Karate without Kata?

[Ueshirokarate]

I haven't seen a kata performed differently each time to account for a different set of attacks. I haven't seen it (by and large I know two man exist) that deals with an attacker actually endeavoring to hit the performer with a focus mitt. I haven't seen variability in the accounted for attacks. I haven't see then move and cut angles unexpected before or after each series that breaks the pattern.

If you haven't seen it, how can you judge it? I have trained this way using kata for decades. To me, it is like you are saying a ball peen hammer has no value, because you haven't seen it drive a nail.

It's not the same. Drilling and kata.

I'm not saying the tactics are different. I'm saying that the method of learning them has changed, or can be changed, since the development of kata.

If you string together techniques in some logical sequence and repeat them over and over again until you do them without thinking, is this not a drill? If you take 20 offensive and defensive karate techniques you presently know, string them together in a logical sequence, have you not just created a kata? Most MMA fighters will string together four or five techniques and drill them over and over again by his or herself: They are doing kata. While they are doing one of their own design and not a classical kata, it is still kata. Don't agree with me? Show me exactly how it is different.

Method of learning has not changed one bit: Fighters and martial artists in every style drill sequential techniques solo.

[SonGoku92]

Never been a fan of Kata myself... I have no interest in doing competitive katas, I like my movements less pre-specified and Id frankly rather memorize individual techniques and string them together myself. I usually prefer light sparring with emphasis on technique usage. or back and forth drills or on the spot combos. Stringing together that many moves to me is just one more thing you have to remember outside of the techniques themselves and a fight simply WILL NOT happen that way. so... for me Katas are a little silly. but I do what I have to... ^^;

[tallgeese]

I haven't seen a kata performed differently each time to account for a different set of attacks. I haven't seen it (by and large I know two man exist) that deals with an attacker actually endeavoring to hit the performer with a focus mitt. I haven't seen variability in the accounted for attacks. I haven't see then move and cut angles unexpected before or after each series that breaks the pattern.

If you haven't seen it, how can you judge it? I have trained this way using kata for decades. To me, it is like you are saying a ball peen hammer has no value, because you haven't seen it drive a nail.

It's not the same. Drilling and kata.

I'm not saying the tactics are different. I'm saying that the method of learning them has changed, or can be changed, since the development of kata.

If you string together techniques in some logical sequence and repeat them over and over again until you do them without thinking, is this not a drill? If you take 20 offensive and defensive karate techniques you presently know, string them together in a logical sequence, have you not just created a kata? Most MMA fighters will string together four or five techniques and drill them over and over again by his or herself: They are doing kata. While they are doing one of their own design and not a classical kata, it is still kata. Don't agree with me? Show me exactly how it is different.

Method of learning has not changed one bit: Fighters and martial artists in every style drill sequential techniques solo.

Sorry, I hadn't see this reply. It's different because you're not doing the same 20 over and over again for years and years unchanged. Each changes with each training, different orders, different tactics, ect. Not to mention that with live two-man controlled training there is CONSTANT variation in in angle of attack, counter, defense.

Kata is the same set each time, for years on end in the case of classical, traditional kata. It's important to deal with variation, and from early on in one's career.

[infinitehand]

Wow alot of responses on this one. Nope, I haven't read them all. But here is my two cents.

Kata are not sacred, they are not mystical or have any kind of special power. I am certain we do not practice Kata the way they were practiced when they were first developed, (however I wasn't there so I don't know). However Kata are tools. Vehicles if you will, that transmit vital principles and strategies/tactics when looked at under the hood.

With that being said (keeping with the vehicle theme) imagine trying to change a tire or oil or what have you with out any of the necessary tools required. Could it be done? I suppose, but it'd be pretty hard.

Also, who has the advantage? The mechanic who has all the right tools, and knows how to use them. Or the mechanic who has none?

[lowereastside]

This is my 3 cents on the subject - Can one learn Karate without Kata? - The techniques - I will say YES. But the inside ( Internal Development - The Breath ) you need the Katas. Example - Styles like Goju-ryu - Uechi-ryu have Sanchin kata - this kata goes beyond mere techniques. Whether you want to call it Kata ( Modern Day ) or a sequence of Chinese Chi Kung exercisers linking certain movements together - each movement ( or action ) stimulates or /and works the outside/inside - Each movement must follow a certain sequence - If that sequence is broken - the chain is then broken. Bottom line for fighting IMHO you don't need Kata. However, for certain developmental tools etc etc etc. - YES! you do need certain Katas. Now are there to many katas in some styles of karate? - Again IMHO - YES.

[sensei8]

This is my 3 cents on the subject - Can one learn Karate without Kata? - The techniques - I will say YES. But the inside ( Internal Development - The Breath ) you need the Katas. Example - Styles like Goju-ryu - Uechi-ryu have Sanchin kata - this kata goes beyond mere techniques. Whether you want to call it Kata ( Modern Day ) or a sequence of Chinese Chi Kung exercisers linking certain movements together - each movement ( or action ) stimulates or /and works the outside/inside - Each movement must follow a certain sequence - If that sequence is broken - the chain is then broken. Bottom line for fighting IMHO you don't need Kata. However, for certain developmental tools etc etc etc. - YES! you do need certain Katas. Now are there to many katas in some styles of karate? - Again IMHO - YES.

Solid post!!

[cheesefrysamurai]

I second that!

This is my 3 cents on the subject - Can one learn Karate without Kata? - The techniques - I will say YES. But the inside ( Internal Development - The Breath ) you need the Katas. Example - Styles like Goju-ryu - Uechi-ryu have Sanchin kata - this kata goes beyond mere techniques. Whether you want to call it Kata ( Modern Day ) or a sequence of Chinese Chi Kung exercisers linking certain movements together - each movement ( or action ) stimulates or /and works the outside/inside - Each movement must follow a certain sequence - If that sequence is broken - the chain is then broken. Bottom line for fighting IMHO you don't need Kata. However, for certain developmental tools etc etc etc. - YES! you do need certain Katas. Now are there to many katas in some styles of karate? - Again IMHO - YES.

Solid post!!

[cheesefrysamurai]

in addition to what lowereastside said so well, people have to stop thinking that we think kata is kumite.

We who study karate DO NOT THINK that we are going to bust into kata mid fight.

for me its a moving meditation, its about focus, conditioning and a surprisingly a great workout.

[sensei8]

But Kata does help/aide ones sparring. Movements, shifting, transitions, posture, and the like.

If not, then when one spars it looks like a very disjointed attempt; sloppy without focus.

Imho.

[cheesefrysamurai]

I agree fully.

But Kata does help/aide ones sparring. Movements, shifting, transitions, posture, and the like.

If not, then when one spars it looks like a very disjointed attempt; sloppy without focus.

Imho.