No, judo is judo because they do judo katas. That's not relevant to this discussion, we aren't talking about judo. And every style of karate has set kata standards. So yes there is a set of standards. If you have a black belt in karate, that means you have a style, if you don't have a style, then what do you do? There is no such thing as generic karate, that's just not how it works.
So what specifically makes it a "karate kata" then? The problem is that you are going to have to say "the moves of the given style are contained therein" - which means the kata is a learning tool designed to give you those moves - ergo the attainingbofnthe skill is the goal notbthebyraining method used You are concentrating on the finger young grass hopper!
The problem with the term karate, is its so generic, it is often used to apply to a whole rang of things that it really shouldn't. It's just a collection of styles that have their origins in a particular part of the world. As for the traditions that have moved away from kata, I would argue that they have moved away from karate and become their own thing. That shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing. I don't see why everyone wants to apply the term karate to things outside the traditions. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not some wacko traditionalist. I'm all for new ideas and new perspectives within karate. But karate isn't mma, it's an okinawan tradition that has spread over the world. There is a set way of practicing that tradition, and if you don't do that, then you are doing something else. Again, I don't mean that as an insult to anything that does this, it's not a bad thing to break away from the tradition, but there is a point that you are just no longer following that same old tradition from okinawa.
What makes Karate what it is, what defines Karate? Do the pages and binding of a book define the content? Kata is indicative of the system's cultural origin but it doesn't necessarily define the system. It transmits it, passes on the quintessential qualities, techniques and values of the system but it is not those aspects in and of itself.
That's kinda my view. I agree that it's a means to an end, but it is the act of using that means to an end that makes karate. There are a lot of ways to practice martial arts, and each martial art approaches it differently. Using a different means to get to that end means you are using a different tradition.
There is no blanket rule for this, as generic karate isn't a martial art, but rather a collection of martial arts. I can tell you what makes shorin ryu shidokan shorin ryu shidokan if you would like.
It is a karate kata if it has been passed down from karateka to karateka. Through time katas have been added and I'm sure they have been taken away.
No it isn't Roundhouse kicks are NOT part of the original system they were added - so people from the original system consider that addition is not karate How is your point any different? If you are going to throw around argumentative fallacies you had best understand them first
Because karate developers through time, adding different techniques. But that doesn't change the fact that a pivotal part of karate lies in how you teach it. And roundhouse kicks have been present in most styles of karate for decades.
Yet what happens when the tradition changes? Which they all do. Even koryu evolve and change to a degree, it's how they keep their core essence and teachings intact that it important.
Decades? Wow - very traditional...... I can (and when teaching that class actually do) perform every single technique the same as the senior Karate instructor at the dojo. If the technique is identical (and in some cases mine is actually better - reverse punch and Mae Geri for one) then how can I not be doing karate because I do not follow, teach or adhere to an antiquated teaching methodology? As Dean said is a book the contents or the bindings?
I'm all for some change, and growth in the karate world. But there is a difference between adding a foreign technique to your practice, and outright dropping the katas that have made karate karate for generations. For example, in my dojo we practice some boxing drills, some spinning kicks and axe kicks. Those are just additions, it doesn't mean we abandon kata in favor of another teaching method. Because then we would just be learning to fight, not doing karate.
Sorry I edited my post as you posted the above. However taking the above into consideration. Are you telling me that you can't identify the overridding characteristics that define it? You can't discuss the overall physiology of it? Surely they all share certain qualities?
I follow the guiding rules of Christianity, I don't steal, I don't kill, I honor my mother and father, and I love my neighbor (figuratively, my real neighbor is kind of awful) but that doesn't make me a Christian. Knowing the techniques in karate does not mean you practice the tradition of karate, it means you know the techniques of karate. Is the same thing.
They all share some qualities yes, but it isn't those qualities that make them karate, it is their lineage.
Christianity has explicitly stated you must accept Christ as your saviour to be a Christian What has "karate" written down anywhere that says "you must do this to be doing karate"? Terrible example
