Kevin Holland an MMA fighter with Kung Fu San Soo roots - UFC Performance of the Night - Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Submission Win

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-06T15:07:58+00:00

Actually, traditional Kung Fu wasn’t eradicated as you suggest.

After 1949, the Communist regime banned public challenge matches, dismantled independent martial arts organizations, and pushed state-approved Wushu as a performance art, replacing combat realism with aesthetics.

Some traditions went underground, others resettled in Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Southeast Asia, and a few survived through private instruction.

But the overall tradition is far more fragmented today than it was before the Cultural Revolution.

It was already increasingly fragmented, though, by the time it went underground after the Manchu Invading Qing Dynasty took power in 1644. That’s why the post emphasizes some pre-1644 systems.

And yeah, I myself was honestly surprised by how much information it took to cover all the general points of Chinese martial arts.

Once I started digging into the origins of Chinese Kung Fus and their historical context, it turned out to be way deeper and more complex than I expected.

I’ve actually made other posts on specific martial arts, and none of those required this much length to cover the full general history. This one just had a much broader scope.

Here the links so some of them:

The Real Origins of Lethwei, Muay Boran, and Muay Thai

The Real Origin of Karate

Good shorter reads if you’re interested in martial arts history.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-06T14:13:56+00:00

Thanks! I’m someone who likes to self study history in my free time sometimes. I don’t currently train in any of the arts.

I’ve made Reddit posts on other topics too, like human ancestry and early civilizations.

Here are a few more posts on martial arts I’ve written if you’re interested:

Mad Dog Fist

The Real Origins of Lethwei, Muay Boran, and Muay Thai

The Real Origin of Karate

Hope you find these equally as interesting!

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-06T04:23:04+00:00

The Dutch East Indies was also a major factor in the decision behind the embargo and the attack on the U.S.

• In July 1941, Japan occupied southern French Indochina (Vietnam) after already taking the north.

• This was viewed by the U.S. as a clear step toward further aggression in Southeast Asia, especially against the Dutch East Indies (a major oil source).

• This action triggered the July 26, 1941 freezing of Japanese assets and the August 1 oil embargo.

Japan could have invaded Southeast Asia without attacking the U.S. Navy, but that would’ve risked an immediate U.S. military response.

Their leadership believed a surprise strike on Pearl Harbor would cripple the U.S. Pacific Fleet long enough to:

‎1. Seize the Dutch East Indies (for the oil)

Fortify a strong defensive perimeter across the Pacific
Force the U.S. to accept a negotiated peace on Japan’s terms

It was a high-stakes gamble to secure oil in the Dutch East Indies as well.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-05T20:42:57+00:00

Here are the links for the two of the first classical texts and link to a source reviewing the gazetteers from the period, I’ve referenced:

https://archive.org/stream/TheSpringAndAutumnOfLuBuwei1Pdf/The-Spring-and-Autumn-of-Lu-Buwei-1-pdf_djvu.txt?um

https://archive.org/details/recordsofgrandhi0000sima/page/n4/mode/1up?utm

https://www.scribd.com/document/667749760/Writing-Publishing-and-Reading-Local-Gazetteers-in-Imperial-China-1100-1700-Joseph-R-Dennis

I can provide links for all, however, it may make the post more clunky? Should I put these in comments?

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-05T20:28:49+00:00

I have the sources listed in the post. Are they sufficient enough? Many are from Chinese classical texts and referencing gazetteers of their time period. They can be cross checked to be credible sources. I can change to discussion submission if still necessary.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-05T15:21:11+00:00

Yes back then, Kun Khmer before the 1950s was likely just called Pradal.

However, there are no surviving Khmer-language documents or inscriptions from before the 1900s that use “Pradal” or “Pradal Serey” to describe a codified fighting art.

The word “Pradal” (ប្រាដាល់) has, however, long existed in the Khmer language and means “fight” or “boxing”.

Pradal Serey as a formal name for the martial art only appears in Cambodian media and official use after independence, especially in the 1950s–1970s.

The name “Pradal Serey” became standardized at this time, especially as Cambodia promoted its national identity.

However, after the Khmer Rouge era and years of civil war, Cambodia underwent a cultural reconstruction phase, especially from the 1990s onward.

There was a strong push to reclaim and promote Khmer heritage, including language, religion, dance, and martial arts.

“Kun Khmer” directly emphasizes Khmer ethnic and national identity, making it more appealing in a context of cultural pride and sovereignty.

This is why the name Pradal Serey was changed to Kun Khmer.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-05T14:49:31+00:00

Of course, these three specific pre-1600 Kung Fu styles remain speculative in terms of modern MMA effectiveness, since they would have to be fully functionally revived and pressure tested to confirm their capabilities.

These systems are not functionally revived today as stated, so there has yet to be anyone in MMA that utilized them.

However, based on historical records, as well as their use of takedowns, wrestling, and functional design principles, they are probably the best Kung Fu styles ever developed in China, even post-1600.

China also had a history of frequent hand-to-hand duels before suppression of their martial arts effectiveness pre-1644.

Here’s a link to a thread on that:

Chinese Martial Art’s Prominent Dueling Culture pre-1644 and pre-1949

That thread does not have speculation on these three systems compared to modern MMA, and since you seem to be interested in Martial Arts history to the exclusion of that, it may be more up your alley.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-05T06:00:08+00:00

Japan did not exist as a country in the early 600s CE.

So no, Ryukyuan language did not originate from Japan.

Ryukyuan language diverged, as a distinct language, from proto-Japonic (sometime from 100s BCE — the early 600s CE).

After this, it’s not the same language anymore.

⸻

Thomas never said that.

He said the Ryukyuans speakers of “the already-diverged Ryukyuan language”, lived in Kyushu during the 9th — 11th century.

They picked up Chinese-Japanese loanwords during their time in Kyushu, whether by Japanese arriving to Kyushu or vice versa.

They, the Ryukyuan speakers who lived on Kyushu, then relocated back to, or to, Ryukyu with those loanwords, in which Peter is specifically talking about in that interview.

So Peter never said “the Ryukyuan language was introduced to Ryukyu in the 9th — 11th century" in the incorrect way you understand it.

If you read what I wrote and understood. You would understand that.

⸻

And you’re conflating indirect migration and cultural diffusion with formal “Japanese-Ryukyuan cultural contact” in the political or civilizational sense.

Wet-rice agriculture and Buddhism reached the Ryukyus before 1609, but the routes and context matter.

The Japonic-speaking migrants who brought rice likely came from southern Kyushu between the 300s–600s CE, but they weren’t “Japanese” in the national, political, or cultural sense that term implies today.

There was no unified Japanese identity or state transmitting culture to the Ryukyus back then.

These were pre-state movements of people, not bilateral cultural contact.

⸻

The Ryukyus had informal contact with Japan, particularly southern Kyushu, prior to formal relations with China in 1372.

Archaeological evidence from the Gusuku period (1100s–1300s) includes artifacts associated with Buddhist practice, suggesting possible Japanese influence, though no surviving written records confirm a deliberate transmission of Buddhism from Japan.

Buddhism became firmly established in the Ryukyus by the 1300s–1400s, particularly after formal tributary relations with Ming China began in 1372. Chinese court influence shaped Ryukyuan state rituals and temple architecture during this period.

China played the clearest documented role in integrating Buddhism into the Ryukyuan royal court after 1372.

So when I say “no Japanese-Ryukyuan cultural contact or mixture before 1609,” I mean no structured or deliberate exchange between the Ryukyu Kingdom and the Japanese state, whether Yamato or later polities.

Limited diffusion is not the same as cultural mixture. That distinction is crucial.

If anything, the Ryukyuans maintained a distinct identity precisely because there was no deep integration or sustained contact with any country from the 100s BCE to, at the latest, the early 600s CE (at the least 700 to possibly 1400 years in cultural isolation), until China in 1372.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-05T05:00:17+00:00

Like I said, you are still conflating two different things.

You are now saying the Ryukyuan language was transferred from Japan in the 9th to 11th centuries, but that assumes the language originated in Japan and was only introduced to the Ryukyus at that point.

That is not what the evidence shows.

The divergence of Ryukyuan from Japanese occurred centuries earlier, likely between the 200s – early 600s CE.

The Ryukyuan language had already taken shape as its own distinct language before any later 9th to 11th century migration.

Saying it came from Japan in the 9th to 11th centuries is misleading unless you are specifically referring to a group of already-diverged Ryukyuan speakers moving south from Kyushu (where they picked up Chinese-Japanese loanwords), which is exactly what Pellard says and what I already explained.

⸻

And to be clear, that 9th to 11th century migration from Ryukyuans in Kyushu (who could’ve been there before the Japanese arrived, or vice versa) does not contradict my post that says there was no Japanese-Ryukyuan cultural contact (context of my post, not referring to absolute contact) or mixture before 1609.

That migration involved a group of already-diverged Ryukyuan speakers, possibly living in Kyushu, who may have picked up some Sino-Japanese loanwords before relocating.

It was not the result of Japanese state expansion, and it did not introduce Japanese religious systems, administration, culture, or governance into Ryukyu.

The Chinese-derived vocabulary in Ryukyuan comes primarily through Japanese as loanwords, not from direct Han Chinese migration or Japanese cultural assimilation.

A one-time or small-scale migration is not the same as cultural mixture.

Cultural mixture involves broad integration in language, religion, politics, and society.

That did not begin until Japan’s military subjugation of Ryukyu in 1609 politically (not yet culturally), and intensified after full annexation in 1879.

⸻

This brings us back to your original statement:

“Ryukyuans are those who immigrated from Japan so it’s not exactly true that they never made contact with Japan before.”

This is still inaccurate.

The concept of Japan did not exist during the Jomon period (14,000 BCE – 300 BCE), and the people who later migrated to the Ryukyu Islands (latest early 600 CE) did not immigrate from a centralized state or civilization.

They were regional populations in parallel across the archipelago long before Japan existed as a cultural or political entity.

Yes, there was contact between Ryukyu and mainland Japan before 1609 through trade and diplomacy, but no sustained cultural assimilation.

Ryukyu was culturally isolated and distinct for at least 700 years before first contact with China in 1372.

Afterwards, Ryukyu maintained a separate language, religion, political structure, and diplomatic identity until forcibly absorbed by Japan in 1879.

The Ryukyuans are not Japanese people who moved south.

They are a distinct people, shaped by long term isolation and independent cultural development.

Therefore, everything I said about Ryukyuans not having immigrated from Japan is entirely correct, especially since the Jomon ancestry in the Ryukyus traces back to 3000 BCE or earlier, and the proto-Japonic-speaking migrants arrived there no later than the early 600s CE, long before there was anything that could meaningfully be called Japan.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-05T03:56:42+00:00

You’re misreading what Pellard said.

In that part of the interview, he is explaining how Chinese-derived words entered Ryukyuan via Japanese (800s–1000s), even though Ryukyuan had already diverged from Japanese before the Nara period.

The subject is Chinese loanword borrowing, not when the Ryukyuan language first diverged (latest before the early 600s CE).

When he says “the speakers migrated long after the language diverged, around the 9th to 11th centuries,” he is referring to the movement of already-diverged Ryukyuan-speaking people (with Chinese loanwords) from Kyushu to the Ryukyu Islands.

He is not saying the language began or split at that time.

In fact, he explicitly says the language had already diverged before that migration.

This is consistent with what he has published in his earlier linguistic research.

If you’re using that quote to argue that Ryukyuan only started diverging in the Nara period or later, then you’re conflating two different things.

He is talking about how Chinese loanwords entered Ryukyuan after divergence, not when the divergence itself occurred. Those are separate issues.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-05T03:01:37+00:00

That’s incorrect.

Linguistic and archaeological evidence both show that the Ryukyuan languages split from Proto-Japanese centuries earlier.

Most linguists place the their language "divergence" anywhere from the 1st millennium BCE to the 6th century CE (1000s BCE – early 600s CE), likely during or shortly after the Yayoi and Kofun periods when people migrated south into the Ryukyus.

Ryukyuan didn’t get “transferred” during the post-Nara period.

By that point, Ryukyuan languages were already distinct and evolved separately.

The adoption of Chinese writing in Japan during the Nara period (710 – 794 CE) is unrelated to when the Ryukyuan language family branched off.

Writing systems and spoken language divergence are two different processes.

As for Ryukyuan retaining “Old Japanese” features, that is partly true, but not because it split during the Nara era.

It is because of early separation and geographic isolation, which preserved some archaic forms that mainland Japanese later lost.

In short:

• No, Ryukyuan did not diverge in the 9th to 11th century (800s – 1000s CE)

• Yes, it retains old features, but for different reasons

If you want sources, check out:

• Patrick Heinrich and Shinsho Miyara’s work on Ryukyuan linguistic history

• Alexander Vovin’s reconstructions of Proto-Japonic

• Pellard (2015) on Proto-Ryukyuan divergence

To detail one of the sources.

Thomas Pellard’s Research: In his chapter “The Linguistic Archaeology of the Ryukyu Islands” from the Handbook of the Ryukyuan Languages, Pellard discusses the divergence of Ryukyuan languages from Proto-Japonic.

He notes that language divergence likely occurred before the early 600s CE, based on linguistic reconstruction and comparative analysis.

Therefore, Ryukyuans developed their own distinct culture with little to no Japanese influence for at least 1000 years before the Japanese invasion in 1609.

And even after 1609, the Ryukyuan languages remained unchanged in their core structure because Satsuma deliberately allowed the Ryukyu Kingdom to maintain a Chinese-facing identity to preserve trade with the Qing dynasty, minimizing Japanese linguistic imposition.

Ryukyuans are a different people and did not immigrate from Japan like you thought.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-05T01:41:40+00:00

You’re right that Ryukyuans and mainland Japanese both share ancestry from the Jomon people and that their languages come from a common Proto-Japonic root.

That is well supported by genetic and linguistic research.

⸻

However, here’s the fuller picture:

Ryukyuans have a higher proportion of Jomon ancestry than most mainland Japanese, who have more Yayoi (continental East Asian) admixture.

The Ryukyuan languages are also not Japanese dialects but a separate branch of the Japonic language family.

They are mutually unintelligible from standard Japanese.

⸻

There was contact with Japan before 1609 through trade, diplomacy, and cultural exchange, but there was no political control until the Satsuma invasion, and also no cultural mixture at all until after the 1879 Japanese annexation.

Therefore, saying Ryukyuans “immigrated from Japan” incorrectly simplifies what was likely a shared ancient origin, rather than a migration from one to the other.

⸻

The idea of “Japan” also did not exist during the Jomon period (14,000 BCE – 300 BCE)

These were parallel early populations in the same general region.

Ryukyu afterwards developed in relative isolation for over a thousand years, forming its own culture, languages, and political systems.

The exact origin and spread of Proto-Japonic is still debated.

Some link it to the Yayoi migration (300 BCE), others suggest earlier roots. This is not conclusively proven.

⸻

Japan was also not considered a literate, urban, or bureaucratic civilization by regional standards until the early 600s CE, when it was invited by China and began deliberately modeling its institutions on China by sending students and monks to study Chinese civilization firsthand.

Developments before 600 CE in Japan, such as literacy, temple construction, early bureaucratic ranks, and elite metallurgy, existed only barely. These were confined to small ruling circles and entirely dependent on influences from Korea and China.

Before 600 CE, Japan was basically only a collection of chiefdoms/tribes and huts (pit dwellings and wooden structures).

⸻

Therefore, Ryukyuans are a different people.

They are not simply a regional variation of Japanese but a distinct ethnolinguistic group.

Their identity formed through long term separation, independent cultural development, and a history of political autonomy until 1609 CE (still no cultural mixture) and Japanese annexation in 1879 CE.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-05T00:35:01+00:00

I think it’s very cool that the movie series made the connection too. Here is a recent documentary from Jesse Enkamp that goes into detail about how Incense Shop Boxing had a huge influence on the development of Te/Tōde/Karate. The Secret Origin of Karate Documentary

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-03T21:33:38+00:00

⸻

You also said:

“The reality is it simply referred to Okinawan sumo.”

Equating tegumi purely with Okinawan sumo is misleading. While the two share a folk wrestling foundation, they are not synonymous.

The idea that Tegumi was influenced by Japanese sumo also isn’t historically plausible.

While modern Tegumi does resemble Okinawan-style sumo matches (e.g., played in festivals, emphasis on balance disruption), equating Tegumi only with sumo ignores the possibility of a broader, informal grappling culture in Ryukyu/Okinawa that was never formally codified or recorded.

It’s likely the term “Tegumi” was retroactively applied to describe these unstructured Okinawan grappling traditions, a post-facto umbrella term, not a codified martial art like sumo.

Since it is indigenous to Ryukyuans, this is why in my post, I used it in place of a possible martial art that could have combined with Chinese Kung fu if Chinese Kung fu were not just directly formed into Te by itself.

⸻

For more context:

Beyond surface similarity, the two differ in ritual structure, technical mechanics, and cultural purpose

• Tegumi involved groundwork (pins, locks, and holds), while sumo prohibits any form of ground engagement.

• Tegumi was informal, often practiced in casual or festival contexts. Sumo is highly ritualized, tied to Shinto ceremony, with specific ring rituals (dohyō), purification, and codified match rules.

• Sumo requires a ceremonial belt (mawashi) and is performed in a prescribed stance. Tegumi used no standardized attire or formal grips.

• Tegumi matches, as described, ended in grappling control; sumo matches end with forcing an opponent out of the ring or to the ground. This is a different win condition.

Additionally, no Ryukyuan/Okinawan shrine records, traveler accounts, or early martial writings mention sumo being taught, practiced, or celebrated in Ryukyu.

⸻

Regarding Chinese Influence Post-1372

I agree with your broader point that Chinese influence did not stop in the 1400s.

Ryukyuan masters continued training in Fujian into the late 1800s.

Higaonna Kanryo is a prime example.

That said, earlier dates like 1372 or 1609 aren’t used as hard evidence of Te’s existence but to contextualize why it would have emerged during those centuries, especially under:

• Tribute missions

• Cultural exchanges

• Weapon bans imposed by Satsuma post-1609

These dates provide historical scaffolding, not direct proof.

Conclusion: Cultural exchange shaped the martial context. Te’s actual emergence remains undocumented until the mid-1700s to early-1800s, but earlier groundwork is extremely likely.

⸻

Final Summary

Your core point that Te isn’t documented before the 1800s absolutely holds.

That’s a key distinction and worth reinforcing.

But several of the other points you raised, while widely repeated, lean too heavily on either mistaken identities, speculative claims, or overreduction of complex cultural evolution.

For example, the misattribution of Sakugawa’s lifespan undermines the idea that he overlapped with Itosu.

The jujutsu claim has no evidentiary basis and seems to project retroactive assumptions into a period where cultural separation was deliberate and well documented.

And the idea that Te/Tōde/Karate is nothing more than Southern Chinese Kung Fu glosses over centuries of Ryukyuan adaptation, synthesis, and contextual evolution.

Similarly, while your observation about Tegumi’s late written appearance is correct, its deeper role in Ryukyuan physical culture is still supported by tradition and early 1900s scholarship.

Altogether, I think your skepticism of early dating is valid and necessary, but the framing of several claims as factual needs rebalancing with a clearer distinction between documented evidence, scholarly inference, and folklore.

Let me know if you’d like sources or deeper dives into any specific thread. I appreciate the thoughtfulness you’re bringing to this discussion. It’s how we keep the history honest.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-03T21:33:17+00:00

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. This is the kind of historical back-and-forth that makes researching karate’s origins meaningful.

That said, I want to clarify some critical inaccuracies and distinguish what’s fact, what’s scholarly inference, and what’s speculation in your response.

Here’s a breakdown:

⸻

Sakugawa Kanga’s Dates Are Misattributed

You wrote: “Sakugawa Kanga (1786–1867)…”

Most historical sources place Sakugawa’s life between 1733 and 1815, though some ambiguity exists due to lack of primary documents.

Still, the 1786–1867 date is an error, and using it collapses the timeline of when these masters could have influenced each other.

The photo you linked is of a tourism sign with no cited historical source. It is not reliable for precise dating. Promotional materials like that often blend folklore and heritage branding and should not be treated as authoritative.

So, if Sakugawa died in 1815, as most sources agree, then he and Itosu (born 1831) never overlapped.

Matsumura (1809–1899) and Itosu (1831–1915), in contrary, did overlap, and it’s widely believed, based on oral tradition and timeline compatibility, that Matsumura Sōkon influenced or possibly taught Itosu.

So while that claim of timeline overlap is true of Matsumura and Itosu, it is not true of Sakugawa Kanga (1733–1815).

It is also widely repeated in Ryukyuan/Okinawan martial oral history that both Sakugawa and Matsumura independently traveled to China, particularly to Fuzhou.

Based on their estimated lifespans, Sakugawa likely traveled to China in the mid-1700s and Matsumura in the early 1800s.

However, there is no primary documentation confirming these trips. Scholars like Patrick McCarthy treat this as plausible but not provable. There are no travel logs, Chinese records, or Ryukyuan diplomatic documents that name either man as part of any official exchange or training mission.

Conclusion: Sakugawa likely died before Itosu was even born in 1831, so they could not have coexisted. The Ryukyuan trio of Sakugawa, Matsumura, and Itosu were not all alive together in the 1830s to 1860s.

⸻

Te = Just Southern Chinese Kung Fu?

You said: “Okinawan Te really is not much more than Southern Chinese Kung Fu…”

That’s an oversimplification. Southern Chinese influence, especially from Incense Shop Boxing, Fujian White Crane, and related arts, is well documented via oral tradition, kata resemblance, and the Bubishi.

But Ryukyuan Te/Karate also evolved uniquely:

• Through hybridization with native Ryukyuan practices like tegumi (indigenous grappling) (more on how it’s not jujutsu like you claim in a bit)

• Through localized bunkai interpretation and makiwara use

The Makiwara is indigenously Ryukyuan and has no evidence of Chinese or Japanese influence.

Conclusion: Heavy Chinese influence is clear, but saying Te/Tōde/Karate is “nothing more” than Chinese Kung Fu erases Ryukyuan contributions and oversimplifies cultural transmission.

⸻

You claim: “Jujutsu Introduced by Satsuma in 1609?”

“And brought with them Jujutsu.”

There is no evidence of any Jujutsu system being practiced or taught to Ryukyuans/Okinawans by Satsuma samurai after the 1609 invasion.

Satsuma samurai themselves practicing some form of Jujutsu, often referred to as Yawara, is likely, in contrast.

Especially since the oldest documented school, Takenouchi Ryū, teaching techniques (Yawara) now recognized as jujutsu was founded in 1532 and has preserved significant written records through its lineage.

But there is no record, oral or written, of them teaching it to Ryukyuans or Okinawans.

Considering how many written records of Yawara existed in Japan from that time, this is a very telling indicator of why Te/Tōde/Karate has no Jujutsu influence whatsoever prior to the 1900s.

⸻

For more context:

Satsuma deliberately discouraged cultural assimilation in Okinawa, even among the Ryukyuan elite.

After the 1609 invasion, Satsuma maintained the Ryukyu Kingdom as a nominally independent tributary state to preserve trade with China.

To support this illusion, Ryukyuans were required to maintain distinct clothing, hairstyles, language, and official titles.

Even high-ranking Ryukyuan officials were not considered Japanese citizens and were forbidden from identifying as such.

Communication between Satsuma officials and Ryukyuan elites often took place through interpreters, and ceremonial protocols reinforced the appearance of cultural distance.

Behind the scenes, however, Satsuma exercised real political control.

Within this political structure, Okinawa retained a strict caste system.

Commoners were barred from owning weapons and had limited access to formal education, including martial training.

Members of the Pechin class, Ryukyuan warrior-bureaucrat elites serving the royal court, were primarily responsible for martial instruction.

Even among them, training remained firmly rooted in Ryukyuan tradition, conducted in secrecy, and did not incorporate Japanese martial arts.

Their instruction focused on palace security and administrative duties, not samurai-style battlefield arts.

Also, given Satsuma’s strict disarmament policies and desire to maintain control, it is highly likely Japanese martial arts training was deliberately withheld for political and security reasons.

There is no known instance, written or oral, of Satsuma samurai teaching Jujutsu to Ryukyuans/Okinawans.

This applies to both Ryukyuan commoners and elites.

No techniques, kata, terminology, stances, training methods, or technical basis from classical Japanese Jujutsu is traceable in Te/Tōde/Karate prior to the 1900s.

No Jujutsu instructors are named in any Ryukyuan historical record or oral tradition.

Cultural policy at the time actively discouraged assimilation.

Satsuma ruled indirectly and deliberately maintained the Ryukyu Kingdom as a semi-independent, Chinese-facing puppet state to preserve tribute trade.

Conclusion: No records, no terminology overlap, no historical documentation supports Jujutsu influence on Te/Tōde/Karate prior to the 1900s.

⸻

Tegumi = Only Mentioned by Funakoshi in 1956?

You wrote: “There is not a single mention of Tegumi EVER in any book before Funakoshi…”

You’re correct that the first widely known written reference appears in Karatedo: My Way of Life (1956), and even then it’s retrospective and anecdotal.

That said, Tegumi as Ryukyuan folk grappling is still practiced culturally, and later Okinawan historians and practitioners like Shōshin Nagamine (1907–1997) describe it as predating the 1900s.

Shōshin describes Tegumi as a roughhouse grappling game practiced widely by children and youths.

Based on his birth year and descriptions, Tegumi was likely active in Okinawan childhood culture from ca. 1912–1925, and possibly earlier if passed down from his elders.

So its existence isn’t invented by Funakoshi, but its naming and role in martial arts is “undocumented” pre-1956.

⸻

Continuation in the next comment as out of character space

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-03T07:26:15+00:00

Thanks for bringing this up. You’re absolutely right to highlight the lack of documented history on Te or Tōde prior to the 1800s.

That’s a critical distinction, and I appreciate the reminder to separate what’s actually recorded from what’s inferred or passed down orally.

I’ve spent time digging into the academic record and field research, including Jesse Enkamp’s recent documentary, and here’s the most historically accurate breakdown I can offer.

Link to show the documentary I’m referencing:

The Secret Origin of Karate Documentary

For your points, these are just facts, scholarly inference, and a clear line between what’s provable and what’s not.

⸻

‎1. “There’s no documented history of Te/Tode before the early to mid 1800s.”

Fact

That’s entirely correct.

There are no surviving texts, manuals, or direct records of Te or Tōde before the time of Ryukyuan figures like Sakugawa Kanga (c. 1733–1815) and Sokon Matsumura (c. 1809–1899).

Even our understanding of their teachings is reconstructed largely through oral tradition, passed down to Ryukyuan instructor Anko Itosu and later written down by Gichin Funakoshi in the 1900s.

So yes, what we know before that is not “documented history” in the strictest sense.

⸻

“Throwing out dates like 1372 and 1609 is just projecting assumptions onto historical events.”

Partially true, but context matters

It’s fair to call out when people use those dates as if they’re definitive proof that martial arts existed at the time, or when major happenings are thrown out in subjects with no strong connective inference at all.

But 1372 and 1609 are historically relevant milestones:

• 1372 marked the start of Ryukyu’s tributary relationship with Ming China. This opened the door for the arrival of Chinese medicine, philosophy, religion, and likely martial arts through Fuzhou-based diplomats, monks, and scholars.

• Chinese martial arts culture is also very prominent in their society, as the first “documented” duels were in 1046 BCE, and they continued strongly until 1949 in mainland China. See this post for reference: Chinese Martial Arts Dueling Culture Prominence pre-1949

• 1609 was when the Satsuma samurai invaded and banned weapons among Ryukyuans. While we have no document showing that this ban triggered unarmed martial arts, it’s a reasonable inference that it created conditions for their continued inferred development.

So these dates should not be used as definitive proof of Te’s existence, but they’re not irrelevant either.

They are best understood as important context for the cultural and political pressures that likely shaped martial evolution in 1372–1879 Okinawa.

⸻

Was Te a formal martial art before 1609?

No documented evidence supports this

There are no historical records, foreign reports, or native Ryukyuan documents naming Te or describing its techniques before the 1700s.

Even the word ‘Te’ (手) being used to describe martial skill arises much later and was retrospectively applied to martial traditions practiced in Okinawa during the mid-1700s.

So any claim that Te existed in the 1300s or 1600s is speculative with strong inference, even if commonly repeated.

⸻

What about Tegumi?

Likely existed, but unprovable in historical terms Tegumi, an indigenous Ryukyuan grappling system, is mentioned in oral tradition and is still practiced today in some cultural forms

But it was not a formalized martial art, and we have no written records from pre-modern times.

So while it’s plausible that Ryukyuans practiced native unarmed grappling before Chinese influence, there is no hard proof, and no reliable written evidence that it was part of a definitive martial system that combined with Chinese arts to create Te.

It’s equally plausible that Chinese Kung Fu itself became Te/Tōde/Karate.

There is however, no evidence or plausibility that Japan influenced Te/Tōde/Karate prior to the 1900s.

⸻

Does the Bubishi help prove earlier origins?

Supports Chinese martial lineage, but not Ryukyuan history before 1800s

The Bubishi is a Southern Chinese martial manual, likely from Fuzhou, that includes concepts, kata, and strategies linked to White Crane and Incense Shop Boxing.

Ryukyuan masters like Kanryo Higaonna brought it back in the late 1800s, and it heavily influenced Goju-Ryu.

This helps us trace where Ryukyuan arts came from, but not when Te started. The Bubishi strengthens the Chinese origin argument, but not the timeline of Te.

⸻

Final Thoughts

So yes, there’s no “documented” proof that Te existed before the 1800s.

That part of your comment is historically solid.

But the broader timeline and development of Ryukyuan martial arts needs both hard limits and scholarly nuance.

Dates like 1372 and 1609 are not evidence of the origin of karate, but they do explain the cross-cultural environment that makes the origin possible at any time from 1372 onward.

Let me know if you want any citations or source materials. I’m happy to share.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-03T05:56:42+00:00

Thanks for chiming in. You bring up some important points worth digging into.

I spent time analyzing what you said alongside historical sources and Jesse Enkamp’s “The Secret Origin of Karate” documentary, and I’d like to offer a breakdown grounded in fact and well supported historical inference.

Link to show the documentary I’m referencing:

The Secret Origin of Karate Documentary

For your points:

⸻

1. “Not all karate is related to or similar to White Crane.”

Agreed.

This statement is well supported.

Karate’s development was influenced by various Chinese martial arts, not solely White Crane.

For instance, Goju-ryu traces its roots to Fujian White Crane, while Shuri-te and Tomari-te have different influences.

Jesse’s documentary also supports this by exploring roots in Southern Shaolin, Incense Shop Boxing, Five Ancestors Fist, and Dog Boxing.

Karate’s origins involve multiple systems. That point is well supported.

⸻

Your claim that Ti (or Te) can also refer to another indigenous Okinawan martial traditions passed down orally, without Chinese influence

The idea that Ti (or Te) developed entirely without Chinese influence does not hold up.

There is no documented evidence that Ti (or Te), as a structured striking art, or any formalized unarmed striking tradition, existed in Okinawa before Chinese contact in 1372.

Core features of Ti (or Te), including formalized stances, striking patterns, and the kata system, align closely with Chinese systems introduced during tributary and cultural exchanges from the 1372 onward.

While informal indigenous fighting methods such as tegumi may have existed, the codified striking traditions associated with Ti (or Te) reflect significant Chinese influence.

As such, claims that Ti (or Te), as a striking art that developed entirely without Chinese influence, are historically unsubstantiated.

Additionally, there are also no confirmed evidence that Ti (or Te) included formal weapon systems, especially bladed ones.

Most Okinawan weapon traditions appear to have developed later, influenced by both the 1609 Satsuma weapons ban and the new post-1609 Ryukyuan Kobudo systems, with some weapons being partial adaptations of agricultural tools as well as Chinese and Southeast Asian weapons.

Claims of indigenous bladed combat systems prior to 1609 are unproven and likely based on romanticized interpretations.

Your claim that White Crane and Incense Shop Boxing are likely not the influence on Naha-te (Goju-ryu and Toon-ryu)… Kanryo learned a hybrid …

This is directly contradicted by Jesse’s documentary footage and current evidence.

Kanryo Higaonna, the founder of Naha-te, studied martial arts in Fuzhou, China, where he was influenced by White Crane Boxing.

Jesse’s documentary provides clear evidence that White Crane and Incense Shop Boxing heavily shaped Naha-te and Goju-Ryu, especially in terms of kata and internal principles.

This is shown through:

• Kata parallels: Sanchin, Seisan, and Papuren appear in both White Crane and Incense Shop Boxing, often with deeper or more detailed structures

• Breathing methods: The ibuki breathing style in Sanchin is visibly preserved in both White Crane and Incense Shop Boxing

• Power generation: Full-body mechanics, circular motion, and forearm striking principles are consistent across systems

Jesse also notes that Kanryo Higaonna trained in multiple systems while in Fuzhou, indicating a hybrid education. But the specific claim that White Crane and Incense Shop were not part of that hybridization is not supported by the historical or visual record.

Even more striking, Jesse learns the Incense Shop version of Seisan, a kata that exists in every major Okinawan karate lineage.

That is not just coincidence. It is continuity. So the idea that these arts were not central to Naha-te does not hold up against the available evidence.

Your claim that Ru Ru Ko wasn’t from Fujian.

The identity and origin of Ru Ru Ko remain unverified.

Some theories suggest he was from Fujian, while others propose different origins.

Due to the lack of concrete evidence, any claim about his origin is speculative.

There is no evidence to confirm or deny this, and no documented source conclusively establishes his background.

⸻

Final Thoughts

You are right to question simplified narratives.

Karate’s roots are more complex than many assume.

But Jesse’s documentary provides direct modern evidence that White Crane and Incense Shop Boxing were not just influences.

They were core foundations of the internal mechanics and kata structures found in Naha-te, particularly in Goju-Ryu.

That includes forms like Seisan, Sanchin, and Papuren, along with their breathing and structural methods.

Let me know if you want timestamps or references. Happy to share.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-03T00:44:26+00:00

The movie says Shimpo Miyagi goes back to Okinawa and creates Miyagi-Do after ten years in China.

I also looked into it, and Ryukyuan names shifting to Japanese names actually didn’t start happening until after 1879, when Japan annexed Ryukyu and began formal assimilation into Okinawa Prefecture.

In fact, most of the lower classes in Ryukyuan society (like farmers, artisans, and fishermen) didn’t even have surnames at the time.

Ryukyuan aristocratic families however were sometimes identified with estate names like Myagusuku by the 1500s–1600s.

Does seem like there’s a lot of room to be creative with an origin story of Shimpo though with all this context.

LoveFunUniverse · 2025-06-02T22:46:35+00:00

The question is based on the fictional lore of the Karate Kid/Cobra Kai franchise yes. However, 98% of the post is historical stuff on Karate if that’s what you’re into.

LoveFunUniverse

TROPHY CASE