Is the traditional aspect of karate dying? [Archive]

Melanie

23-Nov-2002, 10:51 PM

This is something I have come accross a lot myself Jonny. I have visited several 'Shotokan' dojos up and down the country and have found several different methods/styles of training. Mostly I have seen the 'going up and down the hall' method without providing any explaination for why...or maybe being told there is only ONE interpretation...

After hearing from my Sensei in the past, they have confirmed they did the same in their dojos previously but were 'worked' that much harder and even had occassions to throw up due to the physical exertions! They had several injuries and a large turnover of students due to the level of pressure that the students were exposed to. Unfortunately, Sensei can't afford to run halls and insurances without charging fees. So to make a more profitable business - they had to tone down the training and keep the students injury free and happier to come back to the dojo. Also since the 1950's (and more than likely beyond that) there has been improved methods of training and conditioning. Physiotherapy came out of the dark ages and medical treatment improved, as did research into the causes of injuries. All of this has led to a slight change in direction for training in the dojo. There are still some of the 'traditional' dojos out there. I know for a fact one of my former Sensei goes to one now and then to get a 'decent' workout as it was what he is used to. Lots of dojos also direct their training to a specific area as well. Some clubs want to compete - so all training is directed to that. Others want to 'get fit', and also others want to do both and explore the bunkai of their techniques. The more areas a club devotes time to, the less they can cover these areas in a 2 hour lesson.

Besides...what do you consider to be 'traditional' Jonny?

LilBunnyRabbit

23-Nov-2002, 11:25 PM

I don't think necessarily that its too 'hard' for some people. Whether the tradition is fading or not, there are much more difficult, and much harder arts out there, which people do practice, so saying that its too hard for many people may not be quite the right way to put it.

Melanie

23-Nov-2002, 11:43 PM

LilBunnyRabbit

24-Nov-2002, 12:27 AM

Actually it was from the original post, sorry. Forgot to use the magical quote button.

Freeform

24-Nov-2002, 01:05 AM

Define traditional, I'm aware of 2 different schools of thought about what 'traditional' karate is.

Oh, and welcome to the forum Jonny.

Colin

YODA

24-Nov-2002, 09:39 AM

Traditional Karate

That would be the way Funakoshi learned it. I.e. in the back yard of the old master with a group of 2 or 3 fellow students.

If by traditional you mean clones marching up & down a large sports hall in crisp white Gis while the instructor barks out words in a foreign language - theat is no more than 50 years old and was designed to teach schoolchildren.

Oh, and welcome to the forum Jonny. :D

Cain

24-Nov-2002, 09:46 AM

Welcome to the forums Jimmy,

As for ur question.......could u be more specific? I hv a vague idea wat r u talking about......I won't tell my views yet.....
|Cain|

Terry Matthes

26-Nov-2002, 06:57 AM

Define what you mean by traditional . . . .
If you mean the "school taught" way I think I wouldn't miss it. On the other hand if you mean, more of a spiritual aspect that helps us guide our lives I don't personally use karate for that either. I joined Karate to get it shape and continue into physical sports as I used to do wrestling. I just like getting beat up I guess. I must admit Karate does has some intrinsic (I don't think I spelt that right) values such as discipline and sportsmanship, but I don't practice it to "enrich my soul" or anything like that. Karate for me is just having fun, getting in shape, and learning how to defend myself. If any one of those 3 things were dropped out of my experience I wouldn't do it anymore.
PS- I am sorry to dissapoint anyone who tought all Karateka were deeply spiritual individuals.
PSS
much more difficult, and much harder arts out there, which people do practice, so saying that its too hard for many people may not be quite the right way to put it.
You can't say that without knowing how they students are being trained. You need something to compare it against and even if you did have something that would only hold true for the one example. Every school of every art trains diffrently, don't assume things.

Mike Flanagan

26-Nov-2002, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by jonny
I think that the traditional element of karate is fading away. Some clubs are caled sport karate. This is kickboxing with a different name. Today it is rare to see clubs teaching the true nature of karate. I attend Blackpool budokan and I am brown belt under the best traditional karate in the north west. Most people don't want to do karate, simply it is too hard for some people.

Hi Jonny

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and also echo some comments other people have made.

What is Traditional Karate?
I know that many people like to think that Karate has existed in its present state since the dawn of time but, as has already been said, this is actually a relatively new tradition. Before the 1930's (or the late 20's at the very earliest) it simply did not exist. The deep stances, high kicks, regimented classes, free sparring and formal sparring that you're familiar with - they had not yet been introduced.

What is the "true nature of karate"?
I contend that it is actually the traditional karate that you speak of which has peverted and helped to almost destroy karate's true nature. Contentious words I know but let me explain. The tradition I attempt to follow is that of the pre-1920's and even pre-1900 karate - what I prefer to call 'classical' karate (in order to distinguish it from 'traditional'. This karate was very different. It was not taught in large classes to a rigid regime. Instead the training took place in secret in small groups, in back yards (as someone else already mentioned) and was geared towards the needs of the individuals concerned. These were generally members of the Okinawan nobility. The stances were generally high in comparison with today's Shotokan. The kicks were low. It was not just a kicking and punching art but was replete with grappling, throwing and choking techniques. Rather than 1,3 or 5 step sparring students would practice applications of kata, generally at a much closer range than is seen in modern karate. In my view it was a completely different martial art.

So how and why did it change? At the end of the 19th century karate came out of the closet. Before then it was a secret method of physical and mental cultivation through brutally effective martial skills. Some of the 'big names' in karate at that time decided that karate needed a face-lift to make it fit for the modern age. And so a new karate was born. Karate was introduced into the Okinawan school system. The Pinan/Heian katas were the cornerstone of this new karate. But those pioneering souls couldn't teach school-children the brutal self-defence techniques of their art. That would have been woefully irresponsible and counter to the generations of secrecy surrounding their art. Instead they chose to teach a calisthenic exercise in order to strengthen the minds and bodies of their students. This exercise regime was based on but was not the same as the older art. The movements were modified to a degree, but more importantly their real meaning was not taught. This process went even further when karate was introduced to Japan. By the early 30's Funakoshi had been teaching in Japan for 10 years. By his own admission the karate he taught changed dramatically in that time. It underwent even more dramatic change at the hands of his son Yoshitake and (I believe) again after the war at the hands of Nakayama and his colleagues. It must be understood that the rationale of this new karate was very different to classical karate. It was not considered important to develop self-defence skills. Instead the aim was mental and physical development and the cultivation of a strong spirit. Students could now test this spirit by engaging in mock duels using dramatically modified techniques in a safe, sporting environment. Compare this to the development of kendo from ken-jutsu. Instead of people being killed or maimed in combat with swords (either metal or wooden) they could bash each other quite safely with bamboo sticks. This free sparring was totally abhorrent in the eyes of Funakoshi. Karate had now been transformed from a jutsu art into a do art. However, I consider it an inevitable development of Funakoshi's teachings and even further back, of Itosu's teachings. They had started a ball rolling and it gathered its own momentum.

The ball is still rolling. Inevitably in the west various competition rules developed and the traditional Shotokan, Wado Ryu etc. of the mid-20th century has (in many cases) evolved into arts even more suited to the competition rules being used.

So kick-boxing is a perversion of traditional karate. And traditional karate is a perversion of classical karate. No doubt the practitioners of the chinese martial arts from which classical karate developed would regard it as an abhorrent perversion of their own arts:) The ball keeps rolling.

All that said I actually have every respect for traditional karate. I prefer to aim for classical karate myself, but its all a matter of personal choice. What I think is important though is that you understand what your art is intended for so that you can be sure that it is one that fulfills your particular needs, whatever they may be.

Now I'll just climb down off my soapbox and shuffle quietly away.

Mike

Cain

26-Nov-2002, 09:45 AM

Sheesh!!!! How about an article mike?
|Cain|

pgm316

26-Nov-2002, 10:06 AM

Good article, you obviously know your Karate then. So Mike what names does the original classical Karate go by? Is it Okinawan?

I'd like tolearn more about it.

Mike Flanagan

26-Nov-2002, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by ckdstudent
I don't think necessarily that its too 'hard' for some people. Whether the tradition is fading or not, there are much more difficult, and much harder arts out there, which people do practice, so saying that its too hard for many people may not be quite the right way to put it.

Depends what we mean by 'hard'. If you mean technically difficult or complicated then sure, there are plenty of arts harder than traditional Shotokan. But I don't think that was what the original post alluded to. I think its more about the austere training regime that was common in karate, at least up until the 70's (and to some degree can still occasionally be found now). The training was frequently gruelling, contact was somewhat heavier than just 'touch-contact' and injuries were commonplace. Only the strongest survived to continue training. This is from what I understand anyway. You and I are both too young to have really experienced this sort of regime. Many older karate people will confirm that the training was basic but tough. That sort of training is too hard for most people, myself included:eek:

I'm not saying that it was good that people trained like this, but they did and you can't really deny that it was very hard training, harder than most of us (including you and I) do nowadays.

Mike

Mike Flanagan

26-Nov-2002, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by pgm316
Good article, you obviously know your Karate then.

Yeah but don't confuse how much I've read on the subject with how good I am at actually doing it:( Knowlege and ability don't necessarily go hand in hand.

I have written something for my students on the same subject. I'll see if I can dig it out, although I'm not sure it'll say anything I didn't put in my earlier post.

So Mike what names does the original classical Karate go by? Is it Okinawan?

I'd like tolearn more about it.

Lots of different names I'm afraid. The most ubiquitous was probably just simply 'te' meaning hand, also sometimes written 'di'. One could also differentiate between Chinese hand (to-te) and Okinawan hand (Uchina-di). 'To' refers to the Chinese Tang dynasty and, in Okinawa at least, was at one point used to refer to all things Chinese

I believe that Okinawan hand probably referred more to the art of the Okinawan royal family, sometimes referred to as 'ti' rather than 'te', which while related to karate is/was seperate and distinct from it. Somebody who trained in martial arts might be said to have 'bushi-no-te' ie. warrior's hands. Then of course there was the te of different towns, ie. Shuri-te, the art of the old capital Shuri and its relative Tomari-te. Shuri-te is considered to have given rise to Shorin-ryu (the school of 'Shaolin' martial arts), the predecessor of most modern styles with the exception of the Goju styles. Naha-te (from the village of Naha) gave rise to the Goju ryu (hard-soft school) and its relative Uechi-ryu. I believe these distinctions are a little artificial, Shuri and Naha people trained together and learned from each other. The reality was that there was Mike's karate and Bob's karate and Ted's karate and so on. The rigid separation into distinct and well-defined styles does not seem to have existed in Okinawa then.

Gichin Funakoshi, when teaching in Japan in the early 1920's, I believe called his art To-te-jitsu. I like this. It pays homage to its Chinese influence (To), its Okinawan influence (Te) and its Japanese influence (Jitsu). I myself am a student of Shorin ryu but, following in the old Shorin ryu tradition, I'm quite eclectic and willing to study within anyone that can teach me something.

Does that muddy the waters enough for you?:)

Mike

pgm316

26-Nov-2002, 02:24 PM

It muddies the water plenty thanks Mike. Its really interesting all the history of Karate. Like most people I only know about Karate post 1900, although a lot of Karate systems seem to have lost a lot of their original qualities by the early 1900’s in a trade off against being able to teach them to the masses. This must have made these styles much less effective, like you I’d rather train in one of the more classical styles. Being a classical style does yours have more grappling and less kata compared to what you might find in say a shotokan class?

wayofthedragon

26-Nov-2002, 03:09 PM

Karate dying out......
No way man. In some areas .....well, in most areas around where I am....that's what the majority is. However....they are running this thing out with sport karate and stuff like that:mad:
(sorry guys....don't know much about karate here;), just enough to know it's not dead yet:D)

wayofthedragon

26-Nov-2002, 03:09 PM

I also ment to add, it depends on the area you're in;)

Mike Flanagan

26-Nov-2002, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by pgm316
It muddies the water plenty thanks Mike. Its really interesting all the history of Karate. Like most people I only know about Karate post 1900, although a lot of Karate systems seem to have lost a lot of their original qualities by the early 1900’s in a trade off against being able to teach them to the masses.

Much of my knowledge is, I feel, reverse engineered rather than handed down by direct transmission. So much has been lost. But trying to piece it back together can be fun. How authentic the result is, well that's at least partly open to debate.

This must have made these styles much less effective, like you I’d rather train in one of the more classical styles.

Yes, I believe they are less effective. Which was the intention of those who created them (there is some documentary evidence of this).

Being a classical style does yours have more grappling and less kata compared to what you might find in say a shotokan class?

Certainly more grappling, but I don't know about less kata. Kata are the cornerstone of our art, and are its defining feature. For instance I might do a technique that's virtually identical to, say, a Ba Gua application or an Aiki-Ju-jitsu technique. But what makes it karate is that I've drawn it directly from a karate kata. Currently our style contains 2 modern kata, 3 20th century kata (Pinan 1 & 2 & Sanchin), 9 classical kata and 3 weapons kata. I also practice another half dozen or so that are not formally part of the syllabus.

Its probably too many kata. Many practitioners in the 19th century got by with just a handful for self-defence purposes. But we are also trying to preserve the kata that we have, so its worth practising the full syllabus.

In terms of content we draw from the kata striking, grappling, choking and throwing/takedown skills. We don't practice these things individually and separate from each other. Its not like doing karate (kicking and punching) and Judo (grappling and throwing). Rather there is (hopefully) a seamless transition between these concepts. I believe that the separation of such skill sets into distinct arts is an invention of the modern age and definitely detracts from combat effectiveness. Of course any one student may specialise in certain areas or techniques and that's fine, all that really matters is that they can apply their own skill set in real situations.

Just going back to Shotokan kata and grappling. I don't personally see how you could explain them in any meaningful way without looking at grappling.

Mike

pgm316

28-Nov-2002, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan

Much of my knowledge is, I feel, reverse engineered rather than handed down by direct transmission. So much has been lost. But trying to piece it back together can be fun. How authentic the result is, well that's at least partly open to debate.

Yes, I believe they are less effective. Which was the intention of those who created them (there is some documentary evidence of this).

It’s been pretty bad how Karate has evolved over the years. Would have been better if the newer version modified to be taught to the masses had been kept separate from the classical style, but this doesn’t seem to have happened on the whole. I agree with what you say about grappling, without it integrated into the art as a fighting system, it will definitely be less effective to add it on later, such as learning Judo etc.

When many people think of Karate, they don’t differentiate between styles, such as the many you mentioned. In general, what percentage of schools in England would you class as classical?

Certainly more grappling, but I don't know about less kata. Kata are the cornerstone of our art, and are its defining feature. For instance I might do a technique that's virtually identical to, say, a Ba Gua application or an Aiki-Ju-jitsu technique. But what makes it karate is that I've drawn it directly from a karate kata. Currently our style contains 2 modern kata, 3 20th century kata (Pinan 1 & 2 & Sanchin), 9 classical kata and 3 weapons kata. I also practice another half dozen or so that are not formally part of the syllabus.

Its probably too many kata. Many practitioners in the 19th century got by with just a handful for self-defence purposes. But we are also trying to preserve the kata that we have, so its worth practising the full syllabus.

In terms of content we draw from the kata striking, grappling, choking and throwing/takedown skills. We don't practice these things individually and separate from each other. Its not like doing karate (kicking and punching) and Judo (grappling and throwing). Rather there is (hopefully) a seamless transition between these concepts. I believe that the separation of such skill sets into distinct arts is an invention of the modern age and definitely detracts from combat effectiveness. Of course any one student may specialise in certain areas or techniques and that's fine, all that really matters is that they can apply their own skill set in real situations.

Just going back to Shotokan kata and grappling. I don't personally see how you could explain them in any meaningful way without looking at grappling.

Mike [/B]

How much grappling do you do? Surely more than what can be put in a kata? I'd have thought the kata would only have standing holds etc, which wouldn't teach you much groundfighting.

I do Ba Gua as one of the Kung Fu styles, although theres very little kata done, or patterns as we call them. Their definitley not the cornerstone of the art. Do you think it makes much difference drawing your technique from kata.

I've never fully understood Karate's dependance on kata, there must have been a point in time when karate had no kata's? What would be the effect of learning Karate without kata?

Mike Flanagan

28-Nov-2002, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by pgm316

When many people think of Karate, they don’t differentiate between styles, such as the many you mentioned. In general, what percentage of schools in England would you class as classical?

I know a fair few people around the country who pursue very similar goals to myself. But many of these practice modern kata, although their applications may be just the same (or better) as mine. They are, like myself, retro-fitting. Looking at any and every source to see if it can shed light on the movements in kata. The numbers of people actually practising classical 19th century kata (or something like it) are much smaller. No more than a handful of clubs in the whole of Britain that I'm aware of.

How much grappling do you do? Surely more than what can be put in a kata? I'd have thought the kata would only have standing holds etc, which wouldn't teach you much groundfighting.

Having started in an almost wholly striking system I suppose my striking will always have the edge in my own skill-set. But we almost always aim to grapple to an extent. I want to be hands-on with my attacker so that I can unbalance and control him, and manuoevre him into a position where my strikes have maximum effect. For instance the attacker punches. Ideally I want to hit him while (or even before) he is punching. From there I want to be able to capture his arm and continue with strike(s) to facilitate a joint lock and/or takedown. Then I want him on the ground face-down and locked up. At any point though I want to be able finish with strikes or joint destruction so that I can disengage to face a new threat. I think this is a rationale similar to some Ju-jitsu systems.

In some ways this is all very rudimentary compared to, say, throws in Judo. If I understand correctly Judoka spend years learning the subtleties of taking a person's balance in order to manuoevre them so they can be thrown. We attempt to circumvent the need for this extra work by using other parts of our repetoire to achieve the same effect, ie. boshing them hard.

You'd be surprised how much can be in kata. In analysing kata I start with the premise that every movement can be a strike, a simple grapple, a joint lock, a choke or a throw/takedown. This isn't always the case at all but its a good starting premise I think. You also have to be flexible about how you think about the kata. The kata movements are abstractions, so no one application will necessarily look exactly, nuance for nuance, like the kata. For me, if an application looks like the kata (either the static postures or the movement inbetween), or it feels like the kata when you do it, or even if the kata simply reminds me of the application in some way then its a valid application.

As for groundwork, this is definitely my weakest area. There are those that argue that there are many groundwork applications in kata. Certainly I've seen a few but I'm not convinced that there is the same richness there that you would find in systems that focus a lot on groundwork. I can apply some principles of stand-up work to groundfighting and that's the idea really, to apply the skills you already have in a new setting rather than having to learn a whole new skill set. But like I say this is my weak area and I need much more practice with skilled groundwork people. Anyone passing my way feel free to drop in, roll around on the floor and give my a good drubbing.

I do Ba Gua as one of the Kung Fu styles, although theres very little kata done, or patterns as we call them. Their definitley not the cornerstone of the art. Do you think it makes much difference drawing your technique from kata.

I've never fully understood Karate's dependance on kata, there must have been a point in time when karate had no kata's? What would be the effect of learning Karate without kata?

Of course, there was a time when Karate or CMA did not have kata/forms. I think they developed in order to a) teach principles of movement and dynamics, and b) to codify the vast array of techniques at your disposal. By this mean that kata can act as a thesaurus (my teacher's words not mine). Rather than have a myriad jumble of techniques in my head I simply carry the kata around with me. I can draw on it for applications in a logical and comprehensive manner. I do think it helps to have kata to do this but I'm sure effective self-defence can be trained without kata.

Ideally one would just have one or two kata, know them really really well and draw all of your self-defence principles and techniques from them. That way you don't have to think about what techniques to use when assaulted, your body will already know what to do.

Mike

Mike Flanagan

29-Nov-2002, 06:30 AM

I forgot to mention in my post yesterday one of the dangers of kata, something that can be seen quite commonly. In finding applications I think you have to make the kata work for you, and NOT you working for the kata. By which I mean there's no use coming up with applications that are unnecessarily complicated (or even unworkable) just because they fit the kata. What's more important is that they work and are relatively simple to apply.

Mike

pgm316

29-Nov-2002, 09:01 AM

It seems like Kung Fu uses patterns quite differently to Karate kata's. I've never done a pattern were I haven't practised any of the moves first. I've never been in the position of doing a pattern and then thinking about applications for various moves. I think this is because the patterns are maybe a lot less complex and really more for learning footwork.

I'm not saying one ways right or wrong, just different approaches. Must admit I prefer the Kung Fu approach because I’m hopeless at learning patterns! The last time I did a sword pattern with a lot of people watching I forgot it half way through, I just pieced moves together and apparently it still looked ok. If I did karate, I think I’d spend all my time learning kata’s, I’d prefer someone else do this and teach me the applications so I could concentrate on learning to use them. Classical Karate pre kata days ;)

Mike Flanagan

29-Nov-2002, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by pgm316
It seems like Kung Fu uses patterns quite differently to Karate kata's. I've never done a pattern were I haven't practised any of the moves first. I've never been in the position of doing a pattern and then thinking about applications for various moves. I think this is because the patterns are maybe a lot less complex and really more for learning footwork.

Interesting and to some extent surprising. With regard to learning the pattern before the applications, it doesn't have to be like this. You could do it the other way round. But most karate people who are into this sort of thing have gone from pattern to application basically because when we learnt the patterns in the first place there weren't any teachers around at that time to show us any decent applications. The kata were generally practiced without any real understanding. The applications have come on in recent years. That said, the movements in patterns I believe are abstractions so I think it makes sense to learn a movement first, then learn different ways of applying that movement.

Are you sure there aren't some chinese systems that use a similar approach (I actually just assumed that the idea went from China to Okinawa)? I can apply the same process to Tai Ji forms and get useful results. For example 'Grasping swallows tail' can be a nice arm-bar or neck-break, rather than the kind of activity that the RSPB might take you to court over.

I'm not saying one ways right or wrong, just different approaches. Must admit I prefer the Kung Fu approach because I'm hopeless at learning patterns! The last time I did a sword pattern with a lot of people watching I forgot it half way through, I just pieced moves together and apparently it still looked ok. If I did karate, I think I'd spend all my time learning kata's, I'd prefer someone else do this and teach me the applications so I could concentrate on learning to use them. Classical Karate pre kata days ;)

I believe that in the old days there was more emphasis on kata and less on the 'kihon', or basic techniques in karate. The basics were practiced via the kata rather than in isolation. That's my personal belief anyway. I know that for many people patterns are difficult to learn. But once they are learnt they should stay with you for life. But I'm lucky, I have the geeky sort of brain that makes picking up new forms relatively easy. That said I have about 25 that I practice and I neither need nor want any more.

I agree though, there are different ways of reaching the same point. And certainly I would never advocate the practice or performance of kata to the exclusion of hands on practice.

Mike

pgm316

29-Nov-2002, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan

Interesting and to some extent surprising. With regard to learning the pattern before the applications, it doesn't have to be like this. You could do it the other way round. But most karate people who are into this sort of thing have gone from pattern to application basically because when we learnt the patterns in the first place there weren't any teachers around at that time to show us any decent applications. The kata were generally practiced without any real understanding. The applications have come on in recent years. That said, the movements in patterns I believe are abstractions so I think it makes sense to learn a movement first, then learn different ways of applying that movement.

Its the way I've always learnt, concentrating on one technique at a time and learning its applications, then the pattern is occasionally done after this, often no pattern practice at all. Although its really just been repeating techniques with footwork. The kata seems to be a different beast entirely than our patterns. Instead of the simple block/hit/move repeat, yours simulates a more complex fight........

Are you sure there aren't some chinese systems that use a similar approach (I actually just assumed that the idea went from China to Okinawa)? I can apply the same process to Tai Ji forms and get useful results. For example 'Grasping swallows tail' can be a nice arm-bar or neck-break, rather than the kind of activity that the RSPB might take you to court over.

I'm sure their Kung Fu systems that have "kata's", I do Wing Chun and the second form in that is probably very similar to a Kata, although I have avoided learning it to a great extent. It is a bit abstract in many ways, but when people say this could be a grab and armlock etc, I'd rather spend an hour on the mats learning how to get people in an arm bar etc than learning something that might represent that.

I believe that in the old days there was more emphasis on kata and less on the 'kihon', or basic techniques in karate. The basics were practiced via the kata rather than in isolation. That's my personal belief anyway. I know that for many people patterns are difficult to learn. But once they are learnt they should stay with you for life. But I'm lucky, I have the geeky sort of brain that makes picking up new forms relatively easy. That said I have about 25 that I practice and I neither need nor want any more.

I agree though, there are different ways of reaching the same point. And certainly I would never advocate the practice or performance of kata to the exclusion of hands on practice.

Mike

I just think your lucky you can remember them so well, I can memorise text easily, but learning a kata is very hard for me. I feel like I'm wasting my time, concentrating too much on what move to do next when I should think more about the technique at hand.

I do prefer the hands on practice, maybe I am missing out on things, how much, I don't know[?] Although there are several Kung Fu forms/patterns that I should know by now, I should commit some time to learning them properly. When it comes down to it I'd rather spend time learning the applications with a partner in a non choreographed way.

Mike Flanagan

29-Nov-2002, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by pgm316

Its the way I've always learnt, concentrating on one technique at a time and learning its applications,

I think this is actually a very similar approach, its just that in the kata these techniques are strung together in a sequence.

then the pattern is occasionally done after this, often no pattern practice at all. Although its really just been repeating techniques with footwork. The kata seems to be a different beast entirely than our patterns. Instead of the simple block/hit/move repeat, yours simulates a more complex fight........

More complex? Well yes and no. How's about that for committing myself:) Yes, in the sense that there may possibly be more information encoded in the kata than there is in just a collection of techniques.

But not more complex in the sense that the opponent does this, so I do that, but he then does this and I counter with that. Its not a choreographed fight in that sense. You can still break the kata down into individual movements that have combat applications. But you can, in some cases, also break it down into whole sequences that have applications.

I'm sure their Kung Fu systems that have "kata's", I do Wing Chun and the second form in that is probably very similar to a Kata, although I have avoided learning it to a great extent. It is a bit abstract in many ways, but when people say this could be a grab and armlock etc, I'd rather spend an hour on the mats learning how to get people in an arm bar etc than learning something that might represent that.

I think the value in abstraction is that you can build up and practice a small repetoire of movements that have many different applications. But I suppose you could still practice those movements individually without having to put them in a kata.

I just think your lucky you can remember them so well, I can memorise text easily, but learning a kata is very hard for me. I feel like I'm wasting my time, concentrating too much on what move to do next when I should think more about the technique at hand.

I suppose I am lucky. When I first started Karate I took to kata quite easily. I can still piece together to some degree the Taekwondo patterns I learnt, even though I haven't practiced them in over 15 years. On the other hand my sparring sucked.:(

I do prefer the hands on practice, maybe I am missing out on things, how much, I don't know[?] Although there are several Kung Fu forms/patterns that I should know by now, I should commit some time to learning them properly. When it comes down to it I'd rather spend time learning the applications with a partner in a non choreographed way.

Like I said before, I don't think forms are absolutely vital, but I believe they are very useful. But at least practising applications but no forms is way better than doing it the other way round. Which, daft as it sounds, is seen in some karate schools.

Mike

Cain

29-Nov-2002, 03:41 PM

Besides where's Jonny? He seems to be missing in action, hmm.....he still has to clarify wat exactly he meant by traditional.......

|Cain|

pgm316

30-Nov-2002, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan

Like I said before, I don't think forms are absolutely vital, but I believe they are very useful. But at least practising applications but no forms is way better than doing it the other way round. Which, daft as it sounds, is seen in some karate schools.

Mike

I think you've summed it up perfectly with the last paragraph!

And yeah, wheres Jonny gone!

RedDragon

18-Jul-2003, 04:33 PM

I don't think that the tradition is dying, although my club just received an infusion of "tradition" form Gosei Yamaguchi. My Sensei's Sensei (say that 10 times fast!)... Shehan Don Benoit, just returned from San Diego after training with Yamaguchi Sensei, and many of our techniques that have changed over the years are being reverted back to the traditional ways... So we are seeing it as becoming more traditional, not losing tradition.

paul paterson

18-Jul-2003, 08:22 PM

Osu,

Very well written and I bow to such.

Having came through some of the most arduous style of karate that is known, by that I mean with Kyokushinkai. The "traditional" as well as the "classical" ways are being lost but have not as of yet thankfully been lost. Most sudents will be practicing some kind of karate and most will be in what is termed as sport karate. To these people the need for respect, courtesy, patience, love, and spirit has little value as the main aim is to win that big, shiny trophy. When we practice our karate we should be doing the jutsu as well as the do, sadly in today's world the do has been almost forgotten about and most practice the jutsu. In order to make the wheel, you need the spokes, the centre piece, and the outer wheel itself. The jutsu is the outer part, the do is the spokes and the centre is the person.

So what is "traditional"?

Well, thats in the eye of the beholder...

Osu.
Paul Paterson.

RedDragon

19-Jul-2003, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by paul paterson

So what is "traditional"?

Paul makes a good point, it is in the eye of the beholder... Here is what I personally think is traditional...

1) A proper bowing ceremony at the beginning and end of each class.

2) The wearing of the Traditional white Gi (Goju ryu wears white only, a must if competing at a tournament).

3) The constant practice of Kata (I do not understand how people can cut this out of their training!! :confused: )

Well, being that it is 1am, that is all that I can think of for now.

Andrew Green

19-Jul-2003, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by paul paterson

So what is "traditional"?

When you do things based on tradition, Seems simple enough ;)

I consider traditional something we should try and avoid as it prevents progress.

Would you rather study "traditional" science, or modern science if it was for practical use?

Goju

22-Aug-2003, 07:04 PM

Im sorry, and I wouldnt usually say this but, Jonny, if u are 11, I dont believe uve placed in those championships or that u are a black belt in jujutsu and that other stuff, because at my dojo www.newmarketmartialarts.com we learn traditional goju and theres no way in hell an 11 year old could get his black in even karate let alone more than one ma. again im sorry but I just dont buy it

tai-gip

17-Sep-2003, 12:39 AM

Progress ? since when is that always mean "better" progress might be understanding why the traditional moves worked rather than manipulating them for "the street" the point is its self defense..... someone attacks you defend ...that hasnt changed we just now modify moves for sparring and competitions what was a simple block counter game over is now parry parry strike parry more like dancing........ look at kata's/forms etc simple block strike....good point fighters ...block strike......
just because we get into a ring and beat oneanother up with a variety of kick and punches donst make it better ...look at both and decide which you would like to use if your life was threatened ....
the traditional block...counter or the " new improved " sparring/tournemant parry/slip counter/parry format
tradition is when it was more commonly used in actual life threatening combat...now its for amusement and sport
Just my 2 cents worth .....

remus

18-Sep-2003, 08:37 PM

What does "traditional" mean?
If it means the rituals like bowing before/after practice or bowing to shomen then it would depend on the individual practioner and dojos whether they want to put up with it or not.
Or does it mean practicing only the katas and the pre-arranged kumite and not doing the point sparring? Again that depends on the individuals,whatever works for them.
If you guys remember, Funakoshi was dead set against point sparring as it has never been done before during his and his teacher's time and he felt it will be detrimental to Karate and its practiners so it can be considered that the propagators of point sparring(modeled from Kendo) were breaking tradition.
Was it good for Karate or bad? As always it depends on the practitioner on what he wants to get out of his Karate training.

Chris J.

03-Oct-2003, 11:08 PM

Hello,
I watch this thread and really smile in a genuine way. I have been doing this for quite a few years now, and remember what I always used to view as 'traditional'.
In a nutshell, some have said here that traditional can be a restriction on new ideas, others have said that traditional is just some arbitrary militaristic teaching style that was, incidentally, invented by one Kentsu Yabu in response to increased class sizes. Prior to this Te had been trained on a more individual level. When it came into the schools, various rules and precepts were written that were to go along with it henceforward.
Are these structures and rules bad? Not at all. It works very well to teach and train that way. Are these methods the only good way? Not at all. For centuries prior to the last one, things were not done that way at all. And their training was quite valid.
So, what is 'traditional'? There are several possible interpretations of the word.

1). Traditional is bowing, saying "OSS!!", stepping across the room in lines, etc. (In my opinion this is a very simplistic interpretation).

2). Traditional is what your teacher teaches you. (in my opinion this interpretation is restrictive and beggs the question all over again).

3). Traditional varies according to ones perspective. (Now we are getting somewhere).

Traditions are developed over time. What is a tradition for one style need not be so for another. While this makes the word basically meaningless in a specific way, it can still be said that training with a traditional mindset is a good thing. It means that you look to the past methods and analyse them, learning from the work of others.

What if it were 'traditional' to formulate new ideas based on older ideas? You still keep and learn from the old, while avoiding the restriction of ignoring new methods.

There is a LOT of old information that we can sift through before being able to say that we are creating something that is new. If you have not looked at the old ways thoroughly, how can you really know that you are not just re-creating the wheel? If something seems to work, look for it in the older methods and 99 out of 100 times you will eventually find it staring back at you. Just train, enjoy, and learn from everything, especially the old ways, because it really saves time.

-Chris J.

Chris J.

12-Oct-2003, 09:36 PM

Hi,
In the modern day there is still practiced the Motobu-Ryu, of Uehara Seikichi, which came directly from the Gotende (palace hand) that had been the secret grappling art of the Okinawan Royal Court. THAT, is CLASSICAL. Looking at it one finds only few similarities to most Modern Karate.

Also there is Ryu-Te as taught today by Seuyu Oyata, which is a combination of very old information given to him by two old world Bushi, and research at Nakamura's group including katas directly from Chomo Hanashiro. That is also Classical, old world, Kempo. It comes from a time when people still respected the chinese roots of what they practiced, and thus it was called Kempo. Again there are some similarities with Modern Karate, but it is quite different in its application.

The Classical has a deep history, where the Traditional has a following and not necessarily a deep history to it, i.e., everyone agrees to do things a particular way, and it becomes a Tradition.

For years people sold us this Traditional and claimed that it was Classical. That is why most folks still do not really understand the difference between the two.

-Chris J.

Melanie

12-Oct-2003, 10:05 PM

Hello Chris :)

I have to say I really do enjoy your posts - I feel your an untapped resource on this forum but please do not let that put you off!

I have many of these conversation myself with others regarding tradition and what it entails. Unfortunately, what is also summized to be tradition has been lack of forward thinking and vision. Thankfully this is being slowly weeded out and instead of just showing what you were taught by your previous Instructor more and more "fledgling" Instructors are making it there business to provide a more flexible, visual way of training. IMHO (which doesn't say much to be honest as I have no where near as much experience as others on this thread) its the original Okinawan practices that are what I would consider to be Classical and its an area that I one day would like to look further into. I hope some of this makes sense??

Bonzai

06-May-2004, 07:57 PM

personelly i agree karate-do is slowly vanishing and for me ist a bigg same since i like traditioneel karate-do but the world and people are changing and the way of one blow to kill is of no use these day's.
And the discipline off the pupils are not the same as 50 a 100 years ago most people do karate-do as a sport or as a hobby and not as a way of life and that a same.
And because sociaty changes karate-do changes and so does the sensei's.

think carefully weather you say that your practice
karate or karate-do :)

greetz,

madfrank

10-May-2004, 03:07 PM

I have briefly glanced over this sounds like an interesting post.

The word traditional I think is a modern construct when applied to martial arts like an advertiser would use such a word.

In the tradition I started shotokan it was run by businessmen like kanazawa, Enoeda, etc who were both students in comerce i think I'm right in saying and not street fighters.

But the japanese were new to karate WW11 approx. And they radically changed the childrens art the Okinawans gave them.

I think MA's in general change constantly sometimes to their detrement i.e. when the japs turned Karate into a sport to the 90's when real fighters like Geoff Thompson, Peter Conserdine, Peyton Quinn showed us what does not work in real fights i.e. Blocks. And what does close in techniques.

Also Bunkai was largely lost as an art till George Dillman gave us the keys he learned from his Okinawan teachers, so it flows up and down.

Sticking to a tradition is not nesacarily a bad or good thing it is seeing the truth that is important.

What is karate for?

does your training work?

Are your teachers the best people to teach you what you want to know?

In the KUGB which I used to belong to out of the so called top guys there is only Terry O Neill with actual street fighting experience.

so how you gonna learn street fighting from the rest?

MF

shotokanwarrior

12-Mar-2005, 02:33 PM

I consider traditional something we should try and avoid as it prevents progress.

I agree with this.

If you mean by traditional aspect dying that it is turning into just a sport martial art, I see nothing wrong with that.

berador

12-Mar-2005, 03:32 PM

Traditional Karate, dying? Hmmmm, well for starters it was'nt traditional when it was 'invented'. The concept of 'Traditional Karate' is (after my opinion) well described in the rules of the Danish Karate Association ; By traditional karate meant karate that contains the following elements: 1; Kihon. 2; Kata. 3; Kumite (where contact that could lead to injury / knock-outs, cannot be used to win a match).

I find that as a good description for 'traditional Karate, since it lies in the spirit of Karate to evolve the practitioner of it into the best he/she can become (and thereby evolve the Karate into the best it can be too)!!!

alienlovechild

13-Mar-2005, 11:10 PM

Though, do people think that modern consumer driven culture is leading to a simplification of martial arts generally?

shotokanwarrior

14-Mar-2005, 11:47 AM

Yes, I agree - IMO that's why katas are considered so important because loads of people want to do karate for the cool factor but are too scared to walk into a ring even at semicontact. People disgust me who will happily go to kata competitions but are too scared to actually fight. If they're scared of a few contusions, they should either bite the bullet or sod off.

Goju

14-Mar-2005, 02:10 PM

jonmonk

14-Mar-2005, 02:29 PM

How about lookng at it from this point of view then? Karate (in some form or other) has a history stretching back to the first time one caveman disagreed with something another caveman did and hit him. At various points along it's evolution there have been moments where someone has tried to capture it and preserve it in case anyone else was interested. Rather like people who enjoy steam trains I suppose. When trying to compare modern karate styles to older Okinawan ones I think it's important to remember that people who love steam trains (I'm not one of them incidentally) don't justify travelling on them because they think they might get places faster.

I retreat back into my little hole... :)

powerof0ne

15-Mar-2005, 05:46 AM

I was talking about this with my father(he started in the late 60s) just the other day..for the most part I think traditional karate is dying due to many dojo focusing too much on tournaments. I don't like the term "sport karate", because I do think you can have the best of both worlds(being traditional and competing).
Unfortunately I've noticed a trend growing and growing lately...some karateka that do poorly in tournaments tend to cling on to being "traditional" and subtley putting down "sport karate". I witnessed this first hand a few months back and quit training at a private dojo because of such behavior. This can also go both ways but I see it happening more with the example I gave.
Of course all sorts of arguments can be made that go both ways for this topic..I do think that "open style" tournaments that allow crappy backhand slaps(or any touching) to score with foam pads are a total joke and harm all martial arts as a whole. So the "full contact" bunch that only witnesses these kind of tournaments putting down TMA is fully understandable(by me).
Putting down a top WKF style tournament competitor is insane to me.

shotokanwarrior

15-Mar-2005, 11:55 AM

They aren't considered to be important because it gives something for wussies to do rather than fighting. There are too many kinds of karate student. It doesn't have to be an issue of bravery or courage, it could be that some people simply don't want to fight in tournaments.

People aren't actually going to come out and say 'They're important because the martial arts are rife with pathetic little idiots who are too scared to fight so we need to give them something to do that makes them feel legitimate' but that is the honest impression I get.

I very genuinely find it incomprehensible that there are kinds of MA student whose essence is not to be able to fight. The way I see it the arete of a martial art is to make someone a good fighter and the arete of a martial artist is to BE a good fighter. I can understand people who don't have the usual motives for training, like someone who just trains to get fit, but surely they still have the aim of being a good fighter?

Oh and I'm not saying everyone should be fighting at tournaments, just that I genuinely don't see how the aim of a martial art can be something that is removed from actual fighting.