Same Kata, different styles

Wow! You have a great opportunity at hand.  IMO- Karate is Karate is Karate. Styles are a personal reflection of how you have embodied the principals and concepts. It will always be different for everyone. Knowing so many katas from different styles is great. Not in terms of having lots of kata to practice, but in the opportunity to see what the styles have in common. I would personally look at everything you know in all karate, and find all the things that are the same. Then only practice those few things. Find all the things that are simialr, and look at why they are similar yet subtly different from each other. Anything you find in only one style or system keep seperate and if it doesn't work for you discard it completely. Because it is not universal, you can bet that it is a personal addition from an individual. These individual skills won't translate for everyone. You have to have the same body type and attitude as well as training ethics to pull it off. The universal skills are the fundamentals of all systems and that is what karate is. Look at what is the same.

Filter all those techniques through Sparring and Randori and again only keep what works universally. At this point I would also stop learning kata, and practice it only to keep the current level of solo movements. Knowing more katas or getting better at solo performance isn't the thing to mak the difference here. It is refining all your techniques and understanding to come to terms with the underlying cvoncepts and principals of why tings work the way they do. Let the applications of the moves change how you look and feel in your performance of kata. Don't be ridgid, but allow all this wonderful experience to change everything about whatyou do naturally. 

What you will end up with will be your style of karate- and that is what the masters of old sought too. 

(at least in my books. lol. have fun.)

Personally it is something I have never been interested in or indeed able to do - that is remember and be able to work different versions of kata. But that doesn't make it wrong or a bad idea.

The only exception to that was with Sanchin, I learnt that about 22 years ago in Shito Ryu, then the Goju version, then the Shobayashi version, then a White Crane version and finally settled on my own for a few years - now I don't work Sanchin as I find it does not 'fit' with Shorin Ryu, which is my focus. Different mechancis and way of moving, different focus.

If your happy, go for it but for me, working to the depth I want to within my Ryu it simply is not possible and I dont feel im missing out, so much to do with our own kata!

As a note I will always look, and say on a workshop train other systems kata - I just don't retain them, I enjoy doing this of course.

The way I feel about it is that, in terms of enjoyment, I like learning lots of kata.  At the end of the day, simply knowing the forms of many kata makes up such a small part of my training ethic that I have never considered it to have a negative impact on my karate. 

I suppose my problem is that, when it comes to analysing a kata or series of kata in depth, where do I start?  Iain makes a brilliant case for the Pinan/Heian series as a holistic system with distinct stages, but which of the three styles that I am familiar with should I use as the foundation for my further learning?  Since the Shito-Ryu versions were only in passing due to the nature of my squad training, it then comes down to Wado-Ryu or Shotokan.  The Wado versions simply "feel" more alive for me.  Whether thats because of my physiology or my mindset (I spent the first seven years learning the Wado system) I don't know, but I certainly find myself leaning in that direction.  However, I now practice Shotokan (since about 2002) and so I should be aiming, at least in principle, to focus on this version of  the kata whilst looking towards my 3rd dan.  Having said that, it just doesn't sit right with me, and these kata, even after eight years don't work for me in the same way as the Wado versions (and this applies to most of the higher grade kata as well).

Incidentally, can the higher grade kata be "grouped" together as a fighting system in the same way as the Pinan/Heian kata, or do they all represent a separate system in their own right?  This is a question which has bugged me since first coming across Iain's ideas.

Just as an aside, Gavin Mulholland's approach to the first four Goju Ryu kata struck a chord with me when I first read (and then re-read) "Four Shades of Black".  Although I have very limited experience with Goju-Ryu, the principles he describes in this book make perfect sense to me.  It is an approach which again just "feels" right to me, even though the kata in this series are pretty far removed from what I already know, I feel that the application of my own personal knowledge here comes more readily than I should be prepared to admit when talking about a style with which I have such a limited understanding of!

Maybe I now have to take a look at myself and my training, and decide whether or not this "feel" is something in my subconscious saying "you have all this experience, now you have to go and apply WHAT WORKS FOR YOU!"

It certainly seems to represent a fluidity in both my minset and my movements and technique, because I am mentally applying what I am learning along with movements that are now as natural as breathing and walking; it's just at times I feel the Shotokan approach is almost trying to tease me away from what I am comfortable with and saying "you need to be challenged in order to progress".  I feel that this is quite a turning point for me in my life as a martial artist, and I am wary of chosing the path of least resistance as opposed the one which promises to truly take me to the next level of understanding.

Or am I just second guessing myself?!

Regards again,

Mike

Hi tksdaddy,

I personally find it very interesting looking at other versions of certain Kata. I started Shotokan in 1991 and so this is my base system. I always try to look at the changes and try to understand why particular changes were made.

tksdaddy wrote:

Incidentally, can the higher grade kata be "grouped" together as a fighting system in the same way as the Pinan/Heian kata, or do they all represent a separate system in their own right?  This is a question which has bugged me since first coming across Iain's ideas.

I think that is definitely the case. I categorize it in the following way.
Heian/Pinan System
Tekki/Naihanchi System
Bassai/Passai System (Bassai Dai/Sho, Matsumura Bassai, Oyadomari Bassai, etc.)
Kanku/Kushanku System (Kanku Dai/Sho, Matsumura Kushanku, Itosu Kushanku, Chatan Yara Kushanku etc.)
Ji System (Jion,Jiin, Jitte)
Aragaki System (Nijushiho/Niseishi, Sochin (Shotokan, Shito), Unsu/Unshu)
Seishan System (Hangetsu, Aragaki Seishan )
Rohai System (Meikyo, Matsumura Rohai, Itosu Rohai 1-3)
Chinto System (Gankaku, Matsumura Chinto, Tomari Chinto)
Wanshu System (Empi, Tomari Wanshu, Itosu Wanshu)
and so on.

I don't really practice them (don't have time for the whole bunch) but I look at them at times when I come up or come across with a new application for a certain Kata part just to see it that could fit another version.

Regards Holger
 

tksdaddy wrote:

The way I feel about it is that, in terms of enjoyment, I like learning lots of kata.  At the end of the day, simply knowing the forms of many kata makes up such a small part of my training ethic that I have never considered it to have a negative impact on my karate.

I don't think that it is a negative impact on your karate at all. A larger base of knowledge is great. But developing a deeper understanding of what you are doing and what the kata are I believe comes from somewhere else. It's like kata are the books, and by now you have a huge library, which is great. So the time has come to read them all and put the knowledge to use. It's better to have 2 books well read and the knowledge used, than 20 books to read, or 10 books read but then forgotten about.

tksdaddy wrote:

I suppose my problem is that, when it comes to analysing a kata or series of kata in depth, where do I start?  Iain makes a brilliant case for the Pinan/Heian series as a holistic system with distinct stages, but which of the three styles that I am familiar with should I use as the foundation for my further learning?

Um...all of them?

tksdaddy wrote:

Since the Shito-Ryu versions were only in passing due to the nature of my squad training, it then comes down to Wado-Ryu or Shotokan.  The Wado versions simply "feel" more alive for me.  Whether thats because of my physiology or my mindset (I spent the first seven years learning the Wado system) I don't know, but I certainly find myself leaning in that direction.  However, I now practice Shotokan (since about 2002) and so I should be aiming, at least in principle, to focus on this version of  the kata whilst looking towards my 3rd dan.  Having said that, it just doesn't sit right with me, and these kata, even after eight years don't work for me in the same way as the Wado versions (and this applies to most of the higher grade kata as well).

I feel that all of your training should be constantly absorbed into what it is that you do. So as you go through each of these versions of the same kata- how you personally perform the kata changes to incorporate your various influences. At the end of the day, you should have 1 kata that is a hybrid of all the styles for this particular pattern. It will be unique and you own. Only other people with the same unique combination of experiences will have kata similar to this- but even then they should all be slightly different because the personal experiences of the practitioners are different to reflect their individual personalities as well. 

What I felt from your first post, and got excited for you for- was that you have such a great amount of resource as far as different instructors and styles, that you have a wonderful and rich opportunity to create great karate. I think of it like a gene pool. Each kata and style is a family. If you don't explore outside of the family, then you get constant inbreeding which results in fundamental problems as we go down the road. Constant copying of style after style isn't quite healthy. But once you start diversifying the gene pool, you get strong and healthy offspring with the genetic strengths from both parents. This is what you can do with the kata. Let them all influence how you move and think about your own karate. I think learning one 'style' and then switching to another style to start from the beginning again and re-learn everything, then to repeat it again is denying yourself your own rich history and experience. Each new style should be a layer on what you are already doing- and thus my opinion of at this stage of your training...is more kata really the answer? 

tksdaddy wrote:

Maybe I now have to take a look at myself and my training, and decide whether or not this "feel" is something in my subconscious saying "you have all this experience, now you have to go and apply WHAT WORKS FOR YOU!"

Exactly.  

The other thing about cross-learning the styles is that look at what each thing is. Kata is a series of movements to show various techniques and combinations for fighting. So each single motion and each group of motions are in fact techniques that can be applied to an opponent (Bunkai). So therefore, when learning kata we look at the single techniques, and then the groups of techniques, and apply them to a partner (in a structured way to experience the effectiveness of the motion or use of the technique). Once we have an understanding of this and we look at the same kata from a different style, the kata itself is not important- what is important is the technique and application of the movements that it is trying to explain. What are the subtle differences in the use of this technique compared to the similar motion from the kata in the other style? Once you know the techniques and applications- also look outside of karate for the same techniques in other environments. See if there are any variations there that are not covered by the kata's-why? If you come across a throw for example, look at all the katas and why the karate throw is done the way it is. But also look at Judo, Wrestling (greco- and freestyle), Kung-fu, Sambo, Traditional wrestling arts from other cultures, etc... This will also help decipher the context as to why the particular motion in the kata is reflective of this technique. 

Once you have enough understanding of the application then you can view the styles as just variations on a similar theme. Then looking at any kata is easy, because you are comfortable with breaking down the structure to get at the inside lessons. The Bunkai dvd's from Iain are a great start. Don't get caught up in exactly doing things from your style the way he does it (unless of course it is the same style). But take to the format of how and why he does what he does. Look at the articles on the website here as well. They helped me a lot to think about how I would breaking down what is fighting when I look at kata. And then, go and have some experiences. It sounds like your off to a great start anyways...have fun, and when you're overwhelmed- remember, it's only training.

Andrew et al,

Thanks so much for your responses, I have read them several times to absorb what you are saying.  I know what my problem is, and it's not my karate!  I think too much, and i'm too cautious.  I just need that little push in the right direction and then I am fine.  I just like to make sure that the course I follow is the correct one!  I am too scared to think of what I do as "my" style of karate when in fact that is all it should ever be for every serious karateka; not my instructor's karate, or his instructor's, or even the founder's style.  Karate should evolve with the individual, not the class or school or style, and I know this, I just haven't had the courage to apply it to myself.

Of course I would never attempt to undermine my instructors, their knowledge or experience, but then I shouldn't undermine my own either.  I know what I know, and I know what works for me. I don't disagree with my instructors (constructively of course) because they are 4th/5th dans and I am a 2nd dan, so therefore my opinion can't possibly matter(!), when in fact, the opposite should be true.  I sometimes think, why is a 4th dan teaching bunkai at its most basic level (i.e.strikes and blocks) when to introduce the theory behind the progressive nature of the kata systems (exchange of limbs through to grappling, locks, throws etc), would be both beneficial and of interest to all students?  It frustrates me when it happens and I think this, but then I think it would be arrogant presumption to say something that the instructor obviously hasn't thought of or doesn't wish to teach/demonstrate, and so just dutifully carry on doing as I am told...after all, is it my place to "know more" than my instructor? 

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

I think learning one 'style' and then switching to another style to start from the beginning again and re-learn everything, then to repeat it again is denying yourself your own rich history and experience. Each new style should be a layer on what you are already doing- and thus my opinion of at this stage of your training...is more kata really the answer?

Just to clarify, the change of style was out of necessity rather than for it's own sake (although I relished the challenge!) and I have no intention of starting from scratch again; I already consider what I do as adding layers to my experience.  With regards to more kata: I only intend to learn more purely because I enjoy kata!  I intend to focus on a small selection for my personal development though, and that is where I aim to take the input from you guys into my training

I have thought about teaching myself.  It would allow me to share what I know,  it's something I would love to do and I have received many compliments from students when helping out as to the quality of my input, but again, it's all about getting started! I wouldn't try to teach in one style over another, but to teach and show how to apply what I know in terms of what works, or how to make something work for the individual as appropriate, but then I end up second guessing my methods and think, "well what about grading my students? What style will they grade in if I get my Chief instructor to grade them?" and other questions.  I know I'm veering slightly off topic, but in terms of the complete picture of who I am and where I am going with my "hybrid" style and wealth of knowledge (your excitement in this area for me is infectious ) I hope this thread can be useful to others who are struggling to break out from being just another student, and believing in their own knowledge and ability and communicating it with others.

I have put a lot of thought into the processes in place behind this thread, and as I said before, I feel that I am at a crossroads as a martial artist.  I want to learn everything AND be able to communicate that with my peers, fellow students and instructors alike.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

remember, it's only training.

Speak for yourself !

I hope this hasn't come out as gibberish, as I tend to think as I type, but I have re-read it and I think it makes sense!

Regards again,

Mike

tksdaddy wrote:

 I am too scared to think of what I do as "my" style of karate when in fact that is all it should ever be for every serious karateka; not my instructor's karate, or his instructor's, or even the founder's style.  Karate should evolve with the individual, not the class or school or style, and I know this, I just haven't had the courage to apply it to myself.

I think all we can ever do is our own 'style' of anything. Even when we try to copy others, we end up with our own thing. It's just giving yourself the permission to acknowledge it and use it. 

tksdaddy wrote:

Of course I would never attempt to undermine my instructors, their knowledge or experience, but then I shouldn't undermine my own either.  I know what I know, and I know what works for me. I don't disagree with my instructors (constructively of course) because they are 4th/5th dans and I am a 2nd dan, so therefore my opinion can't possibly matter(!), when in fact, the opposite should be true.  I sometimes think, why is a 4th dan teaching bunkai at its most basic level (i.e.strikes and blocks) when to introduce the theory behind the progressive nature of the kata systems (exchange of limbs through to grappling, locks, throws etc), would be both beneficial and of interest to all students?  It frustrates me when it happens and I think this, but then I think it would be arrogant presumption to say something that the instructor obviously hasn't thought of or doesn't wish to teach/demonstrate, and so just dutifully carry on doing as I am told...after all, is it my place to "know more" than my instructor? 

Some of the best training I've experienced is from high ranking instructors teaching the most fundamental technical concepts and techniques. If I can have an 8th Dan teach aga-uke, and learn something that I didn't know about a basic block- that  to me is GOLD. It's not about undermining your instructors. They are teaching what they are teaching for a reason, and the progression they are using is in the best interest of the students. Trust them.

Personally I think it is possible to belong to a Ryu, have a Sensei and stay true to those things - and be yourself.

It's 90% the perception of what these things are, and proberly 90% of our experience of these things that leads us away - also where we are at in our journeys of knowledge and skill.

I'm fortunate, I have a LONG way to go before I outgrow our Ryu, or my Sensei - im given freedom to do what I like within the framework of our Ryu and with my Sensei blessing, this is a rare situation it would seem.

Granted our Traditon is important to me, it should be learnt, understood and then passed on - what people do with it is of course up to them!

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

Some of the best training I've experienced is from high ranking instructors teaching the most fundamental technical concepts and techniques. If I can have an 8th Dan teach aga-uke, and learn something that I didn't know about a basic block- that  to me is GOLD. It's not about undermining your instructors. They are teaching what they are teaching for a reason, and the progression they are using is in the best interest of the students. Trust them.

I absolutely understand where you are coming from, and I place as much emphasis on kihon as I do on bunkai.  What I suppose I didn't make clear is that my frustration comes from training with guys whos LIMIT of instruction falls into the basics category.  I have trained with some fantastic guys, whos ability to communicate all aspects of a technique are so helpful that I never tire of learning from them,  Its the guys who have no comprehension beyond the "teaching children" methods, even in the senior grade classes. After nearly eleven years wih the same instructor not teaching me anything beyond this and having to explore elsewhere for this knowledge, is it because he doesn't think I am capable of understanding more than this?  They might perform a particular block in a certain way with perfection, but when they can't expand on describing alternative applications, like a block also being used as an offensive technique, I sometimes feel a bit short changed with regards to the bigger picture of martial training.

Essentially, I am aware that karate is more than just blocks and punches, but not all instructors seem willing/able to go into levels of detail beyond this, so is this where I can interject and offer my thoughts on the subject at hand, or do I keep quiet and go with the flow? That was the point I was trying to get at. 

As I emphasised before, I am not attempting to undermine or appear arrogant, just to expand on my knowledge and to help others understand different concepts, even if they are senior to me in many other ways.  I highlight only one element of instruction, and I completely respect all of my instructors for what they have given me, especially in other areas outside the scope of this thread, e.g. kumite, dynamics, timing etc. 

With respect to kata applications though, I have experience in approaches that differ to my current instructors.  To bring it back to the original point of training the same kata in different styles, what I shouldn't be allowing myself to do is forget my original approach in favour of my current style, but use the best of both worlds to my advantage.  My concern is essentially, how outspoken can/should I be in sharing this with others?  Do I offer my own insight, or do I keep it to myself for my own personal training and benefit, so as not to upset anyone who may disagree with my methods? This forum is very open and tolerant of ideas, but I tend to find that, face to face, some individuals aren't so accepting. That was my concern.

I am far less experienced with karate than any of you who have posted comments so far. I find them very interesting and informative. My understanding of karate so far, is that all the kata are underpinned by principles of structure, efficiency, movement and much more. In my group we have to demonstrate what are termed 'basics'. I prefer to call them fundamentals; they are really difficult to get right. The standard of ones kata is judged on the application of these fundamentals. In my club different katas tend to be aimed at emphasising different principles or fundamentals, but all should be present at an advanced level. My chief instructor says that there are no basic katas, only katas done in a basic way (Steve Rowe). Of course we have to get the sequence of a kata correct, but more important is the application of the principles, especially at a more advanced level (Steve has a Wado background I believe, whilst we are a Shotokan group). In some ways I think that I could make my own kata up, but as long as the principles were there it would still be karate. Is this how the past masters developed their own ideas about kata?

I'm not proposing we make up our own kata.... I was proposing that we add to how we do kata- what is specifically our own. Ages ago it seems, I learned Gankaku. I like this kata. Over time, and practice wit ha few different instructors, looking at this kata in every karate book I found that had it, I saw some slight variations in how it was performed. I began to look at White Crane as well, and saw the similarities in those movements to that kata. I let all of this combine i my body and  through training. Then  I stopped trying to 'do' the kata as I had been taught, and ass I thought was the 'right' way to do it. I just did it. No thought-just do. Over and over again. My performance changed to reflect my current understanding and movement knowledge. Because I had been training a lot with the applications of the movements, I let those dictate how I moved in any particular sequence. Now, this kata looks vastly different than I have seen other perform it, different from how I was taught it as well, but there is no doubt that it is still Gankaku. 

This is what I was advising when I heard of all the different teachers and styles. Cross styles teaching the same kata, is a unique opportunity to really get into that one kata.  You get to see different view points and subtle differences that might be missed if only studying one approach. Plus if you are into kata...you need to study for no other reason than because it is fun to see differences in pattern and application. 

On the instructors note- I'm not going  to discuss the anything more about this on an open forum. I haven't met you or your instructor, and I don't have the background and details to offer my thoughts. Plus I can't advocate you to find someone else or discern if you have outgrown your  club or your instructor. You're going to need to make that call. What I can say is however, if you feel something is wrong- and it is affecting your training and/or how you feel, then talk about it. Training is supposed to be fun- follow your bliss, even if that means a change now. You'll be happier for the long run. A lot of issues can be fixed with communication, and even more come up because of lack of communication. 

@tksdaddy

I think you have a very interesting background, especially from a historical point of view, seeing these styles and the difference is like looking at eveloution of karate to a certain degree. if possible could you outline some of the differences you have come across in the different styles. are the differences in power generation, do the principles differ what other differnces have you seen. from there we could maybe ask why the developers of these systems made these differences