Do you have a "tokui" (specialty) Kata?

[Chunmonchek]

I don't have a tokui kata, as I was taught, and I teach, that you should not have any favorite kata, but should practice all. Choosing a favorite can cause one to neglect the others, or result in imbalance in the art.

1. I think there are many of those who strictly cling to the idea of preserving all the forms feel this way. But before Funakoshi's standardization of the katas, it wasn't always this way. Its one of the notions Redmond points out in his book, too. I don't really think having a favorite will imbalance the art, either. I think by determining that one should not pick a favorite is in a way limiting free thinking.

It follows that your "favorite" kata at any given time should be the one you perform the worse.

2. I disagree here. Like I mentioned earlier, Yoo Sin is my current form, and probably my worst black belt form, for sure. I do it the best I can, but if I have a choice, I won't do this form for any kind of demonstration. It does need more attention at this point in time, but that doesn't mean it should be my favorite.

One kata concept that I do think wise is Masanobu Shinjo's Rule of Three.

3. I'm not aware of this rule. Could you elaborate on it for us?

1. I don't know enough about Shotokan or Shorin Ryu to voice an opinion of the kata of those Ryus, but I have been training Okinawan Goju for decades, and do have an opinion regarding Goju kata. Most, if not all Okinawan Goju traditions train the same 12 kata syllabus. It is common understanding that Miyagi Sendai taught Sanchin kata and one or two kata to each of his students, based upon various factors including age, body type, etc. The theory is that specific kata were optimal for these specific students. Additionally, each kata emphasizes specific martial principals, physical, mental and spiritual development, range, movement, etc. Accordingly, emphasis on certain kata that are more beneficial for any specific practitioner could lead to (i) such practitioner not having as complete a book as Goju offers, (ii) an imbalance in development of the art, and (iii) a dilution of Okinawan Goju in generations to come, IMO.

2. See above regarding cultivation of all a Ryu has to offer, and having the "full" book (if such thing exists) to pass down to the next generation.

For demo purposes, I have kata that I prefer to perform and those that I don't. These have changed over the years, as my training of the art changed. And demos are demos, not the focus of my training.

3. Generally, in order to properly focus training, a practitioner should not train more than three kata during any given period. For example, training all 12 kata at once for a Goju practitioner would be more a kata review, than an in depth analysis and cultivation of specific kata. Glenard Grabow, a direct student under Masanobu Sensei wrote a published article about the Rule of Three.

[bushido_man96]

I think the problem has arisen in the standardization of katas for rank purposes in various styles. When we talk about the classical use of kata, it isn't the same as it is today. Now the kata are as they are, and they do not change, because that would be a blasphemy. But kata used to be learned and adapted as the practitioner saw fit for them. There was a lot more exploration and tailoring of kata for the individual's training.

The problem is now that things have been done this way for so long that either everyone doing it now thinks it has always been done that way, or to change is blasphemous as I mentioned, or the blind loyalty to whomever told them to do what they are doing and not question it has led them not to wonder what else went on.

I'm pretty sure that the status quo won't change now, and standardized kata are here to stay. This has its advantages and disadvantages.

[Chunmonchek]

I think the problem has arisen in the standardization of katas for rank purposes in various styles. When we talk about the classical use of kata, it isn't the same as it is today. Now the kata are as they are, and they do not change, because that would be a blasphemy. But kata used to be learned and adapted as the practitioner saw fit for them. There was a lot more exploration and tailoring of kata for the individual's training.

The problem is now that things have been done this way for so long that either everyone doing it now thinks it has always been done that way, or to change is blasphemous as I mentioned, or the blind loyalty to whomever told them to do what they are doing and not question it has led them not to wonder what else went on.

I'm pretty sure that the status quo won't change now, and standardized kata are here to stay. This has its advantages and disadvantages.

I agree regarding the standardization of kata for rank purposes. I saw this in a short stint training Shotokan and a shorter stint training Tae Kwon Do, and during a longer period (over 4 years) training non-Okinawan Goju.

However, in my experience training Okinawan Goju (over 28 years with the same Sensei), kata training was not for rank promotion purposes, but for the learning, analysis and transmission of applications, break-downs and principals. That said, I understand that's not always so in some/many Okinawa Goju dojos in Okinawa and abroad.

[bushido_man96]

However, in my experience training Okinawan Goju (over 28 years with the same Sensei), kata training was not for rank promotion purposes, but for the learning, analysis and transmission of applications, break-downs and principals. That said, I understand that's not always so in some/many Okinawa Goju dojos in Okinawa and abroad.

But, did you still have certain kata you only learned at certain ranks, or where they introduced on a per-student basis?

[DWx]

I think the problem has arisen in the standardization of katas for rank purposes in various styles. When we talk about the classical use of kata, it isn't the same as it is today. Now the kata are as they are, and they do not change, because that would be a blasphemy. But kata used to be learned and adapted as the practitioner saw fit for them. There was a lot more exploration and tailoring of kata for the individual's training.

The problem is now that things have been done this way for so long that either everyone doing it now thinks it has always been done that way, or to change is blasphemous as I mentioned, or the blind loyalty to whomever told them to do what they are doing and not question it has led them not to wonder what else went on.

I'm pretty sure that the status quo won't change now, and standardized kata are here to stay. This has its advantages and disadvantages.

Great post. Maybe it is also an issue of teaching en-mass and to a syllabus rather than on a 1-2-1 basis? Standardized kata make it easier to teach a group and move them through the ranks but it doesn't allow much for individuality.

[bushido_man96]

Thats a point that Redmond has made in his book, and I know in the Encyclopedia that Choi referred to he forms as "platoon training." Standardizing made it easier to teach in the relatively new idea of these larger class sizes, where there was only one way, everyone (supposedly) knew the same way to teach it, and therefore, groups could come together en masse and train together, providing training consistency.

[DWx]

Thats a point that Redmond has made in his book, and I know in the Encyclopedia that Choi referred to he forms as "platoon training." Standardizing made it easier to teach in the relatively new idea of these larger class sizes, where there was only one way, everyone (supposedly) knew the same way to teach it, and therefore, groups could come together en masse and train together, providing training consistency.

Perhaps getting a bit off topic but a lot of people seem to forget that Gen. Choi's TKD was originally for the military and I think it'd be a good explanation for why the training (and the use of standardized forms) is the way it is. You learn the forms in a set order and set way and also don't really find a parallel to the idea of bunkai in the training because it was about training up a platoon as efficiently as possible ready for combat.

[bushido_man96]

Thats a point that Redmond has made in his book, and I know in the Encyclopedia that Choi referred to he forms as "platoon training." Standardizing made it easier to teach in the relatively new idea of these larger class sizes, where there was only one way, everyone (supposedly) knew the same way to teach it, and therefore, groups could come together en masse and train together, providing training consistency.

Perhaps getting a bit off topic but a lot of people seem to forget that Gen. Choi's TKD was originally for the military and I think it'd be a good explanation for why the training (and the use of standardized forms) is the way it is. You learn the forms in a set order and set way and also don't really find a parallel to the idea of bunkai in the training because it was about training up a platoon as efficiently as possible ready for combat.

I agree. Very good points.

[Chunmonchek]

However, in my experience training Okinawan Goju (over 28 years with the same Sensei), kata training was not for rank promotion purposes, but for the learning, analysis and transmission of applications, break-downs and principals. That said, I understand that's not always so in some/many Okinawa Goju dojos in Okinawa and abroad.

But, did you still have certain kata you only learned at certain ranks, or where they introduced on a per-student basis?

No. There is a set progression of kata taught, but rank had no bearing on what was taught. When my Sensei felt you were ready, he taught it. And, notwithstanding the foregoing, in certain circumstances, certain kata were not taught in the set progression.

I teach the same way. Rank for us, is generally an external indicator of how far you have progressed as well as the minimum level of the curriculum you are required to know and perform...it does not serve as a limit as to what you can learn. Each karate-ka learns and develops at different rates, often accelerating in certain areas, and lagging behind in others.

My teacher has always held the belief that the Martial Arts should not be taught "off the rack".

[bushido_man96]

So it sounds to me that you are saying every kata is as important as every other kata, but at certain times only certain kata are taught, and not everyone taught the same kata equally. Am I understanding you correctly?