Controversial thought Karate without Kata = The techniques????? I still do Karate moves from my days but not the kata, am I any worse off I dont think so. I have just found other mediums like the pressure testing that for me when it works... Then I know I have it down pat when in sparing the move comes out before I make the concious thought of it. Karate would still be Karate without the Kata, as to me its a self defence form that can offer real benefits to people. The forms dont add to this really as Kick Boxing is pretty much Karate without Kata. Views?
I suppose it depends how you see karate and how you see kata. I know there are schools where I am that have classes they call karate and do no kata. Can you stop them from calling it karate? I guess just like any MA there will be people who take advantage of the marketability of 'karate' and will use the title even if they don't actually teach it. Unless you are a sport based dojo and strictly concentrate on kumite I can't see how you can call it karate without doing kata, without being outright deceptive about calling it karate. I can see why a sport school that is focused on tournaments would not do a lot or any kata, but those schools who don't compete I think eliminate kata because they know it turns some students off and they will do anything to keep students, even if it means watering down their art. I personally agree with Ronin that karate without kata are like lungs without air.
The First Karate was JUST kata! You learned the rest through kumite. Karate without kata is streetfighting. Kata is esential to karate.
Actually, I know there is a modern self defense "Close Quarter" Form that's employed by the Blauer systems. At only about 15 connected movements it's an excellent tool to use to introduce the basics idea of a direct street confrontation. And it's a great example of how to develop and throw a Kata/form. Each moment has specific target and purpose. Any one technique can be pulled out and discected for an entire class. There are specific emotions and philosophies expressed with every move. And it looks pretty (believe it or not). And best of all, watching it, you can see every fundimental of the system expressed. If that isn't the purpose of a form, I don't know what is. - Matt
Provided it works surely that is the key Karate to me is a Self Defence art. I think most people on here know I am no fan of kata "SEE KATA THREAD" but to me Karate is still Karate as the moves are the same. Its strange where I am so many people are now claiming to teach Kickboxing as it is seen as a slightly more modern form of SD than Karate but in actual fact the classes are Karate without the Kata and these people have done little if any Kickboxing. To me so long as it works that is the key and Karate still is Karate. I think in original Karate there was far less Kata than now a days and there is a danger that the Self Defence could be watered down by spending 35 mins of a one hour lesson going up and down a hall 10 times doing the same old movements. Karate can work well and I would like to see it progress but in progressing to the less kata based versions it is not watering down but expanding to encompass other arts skills and just evolving and moving with the times.
Re: Provided it works surely that is the key Hi Sonshu This may or may not be true. I can't comment on say, the 18th century and before. But I confirm that kata formed the cornerstone of 19th century karate training. Gichin Funakoshi, widely regarded as the 'father' of Japanese karate began his training in Okinawa in the 1870's. He stated that his first 10 years of training focussed on the practice of 3 kata, the Naihanchi series. Imagine that! 3 kata in 10 years! How dull. Especially when you consider how similar to each other the Naihanchi kata are. However, I don't believe for one minute that his kata training consisted of "spending 35 mins of a one hour lesson going up and down a hall 10 times doing the same old movements". Proper training in kata involves far, far more than marching up and down doing the moves of the kata without a partner. People who don't spend time exploring the applications of the kata may be able to demonstrate a kata in a pretty manner, but they cannot claim to understand the kata. And if they don't understand the kata, then it truly is useless for self-defence. Mike
Found a good article on Kata in the magazine section of MAP. If you look under Articles there is an article in there on the Purpose of Kata (check page 2 of articles). Makes it very plain. Kata is a building block, not the be-all, end-all. Worth reading and I think it has relevance to this thread.
There can never be karate without kata IMHO and failing to develop the kata's applications is wasting the knowledge stored within the kata....
I am with you all Also Mike I understand where you have taken Kata from the thread we were on with it. However there have been people on this and other boards that do spend near to 50% of a lesson doing kata. This to me is pretty odd as it detracts from the purpose of the style which is Self Defence and Combat. Its funny as I went to a TKD class about 6 months ago to see what was happening and the WHOLE lesson was forms - ARHHHHHHHHHHH. Drove me mad as it was forms for the whole class all night, and the next session as well, what a bore!
Learn the form/kata, then drill some of the applications. Where I learn, we do the form after the warm up, but then we move onto drills and other exercises after that. Forms\kata are otherwise good for practice outside of the dojo. As others have commented, the forms do act as the foundations of the system. They're important, but they aren't the building itself.
I can cope with that as long as that's not the only way that kata is being practiced. Spending one lesson on getting a kata right is worthwhile I think, there are many styles that use such repetitive training and I believe there is now evidence to suggest that the muscle memory only really starts to get laid down well after doing the same thing for 15 mins or more. But if its the only way that kata is drilled, then I agree, its a waste of time. I came across a quote by one of the most respected Okinawan karateka of the early 20th century the other day, Choki Motobu. Apparently he said "Kata and waza are both limited by themselves. They are useless until one learns how to apply them in context". Mike
Which is why certianly in my class more time is taken up/ or is equal by step sparring rather than patterns. Certainly on run ups to gradings (which is all the time ) and comps a bit more attention is paid. But step sparring really does "weed out" what techniques take more than 5minutes to actually make them applicable. It also show the student in which situations (i.e a lot of them) some of the more complex blocks aint that great choices. Rising blocks against punches anyone?
Rising blocks against punches? I will be the first to put my hand up and say I am not good enough or never was when I was really doing Karate to do them against a puncher of any merit. I doubt a full power punch in a bar I could stop with it so hence I dont use or teach it. One step sparing is a good tool and one I would favor as you are applying whats in kata and you also do it with your reverse side, again another point in kata is you never really drill your off side much if at all. :Angel:
Let me be a bit controversial and suggest that the reason some techniques, in particular 'complex blocks' don't work is that they are being used for a purpose for which they were never designed. A rising block against a straight punch? It just doesn't make sense. But you could use it to stop a descending or round strike aimed at the head, no problem there. But hang on, round or downward blows are not part of formal 1, 3 or 5 step sparring. So something's wrong somewhere. It is my belief that the kind of formal sparring found in most karate derived systems today is a relatively recent addition to karate. I suspect it started in Japan in the 1920's or possibly 20 or so years earlier in Okinawa. Either way, it was not intended as a method by which students could improve their fighting skills. Rather, it was a method by which students could polish their minds and bodies by repetitive, demanding and sometimes painful physical training. Whether they could actually fight was of little relevance at the time. This is entirely in accordance with the transition from jitsu to do that many Japanese arts were undergoing at the time. So the pioneers of Japanese karate didn't want to show their students truly, and brutally, effective self-defence techniques. But they did want them to do some sort of partner training. Which is where 1 step formal sparring comes in. Partner A would attack in a formal stylised way and partner B would step back, block with one of the so-called 'blocks' taken from the kata and then respond with long-scale dynamic techniques. Having punched, A respectfully stands totally still to allow B to do his counters. This is so far removed from self-defence that its farcical, in that particular context. This method training has little practical value IMO, other than for rank beginners or perhaps when first learning a technique. The supposedly complex and unworkable blocks of karate are in reality multi-purpose tools which if properly understood can be used to block, grapple, throw, lock, choke or strike the attacker with the level of severity ranging from relatively passive to lethal. Mike
Karate without kata. Kata is also a form of storage. It stores the style in a context of a virtual fight wich the students can study. It stores most of the moves/techniques wich are within the style. It is the stundents to study it and pull back the knowledge wich was put into it. Today you can make a video and comment it .. but it serves same as kata a storage. In all it's just one view of kata. Regards Kerling
I agree that was a valid use for it! However I still think to me Karate would still be Karate with or without it as if you know the moves then you know em.
I'm not sure I'm convinced of that, not with regard to modern karate systems anyway. It seems to me there is a duality here. The traditional kata lack most of the techniques used in sparring. There are few kicks, and certainly no spinning kicks, axe kicks, etc. etc. There are no freestyle block and reverse punch combinations and none of the combinations used in attacking in sparring. Yet on the other hand they are full of all sorts of 'strange' techniques that are rarely if ever used outside the practice of a particular kata. And if they are used its usually in some bunkai that has little to do with reality. No, I actually think that much karate is composed of some quite contradictory elements which are pulling in different directions. Mike
Mike, I think you've raised a great point here. I'll tred gently as I'm not a Karate praticioner (though I've worked quite a bit with a number of great students and teachers from various schools). I think that there is a derth of Karate programs (and other non Japanese Martial Arts) that tend to train one way and then fight in an entirely different manner. In many cases I've seen (again using Karate as an example) upper rank students through a beautiful classic Kata and then step onto the sparring floor and suddenly start to look like a modern kickboxer. Having been taught to "train the way you fight and fight the way you train", I've always taken some issue with this. I've been trying to decide if people feel that the traditional techniques are in-accessible in sparring. Personally, I don't believe that to be the case as I've been run around the floor by people only using traditional Goju techniques. - Matt
