Cool...I mean...if I was designing a martial art that involved kata I'd make them progressive and building blocks that build on the preceeding kata. But sadly Karate founders didn't really do that. This is especially true in something like Shotokan which seems to bung as many kata as it can in the syllabus.
All a kata is, really, is a method for remembering techniques that you have learned and building muscle memory for them. I developed a short "kata" (for lack of a better term) to help me remember a choke/grab/punch defense a joint lock and sweep combination that I learned at a seminar, for instance. We were never encouraged to create our own kata, per se, but in my Shuri-Ryu dojo we would do something called juju undo (or jiyu undo, depending on who you asked), meaning "free exercise". Basically it was shadow boxing with karate techniques, and many of us would fall into a pattern of techniques that we like the most and it did come out as a bit of a kata. I think that your Sensei is either too closed-minded or he is misunderstanding your intent. From what I can tell he is thinking that when you say "kata" you mean a form that will be taught and passed on as curriculum to other students. That is something that a lot of martial artists would frown upon, but it isn't unheard of (Shuguro Nakazato created the kata Gorin, for example, although that was specifically to showcase Okinawan karate for the Olympics). What you have done is create a form to remember and practice a technique that you like. I personally don't believe that elbow strikes, while valuable, are something that warrant a kata to remember or develop muscle memory for, but that is really for you to decide.
I create new kata quite frequently: They're called "renraku waza" (combination techniques) and we practice them everytime we do Kihon. Gary
Don't most styles do the "new kata each grade" thing? I don't know how shidokan deal with kata, but most of the karate styles have you learning a kata per grade up until black belt when you get a bit more flexibility in your choice of kata for gradings. If you think shotokan has a lot of kata (24, I think) you should see how many ****o ryu practice!
That's not entirely true. Otsuka sensei (for one) was very specific when he prescribed the kata (and how and when they were to be learnt) within the educational "structure" of Wado-ryu. Kata should be learnt in the correct order - otherwise the system does not make sense. Gary
It does seem like your sensei needs to be brought not really into the 21st century, but into the 18th. You say your sensei is traditional...well, he really isn't at all. He just thinks he is. Kata really was created with application in mind and was not created in some idealistic bubble. His understanding of kata is pretty immature and honestly I would seriously question training with him further. If you are concerned about being tossed out due to disloyalty, then yeah. Probably time to find a better school. In this day and age there are bound to be better ones out there. Training the way you are, especially since you're asking about training yourself on the sly, is going to hamper you in the long term and you will eventually find yourself stuck in a rut from improper training. What someone else said is pretty valid. If you're not used to doing elbos much and not in kata especially your creating a kata featuring elbos will most likely be fundamentally flawed. Sorry to be such a downer, but I suspect you will agree with me for the most part here. ETA: I have a great book that talks a lot about the origins of Karate and kata as well. [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Shotokans-Secret-Karates-Fighting-Origins/dp/0897501446"]Amazon.com: Shotokan's Secret: The Hidden Truth Behind Karate's Fighting Origins (9780897501446): Bruce D. Clayton: Books[/ame] After reading that you'll have a lot better perspective on this whole thing.
To me this is akin to saying: "no new theories are to be proposed by students/researchers of this particular branch of science because it would dilute the identity and tradition of the study, since the student is the vehicle for perpetuating science into the future. The new hypothoses would contaminate the purity of science." .....cos yeah, that would be good....
On the subject of what constitutes tradition in Karate, have a look at this article: http://www.practicalkarate.co.uk/JissenTradition.html
Sorry, I'm in the middle of writing a paper for class (and really shouldn't be on MAP at all) but I felt a need to respond to this point If a style doesn't evolve, it doesn't survive. Plain and simple. It's how Karate was made (for anyone who doesn't know their karate history, it was developed in the Ryukyu Islands from Chinese combat arts with a native influence. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karate ) It's how Karate survived into Japan, developing Shotokan. It's how Karate survived post-WWII. It's how Karate survives today into the world of MMA. It's how those kata that you practice now were developed, and IMO it's how you should train.
I don't think it is that simple. New styles often evolve out of existing ones, but that doesn't mean to say that the existing style is spent. Also -in karate at least, all too often new styles are created by people that "think" they have learnt all there is to know about the style they are studying - and feel that they can enhance it - thus creating their own style. Put simply, these people are either students that have left the kiln of the dojo half cooked or didn't have a very good instructor in the first place. My own style, Wado-ryu,has suffered hugely from this, ending up with a plethora of groups now (here in the uk at least) that claim to be "Wado based". Truth is, they are nothing more than an "homogenised" kicky punchy karate that has no intelligence applied to it – they just use the Wado badge above the door. Many Japanese arts (not just the martial variety) have the “Shu-ha ri” process of development. This is a hugely complex thing to comprehend, because it is quite alien to our way of thinking in terms of educational pedagogy. If you can understand it (and not just the convenient version touted by many self proclaimed "bunkai masters" of today) you will be half way there. Gary
Osu Tanpopo, congratulations & Kudos to you to explore and study YOUR karate; and if you make mistakes along the way, you'll learn something, it is okay! From what I understand, you simply need to avoid calling what you do a kata (call it a TaKa maybe? or a practice routine if you don't want to sound a tad provocative...) so that your instructor sleeps well at night in the certainty of your total obedience. Osu!
Hmm, I'm on the instructors side here. My personal take on things like this (not seeing enough "elbows" or similar), and seeing that as a flaw that needs correction typically means that the person has not understood the system itself yet. Realistically, my first question (if I was the instructor presented) and a student came to me asking if they could develop a new kata to fill such a percieved gap would be to get the student to explain to me the strategies, tactics, movements, ranges, methods, and reasons for each of the above in the art in question, then to put forth some reasons for the gap being present (if indeed it actually is). If any part of the answer was lacking, then there is no reason to go about filling gaps, it's like looking at the framework of a half-built house, and trying to go about with rubber cement trying to fill up the holes in the walls, rather than wait for the walls to be finished. If a student prematurely started to look for gaps, and then try to fill them with their own (honestly) limited understanding, or expectations of what they think "should" be there, then all they are doing is moving away from the actual art they are studying. That doesn't mean that the "new kata" won't have value, work, or be good (although, frankly, I'd have my doubts), but there is virtually no chance that it will really be the same system of Karate as is being studied. Really, if the art is missing something like elbows, I'd be far more interested in looking at why (such as whether they are part of the applications that have not yet been studied, as the range is considered a higher level application, or the primary strategy being based around maintaining a range outside of "elbow range", or the power development being based on extension of limbs, at least in the early levels, and only once that is developed that it would then be taken to closer ranges such as elbows, and so on....). The current obsession with being a "complete fighter" is something I am rather against, as all it means is that people are not looking at what their arts actually offer (and the reasons for it, as well as how to use it proplerly), instead they are looking for what they think is missing, again typically from a very incomplete understanding of the art they are looking at.
Can't agree at all. It's not about what is missing, it's about putting together the different components of fighting into a whole so you can be good at all of them. I should think it's especially important for self defence...no good being able to knock that rapist out with a perfect right hook if he gets you to the ground in a surprise attack...
I'd also disagree with this. The other day I told one of the instructors I go to now, a 5th dan in the IOGKF under Morio Higaonna Sensei, that I had taken up Judo to supplement my training. He told me that the day he graded to nidan, Higaonna Sensei told him "Now you go do Judo, learn to groundfight". Higaonna Sensei himself holds a sandan in Judo and I think the number of people who understand our art (Goju-Ryu) the best could probably be counted on 1 hand, with him near the top. Not sure if cross training was part of your reference but that's my 2c.
I'll see if I can clarify, then. I'm not necessarily saying that cross-training is bad, or even ill-advised, provided the right reasons are there. Now, I will also preface this by saying that although I do have a background in Karate (and TKD - Tani-ha ****o Ryu Shukokai Karate Do and Rhee Tae Kwon Do), my views are based more in traditional arts, and the way to preserve them. To me, one of the reasons to train in an art is to learn that art. It can then be used to suit whatever reasons you have for training in it, whether that be self defence, fitness, competition (provided that is part of the system), and so on. Now, if you start adding different things from other areas, or worse, just because you think it "should" be there, how are you still training or studying in that original art? Simply, without understanding why some things may or may not be included, and then changing things to suit your perceptions of what is or isn't "supposed" to be there, or desired, you aren't training in that art anymore. That, I feel, is where the instructor was coming from, which is something I wholeheartedly agree with. Bluntly, if a student of mine starts bringing in things that are not part of what we do, I stop them. And the reason I stop them is always pointed out; I always take the time to point out where what they are doing is contradicting our approach, and so on. If you're coming to me to learn an art, don't tell me how it should be done or what it should include until you have some real experience yourself, and the understanding as to why we would or wouldn't include it. Otherwise, if you know what should be there better than myself (or the instructor mentioned in the OP), then stop learning from me. When it comes to cross-training, specifically in ways similar to the story that Willsy mentioned, that's actually the way I recommend it to happen (and something we highly encourage our seniors to engage in it). At Nidan, the instructor had the essential aspects of Goju Ryu Karate instilled, and was seasoned, experienced, and had understanding of his system. At that point, he was encouraged to expand his understanding of ranges and methods, by training in Judo. And, I would posit, that the Nidan instructor would take this new understanding and use it to deepen his understanding of his karate. However if he had started training in Judo and Karate early, or tried to add a lot of ground work into karate without understanding Karate well enough in the first place, then the success would have been rather limited, to say the least. As to Coronavirus' comments, again my take is that if you are training an art, then you should be training in that art, warts and all. If you're training in a traditional system (designed for a different method of attack from a different culture, time, and place), and expect it to be automatically suited to modern self defence, then you're probably training in the wrong system (or at least, training in it for less-than-suited reasons). So, if you are looking purely at self defence, then training in a traditional system is not ideal; but adding other aspects are just going to remove you from training in the art. In terms of training in a martial art, one of the things you are training in is the methods (strategies and tactics) of that art, which are then expressed through it's techniques. A "right cross" by itself is just not martial arts, and cannot be taken as an example of "what you might do", however the application of a right cross can be (ie the distancing concepts, entering, covering, targeting, and so forth). Absolutely ideally, the martial art training would enable the woman to maintain distance in order to apply the right cross before she was taken to the ground, rather than just saying "well, how would it help there?". And even if she was taken to the ground, striking can still be effective, so the martial art training can be carried over to that environment as well (by learning to apply the same power generation, say, pushing against the ground [with your feet when standing, possibly the same on the ground] in order to apply a striking tactic there). Really, it comes down to whether you are wanting to train in and study the martial art, or if you are just wanting a series of moves that you can try to apply, and hope you have everything covered. Personally, I'd rather have a set of strategies and tactics that I can apply in multiple environments and situations, rather than trying to put together as many different sources to try and cover as many bases as possible. And that is only achievable by training a martial art, and not trying to move past it without the requisite understanding of it in the first place.
Those who haven't heard it might like this: http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/martial-map-free-audio-book
I accept that John, however this is where a good instructor comes in. An instructor who can nurture both types of student, and give them both what they need out of the style. Again - the problem with that lies not with the style imo, but with the teacher. Also my exact comment was "all too often" - I did not say it was the case at all times. I agree with Chris when he mentions peoples obsession about becoming the best fighter / self defence exponent – as quickly as possible – at the expense of learning a style for the sake of absorbing what the style has to offer. More often than not, traditional styles (particularly Japanese styles) have a set process of learning – jump ship too early and there is a risk that you won’t be able to figure out how it works, or at least you won’t get the best out of the style. Admittedly (as you know), I don’t really do Karate (in the Okinawan sense) so maybe my understanding comes more from the traditional Japanese process of things. The problem is, I know of at least one fringe minority that are a very big group here in the UK with hundreds if not thousands of members. Equally - making the assumption that traditional MA are automatically flawed "because things have moved on" is a misleading argument. Ways of training have changed as a result of technology, that I understand, however we still have the same amounts of arms and legs etc., as we did all those years back. Just because a system is "traditional" doesn't mean it is incomplete. Again, I can only draw from my experiences in Wado , but as mentioned earlier I know of several groups here in the UK that claim to have come from Wado. On the surface they have technique and approaches where you can see the Wado influences, but dig a little deeper and there is nothing there – just kicking and punching. Why? Because most of the time the instructors didn’t hang around long enough to peel away the layers of the onion (staying on your ingredients theme ) to reveal what was underneath. Not aimed at anyone in particular. We haven’t had one of these for a while fella. Gary
