Talk:Comparison of karate styles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

article[edit]

Please dont forget that you cannot use Original Research for a Wikipedia page. This needs sources, or it will be deleted. RogueNinjatalk 14:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. I've been careful to only include information that already was on Wikipedia (thus already referenced). The isshin-ryu stance thing isn't in the current version of the Isshin-ryu article, so you're right in removing it. It's not exactly OR though, many websites about the style include something like it: http://www.google.com/search?&q="isshin-ryu" "american physique".
- DeepStances 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added sections on Goju-,Shito-,Wado-,Uedo- and Shorin-ryu, using the existing wikipedia pages and their references. Thoughts, comments, etc naturally appreciated :) Shanada 08:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Weapons[edit]

Should weapons be listed in this table? Karate, by definition, does not use weapons. Many individual schools may also practice some form of weapons in addition to their main style of karate, but that does not mean the weapons are part of the karate style. --Scott Alter 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I concur. Weapons do not belong. RogueNinjatalk 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I like this chart. Can we make a similar chart to compare weapon styles on another page? Tkjazzer 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we should remove the weapons column from here, and either add them to a new table in Okinawan kobudo or a new article Comparison of kobudo styles. --Scott Alter 23:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the new article idea: Comparison of kubudo styles Tkjazzer 21:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
As per my understanding, it is mainly the Okinawan styles that don't use weapons, however there are still some Okinawan and non-Okinawan styles that do (and Im not just talking about different branches or schools of that style). Thus, why not remove the column then and add any weapons info to the Notes column? Shanada 06:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What I believe is that the Japanese karate styles may integrate weapons into their systems, while the Okinawan karate styles practice weapons, but as a supplement to karate. In my school (Okinawan - Shorin-ryu), we do practice weapons, but it is optional. It is totally separate from the karate training, with a different history/lineage. Within Okinawan weapons, I do not know if there are established systems of training, or simply kobudo. I think the most appropriate way to address this is to remove the kobudo column, and add a link in the opening paragraph to Comparison of kobudo styles saying "Some karate schools practice weapons as part of their curriculum, while others offer supplemental weapons training. See Comparison of kobudo styles for these systems." If I get bored tonight, I may start this page. --Scott Alter 21:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, because some Japanese martial arts use kobudo (and will be listed in Comparison of kobudo styles), I would like to rename Okinawan kobudo to Kobudo. See Talk:Okinawan kobudo#Rename to Kobudo to get involved in the discussion. --Scott Alter 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Remarks[edit]

Is the remarks column needed? Currently, it has "vertical fist" for Isshin-ryu and "Origins obscure" for Shorin-ryu and Shito-ryu. The origins of Shorin-ryu and Shito-ryu are not really obscure. (Shito-ryu can be traced back to Shorin-ryu, and Shorin-ryu can be traced back 4 generations to Kusanku and Shaolin monks). Use of a vertical fist is not unique to Isshin-ryu. I think we should just remove this column. If there is some other item to be used to compare styles, it should be added as a column, and not in "remarks". --Scott Alter 00:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Field removed. --Scott Alter 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

should we put a navigation template on the article page?[edit]

Template:Shorin-ryu styles Template:Karate schools

I just added Template:Karate schools. Template:Shorin-ryu styles doesn't belong here, but maybe on a "Comparison of Shorin-ryu branches" - but that will be more difficult to create. User:Tkjazzer - in the future, just add things if you think they should belong. Be bold. --Scott Alter 00:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe this is the way forward (boom boom); a good group-effort (open) task would be to fill the rest of the table with the rest of the styles in the Template, yes?... _> MonstaPro:Talk:Contrib. 11:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Current and new fields for comparison[edit]

Can anyone suggest additional fields to compare styles on? How would someone describe one style versus another? I find it hard to generalize all of the branches of one style to list additional fields in this table. Also, I would like to remove the kata field. This varies from school to school within a style. Especially when the style listed has many branches (like Shorin-ryu). This field was populated by counting the lists in karate kata, and is not too accurate. Someone should not be comparing or choosing a martial art based on the number of kata in the system anyway. --Scott Alter 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Karate kata for my proposal on moving kata practiced by different styles to this page. It would also eliminate the need for the kata column in the current comparison table (which I want to remove anyway). --Scott Alter 06:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the removal of the kata field. The table is meant to be a comparison of the different styles and as kata is such an important part of karate I don't see why it should of been removed. The thing to remember is that the table lists the main systems, which pretty much have fixed numbers - it's the branches, etc that may change the number of kata, etc. A good example is where Goju-Ryu (the system) has 12 kata in it but Goju-Kai (a branch) has about 17 - they have 5 beginner katas that are taught before or concurrent with the standard kata. I have reverted the change because there isn't any new info added to the table. I think it would be a good idea to have the kata number of each style along with the 'representation kata' column, and then add the info from karate kata here, as a way to expand on the initial table. Shanada 10:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added back in the representative kata field with kata given at Talk:Karate kata. I also commented out the number of kata for the styles that were added based on the listing in Karate kata. If these numbers are correct, then uncomment. I would rather see no information than incorrect information. For example, in Shorin-ryu there are no standard kata - each branch has whatever kata it wants. There may be a total of 32 (probably more) unique kata when adding all them up between branches, but I'm sure that no individual branch practices all of them. What should be done in this case? --Scott Alter 19:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... that is an interesting situation. perhaps add a footer note about it? I did add a bit in the opening paragraph about certain branches, etc adding or removing kata from their list. Perhaps rather expand on that? On a side note, what do you mean by "representative kata"? Do you mean kata that are normally associated with the style? Shanada 06:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Shorin-Ryu/branching issue: surely add Shorin-Ryu as an ancestor whilst making the name of the branch the style-name? It does appear kata are very important to karate as a whole as well as to training and learning improvements, but you both know that! _> MonstaPro:Talk:Contrib. 11:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: new fields: I know the ranking/leadership system can differentiate between styles, perhaps use this as another field? _> MonstaPro:Talk:Contrib. 11:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a new column or even a new table with description of styles.
For example: in Goju-ryu strikes are made without pushing the hips (If I do recall well). This gives more speed but less power. The persons that do this style are very fast.
In Shotokan almost every strike begins from the hips. This gives them far more power but less speed. Dont think they are not fast :). But not as fast as the people that do Goju-ryu .
This category should be made for people that did not practiced karate and want to know what are the differences and what those differences mean so they can choose what it best feet to them if they want to start. Raffethefirst (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be a little too hard to describe in a way that would make everyone agree and yet be brief (or even to make everyone agree). I do Shito-ryu and we always rotate the hips around the vertical axis, but we do not *begin* with them - in order for the strike to be fast, it begins with the fist moving forward, with the rest of the body engaging in the subsequent moments. But I am sure there are teachers in the same style that teach it differently. --Cubbi (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I was expecting that one style has the moves very NOT interpretable :).
If everybody that did a style will say in a row or two what are the basics, how you kick, how you do a block we might be able to pull out some basic differences.
In Goju-ryu the blocks are made very short to have maximum speed. In Kyokushinkai the blocks are made a little long to also inflict some damage (If I do remember right).
Or you might be right... we could not agree on those things. We will see. Raffethefirst (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If we all stand in a row and look at each other - that would be original research, now wouldn't it? --Cubbi (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You Tube Kata differences[edit]

What is interesting is to search YouTube for the same kata and you'll find it done by different styles. It is an interesting wa to compare styles. I just more branches of Shorin-Ryu were on YouTube doing kata, especially Shorin-ryu shido-kan. I'm really shocked at the differences with the _____ Ryu styles. Anyway, video would be really useful. Please encourage people in the dojos to record themselves doing kata and put them on youtube. Cheers. Tkjazzer 21:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats a rather good idea, however the problem is choosing the best person to do it. I'm aware of the video footage of the JKF versions of the shitei kata, are there other "official" video tapes, eg by the headquarters in Japan? Shanada 06:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
usually masters are very humble and don't release their video footage to the public. Tkjazzer (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Shito-ryu[edit]

There are two different (and somewhat contradictory) entries in this table for shito-ryu. 24.58.33.52 (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of Katas[edit]

Why are shotokan katas said to be 26 in the table? Most sources state that they are 27. --Orri Tómasson (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Find a good reference that lists 27 kata and determine which one is missing. Add the missing kata to the table. Welcome to Wiki! jmcw (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Shotokan "Mostly hard techniques"[edit]

Describing Shotokan as having "Mostly hard techniques" is very inaccurate, as Shotokan contains a very even mix of hard & soft techniques. To quote the founder of Shotokan: “Karate may be said to be hard technique when compared to the soft technique of ju-jutsu, but softness includes hardness and hardness includes softness. In other words softness is necessary to become hard, and hardness is necessary to become soft, and to begin with both softness and hardness are one.”121.72.245.138 (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Karate[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was No Consensus. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is weakly referenced but does contain a useful intoduction on Karate styles. It goes into too much detail in the table. I would suggest a 'Styles' section to be added to Karate with a simplified version of this table with a source reference column added for verification. Mountaincirque 11:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Karate is long enough as it is, and the section there on styles contains enough detail for that level of article. This is an appropriate split off per WP:SUMMARY, so I oppose a merge, but wouldn't mid doing some more coordination. Especially trimming some of the non-notable self-promoted styles which consists of like one teacher and a single club somewhere. That's the sort of da up the karate articles can use (And the. We can trim them out of the chart here and at karate kata, where they crowd the charts with non-notabld entries.) oknazevad (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there @Oknazevad:, there isn't a section on styles in Karate, just a rambling section on history which mentions an incomplete sub-section of styles across many paragraphs, which is why I proposed this merger. Differences between styles are a key topic of interest in karate so I feel that there should be at least a paragraph section explaining the key styles and some basic differences with a link through to the comparisons page. Happy to not do a full merge if that is preferable for the big picture. Mountaincirque 11:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to expand it. I agree that it's an important area that need better coverage here. I just think a full merge of the separate article would be too large and detailed for an overview article like this, overwhelming it. A summary here and a more detailed treatment there cuts the idea of WP:SUMMARY pretty well, I think, so I oppose a merge, but don't disagree with improving the summary of that article here. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with oknazevad unless better sources can be found for this article it is best if this article is merged to Karate. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of karate styles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)