Karate without Kata?

[sojobo]

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.

Not so much training in isolation, but perhaps the frequency of the training and the fact you had to build it around everyday life.

A farmer doesn't have too much spare time on his hands, so has to fit his training in where he can.

This is a different approach to the professional bushi of Japan, whose training was tailored to suit.

Sojobo

[bushido_man96]

Those are very valid points, as well.

[brickshooter]

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.

[bushido_man96]

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.

But all styles don't use kata as a training tool. Lacking kata isn't going to cause an inefficiency in learning.

[brickshooter]

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.

But all styles don't use kata as a training tool. Lacking kata isn't going to cause an inefficiency in learning.

Could you give me an example?

[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.

[MasterPain]

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?

[tallgeese]

You make a point here, MP. At what point are we divorcing ourselves from the term "karate" altogether? History would bear out, specifically with the Japanese arts, that unarmed combat was systematized early and went thru and evolutionary process that brought us to what we know as "karate" somewhere between 1600-1800. It wen thru another set of renovations in the 1880-WWII era. So, with the advent of what we've learned (as a martial society) since then, and modified, is is still karate?

This, I think, is probably the crux of the last few pages of debate.

On one hand, one could argue that since the developement of a Japan-centric hand to hand system of combat termed generically as "karate" has undergone numerous evolution, then the newest and latest should still bear the moniker.

Another line of thought would be to pigeon-hole the term in what we've come to cannonize as karate into the era of post-Tokugawa refinement and accept that anything else is, well something else.

Coming from a systems I've always considered "karate based" this is a good question to mull over. I'll get back to you.

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.

(edit for spelling confusion- my bad. Thanks sojobo for pointing it out)

Edited February 7, 2012 by tallgeese

[sojobo]

On a side note, I would think that the kyoro 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.

Tallgeese,

Who are the kyoro guys?

Thanks

Sojobo

[tallgeese]

My apologies, koryu. The older arts. That's what I get for using terms after class without checking spellings. I'm a pretty reference based guy when it comes to spelling

That said, what are you're feelings over the last couple of posts sojobo? given your traditional lineage I'm curious to find out.