an premise that Isshinryu was the best example of Kyan’s karate based on the Isshinryu writings of Martinez’s books on Isshinryu.

 

I personally found all that was published based on very faulty assumptions, such as Martinez’s Isshinryu really covered what Isshinryu was about. Further his book had a footnote from me and something I had written. This got me to make this short analysis of this book.

 

After I wrote this, and having formed my own opinions really forgot it and  I ignored it thereafter. Now finding it 30 years later these opinions are still what I believe.

 

“Shotokan’s Secret” by Bruce D. Clayton, Ph. D.

IMO a less than accurate book torn apart by me,

Especially as he quoted me without my permission.

 

 

I learned a great lesson from Doctor Harper, who was also a surgeon and a long time student. On Sunday he came over and was looking at my martial book collection. Suddenly he took one of the books and threw it in the trash. I was quite surprised for I felt the book was good. He explained if they took the time to produce the book, and were so careless as to place a drawing of the spleen on the wrong side of the body, what sane person could trust any of the material in the book. It was a great point. I've since noticed when authors take similar shortcut to make a point in their books, everything else they wrote is forevermore suspect.

 

With that in mind here is something I wrote long ago that tangentially touches on Isshinryu. It is long and I’ll understand if you don’t read this.

 

“Shotokan’s Secret” by Bruce D. Clayton, Ph. D.  ‘The Hidden Truth  Behind Karate’s Fighting Origins.’  Ohara Publications (publisher of Black Belt Magazine) - 2005

 

R.T. ^..^ and Jet had quite a discussion about Mr. Clayton’s book during the latter part of February.  R.T. wanted my opinion, and as I’m trying to work my way through eliminating books (just as I dumped several thousand magazines) and can’t justifying acquiring more, he sent me his copy to read because he asked for my opinion about the book. 

 

Rather than do a complete analysis, I’m going to try and shotgun over it a bit. But there is big link to Isshinryu, for later you’ll see my opinions about his using Isshinryu as an example of why Itosu changed the arts, and why Isshinryu is weak compared to noble Shuri arts.

 

It was here when I returned from my trip on Thursday and I’ve just shot through it and wanted to give R.T. his money’s worth.

 

BTW, this will be complex, long and likely I’ll loose myself a bit along the way.

 

The author – Bruce D. Clayton Ph.D.

 

Ph.D in Ecology, known survival expert, 5^th degree black belt in Shotokan under Vincent Cruz. 

 

The premise – Real Okinawa karate was born in the Shuri crucible, of Matsumura and other noble families who were the government, and the body guards of the king of Okinawa. Their art didn’t develop for the military, it didn’t develop for civilian self defense, it developed for use by the bodyguards of the king.   Thus real Shuri Karate is expressed best in the Itosu lineage and further moved to Shotokan as the real art of Karate.  (after all he is a Shotokan stylist).

 

Perhaps there is some merit to his contention the real reason that karate developed was to be used by the bodyguards of the king of Okinawa, and this shaped what is and isn’t in karate’s structure.

 

Structurally the book covers 1) that the art of karate developed for the use of the kings bodyguards, and techniques like grappling, ground work, pressure point strikes wouldn’t work in those situations, so linear techniques were the primary focus 2) a ‘history’ of how the art developed (both as Shuri and then Shotokan) 3) a comparison of the pure Itosu Shuri to the lesser vehicle taught by Kyan and 4) an analysis of the art of the bodyguard, why Shotokan didn’t have ‘bunkai’ and what should be added quickly to keep students interested and learning.

 

Unfortunately from my perspective I consider this work a rhetorical argument, that of ‘special pleading’, rather than something of historical merit. It is my contention that he’s taken quite a number of authors ‘histories’ and shaped a story that tells what he wants to tell.  Thus Shotokan, descendant of a real karate-ka Itosu is Good, and arts that were descended from Funakoshi’s evil twin, Kyan are less worthy, less workable and over all bad.

 

He takes the invasion of Okinawa by Perry (a very short but well documented one) as the basis for an understanding of how Matsumura would have guarded the King, and how such events shaped the emerging karate. Actually his retelling of that tale is interesting.

 

Unfortunately he weaves his story with references of Sells, Alexander, McCarthy and Kim, among many others. There are not references supporting most of his inferences at my quick initial look-see. 

 

My opinion such a book might draw a good grade from a University professor. It tells a clear story, has lots of quotes, footnotes, references, index and pictures.  It’s just I don’t think they necessarily tell a real story.  At first glance a lot of this seems to tie together, but again in my opinion as wish fulfillment.

 

For one thing, quoting Richard Kim will help sell the book to Ohara, which publishes Kim’s ‘Weaponless Warriors’, interesting stories about Okinawa. But he didn’t do his research, for Kim lifted those stories from a book written by Shimabuku Ezio, without reference to the original author. 20 years ago I could accept this for who knew, but today it would not take much research to substantiate this fact. And those stories are based on oral history, hardly true ‘proof’.  IMO Oral history has a place, but not for more than the tales involved.

 

While I’ve read many of Clayton’s sources, I don’t have my library indexed to quickly dig out these opinions, so I’m just calling it from what I’ve seen.

 

Among the books contentions are that WWII destroyed so many homes, any written references to the past were lost, and it may just be because of that that the stories that the history was only maintained orally remain. I can accept his assessment that the devastation of the war was very hard for the survivors.

And I do not share opinions like when he writes “The appalling atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945, amounted to only 3% of the total destruction.” My own opinion remains that those bombings were extremely justified, necessary and correct. But my opinion of his special pleading is not based on our geo-political opinions.

 

Among his central premises is that Karate was developed specifically as an art for bodyguards.  The central development of it from Matsumura, setting it apart from the Chinese arts, was his use of linear karate. Not time for locks and throws, no time for pressure point strikes (which he derides Kyan for using), just blasting linear strikes.

 

The purpose of the art was to blast into attackers, to blast a way through them and to protect and extract the king from trouble. He even makes a case that the real use of Nihanchi was to step sideways, not to keep one’s back to the wall, but to protect the king behind them as they side stepped him to safety (with their version of the secret service).

 

He performed much research, watching several hundred kata, making notes, to derive his opinions about the arts. He does analyze Isshinryu, with the work of Javier Martinez, as his text, but he admits he did watch video tape of Uzeu Angi, but his primary purpose isn’t to deride Isshinryu, it’s more a wider attack from all arts deriving from Kyan. And as he found the Martinez material for his case (and Angi’s video tapes) he could build his case against Kyan using Isshinryu.

 

Truthfully it’s hard to say where to begin, I have so many things I don’t care for.  Totally shotgunning I’ll list a few:

 

1. A bibliography which includes works like James Clavel’s “Shogun”,  Bruce Tegner’s “Complete Book of Jujutsu”, Mashiro, N.’s “Black Medicine vol I – Iv” and Richard Kim’s “Weaponless Warriors”, makes me wonder what he was really thinking of. Was it Clavel’s great storytelling in ‘Shogun’ the inspiration of his own?

 

2. On Kyan page 86 “….For instance, Kyan learned the same Pinan kata as Funakoshi and Mabuni, but the Pinan kata he taught are almost unrecognizable.”   Of course they’re unrecongnizable, as everything I’ve ever read on Kyan only discussed him teaching 8 kata (Naifanchi, Seisan, Gojushiho, Chinto, Patsai, Wanshu, Ananku and Tokomeni No Kon – from John Sells Unante).   Now I know one of his students, Nagamine, does teach the Pinan kata in his Matsubayshi Ryu, but those kata came from previous study not Kyan.

 

3. Later in the book he perpetuates the story it was illegal to own weapons, something I’ve seen abandoned as having real historical merit.

 

4. On Kyan page 89  “He spent his life changing the Shuri kata in various ways, although not always constructively. It may be that Kyan saw no advantage to linear technique, so he discarded it and reverted to vital point technique instead.  Kyan’s unique contribution was that he combined  China’s vital-point strikes with Shuri’s ruthless philosophy of ikken hisatu, One strike, sudden death. He went for the eyes and throat first, which a Shaolin monk never would have done.”

 

Shaolin monk, where did that come from?  It’s a reference used several times and seems to infer the Chinese arts are only pure if they’re done with the same intent of the Shaolin Buddhists? Wonder how he sources that information.

 

            “Later in his life, Kyan completely abandoned Shuri-te completely and taught

only pre-Matsumura kata and techniques.  That tells us quite a lot about his attitude towards Shuri-te and the Shuri masters. In the end, he completely turned his back on them.”

 

5. “By quirk of fate, we have one window into the kata of Itsou’s youth. We can compare Itosu’s revised kata with the similar kata taught to Tatsuo Shimabuku by Chotoku Kyan……..Isshin-ryu is a kata time capsule. Of course, we know that Kyan and Shimabuku changed a few things, but we just have to live with that (big of him, VS). Funakoshi made a few changes too. …. “we are fortunate to have detailed theory and applications for the isshin-ryu versions of kusanku (kanku), naihanchi (tekki), and chinto (gankaku) kata, published by Javire Martinez of Puerto Rico……It is clear from Martinez’s own comments that his interpretation of the isshin-ryu kata do not reflect modern isshin-ryu practice.  Martinez places his emphasis on the ancient techniques, which were a mix of grappling, locking and striking. The bunkai he envisions do not have much in common with the current isshin-ryu bunkai demonstrated by Angi Uzeu, .. which are of the modern punch/strike/block variety.”

 

But as Mr. Martinez’s material is available Clayton decides that is representative of what Kyan’s arts included. A very curious lack of effort to understand the entire range of systems of study which came from Kyan, and would seem to be a better argument to make if there is a logic to his contentions

 

6. “Kyan’s version of Kusanku is supposed to come from Chantan Yara, who was another direct student of KongSu kung….In any case the isshin-ryu version of kusanku seems farily soft, circular and antique compared to other versions. It seems reasonable that it is still pretty close to the techniques taught by kong Su Kung.”

 

“The remarkable thing about kusanku is its reputation for a “night-fighting” kata. In my experience, shotokan stylists don’t know this part of the kusanku legend, and there is a reason for that. Shuri’s long-range impact techniques require light to see by (referring to the theory karate only developed for body guards in the well lit castle).

 

He then compares Martinez applications to some shotokan applications and concludes “The details of the techniques are not really important. The critical difference is the midset. The ancient applications used multiple techniques to reduce one attacker. Itosu’s linear interpretations provides weapons against many simultaneous enemies.  In fact ther eare applications within kanku dai where a single technique injures multiple attackers.  Again, this is completely consistent with the difference between the world view of the Shaolin monk and  that of the keimochi bodyguard.”

 

I’m going to stop pulling out examples there, or I’ll end up with a book, won’t I.

First no slight against Mr. Martinez’s applications. He is free to teach as he will, but to take his books as an example of what Isshinryu consist of is very shoddy research.

 

Clayton concludes Isshinryu does not contain linear striking. Perhaps he does us a very great service, and we should require all non isshin-ryu stylists to read and believe this book. Then they’ll never know what hits them.

 

Part of his lack of research rests in the belief the true answer of Isshinryu is that multiple kata technique are required to subdue one opponent, where as shotokan’s punch will do the same. I believe most here hold a different opinion from Mr. Clayton. 

 

In fact his use of his research to make his case as he chooses, especially without qualification whether his research represents reality, is one of the ways a case of ‘Special Pleading’ is recognized.

 

Very quickly let me extract some of the major aspects of ‘older’ training Itosu discarded, explaining why the bodyguard aspect is the focus.  They were fewer pressure points, fewer nukite strikes, no submission techniques, no night fighting.  I love statements like “In shotokan you might crack the prostrate opponents skull with your heel, but you wouldn’t grab his foot and twist it to control him.”

 

From his research Clayton examines the art of the bodyguard as having the following required bunkai.

 

1. Break out of simple holds on wrists and arms.
2. Break out of restraining holds on clothing.
3. Break out of arm locks and wrist locks.
4. Break out of holds on the hair.
5. Break out of body restraint holds.
6. Counter attempts to tackle.
7. Throw off choke holds.
8. Burst through a line of enemies to penetrate a crowd.
9. Rapid-fire body shifting inside the crowd.
10. One-hit stun/maim/kill techniques for targets in a crowd.
11. Rapid clear a path through alert enemies.
12. Use an enemy as a weapon by throwing him under another enemy.
13. Use an enemy as a shield against other enemies.
14. Jump and dive to avoid weapons.
15. Leap past a blocking enemy.
16. Snatch and use enemy weapons.
17. Abduct an enemy.
18. Block and strike with tessen (an iron fan).
19. Fight on a stairway.

 

He concludes with a complex analysis of why Itosu may not have taught bunkai, seeming to promote the concept that since bodyguards for the king were no longer needed, using karate for ‘DO’ instead of actual practice made sense to him.

 

He makes complex argument that Shotokan instructors do not know the bunkai for their system.  I find this difficult to accept because for 10 years I spent a great deal of time studying bunkai of Shotokan with Tris Sutrisno (which admittedly is not main-stream Shotokan).  My reality is very different from his.

 

Especially contrast this with the work of Nakasone published in 1933. He clearly shows all of the upcoming kata that will be included in Shotokan over the next several decades, and half his work shows the applications, especially those that Clayton says were not present in the Itosu art.  Nakasone had been a student of Funakoshi, did make a trip to Okinawa for research, but the fact he published so much bunkai and shotokan choose not to publically include it in their practices (I refuse to accept shotokan seniors, who certainly had access to Nakasone’s book, didn’t include that material in their closed practices, but not for general distribution, especially world wide). On that future day Joe-san completes his translation and has it published, I think many heads will change their opinions about what was in karate.

 

Trying to draw this to conclusion without writing a complete refutation is difficult.

 

Let’s say this, this is one of the current problems with martial scholarship.  Just because material is in print, using it (including video tapes) as certified research is problematical. The research is only as accurate as the source you vet completely.

 

Clayton should have research Isshinryu in greater detail than just reading some books and watching some video tape. The system is larger than that. And for that matter he should have investigated the other Kyan derivative systems in more detail to have any idea about what he was writing about.

 

Now as a PhD in Ecology he might be a nice guy to call on to bring balance to the plant life in your pond. But I remember PhD can also be translated “Piled Higher and Deeper” too.

 

So  I guess it’s safe to say I consider most this book tripe.

 

Perhaps some of his thoughts have merit, but when you have even one suspect source in the project, it becomes very difficult to separate the good from the bad.

 

Now this was only from a quick blast through reading for R.T. ^..^.

 

I’ll take the time over the next week or two to read it more carefully and if my opinions change I’ll post that. Then I’ll gratefully return the book to R.T. ^..^.

 

Victor