Karate with no Soul?

[DWx]

For me, Kata is the central nervous system for Karate and therefore absolutely essential in learning 'Karate'. I am NOT saying that applies to ALL martial arts but if there is no Kata, its not Karate!

Dare I say that karate without kata is a sort of simplified version, but let me explain why I think this before I get slaughtered!

I went to a club once when looking for a Wado club, that did traditional Wado Ryu together with Freestyle karate. There was a clear separation of the two, those who did freestyle did not learn kata nor were they required to learn and use japanese terminology. The Traditional Wado side, obviously, were required to learn these. The reason I was given for this division was that a few members really had some serious difficulty in learning kata and remembering terminology. I raised an eyebrow or two at this, particularly where more members were choosing freestyle in which students reached 1st Dan on a ratio of 4 for every 1 Wado!?!

Just a little food for thought!

I have no problem with people who wish to study Freestyle karate but it does make me a little annoyed when they can progress so quickly through the ranks without actually studying the details of the art through Kata.

When I started Karate way back when, a friend of mine started Kickboxing instead...after two years I was a senior Kyu grade and after 1 year he had attained Black Belt! I trained at least 6 hours per week (3 x 2 hours sessions) and he trained 2 (2 x 1hr sessions)! Difference was no Kata, no terminology!

I don't think rank is simply the reason why kata should be part of Karate. Besides ranks are not equal across styles. They only give an indication of skill level and knowledge when you've considered which style the rank is awarded in. BJJ doesn't have kata yet you got your blackbelt after 3-4(?) years. A BJJ practitioner probably won't get his until he's 10 years into his training,

If anything you could say that skill level being equal, your kickboxing friend advanced faster because he didn't have kata eating away at his time and slowing him down! He had more time to train the techniques and strategies themselves rather than wasting his time using an archaic training method. But of course the reality probably was that the skill levels were nowhere near equal.

[DWx]

Bit late to the party, but I think the core issues here are:

1. What is Karate?

Is it simply any martial art descended from a common Japanese/Okinawan line that contains a common core of techniques? Or is it any system that practises the three K's? If one of these K's is removed does it stop being Karate even if the practitioners still do the same techniques and have the same core principles, they move and fight in the same way? Would we be having this discussion if OP had asked if we could have Karate without Kumite? or Kihon?

In TKD we practise fundamental exercise (gibon yonsup), sparring (matsogi) and "kata" (hyung/tul). It's also descended mostly from Shotokan. Is TKD a form of Karate because it practises the three K's and comes from the same origin? Or is there some other fundamental difference in what makes TKD TKD and Karate Karate.

2. What's the purpose of Kata?

Can you not teach all the lessons of Kata in a different format? What are kata teaching that I couldn't get from drilling techniques up and down the room? Does it matter if I make up my own kata and teach them to my students? If I were teaching my own made up kata containing Karate techniques (like DWx shodan, DWx nidan etc. DWx-Dai and DWx-Sho) and not "official" kata am I no longer teaching Karate? If that's the case then which kata make Karate? Not all styles of Karate practice the same kata. If a kickboxer drilled the same combination of techniques in the same sequence everytime he trained is that now a kata? Is he now doing Karate?

FYI I actually like having kata as part of my training (even though we don't call them that). For me I find it is a great tool to teach rhythm, footwork, focus, techniques, methodology etc. but I do agree with MasterPain and Bushido that you can train without. But perhaps what makes Karate Karate is that it does rely on such training methods instead of finding newer and better(?) alternatives.

[bushido_man96]

When it comes to those things, for me, I took my character development and spiritual development from my home upbringing and my religious beliefs from my church. MAs aren't necessary for it, in my opinion.

See, this is why I prefer the Jutsu. While the martial art is a huge part of my spiritual life, that is up to me to find that personal meaning. I think all of the long term guys from our family would feel this way, too, despite having very different religious views.

Agreed. I don't think its part of my job as an MA instructor to attempt to instill my viewpoints, ethics, and philosophy on life in the others I come into contact with. If someone wants to know my point of view on such things, I'll gladly tell them, and if they want my opinions on their own, I'll gladly fill in those blanks, as well.

[bushido_man96]

I went to a club once when looking for a Wado club, that did traditional Wado Ryu together with Freestyle karate. There was a clear separation of the two, those who did freestyle did not learn kata nor were they required to learn and use japanese terminology. The Traditional Wado side, obviously, were required to learn these. The reason I was given for this division was that a few members really had some serious difficulty in learning kata and remembering terminology. I raised an eyebrow or two at this, particularly where more members were choosing freestyle in which students reached 1st Dan on a ratio of 4 for every 1 Wado!?!

Just a little food for thought!

I have no problem with people who wish to study Freestyle karate but it does make me a little annoyed when they can progress so quickly through the ranks without actually studying the details of the art through Kata.

When I started Karate way back when, a friend of mine started Kickboxing instead...after two years I was a senior Kyu grade and after 1 year he had attained Black Belt! I trained at least 6 hours per week (3 x 2 hours sessions) and he trained 2 (2 x 1hr sessions)! Difference was no Kata, no terminology!

The differences there are solely rested on the shoulders of the instructors at hand. Those instructors also did something I wasn't really describing, basically making a "Kickboxing Karate" option as a class. What I am talking about is using and training the applications of Karate kata bunkai, and training those things without the kata. Because after all, most of us agree that the katas are the repository for these applications. The idea most hold to on the creation of kata was that they were created to "store" this information; whether for secrecy or some other reason is still up open to debate. So, what I'm saying is, we have the kata recorded; there really isn't any danger in today's world of this treasure of the MA past being lost. Why can't a Karateka train the applications of the katas without learning the katas? It can be done, because styles like Aikido and Hapkido successfully train self-defense applications minus kata.

What I am not espousing is taking Karate and making it into random shadowboxing.

[bushido_man96]

I'm going to throw a different view in now.

What if the Kata/Hyung/Poomsae is only there to pass grades!!!! Like with TaeKwonDo, Tang Soo Do or GoKan Ryu etc

They do nothing with the kata except use it to get from one belt to the other. For this the kata actually has no use. they might as have to remember a few combinations or "create" their own Kata/Form for each grade.

This is another note of contention for me, and I want to address it here, since you brought it up, Dobbersky. On a side note, I'm going to swap my stance and defend forms training in a thread where I have been discussing the idea of training without forms....oh, well, that's why we like it here so much, right?!

Just because a style doesn't teach forms applications like Karate kata bunkai, doesn't mean the forms are "only for grading." I'll fall back here on my experience in that ATA, for two reasons:

1. Because I have enough experience with the ATA forms, and the thought processes behind the creation and reasons for the ATA forms.

2. Because whenever the idea of "forms are just a belt curriculum," the ATA tends to pop to the minds of many.

The ATA forms seem to some to be just a series of moves, put together just because HU Lee thought his style should have forms, since other TKD styles did, too, but that he wanted his forms "to be cooler." The ATA actually used Gen. Chois forms in its early days, but Lee actually learned the 16 forms taught him rather quickly, and wanted to create forms that presented more of a challenge, and also had a more focal point on kicking, which is what TKD became known for after its branch from Shotokan. My dad also remembers learning the Pal Gwe set of forms in his early ATA days.

So, with these goals in mind, and as Lee established how and what he would teach as the curriculum for each rank in the ATA, he established his forms system as such. Lee established, for example, the white belt curriculum, with the focus on the reverse and lunge punch, knife hand strike high block, middle block, and low block, and the front kick and side kick, and the stances of focus were front and middle stances. So, with this in mind, he designed the white belt form to focus on these techniques, done on both sides of the body, with the form having equal movement in both directions. So, the applications of the techniques in the form are in the skill development of the techniques for that rank. White belt, very basic. Orange belt then, added the round kick, along with double forearm "guarding" blocks, and backfist strikes. It also added the back stance.

The idea behind the ATA forms is to introduce new movement concepts and more advanced techniques as the student goes up in rank. So, you get a progression in the difficulty level of the forms as one gets higher in rank. Which is what one would expect to see as a student rises in ranks. The one-steps also reflect this as the ranks go up.

One could also say the "applications" of the movements in the forms can be seen in the combinations of the moves done in the forms. In the ATA, its more face value and less digging and interpretation than in most Karate styles.

As for the ITF forms, there is the school of thought out there that the applications of the forms were not taught to the Koreans who would go on to become masters and propagate TKD, so they didn't see any reason to adhere to the forms as-is, and made some modifications.

Kata is only important to Karate*IF* it is used as a part of one's training. if one works on Bunkai or similar for each kata. Its worked for Self Defence and other parts of one's training etc.

So that's my take on that front. I appreciate he discussion so far from all fronts!

[DWx]

To add to Brian's post, I'm most familiar with Gen. Choi's / the ITF's forms myself. Large sections of the forms were copied from your more traditional kata but then other bits were added to fit more within TKD way of doing things and to "improve" them. I can assure you also that in most TKD schools hyungs are not there simply for passing grades. Or are Karate kata adding in something or are somehow fundamentally different from what we are practising? Why are the TKD hyungs of lesser worth than Karate kata?

[Dobbersky]

Awesome, this is why I enjoy this forum so much, its discussed from all angles.

Kata/Hyungs/Poomsae/Til etc are all important as each other. Neither is greater than the other, the kata is the responsibility of the holder/teacher to pass on the full knowledge behind each form, not the student's.

I myself have created kata from the kata in my syllabus so not officially Ashihara kata but virtually identical and I have 2 Korean forms and 1 form that's practiced by Korean and Japanese arts in my syllabus. Does this mean I no longer have a soul to my karate? Every form in my syllabus HAS a reason, never to pass gradings only.

I know an instructor who teaches knockdown karate and has taken all the official kata out of his syllabus and teaches just what he knows what works, he himself a national and European champ and some of his students have gained their own championships. I've trained with him and his students and I can say there's definitely nothing missing in his karate.

[SamsIAmz]

Kata/Hyungs/Poomsae/Til etc are all important as each other. Neither is greater than the other, the kata is the responsibility of the holder/teacher to pass on the full knowledge behind each form, not the student's.

I definitely see your point, but I have to argue that there is value to students teaching themselves. However, I believe this works best when there is trust in the effectiveness of kata, even if one doesn't know the applications. Trust in the effectiveness will keep the student searching, as I continue to do myself.

In the school where I learned karate, my teachers were strong proponents of self discovery, and kata was a means for this. I was never told any of the complex bunkai for kata. This was up to me to discover through repetition and taking a critical look at the kata, and the movements/mindset within.

The only way a student can effectively teach his or herself is if they have faith in the underlying principles. I didn't (and still don't) really know 100% what the movements of the kata are, but because these were the kata which have been passed down for generation I had faith in them. I feel that kata require trust, and this trust is gained by knowing they were created by great masters and teacher of karate.

The really neat thing is that the forms will adapt to the practitioner. You will over time come to adapt the form and the application to what is best for you, and not a different practitioner. Of course its a much slower learning process though.... I personally have spent many days with other students just brainstorming ideas for movements. Only in the past year or two have I started taking such a critical view of kata, but I absolutely love it and its incredibly fascinating!

[bushido_man96]

I know an instructor who teaches knockdown karate and has taken all the official kata out of his syllabus and teaches just what he knows what works, he himself a national and European champ and some of his students have gained their own championships. I've trained with him and his students and I can say there's definitely nothing missing in his karate.

So, would you say his Karate has no "soul?"

Also, I'm curious if this instructor gets cut some slack because he teaches a knockdown style, and not a point style. If a point stylist did this, would he be viewed the same way?

[Drew]

Can you have a style at all with no Kata???

I think this is the question that bothers me here. I can get that Karate may not be Karate without kata. Why do we say "just kickboxing" concerning an art with no kata? What's wrong with kickboxing? What's wrong with wrestling? Or fencing? Or Aikido?

Word.