Japan-Hawaii-New York Karate Net Pals: The Myth of Kihon 基本幻論 (Tongue in cheek version)

The other day Tamura Sensei and I were discussing competition karate and how it really doesn't resemble any of the kihons and most of time goes against the grain of theories espoused in kihon. Then what is Kihon? A classic example is the Zenkutudachi, we are taught from the beginning the the rear heel has to be flat on the ground, Don't raise the heel, you'll lose the power and tension for propelling yourself forward.
Hmmmm. Then in the shiais, what do we see? A lot of bouncing around and heels off the ground. What gives? (^^) How many fighters do we see in Full Contact fight in zenkutudachi? Why bother with Zenkutudachi, except for Kata purposes? Why not do kihon in kumitedachi? What is the purpose of teaching certain methdology only to throw it out the window when it comes to fighting? Builds up power, balance,etc.? Isn't it quicker with High Impact Interval training and other types of modern sports training? Hmmmmm.
    The partial conclusion we came upon was that kihon and competition karate are two separate animals.
An interesting article was in the July issue of JKF magazine. The current Kata champs are Italians (team and individual). They DO NOT DO Kihon as we know it. NO stationary Kihon, NO Ido Kihon! They go straight into movement activities, not necessarily "pure karate" movements. Then into Kata and even then they skip the Heian series completely! What happened to the theory that Kihon was the base for Karate, the progression of Sonoba Kihon, Ido Kihon, Kata and Kumite? Is the traditional way of doing Kihon unnecessary? The Italians clearly separated classical karate with competitive karate. According to the article the Italians do honor and follow the traditional karate values as well. So its not like they threw everything aside for competition's sake.
      I can also say that we are taught that the traditional methods build up the strong base required to move up the ladder so to speak and perhaps it is true. At least I have been brought up with that thought. Do I think different now? Hmmmm. (- -) Should I change the kihon curriculum to Kumite Dachi and concentrate on the jab, cross, hook and upper cut much like Daidojuku aka Kudo? I can still teach the use of the hips and shifting of the body weight so that it adds power to the punches. I can teach kicks from the the kumite dachi as well, why waste time in the traditional Kyokushin style of holding the belt at the side or front? Now, rest assured, there is a theory behind holding the belt during kihon. But if I were to follow the Italians footsteps, why bother? Now we must also remember the article was just a small part of their training and it is based on competition.
      I have a long Judo background. What is Judo Kihon? Kuzushi, Tsukuri, Kake and Nage. Most Judo programs progress from Uchikomi, Nagekomi to Randori (Sparring, for lack of a better word) In all phases, the actual movements of the throws are done. In my opinion, there in lies the difference in Karate Kihon and Judo. Whether it is in a Shiai or Kihon the basic movement and applications are the same. Sure there a variations but the basic theories of Kuzushi, Tsukuri, Kake and Nage remains in the application. At least not as different as in Karate. So being a Devil's advocate, why isn't Karate the same? I know I am over simplifying the issues here. (^^) One reason I can think of is that in Judo you are always, aside from grip battles, hanging on to your opponent. You have constant contact so the applications do not change when executing waza. I hope that the readers get a feel for what I am writing.
   Now the big question. Am I going to change Kimura Dojo's training methodology? I doubt it. I like the way I do things right now. I may borrow some ideas to keep the training varied. But the traditional kihon will stay. After all, it has served me well all these years. (^^)