5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Chris R
Chris R's picture
Non-kata techniques being passed down

Hi everyone, I've noticed that many practically-minded karateka today practice techniques that aren't shown explicitly in the kata. I personally incorporate quite a few techniques into my practice that I don't see in kata and learned elsewhere. I do this both out of interest and to better achieve certain training goals. What I've noticed is that modern instructors who do this tend to pass some of those techniques down to their students. They are taught separately to kata and bunkai, but end up making their way into their overall teaching. I've been wondering - Is this a recent trend or has it been happening for a long time? Did any of the old masters pass down techniques that weren't included into their kata? If so, were any of these techniques significant to note? Thanks for any input, Chris

Kiwikarateka
Kiwikarateka's picture

Some karate books I've read have various animal inspired techniques, e.g. bear hand (Kuma de), eagle hand (washi te), and leopard hand to name a few (forgot the Japanese for the last one).

The most famous one I can think of would be mawashigeri, which I've seen some people say is 'implied' in some kata, but is not explicitly shown in any kata I know. Funakoshi didn't include it in his karate techniques demonstrated in his early books but included it in the later ones.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Yoko geri, mawashi geri, snap mae geri, a few other techniques are basicaly modern techinques I think. Meaning that to the extent they exist in kata at all they are a modified version of something else. They all tend to be techniques that exist in long range sparring and nowhere else, unless aimed at the leg etc., in which case they look diferent in kata e.g. sidekick to the joint, low front kick.

As far as personal techqiues, I think everyone has them, part of what you get from a teacher is this kind of stuff, in the same way that someone might put together a phrase or piece of prose from source material., a teacher expression of principles is individual.

There's also some stuff that I remember thinking wasn't from a kata, but then it turned out it was, in that the teacher developed it from Kata study and application. The principle was there, but not the exact execution.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Chris R wrote:
Is this a recent trend or has it been happening for a long time?

It seems to have been happening from as far back as we can go. I think it’s a good thing and also unavoidable. 

Chris R wrote:
Did any of the old masters pass down techniques that weren't included into their kata?

They did. The kata are records of techniques and drills that provide solid examples of a system’s principles. A truly functional system has to principle based. It’s a well worn analogy but it bears repeating: a fighting system can be thought of as an oak tree, and just as the oak tree produces acorns, the fighting system will produce kata. The kata, when correctly studied, will grow into the fighting system, just as the acorn will grow into the oak tree. The kata does not record the entirety of the fighting system, because that would make it excessively large and unwieldy. It does, however, contain everything you need to produce one. The past masters taught techniques that are not explicitly in the kata; even though the principles upon which they are based will be in the kata. More in that here:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/how-kata-records-style

Chris R wrote:
If so, were any of these techniques significant to note?

We can think of things like Motobu’s 12 drills and Funakoshi’s throws (although some of those are explicitly in kata, but not all of them). 

All the best,

Iain

Chris R
Chris R's picture

Thanks for all the responses. Definitely agree with the contents of that podcast too. I suppose it also depends on where you draw the line, as when there is so much overlap between the principles of kata and principles of combat, the number of relevant techniques becomes almost endless.