How many kata do you think you need to learn? Do you think each kata was designed to be a standalone fighting system or do you think one kata is a progression to the next one?


Mick

Offhand, I`d say each kata was designed as a standalone system, but then does this take into account the heien/pinan/taikyodo series of kata?
Or are we taking "classical" kata here? For example : The Bassai/passai series? Or Tensho/Sanchin? Rohai/Meikyo? Or the three Naihanchi kata?

I have no great understanding of kata, but, as a master made a kata, surely the next would be a progression from the last that he made? If thats correct, then would'nt it be right to assume that one should learn them as part of a progression.
Correct me if I'm wrong please.

As for how many, well, I keep banging on about how everyone is different. And here is no exception. I know people who have done karate twice as long as me and are happy to know only three kata's. I'm not content with my six....

Mick, when you say learning kata, do you mean just the movements well enough to repeat the pattern, or learn properly as in bunkai, appplications etc?
Si, I think you`ve got a point there with the progression, but I think that probably only applies to 1st + 2nd Kata in GKR. I reckon all the rest - or the one`s that I know, which aint many are pretty much standalone.

I'm sure that not all kata were intended to form the core of stand alone system in their own right. Some, for instance, are often considered as fundamental kata that teach core principles rather than applications. Sanchin seems to fulfill this role in Goju. Some argue that Naihanchi does the same for Shorin ryu. I'd agree with this, at least up to a point, but I do consider Naihanchi to be rich in application.

Some are clearly intended to be a series. The pinans are the obvious example. That said, there is a tradition in some Shorin ryu circles that Pinan 1 & 2 were created by Sokon Matsumura, the other 3 only being added later by Ankoh Itosu. I'm not sure I believe this, but it does throw open the possibility that originally the whole series was not a self-contained series.

I can only really say what I personally do and personally find useful. I use different kata to practice different principles. So in my way of working, each kata is simply a different training drill, and does not fully stand alone. But there is much crossover in the principles found in different kata. It is arguable then that I could actually reduce the number of kata and still retain the same lessons.

Mike

Good question. But I think that without learning any application then the point is moot - how can a kata be a complete fighting system (if in fact it is) if all you do is learn the steps. I suppose you could use moves on the dance floor...





I don't think we can be 100% sure of the origins of any of the kata. Even relatively modern kata like the Pinan (Heian) series has different stories to their origin such as Matsumura created the first 2 and Itosu created the other 3, or Itosu created all of them. And yet Pinan 3 & 5 are different to 1, 2 & 4. There is so much myth and absolute cr*p surrounding historical aspects of karate that maybe it's a waste of time to worry about who might have created what and just focus on what we can get out of it with a straightforward commonsense approach?

On the other hand I can always knock up some genuinely authentic imitation replica copies of documents for pretty much anything you'd like... *cough* photoshop *cough*


Mick

I had to re-read your question lol. Some kata have been designed with progression in mind but alot of the older kata are individual stand-alone kata. You can usually tell if it is meant for a progression if it is in a series. I think someone earlier said like the GKR's first and second kata are meant for progression where as something like Saifa is a stand-alone.

Without drifting into GKR-bashing here, I always felt that going from the simplicity of Taikyodo shodan, then lurching through Taikyodo nidan (you'll know what I mean if you've done it!) then straight onto Saifa was a little daunting.
I suppose that one kata only directly leads to another if the founder of the style makes it so, he or she then can make up all sorts of connections between them.