Karate with no Soul?

[Harkon72]

It's Logical, Karate has Kata, Kata has Bunkai; so Good Bunkai leads to good Karate. I follow that some styles are excelling without Kata, maybe sport Karate doesn't need it, but I see it as an integral ingredient even if it is not acknowledged as such.

[SamsIAmz]

IMHO, Kata allows the student to surpass his instructor faster than it would be without Kata.

Most instructors are limited to what they themselves have personally experienced.

Could you elaborate on this as I'm unsure what you mean?

Do you mean the student collecting more kata that their instructor? Or just delving into the kata more than their instructor?

IMO, skipping Kata is like taking a university class and not buying the textbook.

When taking a university class, the professor takes from the text book the things that he finds the most useful based on his most current personal experience. He explains it to you, assigns homework and provides examinations on what he lectures on - but just the things he finds to be the most useful, and skips the rest which is roughly 1/2 of the textbook.

But if a student wants to have a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, he needs to spend the time and dig into the textbook, look at opinions of people other than the teaching professor.

Great thanks for explaining I like the analogy.

But continuing the analogy, the professor may disregard parts of the textbook because he knows it to be an outdated idea or that there are better ways (other textbooks, practicals, his own material etc.) to teach it. The textbook is supplementary but it isn't the core of what he's teaching.

Also, would this analogy be relying on the fact that those learning the kata would be exploring bunkai? If so not all forms of Karate look at bunkai in the same way. For example Kyokushin don't really look at bunkai as much as other forms of training (someone correct me if I'm wrong). In your opinion would those that don't do the practise be practising soulless Karate?

I also think the analogy that BrickShooter used is quite apt. I personally feel that the kata are lifeless if you do not have intention. Kata are not a simply a dance where you learn the movements and thats it. You must at least have some concept of bunkai if you want to have the emotions and feelings that go into kata. If a person practices kata, and doesn't practice at least some bunkai, or have their own ideas on bunkai, then their kata is lifeless or "soulless".

[brickshooter]

IMHO, Kata allows the student to surpass his instructor faster than it would be without Kata.

Most instructors are limited to what they themselves have personally experienced.

Could you elaborate on this as I'm unsure what you mean?

Do you mean the student collecting more kata that their instructor? Or just delving into the kata more than their instructor?

IMO, skipping Kata is like taking a university class and not buying the textbook.

When taking a university class, the professor takes from the text book the things that he finds the most useful based on his most current personal experience. He explains it to you, assigns homework and provides examinations on what he lectures on - but just the things he finds to be the most useful, and skips the rest which is roughly 1/2 of the textbook.

But if a student wants to have a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, he needs to spend the time and dig into the textbook, look at opinions of people other than the teaching professor.

Great thanks for explaining I like the analogy.

But continuing the analogy, the professor may disregard parts of the textbook because he knows it to be an outdated idea or that there are better ways (other textbooks, practicals, his own material etc.) to teach it. The textbook is supplementary but it isn't the core of what he's teaching.

Also, would this analogy be relying on the fact that those learning the kata would be exploring bunkai? If so not all forms of Karate look at bunkai in the same way. For example Kyokushin don't really look at bunkai as much as other forms of training (someone correct me if I'm wrong). In your opinion would those that don't do the practise be practising soulless Karate?

IMO, a professor may disregard parts of the text book because he thinks that he knows what is outdated. Whether he is correct often depends on who you ask. Ask the professor's own students, the professor is correct. Ask the book publisher, the professor is incorrect - they too have their experts.

Regarding Bunkai, I don't assume that Kyokushin dismisses Bunkai. In Shotokan itself, I've heard that bunkai is taught at the 4th/5th dans is vastly different from what is taught at the lower dans (if at all). Just because it's not taught at a person's particular level, it doesn't mean that it's not taught. It can also be because one is not priviliged enough to get the information.

Regarding souless, I've no idea what that means. I just see that the teaching of Karate without Kata is like sending a student to class without a text book. You are limited to what the instuctor tells you that he "thinks" he knows.

[bushido_man96]

The analogy of the professor and student is being used here, so what about the idea of the analogy of peer reviewed studies and works?

[Dobbersky]

I would have to agree about Kyokushin Karateka don't work too much on kata Bunkai, I don't know why, just know they seem to be more tuned into kumite practice than the what, where, how and why of kata.

Ashihara & Enshin do work on Bunkai, but the kata are different to traditional kata and more akin to Jissen real combat.

[andym]

In relation to Shotokan, I've posted this here already on a topic dealing with 'Shototkan folk dance' . My view is Shotokan, Kyukushinkai etc went down the road of free fighting / Jiyu Kumite. Believing that was the answer and the future. In the 1980's , coming from Goju Ryu, I was mocked for still doing 'out of date' training - bunkai ! By almost all the styles (and some of the people !) who now make a big deal of Bunkai training. Lets not beat about the bush - very few styles maintained Bunkai training through the 1960's and beyond. Shorin Ryu , Goju Ryu, Uechi Ryu and some Shito Ryu, that is all that I know of. It doesn't mean either is wrong, I just wish a truth was acknowledged and credit given.

This is fairly old material, internet wise. The following are what I wrote in 2008 on another forum. It will only really make sense after the articles have been read.

" An honest view of Shotokan pre 1990's,prior to the introduction of Bunkai to the style. And Bunkai was only introduced to shotokan in the 1990's. Remember that the introduction of both long stances and free-sparring/ Ji-Yu Kumite , as this is what he means when talking of sparring are all developments of the mid-20th century. These fundamentally altered the way Karate was and is practiced , and the source of these changes ; SHOTOKAN .

N.B. I studied Shotokan from 1973 to '76 with Billy Higgins and left to do J.K.D. and kickboxing because I thought the same and abandoned Kata.

1979 I came to realize that sparring was as flawed as any other training method . I then ended up doing Goju Ryu with Tony Christian. Still with him to this day as a 5th dan student, so I have an interesting prospective on this , and also some information form Shotokan Master M. HARADA , when I've more time.

In the late 1990's I took the opportunity to train with Master Harada , a truly great,master teacher of Karate-do. Over the weekend I was with him he told me the following tale as to how Shotokan developed and expanded it's syllabus of Kata either side of w.w.2. ; During the summer break from university, he set off for Okinawa by ferry with a letter of introduction to an old teacher on the island. It took almost a week to get there . He then spent a month learning the Kata that he'd been sent to collect. He then returned to the the J.K.A. , again another weeks travel . The next few weeks were spent demonstrating , teaching and "changing the Kata to conform". (This term sticks in my memory .) With all this to be done before he went back to university. Most importantly though, due to the demands of precision in learning the Kata , in such a limited time, it was impossible to learn any Bunkai. Thus post war Shotokan DID NOT practise or study Bunkai . Something Harada readily admitted."

[DWx]

IMO, a professor may disregard parts of the text book because he thinks that he knows what is outdated. Whether he is correct often depends on who you ask. Ask the professor's own students, the professor is correct. Ask the book publisher, the professor is incorrect - they too have their experts.

Regarding Bunkai, I don't assume that Kyokushin dismisses Bunkai. In Shotokan itself, I've heard that bunkai is taught at the 4th/5th dans is vastly different from what is taught at the lower dans (if at all). Just because it's not taught at a person's particular level, it doesn't mean that it's not taught. It can also be because one is not priviliged enough to get the information.

Regarding souless, I've no idea what that means. I just see that the teaching of Karate without Kata is like sending a student to class without a text book. You are limited to what the instuctor tells you that he "thinks" he knows.

Well a professor is not teaching you research material, he is teaching you theories and facts he knows to be concrete and he will use what he deems to be the best methods possible to convey this knowledge to you. He's been around the block and is at a much higher level than you so can use that knowledge to help you learn in the best way possible. Whereas he may have had to read 25+ texts, conducted his own experiments and consulted many other experts on the subject, he can help make your journey that much more direct and show you exactly what's what so then you can go on to develop on your own. He's also has probably taught 100's of students prior to you and his teacher's taught many more 100's prior to that so they know what works and what doesn't work with regards to teaching methods. If you rely on that one textbook you may be stuck in a rut for a very long time if that textbook just can't convey the knowledge well enough.

Say we take something like the sciences, up until Copernicus in the 1500's, the textbooks of the time still taught the idea of geocentric cosmology. Would we have put man on the moon if we just followed the one textbook which said the earth was the centre of all things instead of finding better sources of information? Maybe then you could say that Karate must have kata if we're preserving the old ways and not delving into new material and ideas?

I would have to agree about Kyokushin Karateka don't work too much on kata Bunkai, I don't know why, just know they seem to be more tuned into kumite practice than the what, where, how and why of kata.

Ashihara & Enshin do work on Bunkai, but the kata are different to traditional kata and more akin to Jissen real combat.

So then are they still practising Karate? Something like this would to me be considered more like formalised drill work and not a kata per se. How can we say that without kata Karate is souless when there isn't even consistency to as what kata is in the first place?

[brickshooter]

IMO, a professor may disregard parts of the text book because he thinks that he knows what is outdated. Whether he is correct often depends on who you ask. Ask the professor's own students, the professor is correct. Ask the book publisher, the professor is incorrect - they too have their experts.

Regarding Bunkai, I don't assume that Kyokushin dismisses Bunkai. In Shotokan itself, I've heard that bunkai is taught at the 4th/5th dans is vastly different from what is taught at the lower dans (if at all). Just because it's not taught at a person's particular level, it doesn't mean that it's not taught. It can also be because one is not priviliged enough to get the information.

Regarding souless, I've no idea what that means. I just see that the teaching of Karate without Kata is like sending a student to class without a text book. You are limited to what the instuctor tells you that he "thinks" he knows.

Well a professor is not teaching you research material, he is teaching you theories and facts he knows to be concrete and he will use what he deems to be the best methods possible to convey this knowledge to you. He's been around the block and is at a much higher level than you so can use that knowledge to help you learn in the best way possible. Whereas he may have had to read 25+ texts, conducted his own experiments and consulted many other experts on the subject, he can help make your journey that much more direct and show you exactly what's what so then you can go on to develop on your own. He's also has probably taught 100's of students prior to you and his teacher's taught many more 100's prior to that so they know what works and what doesn't work with regards to teaching methods. If you rely on that one textbook you may be stuck in a rut for a very long time if that textbook just can't convey the knowledge well enough.

Say we take something like the sciences, up until Copernicus in the 1500's, the textbooks of the time still taught the idea of geocentric cosmology. Would we have put man on the moon if we just followed the one textbook which said the earth was the centre of all things instead of finding better sources of information? Maybe then you could say that Karate must have kata if we're preserving the old ways and not delving into new material and ideas?

I would have to agree about Kyokushin Karateka don't work too much on kata Bunkai, I don't know why, just know they seem to be more tuned into kumite practice than the what, where, how and why of kata.

Ashihara & Enshin do work on Bunkai, but the kata are different to traditional kata and more akin to Jissen real combat.

So then are they still practising Karate? Something like this would to me be considered more like formalised drill work and not a kata per se. How can we say that without kata Karate is souless when there isn't even consistency to as what kata is in the first place?

I used an analogy to simplify my position. It's not my intention to run into a grand debate about analogies. I think we should agree to disagree.

I'm sure that your instructor is brilliant and that his path is the correct path for you.

[DWx]

I used an analogy to simplify my position. It's not my intention to run into a grand debate about analogies. I think we should agree to disagree.

I'm sure that your instructor is brilliant and that his path is the correct path for you.

Sorry brickshooter but I thought the analogy worked quite well for discussion of some of the limitations you might encounter when relying on kata for the bulk of your training. But yes I guess we agree to disagree.

I don't mean to cause any offense by my posts, just acting as devil's advocate for some discussion so sorry if I came on a bit strong with that. As I said in a previous post, we do a lot of kata and related training in my school and I greatly value their use as part of my own training; just maybe not to the extreme of OP's post by saying that if you do not your Karate is not Karate. As an aside, IMHO my instructor is quite brilliant and (relevant to this topic) is very well known for his kata (or tul in Korean) in our style. He's also won multiple world titles competing in tul and trained many more international medallists.