What is Kata/Karate Missing?

Go back 100 years and what do you think is the best guess of the number of Okinawan adults training in karate? 100, 200? Hardly more than that.

Now jump 100 years and there are what 30,000,000 people practicing karate (loosely defined or perhaps more accurately asian martial arts)?

What do you think, unless you’re practicing a style directly linked to Okinawa, the chances are your practice has to do with what they were doing 100 years ago?

But as the world turns we’re constantly challenged what karate is missing, what it’s weaknesses are, what it need to add to work.

From my studies the potential of an Okinawan system of karate is almost limitless, and a lot of a definition Patrick McCarthy once translated for Kara, not empty but infinite as the infinity of space, and in turn not Chinese Hand, or Empty Hand but Infinite Hand resonates with what I continue to see.

Now how much of a systems potential is addressed by instructor/student depends on their focus. Many systems potentials are likely severely constrained, as opposed to their potential. But infinte is a very slippery concept. No matter how much you do, no matter how hard you try, there will always be an infinite number of things you’re not doing.

So take a generic Okinawan karate system of study. Old style, largely kata interspaced with kata applications. Developed on Okinawa, a mostly quiet place, not really one where hand to hand combat was needed, and in turn only a handful of people before 100 years ago even had the chance to learn at that time.

In fact Okinawa’s Sumo tradition, sport standing grappling, was part of the lay of the land. There was no reason to see that going to the ground as a focus of combat was interwoven into their arts. Of course this is just a high level abstraction, there are techniques for example in Kusanku Kata or Seipai Kata where grounding the opponent to finish them are clearly the focus.

Time passes, and today’s competitive drive for BJJ, or MMA seem to show holes in karate’s potential. Of course there have been karate-ka who have beaten BJJ for example, the rule that it is the person not the art is always true and too often forgotten.

Looking at the Okinawan karate, with kata’s core existence, it is often overlooked that there were always additional training drills and practices not found in kata but still a strong part of the Okinawan tradition. How they were explored varies from instructor to instructor.

How much an instructor can do with the art is not just their wish, but is really controlled by the student and how much effort and ability they evidence.

In those long gone year, the focus was the instructor, not style or group. When a student was sufficiently advanced they often shared students with each other, to develop the student and likely to gain new knowledge through their efforts. Their arts weren’t fixed as much as they were variable to the needs of their times.

If any system is missing a variety of training to the outside observer it may well look like a weakness. Follow that to today, the idea karate training cannot cope with the experienced grappler, hence grappling must be added to the karate mix.

I have no brook with anyone’s choices in their arts development, that is individual choice, but let’s consider is that really necessary?

Very rarely do many really consider what a system of training means. I’d suggest it is first a basic way of training to build simple skills, a more advanced way of training (IMO Kata) and then other layers of training to develop special skills, application potential study (not limited to the current idea of what bunkai is, a answer or two for a movement).

A balance of hand and foot techniques, methods of moving, methods of imparting impact and leverage into an opponent. And a means to move those skills into layers of advanced usage.

But does that system of study handle advanced BJJ grapplers? On the surface no, it was not a grappling art on the surface. All claims withstanding, if kata for example have ground fighting applications if you can’t produce Okinawan instructors showing it in their training, it doesn’t exist that it can be acknowledged (either historic or current).

Of course that does not preclude individual effort to make that so, and if it works, fine, but to suggest historical relevance, show me an Okinwan or make a different agument.

Is the missing key, grappling?

Look in the past 100 year there have been huge numbers who’ve trained in grappling before the current trends. There are likely huge numbers who’ve also played footlball. All of which touch those grappling and takedown skills.

Where are the statistics, not homilies like ‘all fights end on the ground’, to prove that is truly relevant for defense? I haven’t seen anything that makes a case from what actually occurs.

But is an art lacking if it doesn’t address that style of attack?

Even more, is that the right type of attack, or should we find something more relevant than what is showing up on TV? Perhaps knife attacks where I find little reason that I want to grapple with someone holding a knife? Perhaps gun attacks, ditto. Perhaps Mike Tyson is the attack to fear, or current news article of the day, not wishing to pick on Mike (I’m too smart for that).

The missing key for karate, in all its varieties, isn’t add grappling, but tactical thinking.

I’m walking down the street, someone rushes out of the bar and begins attacking towards my legs to cut me down. Tactics simple, “Turn to the Rear and Run Like Hell”. Worked for the American Army in the battle of Cowpens in SC in the Revolutionary War, it decimated the British and tactically, with variation for empty hand defense, it can work against many attacks, even ground fighters.

For example why do you want to fight them. First level of analysis, evasion is more sensible than fighting. Fighting only has 3 basic outcomes:
1. You Win beating them up
2. You Lose them beating you up
3. Both of you beat up each other – regardless of whether you call it a win or lose

Life is not a game. If you win and break them, their family can sue your butt and you can end up in jail for a long time.

So evasion has it’s uses.

Likewise if they start one type of attack, but then choose to pursue you they’re no longer practicing their art, but they’re running in pursuit. That leaves other options, such as a snap turn and their throat tries to run through your spear hand. You’ve broken their advantage.

Just a few examples.

All training is about force multiplication. You train in an art to develop skill to more effectively use techniques. Striking, kicking or whatever. In that context grappling is certainly a major force multiplier, your taking the opponent to the ground can limit their movements and increase the force you impart into them.

Still for realistic defense is grappling wise? I train my advancing students in advanced force multiplication, placing something in their hand and then moving it through an opponents face, as one example as well as locks, throws, takedowns all assisted in such manner.

So again is ground technique what is really needed, or is it other options that ground technique does not address.

Depending on how you frame your answer you will make choices.

I am firm in my understanding that stronger tactical use of karate is all that is needed and perhaps a small force multiplier, a sock with a roll of nickels in it, or a key chain, or a can.

In fact one of the Okinawan masters gave an extremely sound answer how to handle a group of ‘toughs’ moving in your direction after dark falls. 1. Hide so they don’t see you. 2. after they pass follow them discretely 3. if they try to threaten anyone 4. blast into them from behind when they’re not looking.

Why does anyone really believe karate was really designed to face attackers before them? IMO it’s a nice story for beginners. Tactically karate is great when striking someone who’s not looking.

Tactics how to use what you have is IMO the most important study.

Seek out what you feel you have to, that is the oldest tradition. But if you don’t follow that path your art is in no way lesser.

Very interesting post, Victor. Many parallels to our recent conversation in PA!

Quote:

---

Now how much of a systems potential is addressed by instructor/student depends on their focus. Many systems potentials are likely severely constrained, as opposed to their potential. But infinte is a very slippery concept. No matter how much you do, no matter how hard you try, there will always be an infinite number of things you’re not doing.

---

IMHO, this very complexity makes a reasonable case for cross-training. Picking away at one art for non-focus attributes can gain you similar technical considerations, but if the concept you are searching for is a focus of another art, it would be expedient to simply study the other art, right?

Quote:

---

But does that system of study handle advanced BJJ grapplers? On the surface no, it was not a grappling art on the surface. All claims withstanding, if kata for example have ground fighting applications if you can’t produce Okinawan instructors showing it in their training, it doesn’t exist that it can be acknowledged (either historic or current).

Of course that does not preclude individual effort to make that so, and if it works, fine, but to suggest historical relevance, show me an Okinwan or make a different agument.

---

My admittedly limited research has come to the same conclusion.

Quote:

---

Where are the statistics, not homilies like ‘all fights end on the ground’, to prove that is truly relevant for defense? I haven’t seen anything that makes a case from what actually occurs.

---

http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...=6#Post15970676

Quote:

---

Why does anyone really believe karate was really designed to face attackers before them? IMO it’s a nice story for beginners. Tactically karate is great when striking someone who’s not looking.

---

I agree with that 100%. And not just for karate, either. BJJ/MMA has a strong focus to "take the back" if possible, as well. Much of my stand-up sparring is predicated on getting behind, or to the "blind-side" of the opponent.