honoluludesktop

I am having second thoughts about this. But first, karate is not Karate without Kata, it is something like kick-boxing. Karate can be thought of as an empty form consisting of Kata, and Kumite. While it shares some things in common with self defense, and combat, each of these activities may be considered a separate discipline. When you think of it as a meta-form, then its function is in the eye of the beholder, as long as it consist of kata, and kumite.

Sure, that happens in some cases. But generally, if you look at the very top, say of the USANKF, or WKF, the best fighters have very good kata skills. Perhaps not at the level of the top kata champions, but certainly better then most.

IMO, when someone looks good in video, it is because they have 30+ years "on the mat", or are competitors who are making an effort to look good. I do not think style has much to do with it. Sometimes it is in "the eye of the beholder"-)

It is true that kumite is no substitute for combat. It is also true to anyone who has competes in tournament matches, that the "game" includes bruised egos, broken noses, black eyes, getting kicked in the nuts, etc. While I have never seen anyone dying in a tournament match, I have seen some depart on stretchers. IMO, criticism of kumite matches come from karateka who do not successfully compete, or from those outside the art. Still, it is important to understand the distinction between budo (kumite) and bujitsu (combat). In contemporary society, combat is restricted to law enforcement, the military, and outlaws. Except for some European countries, karate kumite remains a non-professional activity. When children compete, it is for sport. Adults that compete are less likely to do so as a sport. Most, do not like to lose, and do not like to get hurt; however many are looking for an experience that takes them to the edge of the abyss. Hence the value of rules. Finally, Karate requires kata. Without kata, it is kick boxing or another art (perhaps like Muay Thai).

You may be right. Do we even know if "jitsu" was a part of Okinawan martial culture? I have heard the argument that Japanese Juijitsu was primarily used by the Samurai to restrain an opponent they did not want to cut down, not for self defense. I have never read that Okinawan To-te was primarily used to restrain. If the primary purpose of To-te was as a "unarmed" self defense, then its function may have been different from Japanese Bujitsu. IMO, Japanese karate is the Okinawan art fused to Japanese martial culture, that were at that time, evolving from an emphasis in "jitsu" to "do". At that time, except for a few individuals, the art of To-te was virtually lost. In addition, it was the Japanese export to the Western world that perpetuated the Japanese form karate. It is conceivable that by then, many aspects of Japanese karate had cross pollinated with the Okinawans art. It may be difficult to distinguish what is Okinawan from what is Japanese. There is no question in my mind that exporting Japanese karate to the West, has also changed the art. For me the bottom line is prevailing culture and how it impacts the art. Kata is truly a "empty form", that is filled with what is allowed by contemporary culture.

Hi LivingLife in Georgia, That's the dam#$%t thing. Unless you get a recommendation from someone you trust, and who knows whats going on, like most of us, the first time is by luck. If you end up in a bad school, just have the courage to leave and look for another. The problem is when you bond, make friends, and close your mind to the possibilities.

Please don't be offended, In my cynical way, I wrote that kata is like dancing solo, where as kumite is like dancing with a partner. Neither resemble fighting, at least in the manner that I practice it

Hi Ps1 and Sojobo, While my roots are in Wado, in practice my karate is as my school evolved since the late 60s. I studied Wadoryu kihon kumite, but know more Shotokan katas, then Wadryu ones. Don't know about the rest of the world, but in my neighborhood, self defense is the only excuse for fighting. And only after you exhaust attempts to run away. I would classify the contemporary practice of Koryu as budo, not bujitsu as it was in the time of the Samurai. Even in Japan, I do not think (however don't know for sure) you are allowed to wear your katana in public. I imagine there are laws against doing so, in most places in America. I don't think Otsuka, Shiomitsu, Hirano Sensei, or any moral person is that way because of their art. We are moral because we chose to live by the standards set by the societies we are part of. But as you know, precise words are often used to express imprecise thoughts. I was introduced to Asai Sensei by my teacher. Asai Sensei believed his karate was karate-jitsu. Kanazawa on the other hand, teaches Karate strictly as budo.

It is correct to say that the idea and practice of bujitsu, and budo existed side by side in olden Koryu. But except for police and the military, bujitsu can not be legally practiced in most modern societies. Unless perhaps, one is in a situation that requires the daily practice of self defense. While I believe that zen and martial arts share similar concepts in their respective practices, by itself, martial arts is void of morality. Its "mushin" is an achievement of the "fighting mind", not "enlightenment". Of course, this is a personal observation, and other points of view may be equally valid.

This is typically the case until the competitors move beyond "state tournaments" into "regional", or "national" levels. At that point, success seems to require specialization.

While the use of these words have changed over time, the primary difference between "Bujitsu" and "Budo" is found in the "day to day" practice of martial culture. Martial arts moved from "jitsu" to "do" when the Samurai were no longer allowed their katana, and the associated rights of their status in modern society. Today, "do" is associated with the practice of martial culture without its traditional "rights".

Well, the video opens with chudan zuki: Then goes on to demonstrate Wado's basic striking principles. Sorry about the poor sound quality, but if you turn it up and listen, there is a lot of usefull information.

When starting out, the most important thing is to chose a legitimate martial art, and to find a good teacher.

Assuming you are in good health, pick a very steep hill, one that you consider impossible to run up, and can not even walk up without resting several times. Set a schedule, and run, not jog or walk, to the top. If you stop to rest, quit for that day, and return on the next scheduled date. Do not break schedule, and do not give up trying. Once you are able to run up the hill, you will have developed the necessary "confidence" in yourself to "do what it takes", and the knowledge that you have accomplished something that others haven't. Mental toughness is a combat skill more valuable then physical strength.

The attached demonstration of Wado principles, contrast itself from Shotokan, the dominant karate style in the world today. At the end of the video, Wado's means of "kime" is perhaps derived from its Jiujitsu roots. Anyone care to share how it is taught in Shito or Goju? Select the video most appropriated to your band width.

I agree that kata will not "ruin your karate", and I too enjoy competition. But IMO, Karate is not personal preference for how one trains, it is about "combat". Kata can not teach mental focus in the heat of battle, attacking without excessive tension, or even something as primitive as proper distance. Kata is OK for practicing physical technique, but by itself is only the stage that precedes combat. Kata is like the "garrisoned Army"; spit shine and polish. Anyone who has lived under fire for a prolonged period of time, knows the feeling that differentiates between kumite and kata. Most Karateka are like "garrisoned troops". Truthfully, not a bad place to be, the silence from where logical sense departs.

Practicing kata by a preconceived bunkai is OK. My personal preference however, is to use "on the mat" experiences to "fill in" its form. In any case, there is no right or wrong way, just ways that fit into an individuals needs. Some of us live in places where justice is decided by the fist. Others live where its best to run and call the police. The way we look at kata, is subject to the conditions of the place we happen to be, and second to our personal feelings.

Isn't it more likely that kumite and kata are exclusive, but with some overlap? Point sparring is a subset of kumite. Kata is a tool for practice that has some things in common with kumite, but not a substitute for fight experience. IMO, excelling in kata is more like dance, then fighting.

My mother gave me the first edition of this book when I began to practiced karate. Along with Oyama's "What is Karate", and Nakayama's "Dynamic Karate", these books brought Karate to America, and western culture. Today we have many qualified teachers, and books like this are (IMO), not as valuable. But they are classic, and invaluable when a good instructor is not available.

There is no question that kata champions are good at what they do, but in a martial art, kumite is the final judge of a champion.

Tony, There is more then one way to win, but IMO, the odds favor moving to strike (first) in reflex to correct distance. If your opponent moves before you in the same circumstance, he will hit you first. There is no way around this except by luck. Of course, for this to work against a physically superior opponent in a real fight, your strike must be sufficient to KO, upon contact. Using strategy assumes that your opponent moves in a predictable way. Do this, they do that, and you win with this. Doesn't always work that way.

IMO, this can not happen. Its virtually impossible for any advanced karateka to get hit in a prearranged situation. Especially in the case of pairing up against someone outside your class, Sensei will be especially alert, and set distance advantageous to himself. But having said that, guess I didn't answer the question.

Specifics of foot, body, and leg positions are adjustments made to the "round" kick in order to accommodate, distance, openings, etc. in the heat of a match. Each form of the kick has consequences for openings and counterattacks, but no mater how you use it, if you can hit (with adequate power) first, the technique is successful. In kata or basic practice, the kick will have a specific form for the benefit of instructions, or perhaps safety. The varieties of the kick only make themselves apparent in free sparring where the conditions are rapidly changing.

Slowhands, Going either way can require effort. I first learned naihunchidachi, and had problems with shikodachi. In any case, it just a matter of training the specific muscles for a particular stance, especially the ones you do not normally feel, the stretch muscles. It's not just turning your feet that's required, so try to remember the feeling in your legs that are used to support the different stances.