Losing love of Karate due to excessive Kata at training sessions. rant

[drop bear]

This illustrates my point(s).

First, the full aspect of Karate isn't normally trained because most instructors don't know it exists. But it is in the kata(s) if one wishes to utilize it.

Secondly, you are confusing sport competition with practical, real world Karate. Two different animals. Kata wasn't designed for competition. It was designed for the real world and contains elements, techniques, concepts, tactics and strategies that aren't allowed in competition. It is designed to end a violent encounter in short order, with an economy of motion and usually in brutal fashion. As an example of what I'm referring to, joint manipulation really began as joint destruction and then was taken down a notch for application in less-than-lethal situations.

So really, Karate shouldn't do well in a grappling venue for these two reasons. But in a real world violent encounter there is no reason that it could not be effective, whether standing or on the ground. Correct training for the appropriate venue.

we don't know whether karate grapples well on the street or not. It is an unknown quantity.

doesn't do well in grappling comps. Kung fu has kata. There has been some kung fu grappling wins.

karate has had some striking legends in competition. The restrictions on illegal moves did not hold them back there.

strange that they have a street system that cant. Be converted to a competition result.

 

[MJS]

Greetings all

Forgive me, English is not my first language. I am new to this forum and was looking for some guidance.

I've recently started Kyokushin and I enjoy it, however in my opinion too much time is spent on Kata and I fail to see any relevance it has to combat. We are taught kata and we go through the motions for the sake of "grading" but it really irks me as this takes the place of "live" training for major parts of sessions. I understand that Kata is supposedly a recording of techniques (however everyone teachers bunkai seems to be different which leads me to believe noone really has any idea) but why not train the techniques in kata in an alive manner first, before going through the motions of kata and committing them to memory? It would give the movements a context at least. I don't know why we even bother with Kata? If a kata supposedly has a takedown or throw recorded in it then students are not going to get good at it by doing the move its represented by in kata, they're going to get good at it by drilling it and using it in randoori against resisting opponents. Doing hours of kata isn't going to help anyone become a better martial artist than someone who solely does their whole art in an alive manner. For self defence purposes its asinine to waste time doing an act which represents something, yet not actually doing the move properly. I come from a grappling background in martial arts (wrestling, bjj) and in those arts you spend 100% of your time doing the art. A 2 hour training session in those arts involves 5 minutes warm up and 2 hours of practicing on fully resisting opponents. But in Kyokushin its split in half with kata which is very infuriating as noone at my club seems to have any experience doing the actual moves in kata on resisting opponents. Why can't karate just do away with Kata and teach the moves within kata in an alive manner? So if Kata has grappling and wrestling applications then lets just do those moves in randoori, if there's self defence applications, like getting out of wrist control then lets add that into randoori. If there's clinch fighting in Kata, then lets train that and add it into randoori etc. Just doing kata for the sake of it seems such a waste of time. If you want to do kata have the option there, similar to when you get to BB in Judo you can choose to learn a Kata, but practice Kata on your own or minimally in class. There is 0 logic in having a solo training method as part of a class group, it just wastes time.

Karate seems to be built on lineage and instructors seem terrified to deviate from the path that their teachers laid out and their teachers teacher before them. Just because your teacher taught you to do kata doesn't make it right. If karate has elements of all ranges of combat inherent in its kata, then it must be treated as such properly and trained in a modern alive way. Much like the striking segment of Kyokushin is, in competition format.

I would love it if Kyokushin just stuck to stand up and competition rules stuff as it would have a strong identity doing so. But when it is watered down with Kata and those elements are not elaborated upon, it just becomes weaker due to tradition. Why can't Karate grow up like other modern arts? Its self defence applications are severely weakened by these lazy training methods.

Does anyone else share these gripes?

Welcome to the forum! I've been training in Kyokushin for about 4 years now, and I love it. I can't speak for every dojo, but I would imagine each is different, with the way things are taught. At my school, we do focus quite a bit on the basics, ie: punching, kicking, stance work. Some times we'll do bag work. We do a lot of sparring, although not in every class. We do focus on kata, obviously as that's required for rank, although we usually don't focus too much on the application of the kata. This isn't to say kata breakdowns don't happen...they do. I do recall a number of classes, in which we took parts from a kata and worked it with a partner.

As far as working application before learning the kata...well, that's like putting the cart before the horse. Even in the BJJ classes that I've taken, a new technique isn't taught 'full force' initially. It's introduced, worked on, with gradual resistance. Nothing wrong, IMO, with learning the kata, and then the application behind it.

You might want to politely inquire about this, with your teacher or some of the senior students, before getting completely frustrated with the art.

 

[ballen0351]

That's fine, but I am basing my opinion on the fact that neither the oral tradition of the old masters nor (to the best of my knowledge) any of the current Okinawan masters teach how to use the kata once you go to the ground.

How many of these masters have you spoke with? Sonce you say its a fact it doesnt happen you must have spokento them all. I have trained ground techniques with Higaonna Sensei during a seminar. I have also spoken with high ranking members that have done far more training with him on ground techniques.

Takedowns, sure, but no ground fighting. Just an example, Minoru Higa, the head of Shorin ryu Kyudokan, is apparently a 4. dan in judo and yet he only teaches stand-up fighting.

so one guy in one style is a fact?

Can some of the techniques in kata be used in ground fighting? Probably, but to me that is more of a coincidence or the limitations of the human body than design.

We will just have to disagree

Learning how to fight on the ground would be quite beneficial,

Learning how to fight in general is beneficial

but to learn that my suggestion is to enroll in a dojo that teaches judo or BJJ.

Each have positives and negs you need to decide what you want to learn and what works better for you and your situation

 

[ballen0351]

we don't know whether karate grapples well on the street or not. It is an unknown quantity.

No thats an individual thing not a style thing.

doesn't do well in grappling comps. Kung fu has kata. There has been some kung fu grappling wins.

Its not its design

karate has had some striking legends in competition. The restrictions on illegal moves did not hold them back there.

it all depends on the rules

strange that they have a street system that cant. Be converted to a competition result.

because its not the point of Karate

 

[drop bear]

No thats an individual thing not a style thing.

Its not its design

it all depends on the rules

because its not the point of Karate

yeah funny you should say that. Apparently karate has the grapple.

 

[ballen0351]

yeah funny you should say that. Apparently karate has the grapple.

?

 

[drop bear]

?

yeah sorry i missed the thrust of that thread.

i can really only judge karate's grappling by the evidence. And there is an absence of evidence.

competition is a benchmark that is definable. I am not sure how else we could compare a system.

 

[ballen0351]

yeah sorry i missed the thrust of that thread.

i can really only judge karate's grappling by the evidence. And there is an absence of evidence.

competition is a benchmark that is definable. I am not sure how else we could compare a system.

Why compare systems?

 

[drop bear]

Why compare systems?

because we are trying to define if karate has a comprehensive grappling system. There has to be some sort of measure.

 

[Tez3]

because we are trying to define if karate has a comprehensive grappling system. There has to be some sort of measure.

You do understand that 'karate' is a generic title and not the style as such? You can't compare 'karate' with anything really, you would have to compare style with style.
I don't think 'we' are trying to define if karate has a comprehensive grappling system or not. Why does there have to be some sort of measure? Most of us are happy with what we do, it's only others that aren't happy with what we do! I think quite honestly people should wind their necks in and train. The karate 'has grapple' (sic) thing has been done to death.

 

[drop bear]

You do understand that 'karate' is a generic title and not the style as such? You can't compare 'karate' with anything really, you would have to compare style with style.
I don't think 'we' are trying to define if karate has a comprehensive grappling system or not. Why does there have to be some sort of measure? Most of us are happy with what we do, it's only others that aren't happy with what we do! I think quite honestly people should wind their necks in and train. The karate 'has grapple' (sic) thing has been done to death.

if the statement is karate has a system of grappling that makes you happy then i agree with you. And there is no reason to compare styles.

 

[K-man]

Yes, that I disagree with as well. Karate is quite good for stand-up fighting purposes, but not for ground fighting. Sure, people have added ground-fighting to their karate, but that's still a later addition

I suppose it depends on what you call 'ground fighting'. If you call the chaotic thrashing around on the ground of a fight between untrained people 'ground fighting', ok, but I would more call it simply fighting on the ground.

Now put a karateka on the ground and he has a lot of techniques that will work. Chokes, strangles, gouges, finger locks, arm bars etc are the same on the ground as standing. Escapes from those techniques apply as well, and of course there are still the strikes. Nothing needs to be added in that respect. The difference from my perspective is the training to get into position to apply a technique, something the BJJ guys do very well.

Now I'm a bit old for this sort of stuff with elbows that are stuffed and shoulders that don't move as far as they used to. I love playing around on the ground with a mate who is a BJJ black belt among with many other disciplines. I am very aware when he is about to do something nasty that I wouldn't be able to stop and tap way before I need to, but you would be surprised just how well the MA principles that I utilise in normal training work just as well on the ground.

I have no doubt that if I was on the ground with an untrained attacker I would have a significant advantage, something that in real life I have had to utilised just once.

What I have added to my training thanks to BJJ is the escape from the mount and escape from the guard.

 

[K-man]

That picture looks like it's from a takedown, which, to me at least, is not ground fighting. I am not familiar with Goju kata, but that looks similar in concept to the opening move of Gojushiho

It's also the takedown seen in Sanseru and Kururunfa kata.

 

[ballen0351]

because we are trying to define if karate has a comprehensive grappling system. There has to be some sort of measure.

Sure go train in it and learn. That's your measure. I'm pretty happy with my training so I don't really need to measure anything

 

[K-man]

With respect Tony, I have to disagree with this. Being able to put someone on the ground is an instrumental and foundational part of ground fighting. Indeed, we don't just start on the ground in a fight or in a competition. And learning how to take someone down for positioning ON the ground is also foundational. You really can't have one without the other. The are part and parcel of the same training.

I can agree in part with this. A lot of takedowns end with control of an arm or even in a choke, so yes, putting someone on the ground is certainly part and parcel of 'ground fighting' but the other element is where you are on the ground for whatever reason and not in control. Maybe you have slipped and fallen, maybe you have been taken to the ground from a shoot or even been pulled down. Agreed that the takedown is part of ground fighting but fighting on the ground isn't always your choice.

You could say that you can teach takedowns without ground fighting, but you can't teach ground fighting without takedowns.

Depending on how you take someone to the ground determines the positioning you'll have on the ground. Just something to toss out there.

Agreed, but that is from the perspective that you have chosen to go to the ground. I have a young lady waiting to join the police force and I make a point of taking a lot of the grappling to the ground to a position that she can control and cuff.

When you have been forced to the ground as in the video in the other thread posted by ballen, 'Need a plan B', you are in a different world.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

With respect Tony, I have to disagree with this. Being able to put someone on the ground is an instrumental and foundational part of ground fighting. Indeed, we don't just start on the ground in a fight or in a competition. And learning how to take someone down for positioning ON the ground is also foundational. You really can't have one without the other. The are part and parcel of the same training.

You can teach ground fighting without takedowns. It's just a bad idea.

You're starting to see it in some BJJ schools that focus exclusively on sport competition. Since the rules allow competitors to pull guard and the opponent is penalized if he doesn't come forward, it is possible to train almost entirely starting on the ground with almost no time spent on takedowns. Some people do this.

I personally think it is a bad practice and antithetical to the martial heritage of BJJ, but focusing exclusively on sport competition can lead people into strange places.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

we don't know whether karate grapples well on the street or not. It is an unknown quantity.

Who is 'we'? I know that 'my' karate grapples well...I just did it a few hours ago against a violent felon. So to me, and the students I've taught that have gone on to use it effectively it is a known quantity.

 

[K-man]

You do understand that 'karate' is a generic title and not the style as such? You can't compare 'karate' with anything really, you would have to compare style with style.
I don't think 'we' are trying to define if karate has a comprehensive grappling system or not. Why does there have to be some sort of measure? Most of us are happy with what we do, it's only others that aren't happy with what we do! I think quite honestly people should wind their necks in and train. The karate 'has grapple' (sic) thing has been done to death.

Certainly we have had a lot of discussion but I'm not sure it has been fruitful discussion. It has been mostly defending against people saying my style is the best and you guys suck!

I would love to discuss karate grappling without ********s from outside karate throwing their weight around. Of course input from skilled grapplers would be welcome, in a constructive way. Karate isn't a comprehensive grappling system, but it is a system that covers all facets of fighting against the untrained assailant.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Maybe you have slipped and fallen, maybe you have been taken to the ground from a shoot or even been pulled down. Agreed that the takedown is part of ground fighting but fighting on the ground isn't always your choice.

Now that you mention it, this would be an example of 'ground fighting' without inserting the actual takedown i.e. starting from a position of disadvantage for that very reason (slipped, sucker punched, ran into a tree etc).

 

[K-man]

That's fine, but I am basing my opinion on the fact that neither the oral tradition of the old masters nor (to the best of my knowledge) any of the current Okinawan masters teach how to use the kata once you go to the ground. Takedowns, sure, but no ground fighting. Just an example, Minoru Higa, the head of Shorin ryu Kyudokan, is apparently a 4. dan in judo and yet he only teaches stand-up fighting.
Can some of the techniques in kata be used in ground fighting? Probably, but to me that is more of a coincidence or the limitations of the human body than design.
Learning how to fight on the ground would be quite beneficial, but to learn that my suggestion is to enroll in a dojo that teaches judo or BJJ. Personally, I might go to a BJJ club next year, after all, I have two of those within a 500 m from where I live

Agree whole heartedly. The only rider I would add is that, to me kata are fighting systems. In Goju we have 10 if you leave Sanchin and Tensho on the shelf for the time being. These kata contain multiple takedowns but, to me, finish there with a strike or stomp, nothing to suggest that the fighting continues on the ground.

But the basic techniques available for stand up are still available for use on the ground. If you look at the Bubishi there are numerous examples of takedowns and several of fighting from the ground.