Karate without kata

[mani]

Can there be Karate without kata?

Karate has been around for hunders of years, was there ever a period where there were no kata in karate.

[Andrew Green]

No, Karate IS Kata. Without redefining karate you could not get rid of the kata and still have karate

[Adam]

I would love karate without kata. Would be perfect style for me I think.

[pgm316]

Surely you could teach people Karate without teaching the Kata's, and that would still be Karate....?

Might be wrong to still class it as a certain type of Karate.

[gingerninja]

Karate without kata = TaeBo

[mikelw]

Originally posted by gingerninja
Karate without kata = TaeBo

I'm interested to how you come to that conclusion.

[Knight_Errant]

But a lot of karate consists of training in movements, working on technique, etc. Surely if you did kihon to an advanced level it would soon just turn in to kata anyway?

[pgm316]

Originally posted by gingerninja
Karate without kata = TaeBo

So Karate is that bad then? :D

This thread is going to turn into another kata debate with the ppl that like kata saying it must be in and the people that don't saying it doesn't.........

[Knight_Errant]

Bring it on then :D

[Saz]

Nooo! Not another kata debate please!! Can't we just say some people like kata, and some people don't and live happy ever after?

[mani]

No, this debate will go on forever!!

[Knight_Errant]

I see no reason not to have this debate as long as it's conducted in a tactful fashion. Favourite kata anyone? I still like Kanku dai, but maybe I'm a retard :)

[pgm316]

Originally posted by Kyokushin_girl
Nooo! Not another kata debate please!! Can't we just say some people like kata, and some people don't and live happy ever after?

Sounds a good idea! :D

...although, thats possibly the answer to the whole kata debate!

[mani]

sure, by the way I am not against kata training. All I think is that we dont practice the right way even though the techniques have been altered.

Guess that sparks off the debate!!

[tekki]

I am convinced that Kata is the one thing that keeps karate distinct from kickboxing, TKD, and any other kicking/punching martial art.

[RedDragon]

By taking the Kata out of Karate, you are disrespecting the founding Masters of your style. They created the katas and incorporated them into the fighting style.... and to take them out is disrepectful and detrimental to the style that you practice.

Just my $0.02.

[pgm316]

Some think theres too much honoring of people, why should we do something to honor a person when each person is only a chain in the evolution of martial arts.

I'll train the way I want, I do respect the people I train with.

[RedDragon]

Without that chain of evolution of martial arts, we wouldn't be learning what we do today.... so honoring people starts with your Sensei or instructor, his instructor, and all the way back to the Masters of your style.

[Tosh]

Originally posted by tekki
I am convinced that Kata is the one thing that keeps karate distinct from kickboxing, TKD, and any other kicking/punching martial art.

Err TKD has patterns/kata you know!

[Knight_Errant]

By taking the Kata out of Karate, you are disrespecting the founding Masters of your style
It is too late in the day and I am to mellow to properly formulate an answer to that one- fortunately. :)
I honestly don't think this argument has any logical coherence or intellectual merit. I very much doubt that the originators of Karate would want their 'heirs' (accepting for the sake of argument that we are their direct heirs) to practice karate in a less than efficient way. What is so great about a long unbroken tradition of hitting people that can't be broken for the sake of efficiency and fun?

[mani]

Martial arts have to change with time and conditions of the modern world.

therefore the question of disrespecting the founders is besides the point.

[Knight_Errant]

yeah!, an... stuff...

[mani]

TKD also has kata/patterns

[KenpoDavid]

kata are the poetry of your style. when right they express the principles your style is based on.

Maybe somebody should develop a kata for the modern "NHB" "UFC" style fighting, that might be very interesting...

[mani]

I think in this modern world kata is like the alphabet.

writing the alphabet again and again is not going to make you a better story writer or poet. To become good at writing stories you have to write stories or write poems.

As in relation to martial arts kata is the alphabet which teaches you the techniques and how to make the flow together.

But if you want to be a better fighter you have to learn how to fight.

[KenpoDavid]

I think your metaphor is broken. ;)

when you say "writing the alphabet again and again is not going to make you a better story writer or poet", you are assuming that the writer has learned the alphabet.

if a writer only know the vowels (and sometimes can do Y correctly) then he doesn't know the alphabet. When you were 4 years old and learning the alphabet, how many times did you have to sing that song before you got it all the way through, correctly? Did you get a cookie when you did it? hahahaha and guess what, knowing all the letters is not enough to make you a good writer. you need all the phonetics too! and 2,3,4 letter combinations..

so here is where i think we agree : once you have mastered a kata down to every variation in pronounciation of each letter, (how many sounds does the letter g make? by itself and with any other letters?) there would be no more reason to practice that kata - you have learned its alphabet.

the big question is , who has managed to accomplish that for any given kata.

I've spoken with a 10th Dan who said he felt he had never "completely mastered" any of his Goju kata, that they all still had things to be learned, even after 49 years of study.

but yet I've read on these forums people with a few years experience claim they have no more to learn from kata.

they can't all be right haha!

David

"But if you want to be a better fighter you have to learn how to fight." I agree 100%

[mani]

Maybe I shoud say the modern way of practising kata.

Very few karatekas in the whole world nowdays probably undertsand and absorb everything in the kata.

[Em-em]

Kata is the number one reason why I'm still practicing Karate. My mother's afraid of the consequences of kumite (since my sister fractured her leg during a fight). Tekkei's my favorite.

Nevertheless, I'll still join a kumite when I'm old (and good) enough.

[Kof_Andy]

Yeah martial art can change as how it see fit in the modern world, but style can not. I agree with red-dragon, if you are not practicing style as they once were, then you can not claim to be a practitioner in that certain style. Kata prepare you for a lot of things, even though they may not seem as practical as they should. Look at it as a tool for sharpening your discipline, and mentality.

[Chris J.]

Hi,
Someone wrote "Martial arts have to change with time and conditions of the modern world."

Well, you hit on something there. (no pun intended). At one time it was actually used in warefare and daily survival. What did not work died odd, literally, and was not passed forward. I like to call this a 'trial by fire' theory. It kept techniques honest, reasonable and workable.
Today we have tournaments. Can you imagine what sorts of BS techniques might creep into a style if we left the katas behind and let things develop as they would? Some folks actually do this, and believe me it is not pretty and it does not last 3 seconds past contact in a real fight.
Today, kata is all we have left of a time when all techniques were tested in trial by fire. I would not give it up, myself. If you think a technique in an old kata would not work, you possibly do not understand it well; keep working it anyway for at least 15 years, then decide.

-Chris J.

[Megilar]

I would have to agree Chris. Kata and the techniques that have been used for centuries seem to work pretty well. Why would we bother to change it if it works perfectly fine? But then again, martial arts didn't help much when the Japanese invaded Okinawa in WW2, according to my dad.

[GrappleorWrestle]

My Sensei has told me he knows of some "schools of thinking" that just teach kata, no sparring or little of it, and others that do not teach kata at all and the instructors beat their lessons into their students. My Sensei has taught me without one to support the other you do not have a sturdy foundation to stand on. Because katas show you the moves, where sparring will teach you how to apply them. While you progress in your learning you will find other applications of the strikes, blocks, and throws in the katas and be able to apply them to your sparring and/or fighting.

I figured I would just share my opinion.

[BoRiJo]

To me what makes karate what it is, is kime, locking out all muscles at the moment of impact. Shoulder extention, hip snap etc. These are all the same regardless whether or not one is doing kata or not. IMO that kata is a training aid not the essence of karate.

[FrankCefalu]

I agree with Broijo. Once agian, like I said in a earlier post. Kata is truely an artful form of moves to test ones performance, and posture. The actual application of these moves will have to be done on instinct, and I truely doubt you will perform a kata on the battlefield.

Maybe individual moves learned from the kata, that you already learned anyways from training will be applied with the knowledge and experience you already have learned. I see kata as a ceromonial dance of moves, to show respect to past masters of karate.

Actual application of moves comes from your basics training. Cuz thats where all your advance moves originated from. So its from instinct, in a real fight unless you did the kata more than your regular punchs and side kicks, your nto going to use it in a real life fight.

[GrappleorWrestle]

bingo... I could not agree more. I thought I said that, but not as clear as you did, so thanks for your input.

[kerling]

If you train sparring and with out kata you often leave out more complex parts of your karate.

Once you know a kata by heart and with your spine your kata techniques should become spinal reflects and usable in a real fight.

I have felt this and thought .. WOW where the hell did that come from and when I realize it's from a kata I think: "Kata is good way to pass down experience to future generations."

Regards Kerling

[Kwajman]

Curious, I'm TKD and we have forms, which is like your kata. So explain please? :confused:

[Megilar]

In my opinion, kata is a series of movements or techniques. They are designed to give us a chance to practice techniques and find different applications.

For example, in Goju Ryu, in the kata Gekisai dai ich, you start by pivoting to the left, executing a high block. You step forward with a strike, and step back into a low stance (shiko dachi) with a low block from the direction you just came. This is half of the opening sequence.

The most obvious application of this is when you know an attack is coming from your left. Or even if it's coming from in front of you, you could just skip the pivoting step. So let's do it that way. You step into the stance (sanchin dachi) and block high, step forward and strike where you have been for the countless number of times you performed the kata previously (assuming you're like me :p). Then you step back into Shiko and block low, eliminating the threat of a kick or punch by both moving yourself away and blocking.

And then you can modify it. Say when you initially block, you grab their hand or arm or wrist (assuming they're striking with one of those) and then just form a fist in their flesh. then as you move in and strike, your clenching arm moves just like it has for countless times before, drawing your opponent into your accelerating fist as you step forward. Then as you step back into shiko, you shed them off and push them away as you low block.

There are many different applications just with the first three movements of the kata. That is my explination of kata, and that also effectively explains why i think you need it to have karate. You practice the techniques over and over again, to or near the point where its muscle memory. Now that i'm done ranting and raving, i'm going to go now.

[47Ronin]

KARATE WITH OUT KATA?
LUNGS WITHOUT AIR?

[Megilar]

Very well put, Ronin.

[kerling]

Yes very well put.

[Tosh]

Originally posted by 47Ronin
KARATE WITH OUT KATA?
LUNGS WITHOUT AIR?

Bjollocks! :D

Karate without Kata = Human Body without Appendix ;)

[Sonshu]

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?

[Mrs Owt]

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.

[Maximicus]

The First Karate was JUST kata! You learned the rest through kumite. Karate without kata is streetfighting. Kata is esential to karate.

[Matt_Bernius]

Originally posted by KenpoDavid
kata are the poetry of your style. when right they express the principles your style is based on.

Maybe somebody should develop a kata for the modern "NHB" "UFC" style fighting, that might be very interesting...

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

[Sonshu]

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.

[Mike Flanagan]

Hi Sonshu

Originally posted by Sonshu
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.

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

[Mrs Owt]

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.

[Reiki]

There can never be karate without kata IMHO

and failing to develop the kata's applications is wasting the knowledge stored within the kata....

[Sonshu]

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!

[Aravi]

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.

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by Sonshu
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.

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

[Tosh]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan
"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?

[Sonshu]

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:

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by Tosh
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?

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

[kerling]

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

[Sonshu]

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.

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by kerling
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.

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

[Matt_Bernius]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan
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, 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

[kerling]

Originally posted by rockOn_Matt 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 [/B]

Here I kind of disagree with you!
If you train karate as a traditionally for life and death type of matches jumping upp and down won't help you a bit.
Gettin a tap on someone cheak is not going to make him go flat down.

Traditional kumite if I may call it that. If more into the point of showing that your techinque was in there and would have worked. Not TKD style jumping.

Not many clubs have traditional tournaments like this. So the diffrence you talk is modern and sport like not heavy damage killing like.

So you should practice your kumite as kata like if you want it to be as strong and as effective as that.

Regards Kerling

[Matt_Bernius]

Actaully Kerling, I think we just said the same thing.

I should note that when I use the phrase sparring, I tend to mean more traditional Kumite rather than modern point sparring. Unltimately I was simply questioning why some practioners of different arts practice their forms and movements one way and spar another. I tend to think, as Mike put it, this is causing you to train in two conflicting directions (or at least non-complimentary directions).

The way you describe Kumite it's clear that you're talking about fihting the way you practice. And personally (and perhaps a bit snobbishly) I think that's they way things should be done.

- Matt

[Mike Flanagan]

I actually think that the techniques in the kata are on the whole incompatible with just about any sort of karate sparring I've seen. The main problem seems to be the non-tactile nature of sparring. To be anything like real violence then sparring should allow such supposedly non-karate tactics as grabbing and barging.

I remember basically being disqualified the last time I took part in any proper karate sparring - I grabbed my opponents arm and punched him 3 or 4 times in the head and body (each time with control and appropriate restraint). At least 2 of the techniques found their mark but I did not score any points:-( Instead the match was stopped on a technicality (my slightly bleeding lip).

The movements in the kata were originally designed for dealing with real violence. The movements in most karate sparring were designed for a sporting environment. Its as simple as that in my opinion.

Mike

[Matt_Bernius]

Mike,

I think it all comes down to how a school spars. I can say that what you described (grabbing and punching) is totally within the bounds of how we spar at our school. It's my assumption (probably incorrect) that this type of sparring is similiar to traditional Kumite.

I do agree that the staccato rythm of point sparring makes it difficult to access "traditional" techniques. I would also argue that that modern point sparring is inherental more of an artificial creation than any traditional kata (but that' just me getting "hoity toity").

- Matt

[Tosh]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan
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.......B]

Hi Mike, i was playing Devil Advocate there!:D in step sparring you always see student trying to usethis block to block punches. I was using that example to illustrate a block out of context. P.s I teach downward strikes in step sparring in my TKD class but I get your point! :D


[b]
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.


I agree with you here to an extent. This really depends on your defination of "beginner" here. I mean as far as I am concerned it's only after black belt (in my syllabus style) that you actually start following these moves through to conclusion (wether that be a throw, control position.

I know that this is not the case in a lot of schools and instructors are not realising what they are doing due to "Yes Sensie"ism. But i mean that does not mean the it has to stay that way. I mean the more people realise the problem surely the situation gets better?

What do you think?

[Noodle]

My understanding of the history of karate is that kata was introduced as a method to teach karate to groups of people. This became a stronger need around 1901 when karate was no longer only taught in secret and moved into the school system of Okinawa. This implies that at one point karate did not have kata. When? I do not know.

The other side of this argument is that since karate evolved from chinese kung-fu, and since kung-fu has maintained forms as part of its training since inception, it would be hard to imagine karate not starting with at least some of these forms or variations.

My personal feeling is that karate had a large influence taken from the hsing-i forms combined with some hard style. Karate could exist without kata, but then it would be taught in a different manner. I suspect it would prolong the time required to convey the essence of karate to the student. Most things evolve for a reason, so without any other consideration, I would be lead to suspect that kata may have been introduced (or exists) simply because it is an efficient (though perhaps not complete) method of teaching some principles.

Followers of O'Sensei Hohan Soken and Taika Oyata Sensei (perhaps other?) might claim that much of Okinawan karate has degenerated into sport karate and that the true understanding of kata is lost on most students (and teachers).

This type of discussion usually mentions Master Bruce Lee's opinions. To be fair I believe Master Lee was mainly focused on efficient and effective combat and was already a consummit martial artist. To be fair to most martial styles, most transcend combat. Many of the aspects, kata being one, is not only a method to convey martial techniques, but also a method to transcend the individual to a higher level of understanding (take this to mean what you will based on your religion/beliefs).

To answer the question, there could be karate without kata, but it would be something different. It would look more similar to something like JKD, something combat oriented. I would not say that it would not be karate, because karate-jitsu would probably be the same, but I would probably agree that it would no longer be karate-do.

Just my 3 cents (i'm a good tipper),
noodle

[Matt_Bernius]

Wowzers, lots of great points...

Originally posted by Noodle
My understanding of the history of karate is that kata was introduced as a method to teach karate to groups of people. This became a stronger need around 1901 when karate was no longer only taught in secret and moved into the school system of Okinawa. This implies that at one point karate did not have kata. When? I do not know.

The other side of this argument is that since karate evolved from chinese kung-fu, and since kung-fu has maintained forms as part of its training since inception, it would be hard to imagine karate not starting with at least some of these forms or variations.

Think there were existing forms/Kata prior to the mainstreaming of Karate. What I expect is that the initial Kata/Forms were closer to Chinese training sets and short forms. There is evidence that Karate went through a number of rapid changes when it "went above ground." My understanding was that steps were taken to make the movements look less "Chinese" and to alter beginning forms to make them "safer" to teach in schools. (There was an article on this in the Journal of the Asian Martial Arts either last year or early this year.)

As you said it yourself, it's hard to believe that those forms weren't there due to the roots of the system.

Originally posted by Noodle
My personal feeling is that karate had a large influence taken from the hsing-i forms combined with some hard style. Karate could exist without kata, but then it would be taught in a different manner. I suspect it would prolong the time required to convey the essence of karate to the student. Most things evolve for a reason, so without any other consideration, I would be lead to suspect that kata may have been introduced (or exists) simply because it is an efficient (though perhaps not complete) method of teaching some principles.

I also have to agree on Hsing-i's "quiet" role in the development of Karate. Since I began studying Hsing-i I've noticed a number of parallels.

Also agree that Kata represents the "syllabus" for teaching Karate. In side the forms are:
a. Movements and techniques
b. Attitudes
c. Theory
So using the Kata a teacher could easily select a subset and dedicate an entire lesson to those concepts.

Originally posted by Noodle
This type of discussion usually mentions Master Bruce Lee's opinions. To be fair I believe Master Lee was mainly focused on efficient and effective combat and was already a consummit martial artist. To be fair to most martial styles, most transcend combat. Many of the aspects, kata being one, is not only a method to convey martial techniques, but also a method to transcend the individual to a higher level of understanding (take this to mean what you will based on your religion/beliefs).

I kinda cringe when Master Lee is brought into these discussions (though not inthis case). It's important when discussing him to keep in mind that his life was cut radically short. I think it's dangerous to use his name/words as a sole position for the removal of forms. To suppose that at the age of 32 his ideas and philosophies had evolved to their logical conclusion is a very risky assumption. He's a great source of ideas, but I wonder how much his veiws on things like forms/trainings sets would have altered is he was still alive today.

Originally posted by Noodle
To answer the question, there could be karate without kata, but it would be something different. It would look more similar to something like JKD, something combat oriented. I would not say that it would not be karate, because karate-jitsu would probably be the same, but I would probably agree that it would no longer be karate-do.

Just my 3 cents (i'm a good tipper),
noodle

I think all of this was worth more than 3 cents! Those are great ideas and points. Espeically the "karate-jitsu" vs. "karate-do"! All around great post noodle!

- Matt

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by rockOn_Matt
I think it all comes down to how a school spars. I can say that what you described (grabbing and punching) is totally within the bounds of how we spar at our school. It's my assumption (probably incorrect) that this type of sparring is similiar to traditional Kumite.


When I was kid doing Wado Ryu in the 70's you were allowed to grab the arm and punch, but you had to let go immediately, whether you'd scored or not.

Most clubs I've seen since then don't allow any grabbing at all. Maybe its also my personal style of defending myself (I'm not going to say sparring) that causes me difficulty to stay within the rules. Having closed with the opponent I want to stay close to him and in physical contact with until he has been completely subdued. This for me means that a confrontation will be over in the first couple of seconds, through the succesful use of striking techniques or we will close and go to a combination of grappling and striking. This makes it very difficult for me to 'spar' in the traditional sense and stay within (or even anywhere near) the rules.

Mike

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by Tosh
I know that this is not the case in a lot of schools and instructors are not realising what they are doing due to "Yes Sensie"ism. But i mean that does not mean the it has to stay that way. I mean the more people realise the problem surely the situation gets better?

I'm not sure what your point is here to be honest ??

Mike

[Mike Flanagan]

Originally posted by Noodle
My understanding of the history of karate is that kata was introduced as a method to teach karate to groups of people. This became a stronger need around 1901 when karate was no longer only taught in secret and moved into the school system of Okinawa. This implies that at one point karate did not have kata. When? I do not know.

Hi Noodle

Maybe there was a time when okinawan martial arts didn't have kata, but I'm sure it will be have been a lot earlier than 1901. There are plenty of examples of kata existing before then. For example, Funakoshi learnt the 3 Naihanchi kata during the 1870's/1880's.

Mike

[Tosh]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan
I'm not sure what your point is here to be honest ??

Mike

Point I was making was that a lot of the reasons for doing things have been lost only to be replaced with "Because that's the way it's always been done".

I know in TKD I've been to countless classes who's instructors couldn't give me any of the reasons (or even worse didn't understand the actual reasons) why certain training tolls are used.

But then I rarely see any method of evaluating instructors on a regular basis like any other teaching/training/coaching practice does.

At the end of the day a lot of "Instructors" are really just black belts of arts how are told to move on and open schools rather than being trained in the material they are actually teaching.

[Noodle]

Originally posted by Mike Flanagan
Hi Noodle

Maybe there was a time when okinawan martial arts didn't have kata, but I'm sure it will be have been a lot earlier than 1901. There are plenty of examples of kata existing before then. For example, Funakoshi learnt the 3 Naihanchi kata during the 1870's/1880's.

Mike


I'm not implying that kata started in 1901. I state that I don't know when it started or if it was just always there. What I DID mean to imply was that 1901 was a significant point in karate history that may have had a large impact on kata. This impact may be in the form of increased number of katas, or more likely modified versions of the original katas. There are plenty of examples of history that support the idea that not all kata was taught to the public. Even Funakoshi was refused a certain kata that he requested.

Personally, I buy into the theory that kata was the natural interpretation of the chinese forms.

[Matt_Bernius]

After a littl ebit of searching I came up with that article I started to cite earlier. It appeared in the Journal of the Asian Martial Arts, Volume 11, Number 4, 2002.

It's entitiled:
Hopkins, G. "The lost secrets of Okinawan Goju-ryu: What the kata shows"

The author goes into great detail talking about the changes that occured to Karate at the turn of the centure and the long term effects that those changes have had. If you can track it down it's a great read and supports a number of Noodle's points.

- Matt

[PlasmaShock]

Can there be Karate without kata?

Karate has been around for hunders of years, was there ever a period where there were no kata in karate.

A couple of words my friend. American Freestyle Karate. They do katas but it just looks like a dance. they have no focus on the key points and important factors of what katas should be like.

[elektro]

I actually think that the techniques in the kata are on the whole incompatible with just about any sort of karate sparring I've seen. The main problem seems to be the non-tactile nature of sparring. To be anything like real violence then sparring should allow such supposedly non-karate tactics as grabbing and barging.

Exactly. And yeah I tend to find myself grabbing a lot too. I do a lot of Kata.

Without Kata on a more simple level it would be hard to catalogue the different techniques.

[Moosey]

Karate without kata
I wish!!!!

[Pete Ticali]

walking without crawling?
Armies without basic training?

Can you tell me of a martial arts without stances, without strikes, without techniques? And, if you learn those stances,strikes,techniques, how do you incorporate them into situational movement?

I believe there is a famous phrase that goes something like: If there were no god, man would hav a need to invent one.

Call it what you like, but Kata is mandatory to good training. Those who disagree are probably questioning the timelessness of particular kata(s), not the need for kata itself. Anyone who has ever put two techniques together into a "combination", reinforces that Kata is mandatory.

Has anyone ever been on a beach whan a Guy with huge arms & chest walks by with skinny legs?. Human nature makes people do what they do well, rather than do what they need. That is what Kata prevents. You must perfect the entire thing, not just the parts you think apply. After all, how can you (and I) assume we're competent enough to decide these issues. WE are simply the students (regardless of our rank). No martial artist is greater than the martial art itself.

If you don't understand...it simply means you don't understand yet. Keep working, it will become clear when you are ready!

just my .02

Pete Ticali