Talk:Richard Kim (karate)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Kim (karate) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Controversy

Richard Kim is a figure of some controversy in the martial arts world. He was a renowned karate instructor, and Black Belt magazine instructor of the year in 1967. He edited a column for Karate Illustrated magazine. A number of informal biographies exist on the Web, authored by his students. Richard Kim is sometimes credited with being a Meijin, or spiritual master, although the only accrediting body for a 'Meijin' is the organization for Go masters in Japan. Richard Kim appears to have accumulated honorific titles, and his students claim that he received multiple doctorates from St. John's and Towa Universities in China the 1920s. It appears that Towa University, a science and engineering university in Fukuoka, Japan, was not created until 1956.

Richard Kim founded the Zen Bei Butokukai, which was long advertised as the foreign branch of the Dai Nippon Butokukai in Kyoto, where Richard Kim claimed to have studied in the 1930s. Richard Kim's organization used the Dai Nippon Butokukai logo for many years. The relationship between the organizations does not exist, and the foreign representation for the Dai Nippon Butokukai is managed by Tesshin Hamada. During the 1930s, the Dai Nippon Butokukai sponsored military training, including hand grenades and military glider techniques. It is not clear that the organization accepted foreign students during this time.

Richard Kim published a number of books, including informal histories of the Japanese and Okinawan martial arts, and instructional books on Okinawan weapons. It is claimed by many of his students that Richard Kim was the greatest living historian of the martial arts, although the informal style of his books, and his apparent lack of any formal academic or research training would cast doubt on this claim. There has been some controversy that his book 'The Weaponless Warrior' (Ohara Publications, 1974) was plagiarized from the journals of Okinawan Karate instructor Eizo Shimabukuro.

Richard Kim was a remarkable and colourful figure who influenced many serious students of the martial arts, although it appears his cult status has eclipsed the truth in some instances. For many years he attended, with many of his students, a karate summer camp in San Diego, California with the JKA, and Sensei Hidetaka Nishiyama. In the evenings, after training, Richard Kim would entertain students in his lodgings. Students were asked to bring him a six pack of Heineken, and, as they sat on the floor, and he sat on a chair in the middle of the room, he would drink beer while recounting in graphic detail his sexual exploits in China in the interwar years, interspersed with rambling philosophical musings on the martial arts, and humorous anecdotes of his ex-students. 204.119.233.128 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The four paragraphs preceding this and the article in the encyclopedia were written by persons who were not very familiar with Richard Kim. Having studied under Richard Kim from 1967 until his death in Nov. of 2001 I was very familiar with what Richard Kim did and what he claimed to have done. Having attended UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSC in the 1970's and having majoring in History, I can attest to Richard Kim's remarkable memory of historical facts and his ability to communicate his interpretation of history both in writing and especially via the oral tradition. Don Warrener has written a book about Richard Kim entitled 20th Century Warrior ( I contributed a small amount of research and lecture notes to this work), and I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in the actual history of this remarkable man.
Having attended every summer camp in San Diego that Sensei Nishiyam held (Richard Kim was a guest instructor, not an organizer of the camp as stated in the paragraphs above) from 1975 until 2001 I would categorize the accounting of Richard Kim lecturing while "he would work his way systematically through the beer"... as written by someone who didn't train with Richard Kim or who has some-kind of "axe" to grind. The above characterization of Richard Kim's lecturing style and requirement of a "six pack of Heineken, is false and does not represent the thousand of hours of lectures he delivered both formally and informally to his students.
Richard Kim was one of the most remarkable men I have had the privilege to know. Richard Kim never alluded to himself as a meijin (though he did imply the Yoshida Kataro was a meijin). Those of us lucky enough to have trained under him for any length of time learned to appreciate his ability to teach the physical and philosophical principles of the martial arts.
Richard Kim was a man, ( as he would often lecture us) who had weakness's and strengths, but in balance I know that those strengths far and away out balance the weakness's. In life we see what we want to see, and it was no different for those of us that trained under Richard Kim, but to only see the worst in people is a reflection of the person seeing, not in the person being "seen".
in gassho,
Louis Jemison
Secretary General- Zen Bei Butoku Kai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.73.160 (talk • contribs)

[edit] And now for the truth!!!

The previous false testimony regarding O'Sensei Kim should not be the burden of the reader. Since the author chose not to claim those statements by withholding their name, it can only be said that the burden belongs to whomever harbors spite for a truly enlightened and beloved Martial Artist who was as dedicated to the development of his student's character as he was to the Art itself. Although merely a Grand-Student of O'Sensei Kim, I know a handful of his former students (and train under one), all of whom dispute the previous depiction and question the credibility of it's author. In fact, if you're looking for a truly credible source, keep reading! Thank you. -R. Paine 209.87.153.66 16:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style of Karate

What style of karate did Kim teach? What did he call the style that he taught (if different from the previous question)? I've heard he called his style shorinji-ryu karate. What styles of karate are the root arts of his style? These are questions that should absolutely be in this article. Further, this article should also have more biographical facts (DOB, where he grew up, where he lived, etc). The current article is woefully inadequate, horrendously biased, and entirely non-encyclopedic. I hope somebody can update it soon to a much higher standard.Jrdx 18:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style of Karate Response

Richard Kim taught 'Shorinji-ryu' Karate (transl. 'Shaolin Temple Style'), which was a system he invented, based almost entirely on the JKA style of Shotokan Karate. It is unrelated to Shorinji Kempo. One significant exception was the teaching of Okinawan and traditional Japanese weapon systems. Richard Kim also encouraged the study of, and taught, Tai Chi. Additionally, Richard Kim used the Japanese 'On' pronunciation in the naming of kata. The Japanese 'On' pronunciation or 'On-yomi' is a Japanese approximation of the original Chinese pronunciation of a particular character. Each character may have multiple 'On' and 'Kun' (Japanese) pronunciations. For example, the Shotokan kata series 'Heian' became 'Pinan' in Shorinji-ryu. Use of the 'On' pronunciation can give a more 'formal' or traditional air to a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.168.238.7 (talk • contribs)

[edit] external reference

This may be useful as a reference for many of the points already in the article:

misc:

--Asterphage 03:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to Style of Karate

Several answers can be found at the following links:

RE: Style of Karate links (above) - the Shorinji-ryu chronology looks a little misleading. I think there should really just be an arrow from Shotokan to Shorinji-ryu, which was Richard Kim's invention and was derived from M. Nakayama's JKA branch of Shotokan. Technically, the (non-Kobudo) basics and kata of Kim's Shorinji-ryu and JKA Shotokan are nearly identical. Shorin-ryu is very different from either. Compare, for instance Kim's Shorinji-ryu kata Pinan Shodan and its Shotokan equivalent, Heian Shodan, to the Shorin-ryu Pinan Shodan. The Shorin-ryu Pinan Shodan corresponds to Heian Nidan or Pinan Nidan in Shotokan and Kim's systems, respectively, albeit with major technical differences. In comparison, the Shotokan and Shorinji-ryu katas are practically identical. Also compare Shorin-ryu Passai to Shotokan Bassai-dai and Shorinji-ryu Patsai-dai. Shotokan and Shorinji-ryu katas are nearly identical, and Shorin-ryu version shows major technical variance from both. There are many similar examples.

The chronology diagram makes it look as though Shorinji-ryu had as old a genesis, and an equally long, independent development as styles such as Shotokan, Wado-ryu, Matsubayashi (Shorin) ryu and Goju-ryu. This is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.122.154 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Requirements for an encyclopedia article

I have corrected two inaccuracies in the first discussion submission (above) - Richard Kim did not organise the JKA camp with Hidetaka Nishiyama, but attended himself and encouraged his students to attend; additionally, it shouldn't be implied he drank all the Heineken! He enjoyed his beer, and his students were strongly encouraged to bring Heineken to his apartments in the evenings at camp, after training, where he held audience.

I studied with Richard Kim, attended the camp for years, and understand the respect his students have for him. He was an outstanding Karate teacher.

Never the less, Wikipedia is not an obituary column. As stated above, Richard Kim was a colourful and sometimes controversial figure. The veracity of many of his claims can not be proven, and there is strong evidence that many were also exaggerated. The article itself was a flattering testament to Richard Kim, but did not qualify as an encyclopedia entry, and has been edited according to Wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.168.238.7 (talk • contribs)

[edit] The Daito-ryu scrolls

Did he have them? Did he receive a menkyo kaiden from Kotaro Yoshida? User5802 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daito-ryu scrolls edits

I removed the reference to Daito-ryu scrolls and menkyo kaiden due to lack of evidence, and the exaggerated biographical claims of the subject. Much of the biographical material in the references was supplied by Richard Kim himself. In many cases there is no corroborating evidence, and the timelines and claims of achievement don't bear up under scrutiny. For example, as a dropout from the University of Hawai'i, he joined the merchant marine, claiming to have worked during the Second World War in Shanghai as a translator for a Japanese officer. He claimed to have earned a doctorate from St. John's University, but he does not show up on the alumni lists; St. John's University did not grant doctoral degrees at the time (students were able to pursue doctoral studies with affiliated US universities), there is no record of a doctoral dissertation, and no reference or evidence in his biographies or personal accounts of any academic research carried out. It is unclear how a U. of Hawai'i dropout would have gained entry to any program in one of the most selective universities in Asia at the time. Additionally, it is not clear how even the most gifted researcher could fulfill the requirements of doctoral study while serving the Japanese military in war time, while also embarking on serious study of Chuan Fa, Tai Chi and Pa Kua, as Kim claimed. There are many other cases where the biographical achievements appear to be outright fabrications, or clear exaggerations - for example, Richard Kim claimed to have received exhaustive knowledge of the history of Karate from various teachers, some of which is published in his book 'The Weaponless Warriors'; but the recent, English translation of Eizo Shimabukuro's book 'Old Grandmaster Stories' (2003), originally published in 1964, shows quite clearly that Kim's material was taken in large part directly from Shimabukuro's original work. According to Wikipedia guidelines, the article on Kim has been edited to display only claims that are corroborated by 3rd party evidence (existing diplomas, photos, etc.) 65.205.251.51 22:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should include some of these facts in the article. I think it would be useful for readers to know if there were inconsistencies in his statements. For now I am including the FACT that he STATED he had the daito-ryu scrolls, and if you can show any proof against this, or if you think his many inconsistent statements show a tendency to lie, then I will change it to "Some have disputed this" and give reference to your evidence. User5802 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe it should be removed. He stated many dozens of things that are exaggerated, if not obviously untrue. I think it's a question of balance in the main article. To list all of the tall tales would be fairly useless. I think it suffices to mention that he was a figure of controversy (which he certainly was), and outline a few contentious bits in the discussion pages. The current biographical entry on the main page suffices. Additionally, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that he mastered or taught Daito-ryu. Shorinji-ryu, his own invention, was a wholesale appropriation of the JKA Shotokan curriculum. The mention of Daito-ryu or any mysterious scrolls, or the transfer of 'spiritual energy' he claimed to have received from Kotaro, or the claim that he was an ordained priest (through the Universal Life Church - you can go to their Web site, fill out a Web form and become automatically ordained by pressing a button) or any of the other nonsense is fairly irrelevant. I'll leave it up to you to delete or retain the passage. I don't think it's worth a quarrel. 71.135.103.230 03:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Per User5802's request, I've reviewed the article, and the discussion so far. I suggest creating a "Controversy" section in the article, and listing a few (not all) claims Kim made that have been contested/disproved. Also, a couple reliable sources are needed: there is currently a non-referenced biography, and two Amazon searches. Not exactly accurate. · AndonicO Talk 09:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no reliable sources. I feel strongly that the entry should be limited to verifiable biographical material. Two reasons to avoid citing Kim's unverifiable claims, or those that are demonstrably false: 1) There isn't much of an ongoing dispute. Including language such as 'strongly disputed' is misleading. His claims are simply little known non-facts. We aren't dealing with a major historical figure. He was a Karate teacher with a tendency to exaggerate. 2) Addition of even a few exaggerated claims would require a solid refutation, with timelines and corroboration (such as the material on St. John's University, above). This would more than double the length of the existing article, which should be brief given the lack of reliable sources, and would give the false impression that there is an ongoing and lively debate around the subject and that it bears equal consideration to the verifiable biographical information. One issue that is very clearly demonstrable is the appropriation of material directly from Shimabukuro's 1964 monograph 'Old Grandmaster Stories', which Kim used as the bulk of his 1974 work 'The Weaponless Warriors'. An English translation of Shimabukuro has been available since 2003, and those who don't read both English and Japanese can now easily verify this for themselves. I will add a note about this to the article; this addition should give a more complete view of his character, and I suggest that unsubstantiated claims, such as the Daito-ryu scrolls, are completely removed. Anyone looking for a summary of unsubstantiated claims, or controversial material can quite easily find it here in the discussion pages. What do you think? 71.135.103.230 22:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Great response 71.135.103.230, and I think you are accurate in your assessment. Controversy should not encompass the article, although it appears Kim's actions have made him an unreliable source of information. The debate on his statements does bear consideration, though not as much as his factual biographical data. User5802 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why remove reference for Shorinji Kempo?

This reference is given next to the style listed in the infobox, and provides a link to Duke Moore's page which states the style Kim taught and promoted him in. User5802 20:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence Kim studied or taught Shornji Kempo. His style of karate was called 'Shorinji Ryu', which is entirely different (see comparison to JKA Shotokan, above) and I believe Duke Moore is conflating the two. I removed all of the references that refer to unsubstantiated works, either written by Richard Kim (e.g. 'The Weaponless Warriors'), or the products of Kim's students where the information came directly from Kim. Sadly, there is no real corroboration of his achievements, and (per the discussion above) he is an unreliable source. Accounts that came from Kim and were told, second hand, by his students, have been removed as references. 216.168.238.7 21:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your stance on this. When reliable third party sources are absent on a topic, it seems entirely beneficial to include statements made by individuals who had a personal connection of some type with the subject. While such individuals may indeed make biased statements, I would say these people may be deemed reasonably reliable until facts disproving their statements arise.
I will remove the Shorinji Kempo style as you are most likely correct on Duke Moore's creation of the term for descriptive purposes. Shorinji-ryu, however, is itself a different style as well. Another art having the same name is irrelevant in the discussion of whether to include said name in an unrelated article. Few have sole rights to the name of an art.
Again, Richard Kim's works were self substantiating, themselves, do to an overwhelming corroboration of evidence between his writings and those of notable martial artists... Although, it must be acknowledged that some of this corroboration of evidence was due to direct plagiarism.
I also ask for third party opinions to help settle this dispute. User5802 01:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you meant by 'self-substantiating'. None of his biographical claims are independently substantiated in the published work of other martial artists. His history of Karate, 'The Weaponless Warriors', was taken from Shimabukuro, but the biographical material in the preface came only from Kim. All of the footnotes that I removed refer to Kim's biographical claims in the cited works. These are not corroborated by other martial artists. Those cited works rely SOLELY on Richard Kim's oral testimony for the claims, as written down by his students or re-told by associates. They simply aren't reliable. Those footnotes simply re-tell us what Richard Kim claimed, much of which is dubious or demonstrably false. When reliable third party sources are not available, then citations and claims should be removed, rather than including the claims of those with a personal connection to the subject, as you suggest; a personal connection has no relation to the veracity of the claim. I strongly believe the citations should be removed. 216.168.238.7 23:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe one of the problems here is that if we did not include Richard Kim's autobiographical information and relied solely on third party research, there would not be much of an article. Although less scholarly of an approach, do we really have enough to go on otherwise? User5802 17:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As discussed above, it should be a brief article. 71.135.96.230 20:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with 216.168 here. If a source isn't reliable, it shouldn't be included.
If you don't want the article to be so short, I suggest adding a "Controversy" section (or "The Weaponless Warriors"), listing a few of the false autobiographical errors Kim wrote, and if possible, how they were proven false. If the whole article has to be in that section, then just add a short introductions saying he was a martial artist, and then proceed to write about his self-praise. · AndonicO Talk 13:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


I like AdonicO's opinion on this User5802 05:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some recollections

I studied Shotokan Karate in Indio, California in the mid-70's, under Sumner Hardy (who had studied under Nishiyama in Los Angeles). Richard Kim came to visit twice when I was there. He demonstrated Tai Chi and weapons, told stories, and taught us kata that probably weren't part of Nishiyama's curriculum at the L.A. dojo: Gojushiho, which I've heard associated with Shotokan in other books and articles, a Tamari-Te kata called "Anunka", and kata with bo, nunchuku, tonfa, and sai. Some of our people attended his San Diego camps.

In the evenings of his visits we'd meet at our instructors house. "Mr. Kim" as we called him, did drink champaign and told stories mostly the same as were written in The Weaponless Warriors. Some, though, got into anecdotes of psychokinesis and levitation, and he also mentioned some research that the "soul weighed 3 ounces" (maybe it was two) based on someone weighing people before and after they'd died. I'd actually read the same "research" in the National Enquirer some time before that, which a classmate had brought to school. He didn't tell any tales of sexual exploits.

The fantastical stuff notwithstanding, I'd credit him with preserving Okinawan kata traditions that could otherwise have been discarded as karate schools standardize their curricula (or worse, where "independent" instructors feel free to rewrite them).

Carl Ponder (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)