Kata - What's it all for?

[tallgeese]

I'm not seeing it either. Given that you are going to have to spend time in bunkai for each link in the kata, if you just worked bunkai of random linked movements outside of kata, you would get a similar effect - you would lose the time spent memorizing the ritual, but lose the ritual itself. That said, I don't think people in America have their life or psyche structured in a way that possessing the ritual is actually useful. So it's just a block of memorization to restrict your linking movements study to a certain serial chain.

That's kind of my thoughts on the matter. The freedom to experiment and made drills live that dispensing with the ritual gives you really streamlines learning.

[Dobbersky]

The main issue I have with kata/self-defense is that its more of a roundabout way of learning self-defense. You can learn self-defense without spending time on kata.

Its a bit like mathematics. as long as you can add, subtract, multiply and divide do you really need Calculus etc

OSU!!

Sorry, I'm just not catching the analogy. Which is which in the comparison. But then again, I've never been a math guy

Sorry, just had an amazing 1-2-1 at work so mind was blown

If you compare Calculus as the Kata and the basic Add, Subtract etc as the "self defence" techniques...........

Its ok its harder to explain than when I first wrote it down lol

[tallgeese]

Work is like that

It's an eight hour interruption in the rest of my day and a total distraction to my training.

[bushido_man96]

I'm not seeing it either. Given that you are going to have to spend time in bunkai for each link in the kata, if you just worked bunkai of random linked movements outside of kata, you would get a similar effect - you would lose the time spent memorizing the ritual, but lose the ritual itself. That said, I don't think people in America have their life or psyche structured in a way that possessing the ritual is actually useful. So it's just a block of memorization to restrict your linking movements study to a certain serial chain.

My thoughts as well. If we use the math symbolism, then self-defense is its own math equation, and forms is a seperate one. You don't need forms for self-defense. The extrapolation from the forms is not nearly as efficient as doing the self-defense, and building on it.

[Cayuga Karate]

Karate Forum members:

Following is a quite long post. I hope some may find some interest.

I am a die-hard kata enthusiast, and I am fortunate to have my own school, where I spend most of my time teaching my students applications from kata for empty hand self-defense. I have long believed that Okinawan kata contain a number of movements that map quite well to effective empty hand fighting patterns.

However, I also believe, quite strongly, that much that is in kata doesn't map all that well to self-defense. There are lots of forward moving sequences, three or four steps forward, that, in my opinion, don't map to the way most fights unfold. A bigger guy is punching at your head. He comes at you, he's only a short distance away. To use many of these longer forward moving sequences requires the opponent to be retreating.

Now some may argue that these forward sequences are not to be taken literally, that you take a little bit out of them, and use that short snippet. I don't want to argue that this perspective is wrong, since all efforts to bring the kata to life, to apply sequences to fighting, are worthy efforts.

But I find this approach incomplete.

When I look at many of the sequences in kata, I find there is just too little to use for effective self-defense. When I compare sequences in Okinawan kata to wing chun, kali, kempo, Muay Thai, and other arts, I often find a distinct lack of counter-attacks. In Kempo, it is common to have three or four counters. The same holds true in some of these other arts. I believe these other arts frequently provide barrages of counter movements, and I believe those kinds of patterns are required for self defense. I really don’t buy, at all, into the whole one strike philosophy of fighting. I teach my students that it is a good way to get seriously hurt.

I like to compare the complex combinations in these other arts to a number of kata sequences where there are many sequences with one hand movement (block or strike) per stance. It is my belief that there is just not enough striking in these sequences to make it effective.

So what do many karateka do? They add stuff. They add more strikes, they add locks, they add takedowns. They add lots of movements not found in the kata.

Again, I applaud their efforts. We kata enthusiasts are all seeking ways to give the kata meaning. Many of us are simply unsatisfied having a whole slew of kata to practice as a dance, unmoored from application. Many of us train in karate, in part or in large part, to improve our fighting skills, and we don't want to be bogged down with dances that have no fighting value. We seek meaning for the movements.

What I find interesting is that there are a surprising number of accounts, that state that 75 years ago, and earlier, when Kyan, Miyagi, Mabuni, Funakoshi, and many others, were teaching kata to their students, it doesn’t seem as though there was all that much bunkai passed down with the kata. I will concur that there is not a lot of hard evidence on this, but I believe there are some reasonably reliable accounts out there that support this. We only have to look at the recollection of Nagamine, who writes of Motobu's reputation as someone who did pass down application for his Naihanchi kata. It seems this was out of the ordinary. Most of us have come to terms with the likelihood that bunkai was never a big part of what Funakoshi taught. I have come to believe that Funakoshi’s teaching method was likely modeled on how he was taught, and also likely how his peers also taught in his day.

Today, people point to karateka like Oyata, for evidence that the kata were handed down with bunkai. However, I am not sure this is historically accurate. Oyata famously began his studies with two men from whom he learned ti and kobudo. He did not learn his kata until he trained later with Nakamura. I don't believe that other Nakamura senior students teach Oyata's applications. (Odo, Kise, and Higa). I would argue that if Nakamura taught common bunkai to his students, they all would do the same bunkai. However, I do not believe this to be the case.

Now many here, and elsewhere, will argue that kata are textbooks of fighting application. Many will argue that if you are taught basic fighting concepts, you will learn to find your own application. This is likely what Oyata has done. And there are some quite innovative efforts being done by many, some shared with broader communities. Perhaps the best example is Abernethy's work. There are a number of others.

Often, what we find is that some karateka has a strong background in other arts, and applies principles of those arts to the kata to develop useful fighting applications. Again, these are worthy efforts. We kata enthusiasts all benefit from their work.

However, if my statements above, are correct, that the old masters didn't hand down much in the way of application, and much of the application practiced today is of fairly recent vintage, then the thread topic has, in my opinion, significant relevance.

Kata - What is it all for?

I have taken a very different approach. Six years ago, I stumbled upon something, quite by accident. It was a true case of serendipity. And this, in my view, fortuitous series of events, has led me down a very, very different path.

Before sharing my idea here, it is important to note that I felt it an absolute necessary to look back at the historical record, for clues as to whether what I was finding made any sense. I was, in essence, looking for historical validation of the question: Kata, what is it all for?

Quite interestingly, as most of you probably know, there is a very meager historical record. There are so few texts that it doesn't take a huge investment in time to review it fairly thoroughly. There are very few primary sources, but for we Anglos, we are so fortunate to have much translated to English. What do we find?

Funakoshi has several texts, each with a bit of history. Nagamine has a couple, each with a bit of history. Bishop did great work in interviewing many leading figures back 30 years ago. Miyagi left us with a bit. Motobu has a couple of texts with a bit of history. Morio Higaonna wrote a text. Kinjo sought out old masters for their oral histories. Miyazato has a text. There is an interesting text from Matsuo. Hokama has a history. McCarthy has published some helpful information. George Alexander has a text. Richard Kim has published. John Sells has a text. There are also a number of good periodicals that have short historical essays. It's not a very extensive historical record.

However, we should all recognize, that although there isn't very much detail, what we do have gives us some fairly clear information.

1. Karate was taught in secret.

2. Much comes from Chinese sources.

3. Kata appear to be pretty much Chinese in origin.

Now this is not to say that these sources don't argue that Karate is an Okinawan art. That's pretty much agreed to. One needs only to look collectively at what was practiced as karate, 100 years ago: the makiwara training, hoju undo weight training, the practice of kobudo with Okinawan implements, and the specific blend of kata practiced, to recognize that this was indeed an Okinawan art. The old masters are pretty uniform here in their opinion.

However, the meager historical record supports three key assumptions.

1. Some of the kata taught in Okinawa were learned by Okinawans visiting China (Higaonna, Nakaima, Uechi, and others all learned in China)

2. Chinese persons, in Okinawa, taught combative arts, including kata

3. Funakoshi, in his 1922 text Karate Jutsu, and 1934 text Karate-Do Kyohan, names five Chinese individuals, by name, as having taught Okinawans. One was a Chinese sailor, and four were described as military attaches.

If you haven't before seen this information, or fully considered it, I would urge you all to think about this when attempting to answer the question "Kata, what is it all for?"

Why did Chinese military authorities teach the Okinawans kata? I believe if some of you fully consider the implications of this question, then you might just be willing to consider looking at kata in a different light.

This question leads naturally to others. Two are, in my opinion, essential questions that need to be fully considered.

1. Why were these Chinese military authorities in Okinawa?

2. What was the nature of the relationship of Okinawa and China, such that these military authorities traveled to Okinawa?

Fortunately, regarding these issues, there is a historical record to consult. Okinawa traded regularly with China. For much of a 500 year period, Chinese trading convoys of several ships sailed to Okinawa every other year, and Okinawan trading convoys traveled to China in the alternate years. For much of that 500 year period, piracy off the coast of China was a major menace to ships of all kinds travelling to and from China. In the 1800's it was particularly problematic, so much so, that it was not uncommon for the Chinese to bring a separate ship of navy men to ensure safe passage through the pirate-infested waters. The historical records provides clear guidance regarding the questions above. Chinese military authorities traveled to Okinawa every other year (at least in the 1800s) to protect the trading missions, especially in the perilous waters off the coast of China.

What is also documented, but less so, is the weapons that the Chinese used in naval combat. We all know in the west, that prior to the advent of automated firearms, that pirates and sailors fought hand to hand with bladed weapons. These included sabers, and especially cutlasses, which were shorter, and more maneuverable, a necessity in the melee combat of a pirate assault on a maritime vessel.

We might speculate that the Chinese would also have chosen short, bladed weapons. Some of us have seen Taichi and other Chinese arts using a short sword.

However, the documentation indicates that the Chinese, and the sailors, fought with spears.

Now just because the word "spear" is contained in the literature, we should not jump to conclusions and imagine that spear designs optimized for land warfare would necessarily be the same for naval combat. Long polearms are used in land formations when the enemy is in a single direction. These long polearms are also useful by infantry against cavalry (mounted and in chariots), and by cavalry against infantry. They provide range, which is needed in both applications.

If, on the other hand, we consider how the west used short maneuverable bladed weapons for naval combat, we should conclude that the Chinese would have readily recognized the advantages of a short weapon. So when the historical literature describes the weapon of choice as being a spear, we should think of a short, maneuverable spear, one that could be held at the end (for maximum range), and swung like a baseball or cricket bat, across the body as necessary. Such a spear would be no longer than the height of the sailor, and quite possibly a few inches shorter.

Assuming that the Chinese used this length of polearm, we can also assume that the military authorities tasked with protecting their ships were quite skilled in the use of these weapons. We can assume that they would have trained their sailors in fighting methods using these kinds of weapons.

Returning to the question at hand, when we read in Funakoshi's 80 and 90 year old texts that Chinese military authorities taught Okinawans combative arts, we should ask a simple question.

Why? Why did Chinese military authorities teach kata to Okinawans?

The standard answer has always been an assumption. There has been an assumption, a speculation, that these Chinese military authorities must have wanted the Okinawans to be better able to protect themselves from the rough and tumble life in Shuri and Naha and Tomari. The implicit assumption is that these leading members of the Ryukyu aristocracy needed to be able to protect themselves from the thieves and scoundrels that preyed on them in town and country. These Okinawans had been deprived of the swords, so they needed to be able to fend off those blackguards with their fists.

That is the speculation, the assumption that has been handed down. These military personal, who, without question, were authorized by their government, to teach these Okinawans combative arts, did so for the sole reason of giving these Okinawans skills to fight off ruffians and scallywags as they went about their business in the rough and tumble Ryukyu kingdom.

I don't know about some of you, but the more I think about this (and I have thought long and hard about it) the more preposterous it seems. On the one hand, we have Okinawans who are literally in dire need of the very best military capabilities needed to protect their precious cargo, and personnel, on the perilous journey to China, where there was a known gauntlet of skilled pirates that might have to be confronted on a voyage. On the other hand, we have visiting military authorities, highly capable in training their sailors to defend their ships at sea, with short bladed weapons, who come to Okinawa every two years for a sixth month trading mission. These navy men, quite skilled in the spear arts used to fight off pirate attacks, had official approval from the government of the Chinese emperor to train Okinawans in combative arts. Yet, they opted not teach the Okinawans how to defend their ships, something the Okinawans would value very, very highly. Rather, rather, instead, they chose only to teach the Okinawans how to ward off thugs in dangerous streets of Naha.

Again, the more I think of this, the increasing far-fetched, it seems.

I have had the good fortune to have come to see this issue in a quite different light. I see the Chinese had a problem that needed to be address. Let me clarify this a bit. First, I would argue that Chinese government officials would have clearly recognized the need for the Okinawans to have successful trading missions to China. This trade relationship was, after all, a two way street. For the relationship to be successful, both the Chinese, and the Okinawans, had to be successful in getting past the pirate threat. I would argue that the Chinese would have wanted to help the Okinawans, as best they could.

But as I noted above, the Chinese would have had a problem that required them to address. We need to recognize that the fighting systems that the Chinese military had developed for naval combat would have been considered highly sensitive, and that Chinese military personnel would have been under strict orders to do everything possible to protect those secrets. All efforts would have to have been taken to keep these systems secret.

When we look at the meager historical record on the development of karate in Okinawa, what is the single-most clear attribute that we find? That it was practiced in the utmost of secrecy. And that is just what we would expect had the Chinese military authorities taught the Okinawans military systems, to be used in protecting their ships at sea.

So let's for a moment imagine that the Chinese military officials, authorized to train Okinawa's to maximize the likelihood that their ships could successful get past the pirate menace, taught the Okinawans how to use short spears in combat. And they would be tasked with teaching the Okinawans in such a way that the art remained secret, so that those watching wouldn't be able to understand just what was going on. How could they do this, teach the art and keep it secret.

This is a question with an astoundingly easy answer. There is an absolutely foolproof, surefire, guaranteed, no-chance-of-failure method, one that has withstood the test of time.

If you simply remove the pole-arm from your hands, and make a few subtle changes, voila, the latent spear art becomes near invisible. What are those simple changes? First, you add pauses and occasional slow movements throughout. Second, you have students close their hands in some movements, and reorient those closed hands so it appears they are physically striking with a fist. Finally, you make sure the direction of your opponent isn't telegraphed. You have the students frequently look in a direction that the attacker is not.

What happens when you make those modest changes? Voila, the spear art magically disappears. It is fully cloaked, camouflaged, and masked. It is hidden, yet in plain sight.

The question, above asks Kata, what is it all for? A better question is: Why did Chinese military authorities teach empty hand kata, in complete secrecy, to senior members of the Okinawan aristocracy? It's the same question, just with a few pertinent details added.

Now I believe that I can predict the inherent, reflexive reaction of many of you to this information. There will be disbelief, pure and utter disbelief. For many of you, what I have said to you simply cannot be true. This information cannot be correct.

And some of you might want to respond with all sorts of objections. You'll want to question my grasp of history, or perhaps want to craft clever replies about the very foolhardiness of looking at kata this way. But before you type out that critique, I request a simple favor.

To those of you that object to the very premise of this discussion, I ask you to consider, just for a fleeting moment, what if I am correct, what if these old kata had a very different purpose. What if they were designed to enable sailors to train in view of all (at port, for example) with movements that improved their spearfighting skills, yet kept the actual fighting concepts hidden?

Let’s take this momentary consideration a few steps further. Consider that for reasons of accident, and serendipity a 54 year old karate enthusiast, who began a lifelong practice of this art some 36 years, after 30 years of training, happened upon just the right set of circumstances that led him to consider kata in this very different light.

Imagine, just for the moment, he's correct. Consider it, again, just for a moment. He's got a bad knee, a torn meniscus, and kata practice isn't all that good for it. His memory is certainly not what it once was. But he is determined to share his ideas with a broad community.

In support of that effort, he has taken the time to evaluate all the movements in over 100 examples of Okinawan kata, of potential Chinese origin, that can be found on YouTube. And through extensive trial and error (heavy on the error) he has found that every one of those movements, every one of these multi-step sequences, can be used to propel a short polearm, often with remarkable complexity and utility.

And finally, recognize that if he comes here to this forum that you enjoy reading and posting on, and invites questions about what he has learned, that you have a choice. You can try to argue him down, and hope to persuade others that what he says can't be correct. You can argue he has no "proof", you can raise all manner of issues with his introduction.

But you could also consider an alternative. You could ask him about how specific kata movements can be used to propel the spear. He has offered to demonstrate to any poster how any kata sequence can be used to propel a short polearm. And all he requests is that you ask.

I am offering to extend my findings in a virtual dojo, a dojo in the full sense of the meaning, where people come to the dojo and respect one another. And if something is unclear and requires clarification that a simple polite question be asked.

I would like to share here some of what I have learned here on this forum. I have made reasonable efforts to document the historical record online, and I will share that record with you all. But, importantly, I am open to any request from any poster, for any kata sequence, as to how one uses empty hand kata movements to effectively propel a short pole-arm. It is not a trivial effort for me to practice the movements so that they are performed with reasonable competence and fidelity to the kata in question. To film the sequence, to edit it in a way that compares it to the empty hand sequence, and to post this online. It's a bit of work. And I am asking for no compensation for this. Many of you love your art to such an extent that you go to surprising lengths to share it. The same is true for me.

You all should note that I recognize that though I have learned much on this road of discovery, I am but a distance into this wonderful journey. My discovery began 6 years ago, but only really gained steam in 2008. Since then I have spent considerable energy learning the movements of well over 100 kata, and then working them such that can be used to propel a weapon in useful ways. Yet for each small discovery I make, I fully recognize the daunting task ahead I have ahead. I know that there are just too many kata for me to ever develop the deep rich understanding of not just the movements, but of the nuances of how to use the movements in actual fighting.

I am not deterred. This is my life's work, and while I can probably never be fully satisfied with what I have learned, I can say that I am fairly content with what I have learned to date. 100+ kata has been a long slog, but it has been a path of delightful discovery.

I recently made this offer of sharing, to other martial arts forums. My current project is the kata Kusanku, in all its many variations. I will share my video of that effort with this forum as well.

As I said above, the task ahead of me is not trivial. I hope to, over time, despite my age and injuries, provide these concepts to a wide community. Coming to forums and offering you to come into my virtual dojo is one of the ways I hope to accomplish that goal.

And in light of that, I ask that you again, just for the moment, consider just the slight possibility that I may be correct. We can have a productive, informed dialogue, where I provide lots of information supporting my claims. I would like those ready to flame me to understand that I don't really have the time or inclination to debate nuances of my ideas, with posters whose only interest is to take random potshots at my theory and have no interest whatsoever in it.

I come, rather, in hopes that perhaps some of you just might be interested in how specific movements of specific kata could be used to propel a polearm. Those questions would be most welcome.

I don't expect to provide convincing information for many, if not most of you. I have gone to the forums in the past, and my experience has been fairly consistent. I find that those with the most experience in karate, those who have invested the most, practiced the most, thought about the nuances of kata as empty hand fighting the most, have the greatest difficulty even considering this new concept to be even worthy of discussion. I am not here for those experienced karateka that have all the answers they are looking for. In the martial arts there are many paths, and I have great respect for those who have found their way. I have found mine and am not looking for others. My life is too full with this passion.

But again, I come here in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, there might be a few young karateka who haven't spent their lives in pursuit of a belief that these kata must have been designed for empty hand fighting. Maybe these karateka go to a schools where application isn't taught at all, and they seek answers to this question - Kata, what is it all about?.

I just might have an answer for some of these karateka. They may look at the evidence I provide, and find it compelling, so much so, that they incorporate it into their training, and maybe take it to a tournament, just for fun. Maybe it will provide a key to more enjoyment of these strange dances we call kata.

And maybe, they will accept that while some of these peculiar kata movements do translate seamlessly into surprisingly effective empty hand fighting combinations, perhaps, after all, it shouldn't be any surprise that not all of these movements are going to work in an empty hand environment. If they truly were designed for armed military use, we should be indeed grateful that we can reuse so many of the movements in effective empty hand fighting. With this knowledge, some may come to recognize that these kata are still good to practice, at least because, with a short stick in one's hand, they can be surprisingly effective. And perhaps the link to the old and nearly lost Chinese ways of maritime defense might be enjoyable to practice, regardless of their benefit in actual fighting.

To those who have read all this, thank you. To those who would like more information, I am eager to share. Name your kata, name your sequence. You just might be surprised at how the movements propel a short spear.

-Cayuga Karate

[shadowspawn]

That is a very interesting claim. You might want to consider making a new thread for it altogether. For those of you who CBA to read this TL;DR theory:

The karate taught to Okinawans by Chinese officials may have actually been a short-spear martial art designed to fight pirates on the high seas. It was hidden by removing the spear and masking the spear striking techniques as empty hand strikes to train in plain view without anyone finding out.

I'm actually really interested in seeing this especially considering that your first project would be Kusanku (my favorite 'black belt' kata). If this is true, it would actually really help to explain why there was no real sparring in karate prior to Funakoshi's death. Most other martial arts have some form of sparring (including Chinese martial arts) so it did seem very strange that kumite would only come after Shotokan had been established.

[Cayuga Karate]

shadowspawn:

Thank you for reading my long post and maintaining an open mind. Please remember that I am open to any request for any sequence for any kata. So if you, or anyone else out there has something that has stumped them, some movement that just appears not to have been designed for empty hand fighting, this might be a good opportunity to look at that movement in another light.

Thanks again.

-Cayuga Karate

[Dobbersky]

One thing that gets me about Kata is that 90% of schools practice the Pinan/Heian series first (Pinan Nidan before Shodan - to me this is wrong Shodan is Shodan as it is the first one!!!) Then this is where it gets mixed up. Dependant on the school, depends on where they put the Kata!

For Wado (as this is where I had most experience of traditional Kata)Kushanku usually after the Pinan series, then Naihanchi, then Chinto. But the same kata are different position in Shotokan or Shito Ryu.

Then we get Goju and other Okinawan styles that don't practice the Pinans at all

Why?

[Cayuga Karate]

Dobbersky wrote:

One thing that gets me about Kata is that 90% of schools practice the Pinan/Heian series first (Pinan Nidan before Shodan - to me this is wrong Shodan is Shodan as it is the first one!!!) Then this is where it gets mixed up. Dependant on the school, depends on where they put the Kata!

For Wado (as this is where I had most experience of traditional Kata)Kushanku usually after the Pinan series, then Naihanchi, then Chinto. But the same kata are different position in Shotokan or Shito Ryu.

Then we get Goju and other Okinawan styles that don't practice the Pinans at all

Why?

I think any order of kata is, to some extent, arbitrary. The history appears pretty clear, that 100 years ago and earlier, a person might only 3, or at most 5 kata. The way in which we practice kata today, with so many, is a relatively recent innovation.

We shouldn't expect any conformity across various systems on the order in which kata are introduced.

Goju systems that descend from Miyagi and Higaonna never have had Pinan as a component in their curriculum. Systems that descend from Itosu did have Pinan, as Itosu adopted those (with whatever modifications and additions he made) for beginners, in place of Naihanchi.

Kyan never taught Pinan, but some of his students learned them elsewhere, and added them to the kata they learned from Kyan. Nagamine studied under Arakaki, who, in addition to being a Kyan student, also studied under Itosu students, where he would have learned Pinan. Zenryo Shimbukuro did not teach Pinan, but his son Zenpo trained under Nakama, a student of Itosu, from whom he learned Pinan kata. Kyan's student Eizo Shimabukuro trained under Chibana, a student of Itosu. Perhaps he learned his Pinan from Chibana.

Funakoshi changed the order of Pinan, because he believed that Pinan Nidan was easier to learn than than Pinan shodan. I would argue there is merit in that position.

I look at kata differently. I see kata of different lengths. I don't see beginner kata, or intermediate kata or advanced kata. I see short kata, medium length kata and long kata.

Sometime about 80 or 90 years ago, the concept of rank, that had become a fundamental component of Japanese martial arts, was introduced to the Okinawan karate teachers. The kyu and dan ranks, formalized, in part, for Judo schools, were cloned for Okinawan karate systems. The primary mechanism for rank advancement in Okinawan and Japanese karate schools, was kata, which had long been the core component of Okinawan karate.

It was this systemization, designed in large part for karate being introduced into secondary and collegiate school systems, that drove this need to formalize the rank level at which kata was taught.

Different teachers chose different sequences. An interesting challenge was what to do with Naihanchi, which had once been a beginner kata. For example, some systems, like Shito Ryu, saved Naihanchi for later rank. Okinawan Kempo, kept it at an early rank.

However, there has never been any agreement, across styles, about what should be taught when. This makes for interesting challenges in tournaments where some schools may gain an edge by teaching longer kata to less senior kyu grades.

One reason we can never expect full standarization is that there is a wide variety of kata taught across the many different types of systems world-wide. We have Ryuei-ryu, Uechi-ryu, Chito-ryu, Genseiryu, and Bugeikan ( each of which practices a range of kata that are different from those common kata found in systems that descend from Itosu (Shotokan, Wado Ryu, Shito Ryu, etc.)

We really shouldn't expect to find any common order.

-Cayuga Karate

[Dobbersky]

Dobbersky wrote:

One thing that gets me about Kata is that 90% of schools practice the Pinan/Heian series first (Pinan Nidan before Shodan - to me this is wrong Shodan is Shodan as it is the first one!!!) Then this is where it gets mixed up. Dependant on the school, depends on where they put the Kata!

For Wado (as this is where I had most experience of traditional Kata)Kushanku usually after the Pinan series, then Naihanchi, then Chinto. But the same kata are different position in Shotokan or Shito Ryu.

Then we get Goju and other Okinawan styles that don't practice the Pinans at all

Why?

I think any order of kata is, to some extent, arbitrary. The history appears pretty clear, that 100 years ago and earlier, a person might only 3, or at most 5 kata. The way in which we practice kata today, with so many, is a relatively recent innovation.

We shouldn't expect any conformity across various systems on the order in which kata are introduced.

Goju systems that descend from Miyagi and Higaonna never have had Pinan as a component in their curriculum. Systems that descend from Itosu did have Pinan, as Itosu adopted those (with whatever modifications and additions he made) for beginners, in place of Naihanchi.

Kyan never taught Pinan, but some of his students learned them elsewhere, and added them to the kata they learned from Kyan. Nagamine studied under Arakaki, who, in addition to being a Kyan student, also studied under Itosu students, where he would have learned Pinan. Zenryo Shimbukuro did not teach Pinan, but his son Zenpo trained under Nakama, a student of Itosu, from whom he learned Pinan kata. Kyan's student Eizo Shimabukuro trained under Chibana, a student of Itosu. Perhaps he learned his Pinan from Chibana.

Funakoshi changed the order of Pinan, because he believed that Pinan Nidan was easier to learn than than Pinan shodan. I would argue there is merit in that position.

I look at kata differently. I see kata of different lengths. I don't see beginner kata, or intermediate kata or advanced kata. I see short kata, medium length kata and long kata.

Sometime about 80 or 90 years ago, the concept of rank, that had become a fundamental component of Japanese martial arts, was introduced to the Okinawan karate teachers. The kyu and dan ranks, formalized, in part, for Judo schools, were cloned for Okinawan karate systems. The primary mechanism for rank advancement in Okinawan and Japanese karate schools, was kata, which had long been the core component of Okinawan karate.

It was this systemization, designed in large part for karate being introduced into secondary and collegiate school systems, that drove this need to formalize the rank level at which kata was taught.

Different teachers chose different sequences. An interesting challenge was what to do with Naihanchi, which had once been a beginner kata. For example, some systems, like Shito Ryu, saved Naihanchi for later rank. Okinawan Kempo, kept it at an early rank.

However, there has never been any agreement, across styles, about what should be taught when. This makes for interesting challenges in tournaments where some schools may gain an edge by teaching longer kata to less senior kyu grades.

One reason we can never expect full standarization is that there is a wide variety of kata taught across the many different types of systems world-wide. We have Ryuei-ryu, Uechi-ryu, Chito-ryu, Genseiryu, and Bugeikan ( each of which practices a range of kata that are different from those common kata found in systems that descend from Itosu (Shotokan, Wado Ryu, Shito Ryu, etc.)

We really shouldn't expect to find any common order.

-Cayuga Karate

Totally agree! I've always seen Kata as multifaceted, hence Why I no longer have a Sensei myself due to his "blinkered" view on Kata!

But What about Modern Jissen Based Kata, from Ashihara and Enshin Karate. These are completely different to "Traditional" Kata is performance and application. I again don't practice these Kata the way I was taught as I now have a Ne Waza version of the first Kata!

With regards to Kata, where does the "front stance and step forward and punch" come from that a lot of the traditional Ryu. I have never been attacked this way in the street but if you put a Jo in the hands of the "Uke" and it becomes a more valid attack!!!

I look forward to more discussions on this and other topics, OSU!!!

I would love to know what is your opinion of Kyokushin compared to the other Ryu