"Modern Shotokan is in my view, at once a magnificent culmination of all the different katas' core principles (maximized acceleration and destructive power while focusing on evasive movement to keep as safe as possible), while also being an empty vessel devoid of the rare and potent wine it was designed to hold."

i pratice a system of shotokan that fits this build. kata is praticed as a way of moving meditation more or less, and alot of the application i've seen demonstrated for kata wold embarras me to show to some of you guys. some of it is nice, but for the most part not so much.

my "technique" has gotten sloppy since i started working on the heavy bag alot and started sparring more. so the people at my dojo largely make a choice, learn this skill or don't. this skill is called "budo" and its combat like, but largely just as usefull as knitting.

"Shotokan, when analysed through it's kata, is less of a style and more a library of several systems, each in tact, preserved almost perfectly. But like classic race cars these systems were built to be used, but the powers that be in Shotokan have them sat in show rooms doing nothing but looking pretty."

yeah, i agree. i'm at a rank now and im content to stay where i am until i understand what i've been tought much more completly. i've "learned" alot of kata, but like you said each kata is a study in and of it's self. kata is learned to make a snappy preformance for the grading or competetion you need to do it for, and unless i study on my own, thats it.

"The style that is Shotokan as taught by the JKA and others, is effectively Heian Karate (more hiean shodan than anything else). They place only a spiritual emphasis on kata while endlessly drilling the minute of Nakayama's technical vision. They should probably rename it Nakayamakan as they seem to have ignored just about every word that Shoto ever wrote. That said, simple and powerful = effective, at least in body if not in mind."

yeah, i agree. the leader of my style of shotokan is Nishiyama sensei, and his technique has changed a bit from the older jka days, but the idea is the same. what they do, thay are damn good at, for example im positive that my instrctor knows what my body is going to do before i do when we spar.

i just fininshed reading karate do - my way of life by funikoshi and i really do agree that shoto's house is nothing like what it was intended to be. i don't like it that there are a few names held up on peoples shoulders like gods and nothing is supposed to change unless sensei says. maybe i have a problem with authiorty, but my heavy bag tells me i can throw some decent hands, my karate teachers tell me i need control.

the problem with being yourself in a japanese budo is, you can't. or, you can as long as you dance to the right tune.

i digress.

In regards to the McKenna article, I read it when it came out. It's been a long time since I had any college statistics...but I'm not comfortable with the analysis. Can't put my finger on it...but the assumptions, type of analysis (cluster), etc. I'm aware that anything published usually has an underlying POV that is conveniently supported by statistics. Not that I'm suggesting there is one here...just that I'd like to see the article really analyzed from a statistical viewpoint (ideally someone with a solid grasp of Goju as well).

I thought I gave the technical analysis a good go in my blog...

Personally I'm fairly sure that the traditional history is at odds with the architecture of the kata and the evidence of Kyoda and the Tou'on Ryu tradition.

I've not yet posted Part 2 of my article which goes into greater detail (I'm putting some finshing touches).

The flaw of the analysis is in the selection of data points. why choose to compare Goju kata by it's kicks? is Goju suddenly a kicking art? and why not add in the models for To'on kata? that would be interesting to see how statistically far away they are from the "core-4" wouldn't it?

however, even when I did my own analysis by added other factors in for data points - I got a similar answer to what the article showed. so I more or less agree with the findings - I just didn't agree with the data mining. and point selection
In any event, couple those findings with the dates Miyagi and Kiyoda studied with K. Higaonna, and the theory does make sense. again, not just because of statistical models that tell us so without running the numbers ourselves, but the other supporting evidence as well.


that aside, figuring out the entimology of kata get's one where, exactly? get's you closer to romanticizing about some idea of 'pureness'? Great. but can you respond to an attack using an idea?

good points, but this particular analysis is to try and illustrate that there are 'core' Naha-te kata...and that other Goju kata were added from a different source other than K. Higaonna. and I agree with that conclusion - but not from a numerical method with questionable data mining.

I don't think there is any Okinawan style that has a pure curriculum. Even To'on ryu has it's own other kata added from sources other than K. Higaonna. It seems the way was to add in what your influence and sensabilities are, not a dictated and unchanging curriculum to be passed on exactly....passing on an exact curriculum is a way of style-branding, sortof like a copyright for commercial protection - it's why Karate is sectioned into a geometric progression of 'styles' - when all it needs is one: no style...or 'your style'.

that said, I think a much more useful analysis would be to compare their application relationships, not their statistical averages of generic punches and kicks categories.