Karate?

There has been much debate on kata, karate, effective combat etc. etc. Personaly, I called my training either Daigaku, or, Gavin's Goju - as all the other goju I'd seen was bollocks.

Whatever, each to their own.

However, as many people on the forum are quick to write 'yeh, but that's not karate', or, all karate is crap , at what stage does 'karate' stop being karate?

Stop the Japanese lingo?
Stop Kata?
Stop Kihon?
Don't wear a Gi?

How much does it have to change before people can genuinely call it 'something else' and not karate?

That's why I gave up. I have always just called what I do "Tommy P's karate. My karate my way. I don't do the lingo anymore, nor the repetitive basics in the air, kata or any of the cultural baggage. Is that stuff still withing me? Sure. Any applications from kata are still in my head and usable, I just don't do the whole kata anymore...the "packaging." I found many kata redundant and becoming just collectibles so focused only on a couple. But the traditionalists then say "that isn't karate." I only focus on the techniques of karate these days rather than the traditional way of training it. But as you posed a question it supports the fact that there sis a problem with that so that is why I say I don't do "karate" anymore. I just do what I do....my way.

So what is it? Karate or not? That is something that will have as many opposite answers as there are people on these forums. I think if you go back to Okinawan karate at the time it was forming; still partially Tegumi mixed with some Chinese techniques it may have been a bit more loose in definition. After moving to Japan it took on other aspects/attributes and changing those things, in the minds of some, make it no longer "karate.' Karate being a term coined in Japan and referring to empty hand rather than the older "Chinese hand." The newer karate (empty hand) was a whole new animal focused more on self improvement and phys ed as well as preparing youth to become good and obedient soldiers.

So that makes it easier to say "that isn't karate" if its missing some of those things....but is that the Japanese version or the older model? Man it does get confusing Maybe it's like baseball....take away the national anthem, peanuts and hotdogs, the 7th inning stretch and it is still baseball (or is it?) Some will argue I'm sure. Take away the "home run" or third base and now you have a debate.

Tommy

That's the main reason I called what I did "Combat Karate." First, it was to differentiate it from "sport" karate and secondly, because we'd incorporated stuff other than pure Goju I no longer felt comfortable calling it that either.

FYI Zen Do Kai was Bob's interpretation of his Goju-kai with Tino Ceberano. Bob had added elements (they experimented with full contact before Joon Rhee's safe-t-punch by using motorcycle helmets and cricket gear) and no longer felt comfortable calling it Goju. Zen Do Kai meant "the best of everything, in progression."

It was still recognizable as karate though..the stances, the blocks, the punches et al.

Tommy...one day we'll have to chat about this tendency of guys who were training for years who dropped certain aspects of their training claiming they weren't/aren't necessary. Are they able to say that because they had that training and are in a position where they no longer need it, or is it actually safe to drop those aspects? I.e. if we bought in a raw beginner and didn't teach him all the stuff we claim/think isn't viable would we produce the same level of fighter? I think we get back to the medical analogy...i.e. could you send a guy to med school without chemistry and biology and still turn out a passable doctor?

Nick

Nick Hughes wrote:
Tommy...one day we'll have to chat about this tendency of guys who were training for years who dropped certain aspects of their training claiming they weren't/aren't necessary. Are they able to say that because they had that training and are in a position where they no longer need it, or is it actually safe to drop those aspects? I.e. if we bought in a raw beginner and didn't teach him all the stuff we claim/think isn't viable would we produce the same level of fighter? I think we get back to the medical analogy...i.e. could you send a guy to med school without chemistry and biology and still turn out a passable doctor?

Nick, I think it's a bit much for text, it would have to be a lengthy sit down. But I think a lot depends on goals. I also think that some of the things considered unnecessary, at least by me, may be things that can still be taught but in what I feel may be a more productive manner, again depending on goals. I firmly believe that one size doesn't fit all. Keep in mind that what I write often applies to what I call "Japanese karate" and that usually (for me) means Shotokan. I had less of a problem with Kyokushin although it still had a few "traditions" I could have done without But I was a good student. I trained in Shotokan for close to 30 years and taught for 18. I did 11 in Kyokushin and in both I was ultra traditional....but I always had my own personal interpretations and training going on in between classes. I guess my own stuff overtook the rest. Now it's like Prego sauce, "it's in there." All of it! Just without all the ritual. My karate is my karate, and it's loose and has no ceiling or boundaries. It grows and keeps moving. I no longer "belong" to anything. I don't follow I lead. Who do I lead? Myself. I even gave up teaching so I can focus on developing further. Time for "me," before I get too old.

But the tendency for some to drop stuff they feel is unnecessary may be a personal thing. To tell others about it may only be a way to alert the public that there are alternate ways and "maybe" they too can do without certain things...again depending on goals. But maybe they can't...at least they will know there is a choice rather that "it has to be done this way and this way only." You know, I always hated when I didn't want something on a new car I was purchasing. It was usually " it comes with it and you have to take it." You know the stuff, under sealant or clear coat etc. One car I didn't even want the rear windshield wiper and they said they had no models without it.

I guess the whole thing is complicated and subjective.

Tommy

if we bought in a raw beginner and didn't teach him all the stuff we claim/think isn't viable would we produce the same level of fighter?

There are plenty great fighters who haven't undertaken the more traditional elements of Karate training.

And, to labour the doctor analogy..... they cure people for real, and not just in theory.

This particular topic has been bugging me for some time. I have many people telling me to change the name of what we do, because of many of the same reasons mentioned previously.

At what point do you finally say, ok I’m going to break from the traditional name and use this instead because it has drifted from the routine?

Brian,

It was a question mate...not a statement.

There's also people though who are self taught musicians and musical prodigies. Doesn't mean we can turn everyone lose with a guitar and say "teach yourself, don't bother with learning to sight read and all that other crap because there's guys who play great who can't do that stuff."

There are great fighters who haven't trained with Steve Morris or Mick Coup either...does that render what they do as invalid?

Tommy...one of the things you and I agree on is the techniques that are within the kata i.e. the bunkai and, if that was all there was in kata then I'd say dismiss them after you've learned the moves. What about the "imagery rehearsal" aspect of doing the forms? What about the facets of fighting multiples that are developed when practicing them as a group and having to keep perfect time? What about the cardio development done while doing the moves I'll use in a fight? Yes I could do bagwork or spar but what if I don't have a bag handy or a sparring partner...running, swimming and skipping aren't the same as practicing the moves I'll use in a real do.

Nick

PS: I was going to be in Florida from the 14-16 of this month and wanted to catch up Roadkill. Sadly my courtcase is coming up on the 17th and there's too much risk of getting stuck down there, missing a flight or whatever to chance it. I have a seminar in Philly on the weekend of the 22nd..if someone up there is adept at the video and you tube I'll try and get something up.

PPS: Tommy...I don't know how much of a trip it is from where you are to PA but you're welcome as my guest mate.

Nick Hughes wrote:
Tommy...one of the things you and I agree on is the techniques that are within the kata i.e. the bunkai and, if that was all there was in kata then I'd say dismiss them after you've learned the moves. What about the "imagery rehearsal" aspect of doing the forms? What about the facets of fighting multiples that are developed when practicing them as a group and having to keep perfect time? What about the cardio development done while doing the moves I'll use in a fight? Yes I could do bagwork or spar but what if I don't have a bag handy or a sparring partner...running, swimming and skipping aren't the same as practicing the moves I'll use in a real do.

I agree that kata does provide all that and it is a way to kind of train alone but couldn't you just string your own techniques together once you're a little more skilled? This way you'd be practicing "your" method of fighting...you know..how "you" would fight based on what you have made of all you learned. For a beginner he may want to have this already prepackaged as in the kata but when do we drop the training tools. Shouldn't the kata be templates for us to expand on?
I do believe kata are great exercise as it has been proven that things like Tai Chi have been beneficial to circulation and flexibility etc. Karate kata are more dynamic and so provide a little more as well as moving the body in ways that you wouldn't in normal everyday living.
I have thought about this before and have thought about all the techniques contained in karate. There are many and maybe too many to remember. I thought that "maybe" that was a reason to keep practicing a kata, so not to forget all those moves. All the small ones, you know. But I'm just not sure. I sometimes get concerned with bad practice. If someone is practicing kata wrong then they aren't practicing how they would fight. They are then practicing in a pre prescribed manner trying to fight like someone else. Fixed stances and choppy movements. Ever see those staccato kata performances? One-two...three four. A fight is never on a one-two count or rhythm. I often say that if a move in kata has to be changed in actual application even slightly from how it is done when doing the solo kata, then the kata should be done by the "changed" version. When a kata is harped on for form and aesthetics, long stances and squared off blocks but applied more loosely in combat then I see a disconnect. Practice as you would use it. That would make solo practice more akin to shadowboxing IMO.

PPS: Tommy...I don't know how much of a trip it is from where you are to PA but you're welcome as my guest mate.

I'll PM you.

Tommy

Nick, there are many methods of learning to play the guitar, just like many methods of learning to fight.

Just because someone does not do it "the Karate way", that does not mean they are being self taught.

Brian S wrote:Nick, there are many methods of learning to play the guitar, just like many methods of learning to fight.

Just because someone does not do it "the Karate way", that does not mean they are being self taught.

Actually I mess around with the guitar a little. If we compared kata to scales you need to learn them to play guitar. But I can't remember the last time I practiced scales. What I do is take the notes I learned and rearrange them to make "my" music." I can use notes to play music or songs exactly like the originals or I can play with the melody to make my own interpretation. When a band plays a concert sometimes the solo is different everytime you hear them. Its self expression. Same notes, the scale is in there, just not applied as a whole form. Just the techniques.

There have been great guitar players who say they never practice scales. Actually I think Neil Peart the drummer for Rush (one of the best) said he never practices scales. When asked how he practiced he said "by playing songs" (fighting?).

Granted you could talk to 50 players who swear they don't need scales and then 50 more who swear by them. So where are we going here? Round and round (again). Opinions and personal choices/views.

Tommy

No, this is where the analogy breaks down. I didn't say that people should not practice the basics, neither.

A MMA fighter practicising his basic moves. So does a Karate-ka. But they do it in different ways.

PaulGappyNorris wrote: Personaly, I called my training either Daigaku, or, Gavin's Goju - as all the other goju I'd seen was bollocks.

This may be a key statement here. Like me, when you take a style and train it in a way that you believe is better can we still call it by its original name? You said "all the other Goju I'd seen was bollocks." If all other Goju sucked then I would have to believe that you don't like "Goju."
How can you take something that someone has created and say I think it is a bunch of crap then take it and change it, then still call it by its original name but now claim it as yours? Isn't it now something different? Well it kind of looks like Goju if you squint your eyes a little. I don't know, I've wrestled with this in the past....I gave up. Who needs to belong to something. I have too much in my head to pin it to a particular style. It's elements of a lot of different things.

I did the same with my Shotokan until I realized it looked more like Kyokushin plus a mix of other stuff. If I liked Shotokan I would keep it as is. If I don't then why change it and try to still call it Shotokan or Tommy's Shotokan? It's just my karate. Now I settled on just being a "martial artist." I may have the bulk of my training in karate but I don't concern myself with tags anymore. It only makes for long threads


Tommy

Maybe another way to help answer is to describe what is karate?

What fundamentaly characterises a M.art as Karate practice?

I'm reminded of a famous trial over here when they were trying to charge someone with pornography and having a hard time defining it. After all, if it's nudity then half of the world's art treasures qualify and if it's sex (consenting or otherwise) there goes even more art treasures and classic movies.

The judge in charge said "I don't know how to define it counsellor but I damn well know it when I see it."

Karate falls into that same category for me.

Nick

Nick Hughes wrote:I'm reminded of a famous trial over here when they were trying to charge someone with pornography and having a hard time defining it. After all, if it's nudity then half of the world's art treasures qualify and if it's sex (consenting or otherwise) there goes even more art treasures and classic movies.

The judge in charge said "I don't know how to define it counsellor but I damn well know it when I see it."

Never did like that judgment tbh - it may well be true of Karate (though I'm not sure about that either) - as it tries to replace objective criteria with a subjective or intuitive test. That may well be ok in some things where all that matters is my or your tastes or preferences, but if it's the use of the coercive powers of the state to enforce a law on everyone, then the criteria for judging it have to be explicable to those whom are subject to the laws. Probably explains why there's so much to-ing and fro-ing over pornography/freedom of speech cases. My guess is that's also part of the complaint against karate by the nay-saying camp.

Some of the items listed are often seen as necessary components of karate - gis, kata, japanese terminology. But they can't be either necessary or sufficient. For example, kata are components of other systems - judo, tae kwon do, etc. and I don't find it inconceivable to imagine a form of karate without kata (as per Tommy_P's suggestion). The same goes for the other items. This leaves two possibilities, to my mind. Either there's something else not on the list (or a combination of things) that is the essence of karate, and without which it wouldn't be karate - perhaps a particular emphasis on something, or specific kata (rather than kata generally), or particular responses or principles for dealing with problems, or a clearly identifiable heritage, etc. etc., Or karate is an empty signifier, which simply means 'a form of hand-to-hand combat' or some such like but which houses a multitude of different interpretations of that label. Much like Krav Maga simply means 'contact fighting' but houses a whole range of different approaches, methods, and understandings.

Just some thoughts
D

PaulGappyNorris wrote:Maybe another way to help answer is to describe what is karate?

What fundamentaly characterises a M.art as Karate practice?

This is another area that is hard to pinpoint because after reaching Japan karate or whatever it was before took on different characteristics. Very influenced by Chinese arts the Okinawan art of Te was quite a bit different in technique as well as training method. After reaching Japan it almost became two arts. The characters of the name changed to "Kara (empty) te rather than Kara (Chinese) Te. The new empty hand took on all kinds of philosophical meanings (emptying ones self, the Void or avoiding ego and all that stuff). Plus it took on a more military type of training. Also ranking was developed as well as a specific class structure and testing format. Plus a lot more. This was now "karate" rather than before which was more just a method of training defensive skills.
The second of the two arts I mentioned would be the Okinawans who continued to try and maintain their more pure art. But they also took on some of the new Japanese additions such as rank and in some dojo class structure, marching basics, the name change and philosophy that went with it etc. Some only adapted the rank structure and testing. So I guess in the end it becomes like spaghetti. It all started in the orient as a "noodle." Eventually it made its way over to Italy where it became pasta. So now you can eat different kinds of pasta and they all are pretty much the same. "BUT" you can't call Ziti, "spaghetti." Some people would argue it isn't a noodle either.

I guess you can practice karate techniques any way you like and they would still be karate techniques. But to be "karate" or to say that you practice the art of "karate," I guess it would have to contain all the elements of what it came with from Japan including the philosophical and cultural additions.

Tommy