What are the most important techniques in karate according to the kata?

You're trying to force your opinion on me. Unless you have some long lost document from Itosu or other composers (most are unknown), your idea is just an opinion. From my perspective the only important technique is the one you are using. Basic punches and kicks are foundational training, but that doesn't lessen the importance of my backfist.

 

There are many techniques of a system that define a lot about them, which is what I think Moosey is going for here.

Take Uechi Ryu with your basic punch and kick theory. An Uechi Ryu front snap kick is different from many other karate styles simply because instead of the usual impact areas they actually kick with the toes. The circle block is one of their primary blocks, which due to its application makes the Uechi Ryu strategy well suited to infighting. And though they may start with the basic punch, eventually their punches evolve into reinforced knuckle fists for attacking weak areas. One brief example.

 

The fact that each system has unique techniques or unique aspects of a less unique technique in each kata is irrelevant to the level of importance any particular technique holds within a style or for that matter a kata. Once again, the most important technique is the one you are doing. If some guy is choking you from behind, the front snap kick is completely and utterly useless no matter how many times it appears in a kata or times you practiced it. The only technique that matters is the one you are going to use to fight back and get out of the choke hold with. This is just common sense.

 

That's not what this thread is about though.

To refer to the original post:

So, karate folk of various styles: do you find that the most valuable techniques you find in your style equate to the ones that the originators of your kata find to be most worthy of repetition?

 

Kata = Fight

The most valuable move is the one you are doing.

Ken Zen Ichi Nyo

 

What I find most valuable are the principles that underlie the techniques, as it is these that are repeated again and again in the kata. The techniques themselves are secondary in this regard

 

No I'm not. I'm opening up a question for discussion. This being a discussion forum. I'm not forcing you to take part in the thread.

It's not even particularly my opinion. It was a thought that I opened up for discussion.

Indeed, but you can't structure a training program such that when a student says "which techniques should I learn?", you reply "the one that you're using". That's just cryptic and not especially helpful.

My question was "do the kata tell us which are the important moves and is this reflected in your training?". You obviously think "no", but that doesn't invalidate the question.

 

I train in a very traditional Okinawan school. We have a very regimented and long-standing training method. We would answer that question from a white belt exactly as I did. I live and breath that answer and really believe what I say. A kata is a fight, in a fight the move you are doing is the only one that matters. I also believe that kata composers like Itosu would answer the same way I do. Why would you ever let a white belt, who knows nothing about your style dictate what they should practice? Answering in the way I have is not only the correct answer to the question, but also the only way to answer a white belt, IMHO.

 

I sympathise with your point of view, but I think Moosey has a point. It may be completely true, but it is not necessarily a great training aid, especially for a beginner. A white belt may love to hear that (it sounds very Bruce Lee in my head), but it doesn't necessarily give them the direction they need.

I think that statement is much more useful when you've mastered the basics, and when you understand the whole idea of emptying your mind in a fight and letting reactions and instinct take over.

 

Hummmmm........ maybe it doesn't give them the direction they want, but I tend to believe that it is the one they need.

I can see both positions and points of view here...
I do not think there is a "correct one", both are correct - it depends...


Osu!

 

What I'm getting at more than anything is that if they don't understand what that phrase means it's going to get them nowhere. I firmly believe that when you start your progression should be pretty solidly regimented. It's only when you've learnt the basics you can really have fun.

 

that is actually one of the things i don't like about TMAs. they treat noobs like they are morons. i always explain as much as i can, even for stuff that's outside their current progression level. what i would want my hypothetical future students to do in class, i would MAKE them do while in class. if they don't do it, it would be a failling of mine as a teacher, and i would be required to try another approach in those cases, until i can get them to do it.

 

Not necessarily. In any kind of education, the first lesson is always the basics. You can't teach someone to build a house if they don't know how to make cement and dig foundations.

I'm all for explaining everything and answering questions - it's what I do when I teach. But I'm not about to say 'ok you've learnt block A and punch B - go crazy, experiment!'

 

Moosey's question as i understand it is "if Katas is repositories of techniques for training and then using in a real fight, how come there's so many (complicated and not obviously useful) techniques in them?
To me, there's not one but 2 elephants in the room.
1 If it's most likely that a first strike from an untrained attacker would be a 'big right', then the katas should be chockful of different ways of dealing with this, different techniques but to the same end?
and
2 HIKITE, it's everywhere!

 

Isn't moosey's question that "IF kata is the foundation of Karate then the techniques that appear the most often are likely to be the most important ones. What are those techniques? If they aren't the most important why do they appear more often".

I could be wrong though.

 

Yep, that's pretty much what I was getting at

 

So it's not 'if Chuck Norris could karate chop wood, how much wood would Chuck Norris karate chop?'

Because obviously the answer would be 'all of it.'

 

That's a very Wado thought.

Careful

Gary