Karate without Kata?

[sojobo]

It’s my understanding that Funakoshi was against introducing Jiyu Kumite into Karate training.

It was most probably Otsuka sensei.

There is also evidence to suggest that Kumite in some shape or form (tegumi for example) was widely practiced in Okinawa prior to the "codification" of what we now know as Karate.

I also understand that in the most part, Karate (or its predecessor) was not generally practiced as a battlefield art - or for that reason. It was mainly as a method of self protection on a more day to day / civilian level.

What you are describing is more akin to what sogo bujutsu ryu-ha of fuedal Japan taught.

sojobo

[sojobo]

and... perhaps, it's that civilian rather than battlefield martial approach that gave rise to Kata being such an imporatnt part of Karate?

[brickshooter]

I'm unsure why people are so against Kata training and treat it as though one must surrender "modern" training to do Kata training.

Personally, I do Kata, Kihon, Kumite. And in between that, I also use the heavy bags, hitting mitts & bicycle tube. Outside of that, I also weight lift and run.

I don't do it all on the same day of course. But I like having a lot of variety because variety is the spice to life.

[sojobo]

Let's remember also, that what we refer to as Kihon is a relatively new invention.

Originally, there was only Kata.

One could also argue that Kihon is a form of Kata as it is set.

My sensei always says that in Karate there is only Kata and Kumite.

@brickshooter,

I can totally understand why people are against Kata training and Tallgeese is right when he says that it probably isn't the most expeditious way to learn self defence or prepare for combat today (be that on the street or in a ring).

But it is about the variety that you refer to and when practiced in concert with the other aspects of a good training regime, it has its qualities if we look at karate from an holistic perspective.

Sojobo

[deckerdude]

My two cents only: Can a motor car run without the internal combustion engine? No, it cannot. Kata IS Karate from time immemorial. If nothing else, it keeps the brain active. Think of all the blocking/attacking movements in all the Kata ever devised, there must be enough there to fill the brain's data base. I may have said before, but i much prefer Kata than Kumite, and there again, Karate would not be Karate without Kumite. Kata and Kumite run in conjunction together, without the two there is no Karate.

[tallgeese]

My two cents only: Can a motor car run without the internal combustion engine? No, it cannot. Kata IS Karate from time immemorial. If nothing else, it keeps the brain active. Think of all the blocking/attacking movements in all the Kata ever devised, there must be enough there to fill the brain's data base. I may have said before, but i much prefer Kata than Kumite, and there again, Karate would not be Karate without Kumite. Kata and Kumite run in conjunction together, without the two there is no Karate.

I'm not certain about this time immemorial statement. In fact, the era of the more lightly armored, peacetime conflict. when most of systematized martial development occurred that we'd recognize (the Tokugawa era circa 1600) was likely when the development of kata occurred. Unarmed conflict occurred far before this again, with historical records of dedicated fighting men in Japan going back to 500 AD.

Additionally, with the advent of martial propagation during the last century many kata have not more history or connection to it than when they were created post WW II. You have to look to the kyoro arts to find anything verifiable to pre-1880.

Lastly, the statement about without kata there can be no karate is problematic on a modern front. There are many systems of karate that don't rely on the use of kata as training methodology.

I know I come off as anti-kata. I suppose in a way I am. In that many people consider it the key to learning to fight. As others have agreed, there are better methods. The idea that it is a critical component to self defense, and propagated as such, just bothers me in light of modern findings in several fields.

But I'm not anti kata in several regards, as I've posted before.

[Liver Punch]

My two cents only: Can a motor car run without the internal combustion engine?

It can run with an external combustion engine, i.e. the steam engine, and can also run on an electric motor.

However, I suppose that if you can deny that the Nissan Leaf, Stanley Steam Car, and Chrysler Turbine Car do not, and have never existed, then you can probably make the claim that Karate and kata must coexist.

Kata has its place and its purpose, as does stretching, conditioning, weight training, and learning how to tie your belt. It is from a practicality standpoint that I tend to lean toward fighting to learn how to fight as a much more worthwhile endeavor.

Edit: As to whether or not Karate sans kata should be called Karate...this is a rare case in which I don't think semantics matter. If your dojo does kata, then every dojo without kata isn't "valid." If your dojo speaks Japanese, then every dojo that speaks English isn't "pure enough." If your dojo is in Okinawa, then every dojo someplace else is "incorrectly copying you."

Edited February 6, 2012 by Liver Punch

[sensei8]

I'm a large proponent on the three K's...not anything less. Any missing component from the three K's is not Karate, imho. A three legged chair/table that's missing one of its legs, just can't stand; it's unstable.

Imho!!

[Groinstrike]

I think the problem in saying "This isn't Karate" because a certain system that claims to be karate doesn't do kata. They may be some of the most proficient karatekas in the world, but because they don't practice a large amount of kata then by definition they are not karate?

The problem that we as human beings get into is that we love to label things. We look at a system and we say that is karate or that is Kempo or Krav Maga etc. I come from a system where we try to limit labeling styles as a way to make sure that just because technique comes from a system that we don't practice, we can still see the value in that technique.

Karate is a fighting art, so is kung fu, so is western boxing, so is combat handgunning, bayonet fighting etc. I think the quicker that we label ourselves as a "karateka" and nothing else we limit our growth as a martial artist.

That being said i have not problem with people that only wish to practice on art or discipline, that is there choice. The problem comes when they tell people that there art is misnamed because of the techniques they practice or the principles they teach. Karate and non karate fighting arts still have the same goal in the end, to win the fight and to stay alive.

[bushido_man96]

and... perhaps, it's that civilian rather than battlefield martial approach that gave rise to Kata being such an imporatnt part of Karate?

Could it be that kata came about because so many trained by themselves, or perhaps with just one other, for so long? It is hard to fight by yourself, unless you have a friend named Tyler Durden...

Anyways, nowadays, most of us aren't lonely people that work out alone, in the hopes that the one person will come along in life for us to pass on the valuable self-training tools we have to. I can see how the value of kata is greater when a bulk of training time is done alone. It keeps the techniques categoriezed and organized, and the helps with retaining the bunkai through some association.

That's just a guess though.