Bluming's debate style could probably kindly be referred to as "tactile." And his contention is both that he's absolutely doing karate and that kata is a waste of time. I'm not saying kata is a waste of time. But if someone with Bluming's reputation and record says that he can do karate without doing kata, I'm afraid I'm inclined to take his view.
So am I correctly reading between the lines here and you're saying "if you try and debate this with Jon Bluming, he'll punch you"? That's not really a winning argument. I'm sure it probably has great Latin name as a logical fallacy.
Shotokan tend to call it choko zuki , on reflection I have seen a "reverse punch" in kata (can't remeber which one now) , but it was more like an extended kage zuke (hook punch) , And this isn't what was being described.
ah, missed the sonoba-zuki part. we used that one for punches for shiko-dachi, but not from heiko-dachi, iirc, but might be misremembering the latter.
Without wishing to go too far off topic... I teach kata when I go to the local Shotokan class, and I perform it with the other students there. I also study Kata and write books and produce videos on kata bunkai. I think Kata contains the most useful stuff in Karate. I don't teach Kata in my Karate system, and I consider myself a very traditional Karateka. My definition of what constitutes traditional Karate may not be the same as yours, but I've outlined them publicly in a number of magazines and online. They can be read on MAP here: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110090 My students train Kata based techniques about 80% of the time. The majority of the drills they do are based on Kata bunkai, or drills that have evolved from fine tuning things that were once Kata bunkai. If they want to train solo they practise the drills. I don't need to create Kata from my drills to teach lessons or mnemonics for them to practice on their own, they can read what is written in the syllabus, they can watch videos of the material, they can chat to me on the phone or ping me a message if they have a question and I'm not there. I've moved with the times. The original Kata from which the system evolved aren't so useful to us any more, and they aren't going anywhere. They are preserved in books, in videos and in other systems. As other people have said, Kata is just a training method. It's contents may be at the heart of Karate, but that doesn't mean you have to do Kata to be doing karate. Traditional Karate doesn't always look like what you expect.
Why don't we just make the true meaning of karate 'peace and environmental activism' because we could always use a little more of both.
Probably is. Though, in common English, it's referred to as "joke." The part that wasn't a joke was the idea that a well-respected karateka and judoka with decades of practice under his belt holds an opposing viewpoint. That seems important in the face of an absolutist statement like "it's not karate without kata." It seems to me that, if you're using the kicking and punching mechanics characteristic of karate, and you learned from a karate teacher, and you're using terminology and ritual commonly found in karate, then you're probably doing karate. I'd suggest the same thing of any style. I wouldn't tell someone they're not doing FMA because they don't practice sinawali either.
I'm inclined to disagree. A quick google search on the guy you mentioned shows me he's a great fighter, and was given several belts in different styles for being a great fighter. But karate isn't just fighting, it's a whole tradition, and he didn't practice that tradition. He just fights really well. Congratulations to him on becoming a human weapon, but it has he effect on my viewpoint.
He practiced the vast majority of that tradition with some well-reknowned teachers of that tradition and has paid honour to that tradition in numerous ways. Obviously, you can disagree. There's nothing I can say that's necessarily going to convince you. And vice versa. That's fine. I'm simply offering a counterexample. And I do firmly believe that if you're using the component techniques found in karate (including in the kata), then you're practicing karate. Your mileage clearly does vary. And that's fine. There's no hostility in my disagreeing with you. Dig?
Which traditions? The problem is there is no one constant in karate beyond the fact you are hitting people. Shotokan is not Goju is not Wado is not Shukokai. If these wonderful katas are at the heart if karate then why have they changed? Your argument just does not stand up to scrutiny. The "morality and spirit" is cultural trappings and has nothing whatsoever to do with the system. Karate is a method of fighting first and foremost - always has been. The emphasis can change but at the core you are punching and kicking. Kata is a way of passing teachings along but nothing more than that. Saying its not karate without kata is like saying its not boxing without top and bottom ball.
I think we have reached an understanding ap Owen. We disagree, that's fine. Hannibal, that isn't the case, boxing and karate are totally different animals. I understand that you come from a very combative perspective, you go into a martial art thinking "this will allow me to fight better" and that's perfectly valid. But you should also recognize that there is more out there than the part you like. Karate isn't just a way of fighting, but a tradition that gets passed down. I use karate here as a term to refer to all of the different traditional styles. If someone came into my dojo, and said they had a black belt in shorin ryu shidokan, but didn't do kata, they would have a white belt until they can do all the katas required.
I use karate as an umbrella term for all the different styles. Each one is a tradition, but they are linked and mostly similar.
That's a stylistic difference though - you can do that in theory, but you cannot deny that the other person is doing karate just because they do not know YOUR forms. That is the problem you have if you say no kata = no karate - there are no universal standards for pattern or style Judo has kata - is that karate then?
So what about those traditions that have moved away somewhat from kata? Something like Enshin which as I understand it has moved away from kata of a traditional nature. What in your opinion defines Karate? What makes it what it is?
