Kata – Perfect and timeless or imperfect and ever-changing?

	GKR is reluctant to commit to putting the black belt kata on DVD, but it would be invaluable as a reference, even if the kata are changed/refined as time passes.

A few months ago I was chatting to Shihan and I asked when there would be DVDs of the black belt katas available. Shihan responded by saying, “We’re taking our time to get them right. The trouble is, as soon as we release a DVD, that performance becomes fixed in stone for perpetuity, and people expect the kata to be exactly like the DVDs forever. GKR is still a very young style, and we’re still deciding how we want the katas performed.”

His answer got me thinking, and it’s only now after mulling things over for a while that I have formulated a balanced opinion on his comments. I can see where he was coming from - many karateka look to the DVDs and seek to clone the performances. As instructors we also use the DVDs as absolute references, citing them as the definitive example of how we want the kata executed. One of the benefits of being a single club, ought to be consistency. However, if kata is a living art, with endless conflicting expert opinions about what they mean and how to do them, perhaps Shihan might be wary of laying down a video record that students will eternally use as the ultimate performance example. That being said, GKR used to have videos showing very different performances, and the students who have been around long enough to remember them, have had no trouble letting go of those different performances...

Although GKR is only 24 years old, it’s a traditional style based on teaching methods and kata going back hundreds of years. I was recently discussing with a fellow instructor how much combat value kata had to a modern karateka. He suggested that regardless of any combat value, kata are part of the syllabus that links us back to the founders of karate, paying respect to the efforts and traditions of karate’s pioneers. If GKR’s practice of kata is one of the things that makes us traditional, then surely it is beholden upon us to retain the kata in their original form rather than re-inventing them?

Every year, a group of the most successful managers go over to Japan to train with some of the most senior Goju masters. A number of the managers expressed surprise at the fact that in the year between one visit and the next, a major move in kata Seiunchin had been removed simply because the masters didn’t think it fitted.

One could argue that this demonstrates that our kata are dynamic, living art forms which are constantly evolving. One could alternately argue that this is an arrogance instigated by people who failed to properly appreciate what the moves in the kata were designed to accomplish, or who did not value their tradition.

Many of the kata in our syllabus are hundreds of years old, or more. In the post war years, much of the early bunkai was lost in the move to systematise the kata, and to spread it to wider audiences. Indeed, Kancho himself has said that when he learned kata, bunkai was not valued or practiced. His teachers, Merv Oakley and Tino Ceberano learned karate from Gogen Yamaguchi, the founder of Goju Kai. If kata was not valued by those people, so closely linked to the origins of modern karate, it makes you wonder how much less it has been valued by subsequent generations... Even Chojun Miyagi, Yamaguchi’s master, and the founder of Goju Ryu, seems to have had a somewhat casual attitude towards preservation of the art he learned.

There's a huge increase in bunkai study because intelligent martial artists want there to be meaning in the techniques that they spend so many hours practicing.

Seeking deeper understanding
Kancho at one time knew the patterns of well in excess of 50 different katas. This is a far cry from the olden times, when it was suggested that some styles were based entirely upon the fundamental principles contained in a single kata!

More recently, GKR’s early syllabus was thinned out to encourage deeper understanding of a couple of kata. Thus Bassai Dai and Saifa are now required for two grades, rather than rushing the students through a new kata every 3-6 months. Now, with ever-increasing amounts of bunkai being taught at seminars, GKR has firmly acknowledged that the function of katas is important, as well as the form. I would suggest that bunkai practice should be an integral element of every single kata from the first second you start to learn them, rather than waiting until you are a senior grade, as seems to be the current thinking. Form without function is simply a meaningless dance.


Constant evolution
To think of kata as unwavering monuments to their founders is an illusion. There are at least half a dozen forms of Bassai, and multiple versions of most of our kata. These are not all modern re-interpretations. Indeed, there are records of varieties of Bassai going back hundreds of years.

Kata have been re-interpreted according to the understanding or ignorance of masters and students ever since they were invented. Indeed, there are even suggestions that some were knowingly mistaught in order to hide their true nature from students who were not deemed worthy. The human brain is not a perfect tool, so you should also consider the innocent forgetfulness of practitioners wrongly passing on the kata. The likelihood of this increases when form is not married to function - one serves as a mnemonic for the other, each side reminding the practitioner about the other.

Furthermore, many kata were knowingly modified to fit the fighting philosophy of those doing the teaching. You can well imagine how, seeing a murderous down strike to the neck of an opponent, an instructor with pacifist Buddhist ideals may re-label the move as a kick block, forever obscuring both the move, and techniques that may link to it. Last but not least, modern competitive karate has resulted in an exaggeration of the physically demanding elements, such as longer, deeper stances, higher kicks, and the addition of showy jumps. All in all, there’s a potent mix of circumstances that all-but guarantees that none of us are practicing kata as they were invented.

It’s clear that kata are in a constant state of flux. Is this an insult to their originators? Should we seek out the oldest forms in order to determine the greatest effect in the techniques, and honour our tradition?


Older is not better, Japanese is not always superior

	Karate may have originated in Japan, but that does not make them best at it, any more than it makes the English best at Cricket or Rugby.

There is a natural tendency to think of traditional as better. Indeed, almost all karate styles show deference to karate’s country of origin, as well as its founders. It’s odd when you think about it, after all, footballers don’t bow to Bobby Charlton or the founders of the game (who, interestingly enough were also Japanese) before each training session. Yet in karate, we feel that in some way maintaining a connection to the founders makes it more authentic, and I suppose it does at that. The big question is this, does more authentic mean better?

Karate and the earlier fighting styles of Okinawa, China and Japan were formed in violent times, and forged in the crucible of combat. There is no greater test of the effectiveness of a fighting system, than to use it against non-compliant opponents in violent, possibly life-threatening situations. That’s why authors such as ex-doorman Geoff Thompson are held in such high regard today. He’s been at the sharp end – his words are informed by first-hand experience. But does that mean that his is the optimum system of fighting, or that the old kata creators created the ultimate system of self defence? Of course not!

I’m reminded of UFC – the full contact, almost anything goes fighting competition that has been running for over a decade. In the early years, Royce Gracie’s brand of patient jujitsu dominated, and for a while it was the only way to fight. But over time, fighters studied it and learned how to avoid its shoots, takedowns and submissions, taking a lot of the sting from its tale. Nowadays, it’s as likely to be a stand up fighter, as a jujitsu grappler that wins. The point is, fighting is a constant arms race, of tactic and counter-tactic, that never ends down the years.

Fighting systems in the past were not necessarily created by men with a great knowledge of anatomy, physiology, combat psychology, or sports science. In fact, by and large, it’s odds on that these creators had little of this knowledge. You only have to look at the huge variation of responses within GKR kata to the same attack – say a wrist grab - to see that there is no absolute consensus of opinion about the most effective way to counter such an attack. Furthermore, the optimal response will vary according to the physiology of the combatants, and the dynamics of the assault. A tall aggressive attacker may warrant a totally different response to a short powerful one, even if the basic attack is the same.


Modern times, modern methods
Modern karate is backed up with a vast wealth of knowledge, both historical and using modern scientific research. We have access to a database of combat data via the internet, police records, and video surveillance that enables detailed scrutiny and analysis of attacks in order to formulate effective responses. Some of the early masters may well have been in law enforcement, but they certainly never had the benefit of frame-by-frame video playback, or a vast library of techniques taken from styles across the globe. Furthermore, ancient fighters may well have regularly faced opponents armed with different weapons than today. Oars, walking sticks, farm implements and even swords may have factored into their kata. Today, one may find oneself facing knives, broken bottles, baseball bats, and guns.

It’s clear that if kata are to remain effective tools for the practice of self defence, that they do need to evolve to suit the times and the people practicing them. Even the fact that the average height of a Westerner is greater than that of an Oriental may be worth factoring – it has certainly had implications for injury rates during some types of martial practice.


Changes for the worse
Changes on non-martial criteria are frustrating and belittle our art. For me, the absolute worst possible reason to change a kata is to make it look better in competition. If kata is the art form of karate, tournament kata is all-too-often the frilly pink dress – fine to look at, but useless in a fight!

Almost as bad is when kata moves are changed or omitted because the practitioner does not understand the bunkai, and cannot make his simplistic ones work. For this reason, I do think it is essential that we and our leaders do our best to unravel the earliest intended function for kata – after all; it’s possible that before the decades of Chinese whispers, they efficiently resolved conflicts in ways that we don’t practice today. I’m happy to report that research is going on at the highest levels of GKR into the origins and function of kata.


Changes for the better
The fact that kata evolve to reflect our changing knowledge and fighting philosophy is a good thing then, enabling our style to remain effective. If we are to become the very best fighters, we need to recognise that the DVDs are only a snapshot of our thinking at a given point in time. Perhaps in 5 or 10 years, things will have evolved to reflect modern scientific knowledge or study into the ancient ways, and GKR will have to remake them, and we’ll need to buy them again. We can’t withhold the teaching tools because things change, or none of us would ever teach anything.

Sensei Jason Smith has occasionally mentioned creating his own kata as an exercise, but has dismissed the idea because he considers that it would be arrogant. I would disagree. Most of the moves in our kata are no longer practiced as self defence because there are better alternatives. I say it makes far more sense to create kata that reflect our fighting philosophies, rather than continue to labour with static kata that have diminished relevance.