Styles that created there own kata
- Thread starter E0richt
- Start date
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
Yes, they did. In old karate, there were no "beginner" kata, as the art was aimed towards mostly those training to be professionals. When it was introduced to the public easy kata were needed to get them off to a quick start, so some masters created them.
This is a good question. I see no value in a new kata that is simply a rearrangement/combination of existing ones. I doubt that there is much one could add that can't be found in the many kata commonly practiced today. One may design one incorporating other martial systems to make it into MMA, but then the essence of karate is lost.
Amen to this. I've tried creating a kata just as a learning exercise. Always end up feeling like I'm just plagiarizing other kata.
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
This is OK for personal use, especially for practice in putting together combos and applications differently than found in existing kata to build flexibility. But I would not teach it as a representation of my system, at least until I get to 10th degree.
Bash is a strong word. But I was curious on opinions... I just have had form training where the application was not provided but something like ashihara kata is interesting... I could see the application immediately which drives interest.
If I add
- throwing skill,
- jab, cross, hook, uppercut combo,
- hook kick, inside crescent kick, spin hook kick combo,
- ...
into my long fist form, why the essence of long fist is lost?
A + B > A where A still exist and not lost.
Last edited:
Are you saying that if you add something extra into Karate, the Karate is no longer pure. Is the term "pure" that important?
Master Wang Ziping combine Chinese wrestling and long fist into a form. It's called "24 methods of MA". Nobody dared to question the purity of his long fist system.
Last edited:
Taiji Rebel
2nd Black Belt
It is not clear how the essence of karate is lost, could you elaborate on this point? All kata were originally designed by somebody. They did not arrive fully formed in a puff of smoke. What essence are we losing when combining the old with the new?
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
IMO it's a slippery slope. Karate developed as a synthesis of various Chinese styles and native Okinawan methods that intertwined grappling techniques. This is different than adding a new art/system (or even another karate style) as it likely will not be a seamless addition.
To illustrate: When baking a cake an egg is added and then mixed/incorporated within the batter. This is much different than baking the cake and afterwards putting a fried egg on top.
Another consideration is who is doing the adding; a master expertly versed in all the elements, or someone just adding stuff to be different. Sometimes when you add a new ingredient, the existing ingredients must be modified to accommodate the new thing. This can negatively affect their effectiveness.
I remember when the sport of kick boxing began, mostly a mix of karate kicks and boxing. The result for that first decade was 90% sloppy boxing and 10% mostly ineffective kicks. Eventually it was refined by highly skilled individuals, but IMO is not as good as muy thai, pure boxing or pure karate to watch.
There are plenty of existing styles/systems out there already to meet most needs: Shotokan, wado-ryu, wrestling, MMA, CMA, muy thai, etc., each with their own unique blend of technique and doctrine. If you are learning Shotokan but want wrestling, study wrestling - don't change Shotokan.
One is always free to add or change things to their heart's desire for their own use (and it may be effective and not negatively impact the art), but there is seldom a need to reinvent the wheel.
These are just some considerations to Wang's question. Perhaps there is no single correct answer to this bigger question. Can something be changed and still be "traditional?" What if Shotokan or long fist styles change so much they lose their unique/pure identity or disappear completely? Is it a loss for TMA? It's a slippery slope.
Last edited:
When I throw a punch toward my opponent's face and my opponent blocks it, I will have 2 options.
1. Use my non-punching arm to take over his blocking. I then use the same arm to punch again (long fist approach). I can use my punching arm to pull my opponent's blocking arm. But this can be force against force.
2. Use my other hand to punch his face when his blocking arm moves pass the center (boxing approach). All I need is to find the gape.
Which method is better?
By using
- method 1, I can establish a clinch, and change a striking game into a wrestling game.
- method 2, I can have fast 1, 2 punches and continue my striking game.
By doing both, I'll have 2 options which is always good.
this is true but there is a difference. My understanding is that kata is more of a "recording" based on a fight and outcome. for example I think that kushanku is a form based off a fight from that martial artist (chinese, I think)...
then there are some that are modified for some reason (some are based on making baby karate safe for the school kids).
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
It's based on more than just one fight. Sakugawa Kanga (can be considered the "great grandfather of karate") studied with Kushanku (and other notables) and devised the kata as a synthesis of KSK's fighting method. Subsequent masters have made some changes to it, but across all the current styles it is easily recognizable and retains its identity and lessons.
Too much changing the kata will erase the essence of the tactics and techniques of master fighters to be lost to succeeding generations. This is the danger in combining, adding and changing this and that in a particular kata or style. Kata preserves the knowledge the old masters fought to develop. Tradition serves a purpose.
Or you could sweep, head butt, start to run and turn back. Or just run,
Haruhiko
Purple Belt
There's a confusion too often shared in these discussions when distinguishing kata from kihon.
But the reality is, while they’re both essential to traditional martial arts, they serve very different roles and carry different weight, both in terms of training and in preserving the deeper meaning behind the art.
Kihon is the foundation. It’s all the core techniques (punches, blocks, stances, kicks) drilled over and over again until they become second nature. The goal with kihon is sharpness, control and a strong understanding of body mechanics. Most ryūha have their own take on how kihon should look and feel, but across the board, it’s about building strength in the basics so that everything else has something solid to stand on. Some koryū explicitly say that the kata *are* the kihon...
Kata are not just a pattern of movements for the sake of practice or performance – it’s a living expression of the style’s philosophy, mindset and combative strategy. A kata isn’t just a physical exercise, it’s a form of communication that’s been passed down through generations, often unchanged, as a way to preserve not just techniques but the spirit of the style itself. Kata is the style – it reflects the rhythm, timing, attitude and principles that make each martial system unique.
That’s why kata shouldn’t be treated as something you just create or freestyle. It’s not a dance routine or a way to show off. It’s a form of tradition in and of itself – a transmission of knowledge from master to student, from past to present. Creating a kata out of thin air often misses that entire point, because without the historical and practical context behind it, you lose what makes kata valuable in the first place.
So while kihon is where you build your structure and develop technical sharpness, kata is where you begin to understand purpose, intention and heritage. One is about how you move, the other is about why you move the way you do.
As for sparring... that's just playing around in my opinion.
But the reality is, while they’re both essential to traditional martial arts, they serve very different roles and carry different weight, both in terms of training and in preserving the deeper meaning behind the art.
Kihon is the foundation. It’s all the core techniques (punches, blocks, stances, kicks) drilled over and over again until they become second nature. The goal with kihon is sharpness, control and a strong understanding of body mechanics. Most ryūha have their own take on how kihon should look and feel, but across the board, it’s about building strength in the basics so that everything else has something solid to stand on. Some koryū explicitly say that the kata *are* the kihon...
Kata are not just a pattern of movements for the sake of practice or performance – it’s a living expression of the style’s philosophy, mindset and combative strategy. A kata isn’t just a physical exercise, it’s a form of communication that’s been passed down through generations, often unchanged, as a way to preserve not just techniques but the spirit of the style itself. Kata is the style – it reflects the rhythm, timing, attitude and principles that make each martial system unique.
That’s why kata shouldn’t be treated as something you just create or freestyle. It’s not a dance routine or a way to show off. It’s a form of tradition in and of itself – a transmission of knowledge from master to student, from past to present. Creating a kata out of thin air often misses that entire point, because without the historical and practical context behind it, you lose what makes kata valuable in the first place.
So while kihon is where you build your structure and develop technical sharpness, kata is where you begin to understand purpose, intention and heritage. One is about how you move, the other is about why you move the way you do.
As for sparring... that's just playing around in my opinion.
Agree that the spirit of form may change if too much modification is added. But are you just set a physical boundary on yourself here?
If you add
- spin hook kick into a WC form,
- jab-cross-hook-uppercut combo into Karate form,
- ...
it may look out of place. So what will you do if you want to add in the missing parts?
The Karate form may not have jab-cross-hook-uppercut combo today. Will it be nice if Karate form will contain jab-cross-hook-uppercut 1000 years from today?
What's the difference if
- You add the missing part in today, or
- You wait for someone else to do that job for you in the future?
_Simon_
Senior Master
Very very well said, 100%. Except the sparring bit, but everything else yesss
Some moves in the form have nothing to do with fighting, but to develop body flexibility.
In this video, his straight back arm is used to stretch his body so his
- punching fist,
- punching shoulder, and
- back shoulder,
all form a perfect straight line.
So, during COVID, our dojo shut down, like everyone else... When we re-opened.... we had to stay 10 feet apart from each other... no contact at all. So, we did lots of rolls and falls.... but how do you practice throws, pins, locks, chokes, submissions without contact?
I ended up going through the beginning techniques, and identifying the issues I personally have with these techniques and some that my students have. When we do these techniques with a partner, our focus is on making the other guy tap, or fall.... We miss smaller details, covering them with speed and strength. So, I thought we would use the time when we could not use a partner, to work on those details.... where the detail was the goal, not the other guy falling down.
I started taking the techniques apart, and started with focusing on the foot work. Then we focused on bending the knees and getting lower and working balance. We would go through each technique, slow it down, do it lower, try to focus on those small details. The hope was that when we got back to full contact, the details would stay.
After a while I realized that many of the techniques had very similar foot work, very similar hip movement, very similar body alignment. I was able to string together 4 common movements. These movements are very common in most of our techniques in Danzan Ryu. I found a nice order and timing, where we could focus on the movements individually, and on the transitions between the movements. Since these movements are core to most of our techniques, it follows that there should be some sort of martial application to movements.... We were able to apply those movements to quite a number of different attacks: punches, grabs, knife attacks, gun attacks.... in fact, the combination looked very similar to lots of our kata for those different situations. When realized that if we only looked a pieces of the combination, it would apply to even more situations: kicks, head butts, more grabs, more punches, different knife attacks....
We now have a new solo pattern that we can practice, that isolates core movement principles that we use in our art. This made all of our techniques better, not just the 4 we started with. It helped us to see better the common principles within the various techniques in our system.
At the end of the day, we periodically go back to that pattern, we study the movements there.... depending on what techniques I want to focus on next, we vary what part of the pattern we emphasize. Until it stops being useful as a tool to learn and study.... we will keep using it.
When does this go from a pattern to a kata? Should it go from a pattern to a kata? (I am certainly no master here....) We don't worry about that part.... we just train and study. But, I wonder if those that did create the kata, went through some similar type of process..... I don't have any evidence, but I like to think that they did.
Just my random thoughts on kata creation.... not that I created one.... but maybe we played with part of the process.... For us, it was not about "Look how great we are" it was more about how can we continue to train in these circumstances and transitioned into how can we focus on parts besides the other guy falling down?
I ended up going through the beginning techniques, and identifying the issues I personally have with these techniques and some that my students have. When we do these techniques with a partner, our focus is on making the other guy tap, or fall.... We miss smaller details, covering them with speed and strength. So, I thought we would use the time when we could not use a partner, to work on those details.... where the detail was the goal, not the other guy falling down.
I started taking the techniques apart, and started with focusing on the foot work. Then we focused on bending the knees and getting lower and working balance. We would go through each technique, slow it down, do it lower, try to focus on those small details. The hope was that when we got back to full contact, the details would stay.
After a while I realized that many of the techniques had very similar foot work, very similar hip movement, very similar body alignment. I was able to string together 4 common movements. These movements are very common in most of our techniques in Danzan Ryu. I found a nice order and timing, where we could focus on the movements individually, and on the transitions between the movements. Since these movements are core to most of our techniques, it follows that there should be some sort of martial application to movements.... We were able to apply those movements to quite a number of different attacks: punches, grabs, knife attacks, gun attacks.... in fact, the combination looked very similar to lots of our kata for those different situations. When realized that if we only looked a pieces of the combination, it would apply to even more situations: kicks, head butts, more grabs, more punches, different knife attacks....
We now have a new solo pattern that we can practice, that isolates core movement principles that we use in our art. This made all of our techniques better, not just the 4 we started with. It helped us to see better the common principles within the various techniques in our system.
At the end of the day, we periodically go back to that pattern, we study the movements there.... depending on what techniques I want to focus on next, we vary what part of the pattern we emphasize. Until it stops being useful as a tool to learn and study.... we will keep using it.
When does this go from a pattern to a kata? Should it go from a pattern to a kata? (I am certainly no master here....) We don't worry about that part.... we just train and study. But, I wonder if those that did create the kata, went through some similar type of process..... I don't have any evidence, but I like to think that they did.
Just my random thoughts on kata creation.... not that I created one.... but maybe we played with part of the process.... For us, it was not about "Look how great we are" it was more about how can we continue to train in these circumstances and transitioned into how can we focus on parts besides the other guy falling down?
