Why are Kata, Kihon and Kumite so different?

[RoniSwersky]

Here's the thing. I enjoy practicing Katas and their Bunkai, and trying to adapt Kata moves into real life scenarios is really interesting. However, when I look at the way martial artists move when actually fighting as against how they perform the same moves in Kata/Kihon it's totally different. My question is, why do we keep movements and practice them in a way that is not effective in a real fight or even in sport Kumite? If the end purpose is to use Karate for self defense, shouldn't we practice the moves in a more realist way in Katas and Kihon? i.e smaller defensive movements and not taking the opposite arm to the waist when throwing a punch but keeping it at the chin area to protect against counters.
What do you people say?

 

[punisher73]

First, this will vary between styles and even school to school, or organization to organization.

But, to do a quick summary using Shotokan as a template.

1) Kata: The katas were revamped when they went over to Japan to focus more on the "physical education" benefits of karate and many things were altered, so some things are not shown as clearly as their Okinawan counterparts. For example, Wansu kata was known for a "fireman's carry" style throw in it. This is now a jumping/spinning move in Empi kata to enhance athleticism.

2) Kihon: In Okinawa, most of those moves were embryonic and had multiple layers. They could be used as blocks/strikes/grappling techniques. When it went over to Japan and also as karate spread to military men, the emphasis really became the lowest level of application and things were not always fully explained. For example, chambering to the waist was/is now explained that it is used to get more power instead of the actual application that the withdrawing hand was holding something from the attacker, like a limb or clothing and you were pulling him into the strike. A block was not always a block and could be used as a joint lock or part of a stand up grappling application.

3) Kumite: Originally, karate was a civilian self-defense system. It was mean to overcome the most common types of attacks, it was NOT designed to be used on a battlefield or in a sports context. This meant that the kata and techniques were close quarters and not a longer distance. As popularity grew and the want for sparring increased, Shotokan patterned their kumite after the sparring found in kendo. This is why you have a larger starting distance than you would in the street. It also meant that techniques tended to be more of a longer range. Due to this change, the techniques found in kata don't make sense because the attack and distancing is very different.

Many of these changes were also brought back to Okinawa as karate started to be taught more publicly and after WW2, the Okinawans could make a very good living by teaching US serviceman and adopted the changes as well.

This is not as clear cut as the summary makes it, but it can give understanding as to why something regarded as so effective seems to have such a disconnect with how we view fighting.

 

[seasoned]

First, this will vary between styles and even school to school, or organization to organization.

But, to do a quick summary using Shotokan as a template.

1) Kata: The katas were revamped when they went over to Japan to focus more on the "physical education" benefits of karate and many things were altered, so some things are not shown as clearly as their Okinawan counterparts. For example, Wansu kata was known for a "fireman's carry" style throw in it. This is now a jumping/spinning move in Empi kata to enhance athleticism.

2) Kihon: In Okinawa, most of those moves were embryonic and had multiple layers. They could be used as blocks/strikes/grappling techniques. When it went over to Japan and also as karate spread to military men, the emphasis really became the lowest level of application and things were not always fully explained. For example, chambering to the waist was/is now explained that it is used to get more power instead of the actual application that the withdrawing hand was holding something from the attacker, like a limb or clothing and you were pulling him into the strike. A block was not always a block and could be used as a joint lock or part of a stand up grappling application.

3) Kumite: Originally, karate was a civilian self-defense system. It was mean to overcome the most common types of attacks, it was NOT designed to be used on a battlefield or in a sports context. This meant that the kata and techniques were close quarters and not a longer distance. As popularity grew and the want for sparring increased, Shotokan patterned their kumite after the sparring found in kendo. This is why you have a larger starting distance than you would in the street. It also meant that techniques tended to be more of a longer range. Due to this change, the techniques found in kata don't make sense because the attack and distancing is very different.

Many of these changes were also brought back to Okinawa as karate started to be taught more publicly and after WW2, the Okinawans could make a very good living by teaching US serviceman and adopted the changes as well.

This is not as clear cut as the summary makes it, but it can give understanding as to why something regarded as so effective seems to have such a disconnect with how we view fighting.

This is a great article, very informative. I have followed you for many years and consider you to be an asset to Martial Talk.

 

[Oily Dragon]

moves were embryonic and had multiple layers.

This pretty much sums up the entire kata vs. fighting paradox, in my own little humble opinion. Kata, kihon, kumite...apples, oranges, and bananas.

Kata, tao lu, poomsa, jurus, whatever you want to call it, is by it's very nature preset, a preservation of technique's format. Like a specimen in formaldehyde. But it's not the technique itself, that is something drawn from the former and only discoverable through a good teacher. Like peeling an onion, the outer layers are tear inducing but the further inside you go the sweeter the meat.

Take this example of the Yijin Jing, one of the oldest available Chinese "forms". Probably about 500 years old (often claimed to be 1500 but that's silly), and definitely had impact on Japan and other nations. This static set of exercises is at the core of the Shaolin training regimen, but the forms depicted here are not remotely enough information to actually perform this set. There is simply no way to fit all the nuances of function, breathing, movement into a set of pictures.

Kata is similar in that you can learn an entire sequence of movements very well, but it's not much of an accomplishment, no more than pantomiming this Qigong set, as opposed to actively training these movements freely, something that only happens after years of training and internalizing the training.

 

[isshinryuronin]

First, this will vary between styles and even school to school, or organization to organization.

But, to do a quick summary using Shotokan as a template.

1) Kata: The katas were revamped when they went over to Japan to focus more on the "physical education" benefits of karate and many things were altered, so some things are not shown as clearly as their Okinawan counterparts. For example, Wansu kata was known for a "fireman's carry" style throw in it. This is now a jumping/spinning move in Empi kata to enhance athleticism.

2) Kihon: In Okinawa, most of those moves were embryonic and had multiple layers. They could be used as blocks/strikes/grappling techniques. When it went over to Japan and also as karate spread to military men, the emphasis really became the lowest level of application and things were not always fully explained. For example, chambering to the waist was/is now explained that it is used to get more power instead of the actual application that the withdrawing hand was holding something from the attacker, like a limb or clothing and you were pulling him into the strike. A block was not always a block and could be used as a joint lock or part of a stand up grappling application.

3) Kumite: Originally, karate was a civilian self-defense system. It was mean to overcome the most common types of attacks, it was NOT designed to be used on a battlefield or in a sports context. This meant that the kata and techniques were close quarters and not a longer distance. As popularity grew and the want for sparring increased, Shotokan patterned their kumite after the sparring found in kendo. This is why you have a larger starting distance than you would in the street. It also meant that techniques tended to be more of a longer range. Due to this change, the techniques found in kata don't make sense because the attack and distancing is very different.

Many of these changes were also brought back to Okinawa as karate started to be taught more publicly and after WW2, the Okinawans could make a very good living by teaching US serviceman and adopted the changes as well.

This is not as clear cut as the summary makes it, but it can give understanding as to why something regarded as so effective seems to have such a disconnect with how we view fighting.

Very good and concise summery. It's sort of a case of divergent evolution, powered by the points you made. At the start, kata, kihon and kumite were more combined as a single entity. The kata bunkai was kumite and was practiced as such. The kihon were techniques that were useful for kumite and incorporated into the kata.

The advent of public instruction, kata competition and kumite competition served to wedge the original whole into 3 separate component parts. But, they are still related.

I believe each should be practiced with the other two in mind. If we do kata and kihon as it we were fighting, they will become stronger. If we practice kihon, our kata will be better, and doing these, our kumite will be more effective. So while today's karate seems to have 3 faces in its physical performance we should strive to reunite them in our practice. The whole will become greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

My question is, why do we keep movements and practice them in a way that is not effective in a real fight or even in sport Kumite?

Many years ago I had the same question as you do. One day I modified my form to make it look like fighting, I then realize that something was missing. What's the missing part is the "maximum stretching".

In the following clip, his right arm extend backward has no MA application. It only helps to stretch the body into a perfect straight line when punch. Without this training, when you punch, your punching arm, body, back shoulder will never form a perfect straight line.

In the following clip, his hand doesn't have to hit on the ground. It has no MA purpose there. But if he doesn't do that, he will never develop that kind of body flexibility.

https://i.postimg.cc/Qxy3Nhrk/long-fist-pu-bu.gif

In this clip, his hand touches his foot when kicking also has no MA purpose but to develop flexibility.

https://i.postimg.cc/vmjhD2ZK/my-kick-punch.gif

 

[Oily Dragon]

Very good and concise summery. It's sort of a case of divergent evolution, powered by the points you made. At the start, kata, kihon and kumite were more combined as a single entity. The kata bunkai was kumite and was practiced as such. The kihon were techniques that were useful for kumite and incorporated into the kata.

The advent of public instruction, kata competition and kumite competition served to wedge the original whole into 3 separate component parts. But, they are still related.

I believe each should be practiced with the other two in mind. If we do kata and kihon as it we were fighting, they will become stronger. If we practice kihon, our kata will be better, and doing these, our kumite will be more effective. So while today's karate seems to have 3 faces in its physical performance we should strive to reunite them in our practice. The whole will become greater than the sum of its parts.

This is the most Dao thing I've read all day.

Thank you for that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Basics and kata are uniform so they can be taught to a group of students. Kumite is the individual application of lessons learned by the student, and will be different as the nature of the fight and the fighters requires. Fundamentals are fundamentals.

A student says they will not square up to an opponent with their fists at their hips to defend themselves, and right they are. They will, however, incorporate the balance, power generation, breathing, and stance training they have received. The core principles remain, if learned correctly.

"But this isn't how I'd fight." Yes it is. You just don't understand the connection. Your body does.