Back
I believe that most people do not usually stop to consider what karate really is. There are competitions, there is training, and everyone simply does it under the name “karate.” Even though the name is the same, the content differs depending on the governing organizations. There are many styles, and while these are collectively referred to as karate, one may still wonder whether that truly defines karate.
There are the so-called “Four Major Styles.” If we limit ourselves to them, does the concept of karate become clearer? In fact, the differences among these styles are so great that one may question whether they can truly be considered the same karate. If we also include the many minor styles claimed under jibun menkyo (self-proclaimed licenses), there are more than two hundred styles. Thus, on a global level, it is said that karate is defined by the Four Major Styles: Shōtōkan-ryū, Wadō-ryū, Shitō-ryū, and Gōjū-ryū. In kata competitions at world championships, only kata from these styles are recognized. From this perspective, one could say that the karate of the Four Major Styles is regarded as the authentic karate.
There are also kaiha, organizational groupings. Those recognized by the Japan Karate Federation are called the Six Major Kaiha: Shōtōkai, Wadōkai, Shitōkai, Gōjūkai, Rengōkai, and Renbukai. Within each of these six organizations, there may be several styles, and conversely, within the Four Major Styles, there may be multiple organizations. The situation is therefore quite confused. Unlike kendō or judō, karate is not unified. Hence the question arises: What is karate?
To address this, classifications such as the Four Major Styles and the Six Major Kaiha were proposed. Yet, the question still remains unresolved.
Kinjo Sensei often asked, “What is karate? What defines karate?” For him, it was clear what was karate and what was not. When I first heard him say this at the beginning of my training, I found it strange: “Why does Sensei keep repeating something so obvious? Isn’t what we are practicing now karate?” But little by little, I came to realize that Sensei was seeing something much deeper.
Is it karate simply because one performs kata? Is it karate simply because one engages in kumite matches? From Sensei’s perspective, it was not so simple. He considered whether the movements in kata truly conformed to karate, whether techniques in kumite were rational as karate, and what the ultimate purpose of karate should be. His question “What is karate?” encompassed all these dimensions.
In kata competition there is an event called “team kata.” If karate is a combat art, then team kata seems rather odd. If it is viewed as a sport derived from karate, it is not necessarily to be rejected, but at the highest levels of competition, a “kumite demonstration” is required. When I watched a world championship with Sensei, he leaned over to me and said:
“That is not karate.”
This was because the athletes struck an opponent who had already fallen. According to Sensei, attacking a fallen opponent is not karate. The purpose of karate is to defeat the opponent, and kumite is the means to that end. Once the opponent is subdued and brought down, it is over. That was his conviction, passed down from his seniors.
The photograph at the beginning of these “One Hundred Stories of Karate” illustrates that point. The ultimate technical goal of karate, Sensei taught, is torite.
This “Karate Hyakuwa” has been written as a record of what I learned from Kinjo Sensei, from my seniors, and from the traditions handed down by earlier masters, with the hope that it will serve as a reference for all those who study karate.
Back