Kata Questions

[Revario]

Hello to all, introduction is brief, text and questions will be long. I have a few. 

 

Here we go, what makes a Kata beginner level or advanced level? With that being said, some schools (styles) will teach Sanchin as the first Kata. In our school Seisan is the first. Is it related to how one see the importance of a specific Kata and place it first? 

Is it the technical difficulty in its performance? Is it the principles that it teaches that are advanced as they would have been learned in other Kata or material prior? Is it the ease to use the movements of the Kata in real application (not the performative Bunkai, stress drilled Bunkai only).

Speaking of Seisan, our school (Chito Ryu) does it in a variation that is not seen elsewhere. It is said that Goju and Chito Ryu are similar in that both share same teacher (Aragaki Seisho), would we be correct to assume each student chose the Kata that resonated the most with them to be the main one and first taught in that style? In the same vein, would it not be correct to practice Seisan in the Sanchin position as it encourages close combat and Sanchin dachi is more comfortable for closer combat? 

And last but not least, seems many Masters of the old, created their own Kata. Based on Your experience, knowledge and combat skills, which Kata that presently exist would be the closest to the way you truly approach Karate? 

 

 

[Wastelander]

21 hours ago, Revario said:

Here we go, what makes a Kata beginner level or advanced level? With that being said, some schools (styles) will teach Sanchin as the first Kata. In our school Seisan is the first. Is it related to how one see the importance of a specific Kata and place it first? 

Is it the technical difficulty in its performance? Is it the principles that it teaches that are advanced as they would have been learned in other Kata or material prior? Is it the ease to use the movements of the Kata in real application (not the performative Bunkai, stress drilled Bunkai only).

Speaking of Seisan, our school (Chito Ryu) does it in a variation that is not seen elsewhere. It is said that Goju and Chito Ryu are similar in that both share same teacher (Aragaki Seisho), would we be correct to assume each student chose the Kata that resonated the most with them to be the main one and first taught in that style? In the same vein, would it not be correct to practice Seisan in the Sanchin position as it encourages close combat and Sanchin dachi is more comfortable for closer combat? 

And last but not least, seems many Masters of the old, created their own Kata. Based on Your experience, knowledge and combat skills, which Kata that presently exist would be the closest to the way you truly approach Karate? 

In my opinion, there really isn't such a thing as "advanced kata," per se. I do think there are some kata which are very obviously designed for beginners, such as Chibana's Kihongata, or the Taikyouku series, which are short, simple, and generally contain the most basic of lessons. That said, those can still be done in an advanced way, turning them into "advanced kata." Pretty much all the other kata are going to be subjective as to what level they are, because different kata are easier or harder for different people on a case-by-case basis, and the way the instructor teaches them also makes a difference. Some people consider Naihanchi to be black belt material, for example, while they tend to be the first real kata that you learn in Shorin-Ryu, but the versions of the kata are very similar, so there isn't an actual concrete reason for Naihanchi to be "advanced kata" for some and "beginner kata" for others. If the instructor struggles, themselves, with correctly performing the kata and learning the applications, they are more likely to present it as "advanced" material, and if they find it easy and understand the applications, they're more likely to present it as "beginner" material. Also, the more nuance they teach for the kata, the more "advanced" it can be. If everything in kata is done the same basic way as all the other kata and drills you've learned before, it's probably "beginner" material, but if there are subtle shifts in the footwork/stances, different movement patterns connecting familiar postures, or fine details with regard to hand movements that are unique to the kata, it's more likely to be considered "advanced." There is also, as you allude to, a tradition factor involved, because if someone is taught a particular kata as a beginner, they are more likely to consider it a "beginner kata," and the same goes for "advanced kata." That's why it is important to be critical of tradition, and not just repeat it thoughtlessly.

I realize this may not be too terribly helpful, but that's just my view on it. The kata are as "advanced" as you make them, basically.

To answer your final question, I would say that Naihanchi still represents my approach the most, but I'm not averse to the creation of new kata, provided they are created with the right intentions and understanding. I have created kata myself, as well as guided others through the process, and have found it to be a great way to get a new perspective on the potential application of kata, as a whole, although I have never gone on to teach any of the kata we created. I've considered developing one to teach, as of late, though.

[Nidan Melbourne]

Thank for the post @Revario!  

Great questions! 

21 hours ago, Revario said:

Here we go, what makes a Kata beginner level or advanced level?

To me; a "Beginner" Level Kata is one that has maybe 1 or 2 concepts in them for students to understand or to be introduced to. 

For instance; Taikyoku Jodan (The first Kata in Goju-Kai if used) introduces basic manouevring from Sanchin Dachi to Zenkutsu Dachi and turns (180 + 90 degrees). 

 

But to be fair there would be some Intermediate Levels also which lays somewhere in between Beginner and Advanced. However, the ones I mention here are often the first taught at many Goju-Ryu Dojo. So Gekesai Dai Ichi and Ni along with Saifa would be my Intermediate forms. 

 

"Advanced" Level same idea as the Beginner Level; however contains more concepts. 

So for the Goju-Kai Syllabus; I'd say Seeiunchin or Sanseru would be the start of the Advanced Forms. 

 

However,  it can be a tad subjective because each club may approach kata difficulty differently. Like I have the Gekesai as Intermediate, yet others it would be a Beginner level. 

Yet whats funny, is when I have students take a step back and view the kata as a whole then go to break it down. Because to me even the Beginner Kata can provide you with tid bits that can become quite practical for Self-Defence Routines. 

21 hours ago, Revario said:

Is it related to how one see the importance of a specific Kata and place it first? 

There has been some discussion around a specific kata being the Styles "Signature" Kata. Sanchin being Goju's Signature Kata. 

When I discuss it with other Black Belts; often who are far more experienced than myself. A common theme comes up that learning it is delayed or revealed when the student is ready to learn it.  

If the Styles "Founder" placed importance in one kata, then in my mind that kata must (in a way) contain the knowledge that makes their style. Which when I look at Goju-Ryu (even my Goju-Kai), Sanchin blossoms into a large foundation of knowledge that the techniques taught can easily be performed there. 

21 hours ago, Revario said:

And last but not least, seems many Masters of the old, created their own Kata. Based on Your experience, knowledge and combat skills, which Kata that presently exist would be the closest to the way you truly approach Karate? 

The masters when they were creating their kata, would have to contain a piece of knowledge to help students. 

At the moment, I feel the closest to either Gekesai Dai Ich or Seisan. 

Gekesai for its simplicity but also in its viciousness and straight up slapping the person (IYKYK). 

Seisan for all those sweeps that are included in several different forms. 

 

[sensei8]

22 hours ago, Revario said:

Here we go, what makes a Kata beginner level or advanced level?

Thus far, you’ve received solid feedback to your OP question. Instead of providing more detailed information/explanatios to your enquirer, please allow me a more simplified answer…

Whether a kata is or isn’t either “beginner” or “advanced”…one’s Governing Body makes that decision.

[KarateKen]

3 hours ago, sensei8 said:

Thus far, you’ve received solid feedback to your OP question. Instead of providing more detailed information/explanatios to your enquirer, please allow me a more simplified answer…

Whether a kata is or isn’t either “beginner” or “advanced”…one’s Governing Body makes that decision.

Pretty much what I was thinking.  It depends on the school and the individual.

When I was a purple belt, our assistant instructor told a story about how he was learning a new technique and kept getting one of the basics wrong, and the head sensei, a seventh degree, called them "beginners."  I remember thinking wow, I can get to black belt in a few years and finally I will finally reach beginner stage! 

[Nidan Melbourne]

8 hours ago, sensei8 said:

Thus far, you’ve received solid feedback to your OP question. Instead of providing more detailed information/explanatios to your enquirer, please allow me a more simplified answer…

Whether a kata is or isn’t either “beginner” or “advanced”…one’s Governing Body makes that decision.

Ergo Sensei8 is an Advanced Form (Life Form that is hehehe).

I am a Beginner Form (relatively) hahaha

[Revario]

Thank you very much to everyone. I think that truly does answer my questions in that matter. 

Sometimes things are a lot simpler then they appear. This was such a case. 

 

[Nidan Melbourne]

14 hours ago, Revario said:

Thank you very much to everyone. I think that truly does answer my questions in that matter. 

Sometimes things are a lot simpler then they appear. This was such a case. 

 

Well thats what we're all here for! To ask questions and have them answered from people who may know how to help. 

This is why I love this site, so we can all learn something or even have a change of perspective. 

[Wado Heretic]

Apologies for being late to this. I will inevitably parrot some thoughts in my answer that have already been presented, so apologies for a lack of obvious originality, but I will try and introduce some nuances from my own perspective.

Quote

 

Here we go, what makes a Kata beginner level or advanced level? With that being said, some schools (styles) will teach Sanchin as the first Kata. In our school Seisan is the first. Is it related to how one see the importance of a specific Kata and place it first? 

Is it the technical difficulty in its performance? Is it the principles that it teaches that are advanced as they would have been learned in other Kata or material prior? Is it the ease to use the movements of the Kata in real application (not the performative Bunkai, stress drilled Bunkai only).

 

To parrot the earlier posts to an extent: The perspective of those in the governing body who are responsible for the syllabus, and where they feel kata ought to be placed.

In reviewing syllabi, I would say I have observed several factors which seem to have dominated the thinking of the syllabus architects:

1.      The length of the Kata

2.      The athletic challenges of the Kata

3.      The number of novel movements present (Hence novel applications)

4.      Relevance to other core exercises (Pre-Arranged Exercises/Drills)

5.      Does it introduce knowledge or build upon/challenge existing ability

To demonstrate this observation I am going to break down the nine core kata of the Wado-Ryu Syllabus. These, in my experience, are the most adjusted from their Shotokai/Shito-Ryu equivalents which are the origins of Otsuka’s kata.  Plus, I only earned a Shodan in Wado-Ryu, and I belonged to a multi-style organisation, so I never really learnt the kata beyond the core nine as my teacher felt the Shito-Ryu or Shorin-Ryu versions were better, and we changed over to a shorin-ryu club at the start of 2013 which was only a few months after I got my Wado-Ryu black belt. Anyway, onto my analysis:

Pinangata – Built around Kihon, but contain novel sequences, though they are largely variations on fundamental techniques. They also introduce the primordial shapes of the system (Stances and Postures) in a sequential manner and the kata also very brief. Does include the use of two hands at once, but also predominantly involves hikite. A lot of the movements are also found in the Kihon Kumite of Wado-Ryu.

Kushanku – The longest kata in the system. Hironori Otsuka appears, in my eyes, to have made it align much more closely to the previous Pinangata movements that are borrowed from this kata. In the Shito-Ryu and Shorin-Ryu, the Pinangata and Kusanku Dai, have a lot of very similar movements but there are subtle differences. That, however, is an aside point. As a kata it is more athletically demanding because of its length, and it has a couple of athletically demanding moves such as a drop and rise from the floor, and a jumping front kick, but it largely reinforces elements from the preceding kata.

Naihanchi – Builds upon Meotode (Hands working together) as introduced in some of the Pinangata. To perform the kata well also requires proper use of posture and the waist because you cannot rely on momentum to give an impression of speed and power. It also has a rooted stance, while the previous kata largely impress light-footedness upon the karateka.

Seishan – The first part of this kata largely builds on the lessons of Naihanchi. It works from a rooted stance and features a lot of movement on the spot requiring good use of posture and the waist. One novel element though is the focus on controlled breathing. It also uses a combination of fast and slow movements, where in comparison all the earlier kata focus on sharp and graceful movement. The second half features some challenging movements for someone with poor balance, such as the knee lifts to a step behind, a front kick from a cross step, and a cycle kick near the end. Thus making it more athletically demanding.

Chinto – On the surface, Chinto is quite alien to the preceding kata. It contains few examples of kihon waza, unlike the pinangata and kushanku, nor does it have a focus on rooting like Naihanchi and Seishan. However, when one looks closely we can see the points it is building on. There is significant use of the hands working together, as in Naihanchi and Seishan, and it has athletically challenging movements like Kushanku, and a number of the sequences can be seen as variations on novel movements from the Pinangata and Kushanku. Plus, the single leg stance introduces and demands the ability to root, have good posture, and use the waist, to be effective. Chinto, should, in theory challenge you to get better at all the previous lessons. It is also a relatively long kata.

I think, based on my observations, I would argue that you can identify the Pinangata and Naihanchi as beginner kata, Kushanku and Seishan as intermediate kata, and Chinto as an advanced kata. They increase in length, athletic challenge, and introduce novel concepts in a progressive manner, before culminating in Chinto where all the prior lessons are needed to perform it well.

This can also be seen in the Goju-Ryu core syllabus of 12 kata. Gekisai Ichi and No contain all the core techniques but done in a hard manner, with a focus on forward momentum, north south-movement, and the use of a lead hand. Saifa (Which I believe may be Miyagi’s reorganising and interpretation of Naihanchi) introduces the uses of angles, the blend of soft and hard movement, meotode, and movements on the spot requiring use of the waist and proper posture. Along with Sanchin and Tensho these are Kihongata/Heishugata/Tanrengata which are intended for physically conceptualising principles and developing a martial body. These are all core to progressing to the Kaishugata which focus on applications, and the Kaishugata generally progress in length, athletic challenge, and number of novel techniques, and each generally builds upon the theme of the last.  

In both examples, the earlier kata are preparatory for the latter kata. They introduce principles relevant to the following kata, and which are needed to perform the following kata properly, and to understand the new principles the later kata are introducing. They prepare the body for the evolving challenges of the later kata.

Anyway, in short, and to give a more direct answer to each query

Quote

Here we go, what makes a Kata beginner level or advanced level?

To repeat myself -

1.      The length of the Kata

2.      The athletic challenges of the Kata

3.      The number of novel movements present (Hence novel applications)

4.      Relevance to other core exercises (Pre-Arranged Exercises/Drills)

5.      Does it introduce knowledge or build upon/challenge existing ability

Quote

Is it related to how one see the importance of a specific Kata and place it first? 

Yes, the first kata teaches the process of learning kata. Thus, it should introduce the most essential components to build the learning process on. A poorly chosen initial kata can derail the learning process before it begins.

Quote

Is it the technical difficulty in its performance?

Yes, but different people will determine difficulty in different ways.

Quote

Is it the principles that it teaches that are advanced as they would have been learned in other Kata or material prior?

Depends on the system. Some focus the training of principles through Kihongata/Heishugata/Tanrengata designed specifically for physically conceptualising principles, and isolating them for practice. The later kata should then be performed with these principles while focusing on the novel possibilities for applications. Others will introduce the principles as they become relevant to the applications of the kata.

Quote

Is it the ease to use the movements of the Kata in real application (not the performative Bunkai, stress drilled Bunkai only).

Depends on if the syllabus was built around an understanding of the concept of Bunseki, of which Bunkai is only one element. Without that knowledge a kata syllabus could be purely built around obvious athletic challenges.

To give a more personal answer. I do not believe there are innately beginner and advanced kata. There are kata that have been designed for beginners and novices as mentioned about, however, I agree with Wastelander that kata are as complex as what you put into them. As you gain greater understanding, and you revisit kata you learnt earlier, you should be pulling back and applying later lessons to them.

To give an example from my teaching approach. With the Pinangata my focus is on Koshi, the use of the waist, as a foundation for the development of Muchimi, Gamaku, and Chikuchi.

Pinan Nidan – Use of the Waist with techniques off the front hand

Pinan Shodan – Use of the Waist with techniques off the back hand

Pindan Sandan – Use of the Waist when using hands in tandem

Pinan Yondan – Use of the waist in quick succession

Pinan Godan – Using the waist in foot work

As the student progresses, they should then, and I do guide them in this, take the lesson backwards as well as forward. I also introduce Naihanchi Shodan early with a focus on Muchimi, and Sanchin with a focus on Chikuchi. As students advance, they should then bring all the lessons together in all their kata. Thus, as they progress their performance of the kata should become more advanced, turning them into advanced kata as they find more innate challenges within the kata to overcome.

With that said, another angle to consider is what I call “Flavours” in kata performance. Each system has its own core which is reflected in its kata performance. Shorin-Ryu is often quite staccato, with deliberate breaks between techniques to generate and perform techniques explosively. Goju-Ryu often has a strict divide between hard and soft techniques, giving their kata a fast and slow rhythm. Many systems influenced by the WKF Competition circuit have a more dynamic appearance focusing on kata being done in sequences, and motions being sharp and powerful, or slow and graceful, which give them a percussive flow done well, or lead to looking rushed done badly. Many systems influenced more recently by Chinese sources often have a flowing appearance with the moments of fixture being brief, and the stances often being less defined and more mobile.  

My point being that, over time, all the kata in your own system might become “beginner” like in difficulty to you. However, were you to try a kata from a system with a different “flavour” their beginner or intermediate kata may feel advanced to you. Because it demands a different kind of martial body, or it places emphasis on different elements of motion you have not trained for.

Quote

Speaking of Seisan, our school (Chito Ryu) does it in a variation that is not seen elsewhere. It is said that Goju and Chito Ryu are similar in that both share same teacher (Aragaki Seisho), would we be correct to assume each student chose the Kata that resonated the most with them to be the main one and first taught in that style?

To be lazy, and not make this post any longer than need be, here is a link to a post on a topic on seisan: https://karateforums.com/topic/51847-seisan-kata/page/2/#findComment-574610

Most versions of Matsumura Seisan can be traced back to Kyan Chotoku, and other versions traced back to Ryu Ryu Ko. Personally, Chito-Ryu’s Seisan looks closer to a version of Matsumura Seisan than it does Goju-Ryu’s. And Kyan Chotoku was Chitose’s first teacher. However, I do believe that it is an amalgamation or is Aragaki’s version as Chitose seemed to favour Aragaki’s teachings in his creation of Chito-Ryu. Furthermore, Funakoshi’s Hangetsu looks like Matsumura Seisan, and he got his Seisan from Aragaki. A counter point to this is that Miyagi, the founder of Goju-Ryu, purportedly got his from Higoanna, who reportedly received it from Ryu Ryu Ko. Aragaki Seisho was a senior student of Ryu Ryu Ko to Higoanna. If they both got their versions from Ryu Ryu Ko, then Chitose is plausibly doing Kyan’s versions due to the differences. Alternatively, Miyagi changed his Seisan, which would not have been out of character for Miyagi. Either way, nothing definitive.

The following is speculation, and I have little to no evidence. I have been told by a handful of old Okinawan Karateka that kata in old Okinawan Martial Arts, and to an extent Chinese Martial Arts, that most forms have two or three versions. Either a Sho and Dai, or a Sho, Dai, and Gwa set. As in modern karate some of these were taught sequentially. But under some teachers you would abandon the less complex version as you learnt the more sophisticated and comprehensive version. Alternatively, you would be taught the version that the teacher thought suited your level of ability, or the version they were still confident performing if age and injury were a factor. The differences could be because they received different versions from the same teacher, or as you have speculated, the students chose to keep the version they preferred.

It is a kata that is both rudimentary and complex. It can be used to introduce effective fundamentals including rooting, breathing, and generation of power through the waste. However, it can present some athletic challenges, if one wants to put them in there. It is easy to break into sections for easier learning, and it contains the majority of the most fundamental techniques. I can see many arguments for it being the first kata of a system

Now, I will add some brief thoughts on things I have learnt since in my research which are relevant to the linked post.

Patrick McCarthy appears to have been the primary populariser of Aragaki Seisan, and he originally learned the Kata from Richard Kim. Due to Mr McCarthy’s reputation as a historical researcher, I somewhat naively assumed he labelled the kata Aragaki Seisan because of a high degree of confidence it was related to Aragki Seisho. However, two points have since come to my attention:

1.      The label of Aragaki Seisan was given by Richard Kim. It could have been arbitrary as there is no evidence this kata is connected to Aragaki Seisho.

2.      The current Aragaki Seisan kata promoted by the IRKRS is Patrick McCarthy’s own personal interpretation of the kata based on lengthy study of many versions.

Thus, I must discount it as evidence in my original hypothesis. Arguably, Richard Kim may have received the kata from Arakaki Ankichi, hence the choice of kata name, who apparently joined Yabu Kentsu in his brief excursion to Hawaii in 1926, but that is a hypothesis based on very slim documented evidence. I am doubtful the credited Arakaki Ankichi is the famous one, as both the surname and forname are relatively common Okinawan names, and there is no documented evidence of the famous Arakaki visiting Hawaii that I can find. Plus, even were it the famous Arakaki Ankichi, there is no documented connection of him to Aragaki Seisho. Either way, it leaves that trail cold for now.

Furthermore, with additional research I have conducted since, I have become sceptical of the claims of Nakaima regarding Ryuei-Ryu’s origins. Again, I have detailed those reasons for doubts in another post: https://karateforums.com/topic/51859-okinawan-ryuei-ryu-karate/#findComment-574680

If Chito-Ryu’s Seisan, which may come from either Aragaki or Kyan, does come from Aragaki it  could be considered the “true” Aragaki Seisan. Then my standing theory still holds water but this loss of two key point of evidence has made it leaky. I plan to revisit it in time.

Quote

In the same vein, would it not be correct to practice Seisan in the Sanchin position as it encourages close combat and Sanchin dachi is more comfortable for closer combat? 

I know Seishan, Naha Seisan (Goju-Ryu), Aragaki Seisan, Higoanna Seisan, and Miyahira Seisan. Through all those versions the key point is to have a forward focusing (Not necessarily square) stance, flexibility in the knees, and the hara lowered through the hips. You should be able to bend yourself forward at the hips without losing balance. Sanchin artificially forces this by having the bladed fleet. If you try to stand completely upright with your feet in sanchin position you will immediately feel off balance, and the only way to correct it is to sink. But yes, you are essentially trying to adopt a stance adapted for wrestling.

Quote

And last but not least, seems many Masters of the old, created their own Kata. Based on Your experience, knowledge and combat skills, which Kata that presently exist would be the closest to the way you truly approach Karate? 

Naihanchi Shodan – the more you learn about karate, the less you feel the need to change it. It, on the surface, contains all the fundamentals needed to make all of your kata better, but the more I study it the more find principles hidden in plain sight, but I didn’t have the vision to see them previously.

I have previously created three kata, however, I do not teach them. For various reasons, but I created them when they had a purpose, and then the purpose faded.

Kimarite I created for competition training purposes. I based it on 12 combinations/fighting manoeuvres I identified as functionally the same from many different sources. The kata could be performed in a line, or with turns designed to imply throws. Each sequence had a pad-work drill, and application drills. The application drills were based on using the sequence as an offence, as a counter set up or, to use fencing terminology, as part of a counter riposte. I also created variations to adapt to different rule sets and Miai: thus, a variation for sundome, a variation for full-contact striking, and a set which included clinches and the takedowns. I used to teach it to my students interested in competition, or used it as a tool when I did guest coaching. But I have not taught a competition session since before Covid, and I havve subsequently developed shadow work exercises connected to the Pinangata and my organisations basic bunkai, along with pad work drills, which keeps everyone grounded in the traditional karate, but gives flexibility for competition training.

I also developed a kata called Shirokuma. A nickname I was given when I was in Okinawa because I was white, but hairier and bigger than a native member nicknamed Kuma. But also I built it around a Kata my Shorei Kempo teacher taught me simply called Bear Kata. I designed it to focus on body-to-body grappling techniques, as at the time I felt traditional kata only really dealt with arm length grappling and striking. Subsequently, as I have learnt more about bunseki, and more about the principles behind kata performance, I have had this erroneous view corrected, and I find plenty of body-to-body techniques in almost any kata now I know what to look for.

To repeat myself: the more you learn about karate, the less you feel the need to change it. But I do feel there was a benefit in creating the kata, as they led me to a deep appreciation and knowledge of the old kata.

Lastly, I created a kata which became a tribute to a friend called Tsukai. I based in on Wado-Ryu’s Jitte, his favourite Kata, but I incorporated the five fighting combinations of the Kempo Karate system he taught. At the time we were trying to build a club together, and we were going to ground it in the Kempo Karate he taught as he was bringing along the student base, but we were going to introduce exercises and Kata from Wado-Ryu, which we both knew and where we knew each other from. Thus, I was trying to create a unique kata which blended the two traditions, and also sneak in some principles from Shorin-ryu. Sadly, he died during the covid crises, but I completed the kata as a tribute. I taught it to his students, but whether they still practice it I do not know. I try to run through it on his birthday as a private tribute, but it is not part of my regular practice.

Edited Sunday at 07:54 PM by Wado Heretic