Karate without Kata?

[sojobo]

Hi Tallgeese,

I am at work a the moment so I will need to read the posts and answer later.

Koryu however, tends to be a term reserved for ryu-ha that originated in mainland Japan and as a result, there is no such thing as a "Karate" Koryu.

More later....

Sojobo

[sojobo]

On a side note, I would think that the koryu guys, and there are a few here I would like to hear their thoughts on over the matter, would have the strongest case for claiming the "karate" moniker should one lean to the second argument rather than the more encompassing and combat evolution base of the first.

Hi tallgeese,

Sorry to be thick, but are you asking whether, what is practiced by Koryu, are closer to what was (or could be considered) Karate in it original guise?

sojobo

[tallgeese]

Just more wondering what the guys who train in older, more direct to the source of the post-Tokugawa arts think of the idea that MP brought up a few posts ago.

Has evolution brought training methods (specific to our debate kata) so far from what many people view as "karate" that we should just call it something else?

Or, does the historical evolution of karate just mean that it's come into several training methods over the course of its time (again kata and we touched on sparring) so we shouldn't worry about moving out of them as well while still keeping the generic term karate?

I suspect the answer might be different for those who have a closer tie to the history of the art during a given, specific step in its evolution.

[sojobo]

I’ll be honest and admit that although I a member of a Koryu, I am not the best to comment on the martial history of feudal Japan. I am more of a doer really than a scholar, but I’ll give you my understanding of it.

Martial arts in Japan today are generally divided into Koryu (lit. old school/flow/stream) and Gendai (modern) martial arts.

Without getting too nerdy about it, Koryu are martial schools that were codified and registered prior to the Meiji restoration (c 1868).

Descendant arts like Aikido, Judo, Kendo and Iaido etc. (codified after the Meiji restoration), are considered gendai arts.

Kendo comes from kenjustu or to be more specific, an amalgam of the kenjutsu techniques found in various koryu like “Itto-ryu” and “Shinkage-ryu”

Judo comes from the various jujutsu found within schools like Tenshin Shinyo-ryu and Kito-ryu etc etc.

You get the picture…

Karate is also considered a gendai art, but here’s where it gets confusing, because Karate is not a descendant art of a Koryu (with the exception of Wado).

Instead, Karate originated and developed in Okinawa – therefore there is no such thing as a Koryu Karate school or ancestral school of Okinawan martial art and here’s why: -

Unlike Japan, Okinawa never had a standing army. There were no professional soldiers and therefore no military battles so to speak. They had no formal “Martial Schools” and no real solid records of existence or the techniques they practiced unlike most Koryu who kept quite accurate writings of their schools methods/techniques.

Instead, Karate, To-te / To-de etc., developed very much as a “civilian” self protection system with very few records or text kept – and maybe this is where Kata comes in.

In truth, little is documented about its development from the early parts of the first millennium through to the middle ages. It was influenced by Chinese and Korean martial arts no doubt, but it wasn’t until the Sutsuma Clan captured the islands did the whole “Samurai” thing come into play.

I’m sure that doesn’t answer your question tallgeese but hopefully helps you see the different between the two fighting systems?

sojobo

[sojobo]

And to be clear, when I talk of the feudal Japan I mean mainland Japan (excluding Okinawa).

Sojobo

[tallgeese]

I get that, and I always like picking up historical tidbits so while it might not to the heart of my question, I did find it really interesting. Also, I think give the debate over the subtraction of kata it probably has merit.

To me, it even more supports the forward moving nature of martial arts and would seem to indicate that it has indeed moved across various venues for various reasons across history.

It makes me feel that there is even less sacrosanct about it than before. But despite being the non-traditionalist, I still have a hard time seeing moving on from the term "karate" for modern era arts with movements rooted in old Japan, despite what we may take away or add in terms of modalities.

[sojobo]

With respect tallgeese, I think you are overlooking the point and perhaps arguing yourself into a corner for the sake of it.

To karate, in the formative years, kata was very important - not always seen through the lens of a professional soldier, but as a civilian and in order to pass on skills from one generation to another.

Karate didn't just arrive at an evolutionary point, only for everyone to declare "yep, that's Karate".

Arguably Tode was the evolutionary step on the path to what was to become Karate.

Perhaps what you are suggesting (with modern training methods) is the evolutionary step beyond?

Therefore is it still Karate?

sojobo

[tallgeese]

Perhaps what you are suggesting (with modern training methods) is the evolutionary step beyond?

Therefore is it still Karate?

sojobo

That's pretty much it. MP brought the point up last night and I hadn't considered it before. I apologize if I side tracked us with wanting to know what guys with more traditional roots to older arts thought.

[tallgeese]

Personally, Kata is the only place where I get both striking, locks & throws integrated into one system where they compliment each other. It's where one uses strikes to wear an opponent down before tossing him, and where one uses the toss to shock him into lowering his guard for a finishing blow.

Kata has allowed me to understand the dynamics from the beginning of a confrontation all the way to the end when I'm supposed to be standing over my attacker and finishing him off. For the first 15 years or so of Karate, I avoided Kata training like a root canal. And looking back, Karate was simply a system of punches, kicks and sweeps. Nothing more. With Kata training, it's actually a lot more.

Interesting enough when I started Judo, I saw the same thing. Prior to actually getting into Kata work, Judo was just a system of throws and submissions. Judo Katas showed me the use of strikes to assist throwing and submissions or vice-versa, to finish with a strike.

I think that if you take Kata out of a martial art, you end up learning only what your instructor promotes and know. If you learn Kata, a reasonably intelligent person can actually learn more than what the instructor is willing or able to teach.

This is part of my point, in the first section of bold, we talk about kata as a training modality that combines many aspects of combat. Fine, and very true with the right instructor, system, and kata. Again, to really have all this integrated the way instructors of old did them you'll almost need to find a kyoro art. You have access, a vast majority of karateka don't. But it's A modality.

One can just as easily, and in fact more easily construct, drills using modern equipment and two men that more accurately mimics a conflict than by doing kata.

To the second point, you point to understanding the dynamics of a fight. And the end of the last point leads into this. Kata IS NOT dynamic in any sense of the word. A fight is, but kata is not. It's always best to try and train as close to the event's parameters as possible. This is where, to me, from a combative aspect, kata has been surpassed by an understanding of training and learning.

Dynamic is controlled, armored, non-premeditated work against a live aggressor trying to fight you. It's movement and work on the mitts that minics a fight by allowing the trainee to move into locks and takedowns (there's an article in the article section about this), it's working some version of sparring that allows one to test their systems tactics against resistance (as sensei8 often refers to).

It's just a modality that does not, in any way, based on my experience and the thoughts of experts in the field of combat preparation (see Howe's Leadership and Training for the Fight as well as his book The Tactical Trainer for his thoughts on the breakdown of combat training- granted it's a different field, but the principles are what's important) deal with preparation for a fight.

One point that sojobo and I agree on after going thru several points, is that we're (and I mean me) are not saying no one should do kata, but that if you're training to fight there are probably faster, better ways to prepare.

I agree with all of this, but at what point is it no longer karate? If we go all out with combative effectiveness, you'll have a sidearm. A Smith and Wesson negates both the "empty" and "Chinese" translations of "kara". If you take away the prearranged kata, and train the applications of the movements within, then it can no longer really be "Goju Karate" or "Shotokan Karate", so while still being karate based, what is the new system? If you use BJJ as a delivery system for strikes, is it still BJJ?

This was the specific bit of dialogue that prompted the question.

[sojobo]

Ahh... What's in a name anyway?

sojobo