10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anf
Anf's picture
What is 3k karate?

It's probably a daft question. But I've come to know from reading many articles that 3k karate is seen by traditionalists as some kind of commercial inferior westernised and sanitised version of karate. But until recently I'd never even heard of '3k karate', and still don't really know what the term means. Google seems to suggest it is kihon kata and kumite. But I don't get what's wrong with that, if that's what it means.

Chris R
Chris R's picture

This is my understanding of 3K Karate: You do kihon up and down the hall, then you do kata practice, then you do one step, five step, and point sparring. When you get better at this stuff, then you can grade up to a new colour belt, and one day enter into competitions for kata and point sparring. So from a fighting perspective there are obviously a lot of things wrong with this approach, hence why people criticize it. Some of the main problems are: You don't hit anything, you don't spar with contact, and in general you don't learn much that is practical outside of the dojo.

I think that splitting your training into those three sections is not inherently bad, as long as you do it in a practical way. I don't know this for sure, but from what I have heard people in shotokan used to train in somewhat of an old school version of this, and that produced some very tough and capable people. But I believe that what they did is very different to what people mean when they refer to "3K Karate" today.

That is my view on 3K Karate anyway ... Maybe others define it a bit differently?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
But until recently I'd never even heard of '3k karate', and still don't really know what the term means.

I can speak with authority on this one :-)

I believe it was me who first coined that term when used mark the distinction between a holistic and practical approach to karate, and the impractical and disjointed way that many practise it.

“3K karate” refers to “karate made up of Kihon, Kata and Kumite AND never the three shall meet

(That's the phrase I've used at seminars and in the podcasts)

3K karate is where people practise kihon to get good at kihon, kata to get good at kata, and the type of kumite they do has no relationship to either the kata or the kihon they practise (normally the type of sparring used in points tournaments).

The alternative is where everything is practised with a view to improving real world combative efficiency, and the kihon, kata and kumite are all linked together in a holistic whole. That’s karate as most here would aim to do it.

As I say, I coined the term to refer to an inefficient and impractical form of karate that is made up of three separate disciplines. The term has caught on within the community and most use it as I intended.

Our karate will also include kata, kihon and kumite … but they are inextricably lined together in a holistic whole. That’s the key difference.

All the best,

Iain

Anf
Anf's picture

Thanks. I think I understand now. Perhaps rather worryingly, I think my practice largely falls under that description. Which kind of begs the question, what can one do about it? In a perfect world there'd be easy access to clubs of all kinds, but in reality I think it would be quite common for any student to not find exactly what they personally want in a single place. I think the club I'm at is one of the best in the area, and I'm not just saying that, I've looked at a fair few. And it does a good job of broadly meeting the personal goals of most, but I think there may be an opportunity to look to other options to supplement the training somehow.

Philios
Philios's picture

Anf,

It boils down to time, priorities, availability, and goals.  Unless you're a full-time martial artist with disposible income and no responsibilities (does such a person even exist?), there's only so many hours in a week that you can commit to training.  As a martial artist, you need to prioritize your training with what is most important to you.  

Ideally, you would go and train at Sensei Iain's dojo, ha ha.  That would be a one-stop-shop for pragmatic karate!  That's probably out of the question though.  You're right that a specific karate club may not check all the boxes for a student.  If it is important to you, you should indeed seek out crosstraining opportunities to supplement your karate with aspects that you find it lacking.  Some form of grappling (e.g. judo, bjj, sambo, wrestling), and contact striking (Boxing, Muay Thai) come to mind. 

If you're at a good dojo, even one that follows the 3K approach, you will stay if you see a benefit in doing so.  If you can find a likeminded partner at the dojo you're attending, you could just start by spending some time after class exploring more pragmatic karate applications with your training partner.  Your fellow classmates might take notice, and you could end up with a nice little pragmatic karate study group.  Of course, you should make sure it's okay with your Sensei first.  It shouldn't be a problem, but if it is, that is a good indicator that the dojo might not be the best fit for your needs.

Cheers.

Dennis Krawec
Dennis Krawec's picture

That’s exactly what I recall from when I first started studying Shotokan in 1990. Standard 3k as Iain refers to it. 

It wasn’t  until my last attempted return in 2009 where I noticed a difference. 3 step was still used to teach basic applied kihon moves for junior belts; however, 1 step sparring for advanced belts was incorporating applications from the kata.

Overall there seems to have been an evolution in the instruction of Karate to be more holistic and relevant, which perhaps is more in line with what Karate practitioners of old had in mind. As opposed to the block, kick & punch format that exuded throws, restraints and etc. that dominated from the 1940’s(?) forward.

Anf
Anf's picture

I've been thinking about this some more. I think too much sometimes :)

I wonder if some martial arts schools are becoming increasingly shallow not because of an inherent lack of knowledge or enthusiasm as such, but almost the exact opposite.

Even Funakoshi, highly revered as the man that brought karate to the world, and who saw it as much as a spiritual thing as physical, expresses a distaste for the hot headed youth that might want test their skills.

I wonder then if in almost worshipping masters of bygone times, there is a reluctance to 'risk' deviating from the teachings of such masters, and so in playing it safe, perhaps, some instructors stick religiously to what is recorded in literature, at the expense of the art.

If this is so, I mean absolutely no disrespect to any instructors that might think this way. And perhaps it is perfectly valid to teach this way, perhaps knowing that while some students will be content with this, others will in their own time constantly seek greater depth of knowledge to build on the foundation they learn in class.

I could of course be very wrong.

Chris R
Chris R's picture

Anf wrote:

I wonder then if in almost worshipping masters of bygone times, there is a reluctance to 'risk' deviating from the teachings of such masters, and so in playing it safe, perhaps, some instructors stick religiously to what is recorded in literature, at the expense of the art.

I think it is a different approach to training. Funakoshi said: "The Way: who will pass it on straight and well?" I believe that this is the idea behind teaching in a lot of traditional dojos. The instructor was taught an interpretation of "the way," and they will pass that on to their students "straight and well." From that perspective, it would be wrong to deviate from what the masters taught and still call it by the same name. Additionally, there are people who train very "traditionally," following the ways of 20th century instructors, and this works well for them. They don't need to know about the new advancements in bunkai or drills or whatever, because their training as it is helps them to achieve their goals. Many of these people are in great shape and are capable of self defense anyway. I'm not trying to suggest that this the best way to train, I'm just mentioning that this is how some people see things; not everyone who doesn't want to deviate does so because they are "worshipping masters of bygone times." With all of that said, I'm sure there are people who do exactly what you described, I just wanted to mention an alternative viewpoint to add to the discussion.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
I wonder if some martial arts schools are becoming increasingly shallow not because of an inherent lack of knowledge or enthusiasm as such, but almost the exact opposite …

… I wonder then if in almost worshipping masters of bygone times, there is a reluctance to 'risk' deviating from the teachings of such masters, and so in playing it safe, perhaps, some instructors stick religiously to what is recorded in literature, at the expense of the art.

Great observation! There are defiantly people who believe karate has reached a state of perfection under the guidance of semi-deified past masters. Any questioning of what these infallible warrior-sages put forth is deemed a kind of martial blasphemy. The huge issue though is that they are fundamentally confused by “what is recorded in literature”.

I can think of many examples of things that are now deemed “traditional” or “untraditional” despite the fact the past masters held contrary positions. So, they are deviating even though they may not appreciate it.

The irony is that if they better understood their art, and the positions of the past masters, they would see that what they consider as “traditional” isn’t traditional. As well as being true to the true tradition, the other side of the coin is accepting the past masters didn’t want us to preserve the art in amber:

“Time change, the world changes, and obviously the martial arts must change too.” – Gichin Funakoshi

“A pond which is not fed by a fresh stream becomes stagnant and dies ... in much the same way does the enthusiastic karateka continually modify their art.” – Choshin Chibana

All the best,

Iain

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

My first two years of training were in a dojo that religiously followed the teachings of a book written by the founder of the style, who was an American GI, and research reveals a number of lies in his history. That book covers all of the kata of the style (some of which he made, and ALL of which he modified quite a bit), standardized "bunkai" for every kata (exactly what you would see from a classic JKA demo), philosophical "meanings" for the kata, as well as a large number of ippon kumite drills. Most people who practice and teach that style adhere to that book, and the way they were taught, without any real deviation. It built a solid foundation of basics for me to work with, although they were more Japanese than Okinawan, but as far as practical bunkai, it wasn't there, and the sparring was your typical touch-contact point sparring, which obviously has nothing to do with proper kata applications. They are dedicated, hard working, and good at what they do, so I can't fault them for that much, and they did get me started on my karate journey, for which I am eternally grateful. I couldn't go back to that approach, now, though.