13 posts / 0 new
Last post
jckhoury
jckhoury's picture
Kata per body type, age, and ability

I was reading about the history of karate and read that Kanryo Higoanna would teach each of his student Sanchin and one or two additonal katas based on their body type, experience and age. 

Has anyone come across further information on this.  Is there any available informaiton as to which katas are more suitable to certain body types etc..

thanks

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi,

jckhoury wrote:
Is there any available information as to which katas are more suitable to certain body types etc.

I think that’s now a largely debunked idea. Funakoshi seems to have been the primary sources of this myth:  

“Formerly, the two Chinese schools of boxing were associated with two Okinawan Schools, Shorin-ryü and Shorei-ryu, but what precise relationship existed among them is, of course, long lost in the mists of time … What we do know is that the techniques of the Shorei School were best suited to a person with a large body, while Shorin techniques suite people with a smaller frame and less strength. Both schools had their advantages and disadvantages.” – Gichin Funakoshi, Karate-Do My Way of Life.

This view was challanged by his contemporaries. For example:

“Currently there are many theories about karate styles, yet none have been corroborated by historical investigation. Like fumbling in the dark, most theories are only vague suppositions. The most accepted hypothesis describes the Shaolin and the Shorei styles. The former, it is said, best suits those who are of stout frame, while the Shorei style best accommodates those with smaller frames, or who are thin and lack physical strength. However, after considering this from various perspectives it remains obvious that this evaluation is unquestionably false." - Chojun Miyagi, Karate-do Gaisetsu.

The idea was also challenged by Kenwa Mabuni and Ganwa Nakasone in “Kobo Kenpo Karatedo Nyumon”. However, I don’t have that one to hand in order to provide a direct quote.

It’s very likely that training was adapted to body type (as it should be today too), but common principles remain and there’s noting to support the idea that certain kata were prescribed to those of a certain frame; other than Funakoshi’s challenged assertion.

All the best,

Iain

colby
colby's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I think that’s now a largely debunked idea. Funakoshi seems to have been the primary sources of this myth ...[SNIP]

Hey Iain, would you say it's more about the individual and what principles in the kata they connect with more instead of matching kata to specific body types? And would your judo story of your teacher giving you a different throw to work on instead of the one you were trying to learn also apply here?

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

I've heard this story and have often wondered if there's simply an element of missed nuance here. Generally people -do- gravitate towards certain types of combative movements based both on body type, predilection and ability.

So while it's silly to mention an instructor deciding to teach certain Kata based fully on a students body type, it is not strange at all that an instructor would help his or her students decide which katas fit their own bodies and prefences best. In fact it's somewhat vital that when we study a kata and it's combative applications that it become almost second nature at the "advanced" level (without getting into what that means at this time). Generally it makes sense that this is more easily accomplished by studying those Kata which feel more "natural" to us - those should be first for deep study.

So I have always felt his particular story is being glossed in a way that causes a total misinterpretation of it's meaning. No good instructor would assume that body type or demographics alone is sufficient a reason to have a student focus on a particular Kata and unless we were talking about teaching children, I don't think the decision would be made that autocratically either, even in a more traditional Asian Martial arts context.

So basically this story means "Kanryo Hiagonna would teach his students as individuals"- something which a good Karate instructor (when it's taught as a combative art) is already doing. The story perhaps filtered through the beginnings of Japanese importation of Karate- in which large groups are -not- neccessarily being taught individual combative skill, and it somehow takes on a mystic quality that was never there.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Colby,

colby wrote:
would you say it's more about the individual and what principles in the kata they connect with more instead of matching kata to specific body types?

Principles are universal. They apply to everyone. Body type would be once consideration when considering how to apply / manifest those principles. However, I don’t think body type would have any bearing on which principles you would connect with because, as I say, they are universal.

colby wrote:
And would your judo story of your teacher giving you a different throw to work on instead of the one you were trying to learn also apply here?

I think you may have blended two stories there? However, I’m impressed you recall that and that is a good example that would apply!

I was made to practise ippon seoi nage (one arm shoulder throw) as my primary throw and was told it would be “your throw” … and despite my initial misgivings, my coach was 100% right.  The other story was me asking to be taken through uchi mata (inner thigh throw) and my coach replying, “Why? You’ll never throw anyone with those legs!” (Too short for the average build in my weight category). However, the principles of throwing remain constant, regardless of which throw we employ.

It could be that, in some cases, the examples of the principle a kata shows are more directly applicable by people of a certain body type. In that case, the example could connect more with the individual. Which – once we separate principles from examples of principle – is the same point you made.

However, that’s different from kata being prescribed to a body type. That’s not logically possible if we follow it through:

Master A knows a wide rage of kata; with each being suitable for a given body type. Student B is short and muscular; so they learn Kata B. Years pass and the student becomes a master. Master B has a student come for lessons, but that student is tall and thin, so Master B has nothing to teach the student. Karate ends. The alternative would be Master B knows all kata for all body types, which means he was taught all kata for all body types … including kata that did not fit his body type! Either way, prescribing kata by body type is not an idea that can persist.

What happened in reality is that Master A taught the same kata to all their students. Master A may tweak the kata a little for each student. Either way, the students would then learn how to apply the principles of the kata in a way that worked for them. They may even tweak the kata a little as a result of their experiences; and pass on that revised kata to their own students.

All the best,

Iain

colby
colby's picture

thanks for the response, Iain. And I see what you mean but like what you always say they may know the kata but it might not be a kata that they are experts in or know all the bankai for, right. Like in your dojo, your students learn the pinans and naihanchi and then they pick a kata to learn from, right? So eventually everyone learns the katas so they can pass it down but their 2 or 3 different katas that they use for their personal self defense might be different from each other. So from what I can gather I think your go to katas are the pinans, naihanchi, and kusanku. But you might have someone that uses naihanchi, passai, and chinto as their go to self defense katas.

And I understand that principles are universal dont the different katas offer similar and different principles? Like sure you'll see similar movements not because the katas were designed together but rather people figured thr same stuff out o their own but each offers different principles that might be completely alien to how you think or how you like to move. Wanshu is like that for me.

And yeah I listened to your backlog of podcasts for like an entire week or so at work so I remembered some stuff.

jckhoury
jckhoury's picture

Thank you Iain.  I appreciate your reponse.  It makes a lot of sense.  Especially, since one of your quotes is staight from Chojun Miyagi, Higoanna's student.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Colby,

colby wrote:
Like in your dojo, your students learn the pinans and naihanchi and then they pick a kata to learn from, right?

No. That’s not how it works for us. Up to 1st dan they learn the Pinans and Naihanchi as they form the core of what we do. All students learn them, and we’ve never had a problem getting all kinds of different body types to get them to work. This typically takes 7 or 8 years.

The students then study Kushanku, Seishan and Chinto for the next 3 or 4 years (there’s obviously a lot of cross over from the kata learnt previously in terms of technique; and the principles are universal). At 3rd dan we have a list of optional kata they can chose from, and at 4th dan they are encouraged to learn a kata from another style.

The free choice of kata comes very late. They don’t choose a “self-defence kata” for themselves, because we find all the kata have value and hence there is no need functionally. They learn these additional kata for interest and knowledge at a point where they are already very experienced and able.

colby wrote:
So eventually everyone learns the katas so they can pass it down but their 2 or 3 different katas that they use for their personal self defense might be different from each other. So from what I can gather I think your go to katas are the pinans, naihanchi, and kusanku. But you might have someone that uses naihanchi, passai, and chinto as their go to self defense katas.

No. They don’t. They all learn the same core kata. None of us chose a kata as our go to for self-defence. As per the above post, the principles are universal. They will individualise how they enact those principles, but that’s very different from choosing a given kata. I don’t have any “go to” kata either. We don’t use the kata in self-defence; we used the “habits” (i.e. internalised combative principles) that the kata process has instilled.

When learning mathematics, we give students examples of solved problems. However, we understand that these are examples of principles and concepts. We would not ask a mathematician what they “go to” subtraction was. We’d hope they understood the principles of subtraction. Kata works the same way. It’s the internalised principles that matter. Not the specific examples used in the education process.

colby wrote:
And I understand that principles are universal dont the different katas offer similar and different principles?

As I say, principles are universal. You can have different examples of those principles in action, but the principle itself applies across the piece. For example, there are thousands of different locks … but only three types of lever (class 1 to 3). A kata can’t contain every single lock, but it can contain examples of the three different types of leverage.

The various kata provide different examples of core principles, but those principle are universal across all kata. As Funakoshi said, “Once you have completely mastered one technique, you will realize its close relation to other techniques.”

colby wrote:
Like sure you'll see similar movements not because the katas were designed together but rather people figured thr same stuff out o their own but each offers different principles that might be completely alien to how you think or how you like to move. Wanshu is like that for me.

Principles the combative bedrock. You can’t choose them any more than one can choose which of the laws of physics you wish follow. It’s possible that differing examples / manifestations will resonate more than others, and it’s possible an individual will find some examples easier to apply than others; however, the principles are universal, and any effective method has to adhere to them i.e. all locks need effective leverage. We can’t choose if want to use effective leverage (principle) in our locks (manifestations of principle) because all lock need leverage.

Reading your post, it seems to me as if you are equating tactics and techniques with principles. However, principles are deeper than that. We can make choices at the level of tactics and techniques, but the one thing that all EFFECTIVE options have in common is the universal principles upon which they rest.

I hope that helps clarify.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

jckhoury wrote:
Especially, since one of your quotes is straight from Chojun Miyagi, Higoanna's student.

I’m pleased that helped. As you say, Miyagi is clear that “body type karate” is not a thing … and he trained under Higoanna. It’s therefore implausible that Higoanna taught in that fashion. We can debunk this one historically, logical and practically.

All the best,

Iain

colby
colby's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I hope that helps clarify.

It does. So kata principles are universal throughout the katas but the tactics and techniques taught in the individual katas can be different, right?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

colby wrote:
So kata principles are universal throughout the katas but the tactics and techniques taught in the individual katas can be different, right?

That’s how I see it, but I’d probably word it a little differently. I am a huge proponent of principle-based learning and I feel that “the tactics and techniques taught in the individual katas” could be misconstrued as putting the cart before the horse.

The examples of the kata are there to illustrate the underlying principles. The specific methods – i.e. techniques and illustrations of tactics – are therefore not what the kata ultimately seeks to teach. I use this scene from Enter the Dragon to illustrate my point:

 

If people concentrate on the “finger” of the kata example i.e. technique, then they miss the “moon” of the principle.

As per the previous post, the mathematical principle of addition is not the same as an example of addition. We don’t seek to memorise all possible additions (analogous to a “technique centred approach”) but we seek to understand the principle of addition (analogous to a “principle-based approach”). In the principle based approach, the techniques are not ends in themselves. They exist only to illustrate the principle.

Techniques are limited and specific. Principles are universal. A person who has internalised the principles to the point of habit will be able to adapt to circumstance. A person who has learnt many techniques, but has failed to go deeper, will only be able to apply those techniques if the specific circumstances for them arise.  As Motobu said, “One must learn how to apply the principles of the kata so they can bend with the winds of adversity.”

This is the third element of my four-stage approach and I feel it’s of vital importance if the values of kata is to be fully realised:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/four-stages-kata-practise

All the best,

Iain

colby
colby's picture

Right I remember you talking about that, specifically the blind man elephant parable. So I guess my question then becomes how do you pick the katas out of your individual knowledge base that you are going to master or spend the most time on. What the factors that you should think about when choosing your 1 or 2 katas?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Colby,

colby wrote:
Right I remember you talking about that, specifically the blind man elephant parable.

I use that story to illustrate a different point about a common fighting system giving rise to differing versions of a kata; and how that original common fighting system can be better understood through the multiple “vantage points” the differing versions of that kata provide. It’s a tale I tell to get people to see the value of knowing more than their own variation. It’s a different point really.

colby wrote:
So I guess my question then becomes how do you pick the katas out of your individual knowledge base that you are going to master or spend the most time on. What the factors that you should think about when choosing your 1 or 2 katas?

As per the above post, that’s not something we do. The students don’t choose kata in that way. I’m not aware of any school that gives their beginning students a “kata menu” in that way. The school you join will determine the curriculum. Later on, when the student becomes a teacher, the Shuhari process may see them switch things around a bit. However, the principles will remain constant so, in that regard, it does not objectively matter which of the traditional kata they choose to run with first. It will be nothing truly objective, just subjective taste and preference.

It’s also not the traditional way to learn many kata and then pick a favourite to explore. That falls outside the traditional process; and because it is outside the traditional process (i.e. lots of kata and no bunkai) it’s not a good way to approach bunkai. The way it should work is that kata are practised alongside the bunkai from the beginning – with a view to internalising and freely applying the combative principles they point to – so, which kata comes first will be determined by the linage and is not decided on the basis of body type, nor is it the choice of the student.

All the best,

Iain