No kata for me, thank you! [Archive]

Andy Murray

16-Jun-2002, 11:25 PM

Firstly thanks for giving us something to get our teeth into mate.

Secondly, I'd like to suggest that we loosen the limitations of language and style a little. If I describe everything using Chinese Terminology, and Mike discusses these issues using Malaysian terminology. None of us will understand what is being discussed.
When the Karate people talk about Bunkai and all that I get a bit lost myself.

Do you think forms/kata are a valuable tool for training?

Yes I do. Here are some reasons;

1/ Some arts are difficult to practice without a partner ( Aikido? ). Kata provides this opportunity.

2/ Visualisation is an important part of Kata. It is not merely about training your body, but your mind as well. Kata develops this.

3/ Kata are like a living breathing 'How to do it' book. Most systems of practice will have an answer for most types of scenario, if you have the patience to develop the comprehension required. Kata develops creativity.

4/ Kata practice is only one aspect of training. They are not intended to be sole forms of practice. Kata has it's place as a tool to be used or ignored by the Modern Martial Artist.

There are a few minor benefits of forms; learning your body, balance, etc; but these can be learned just as easily and much more quickly shadow sparring, hitting focus pads, heavy bags, live sparring etc.

All these things require equipment or other people!

The inference here is that you will learn to be able to FIGHT off an attacker. Where forms are concerned, this I believe is a fallacy.

I can understand where you would see this if you isolate Kata from a complete Martial organism of instruction. If you take this view though, isn't it possible that you were never taught Kata, or the value of Kata properly. It is possible that you were taught and never understood, or were dismissive of it.

I do believe you can be an effective fighter without Kata, though it is a foolish Martial Artist who will ignore any singular aspect of training which may help them acheive their ultimate goal.

Good thread mate!

Andy Murray :woo:

pesilat

17-Jun-2002, 04:44 AM

First, let me define what *I* mean by the word "form."

A form, to me, is a prearranged set of movements used as a training tool to develop a particular attribute (or set of attributes) in the student.

This definition includes what people usually associate with this, "Sanchin Kata" from Goju-Ryu, a Silat Juru or Langkah, a TKD form, a Chinese MA form ... etc.

But it also includes, for instance, a jab/cross combo from boxing. It can be 2 person drills like Sumbrada or Hubad Lubad in FMA, or "Five Swords" in Kenpo or the the lockflow sets from Shootfighting.

Each form is intended to develop different tools ... and they're not always obvious. Working the jab/cross combo in boxing, for instance, (i.e.: on focus mitts or a bag) would, obviously, be used to develop the jab and cross and the attendant body mechanics. But it might also be used to develop footwork (i.e.: the person feeding the mitts can move around).

I think the problem comes when people (instructor or students) get lost in the form. They forget (or were never taught) the actual reason for the form. What is that particular form designed to teach. What *else* can it teach if it's utilized in different ways?

If there are fighting applications in the form (and most forms *do* have fighting applications), *what* applications?

I think all of these should be taught alongside the form itself. If they're not, then I think it's too easy for the student to get lost in the forms.

If the forms are just a memorization drill then they have very little use and you may as well be taking dance classes. But this is the fault of the instructor (or, in some instances, the student if he/she isn't paying attention to that part). It doesn't make the form itself any less useful. Though if the instructor is unable to teach it properly then, maybe, he/she shouldn't be teaching to begin with.

Now ... let's get to a specific:

TKD catches a lot of flak (some of it deserved ... but, again, this is due to a fault of the of practitioners, not the art itself ... though over time, if unchecked, the art as a whole begins to suffer ... but that's a whole *different* thread).

However ... I'll use the first 2 movements of a TKD form to illustrate something that commonly happens.

From the website: http://martialarts.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.unc.edu/student/orgs/tkd/forms.html

Here are the first 2 movements of Taeguk #1.

Movement 1:
turn 90° left(CounterClockWise), moving left foot into a left walking stance left arm low block

Movement 2:
step forward with right foot into a right walking stance right hand middle punch

This is how this is often taught (as a "low block" and a "middle punch"). With this mindset, these 2 motions are *very* limited (and not, IMHO, particularly practical). This is how a lot of TKD instructors leave it ... and the students take it for granted that *that* is what those movements are ... period.

They've gotten lost in the form.

But ... does this mean that these movements have no practical use?

Absolutely not.

Let's say, for instance, that a guy is firing a left sidekick at the side of my left knee. By turning into my left stance, my stance protects my knee and the "low block" is now a punch into the guy's thigh. If he then follows up his kick (which has been nullified and attacked) with a left punch (this is a relatively natural since the punch will knock his left leg down and practically set up the left punch). So ... now my left hand deflects and grabs his left punch and pulls it to my left hip (the "chambering" which seems incredibly impractical until you see an application like the one I'm describing). Now when I step forward with my "middle punch" I'm actually hyper-extending his arm and setting up for a sweep (we'd call it a Bizet Dalam in Silat).

If it's a right kick and a right punch, then everything is the same except that my "middle punch" is now a shot to his ribs instead of his elbow and I find myself in a "Bizet Luar" position (or, if it's a Judoka, an "Osoto Gari" position).

And then, at either of these places, the third motion of the form:

step backward with right foot and turn 180° right(ClockWise), moving right foot into a right walking stance right arm low block

This is my sweep that slams the guy to the floor.

Our training (whether forms or other aspects) is the "map" ... it's not the "territory." When we enter the "territory" (the application of the material) we have to be flexible and adjust ... we may have to take detours or reroute due to construction (their counters/movements) or road blocks (their physical make up) or wrong turns (we screw something up).

Mike

mmafiter

17-Jun-2002, 06:53 AM

YODA

17-Jun-2002, 07:19 AM

Hi all

The big problem I see with forms is that there is absolutely no relationship to a moving resisting opponent. Repeating moves over & over in the air will do absolutely nothing to improve your ability to use those moves on a moving target.

Mmafiter has it right - look at any full contact fighting situation that allows all ranges - either a sporting format or a real fight and you will see kickboxing clinching & grappling type movements - often attempted by people who haven't trained how to kickbox clinch or grapple correctly! You will see this even if they have practiced ritualised kata movements for years. They just don't come out in REAL fighting situations.

I've seen Karate tournaments, Kung Fu tournaments - and I've yet to see anyone pull off a kata sequence. Even the stance & footwork goes out of the window. I see Karate peple teaching rooted postures & flat footed stances in kata "for power" - then as soon as they fight it's up on the toes for mobility - why the duality?

Do I teach forms? Yes I do - as part of Doce Pares Eskrima - and they have absolutely NOTHING to do with learning to fight. We know that - they are weapons based dances that are cool to do. We do not try to justify them combatively and we do not try to formulate bogus applications & hidden secrets of the movements to justify their practice. It is with that honesty & acceptance that I enjoy them :D

Darzeka

17-Jun-2002, 07:20 AM

Now I see why the Katas have importance. I always wondered what the significance of them are.

I think we should try to avoid the "Siking tatctics are dumb" thread in that we should try to not argue the definitions of what a kata of form is.

I think the main thing here is that we realise that the kata (in reference to the long series of motions like a Kung-Fu form) are merely lessons to learn in how to perform the motion and where you can go from it. Like learning that in order to ride a bike you need to first get on it and when you finish riding you need to get off with out falling over.
In my practise we do many exercises so that we can learn the technique specified. So that we make sure we learn it properly and then learn why it works we put it in a set up situation that will never happen in a fight. This is only to show the student how it could work and from the example that is given we can extrapolate other entry and exit moves.

The thing about the Kata / Form that I dislike is the precise nature of it. I haven't studied any but have watched a few and from the appearance of them it would be a bit of a task to break out the section that you want to use. I assume that with training you will do this automatically just with anything else but to me it just looks like a bit much thought.
Correct me if I am wrong as we don't do Kata's as such.

We do what I'd like to term exercises where you do a set motion but these are only one movement excerises (one punch into one throw). Then we play "Circle of Death". Here one person is in the middle of a circle of the rest of the students then everyone takes a turn at coming in with a random attack. The person in the middle then has to block, evade and then pull off a throw. This application of the excersises in a random situation will also show you that there are other ways to apply the same thing.

What I think I'm trying to say (I never know what I saying I just type) is that the kata combined with the theoretical explanation combined with the application will provide the same results as the more "dynamic/loose/real" teaching situtations. It more than likely will come down to the teacher and the students.
Perhaps performing the kata on a training partner will help?(Yes I read the post about not needing anyone else to train with, just a suggestion. Practising the movements to become comfortable with them is invaluable but so is punching a real person).

Not sure the sweep to turning around and leaving your opponent at your back is such a good idea Pesilat but I get the idea.

Would a three person kata be possible? For our grading (just did mine last friday and passed YAY) we need to perform to of each of our throws in about a minute twenty. We start in a fixed position do a throw then with eye contact comes the next attack (where the attacker is really trying to hit you - is real fun. Especially when you are attacking your brother), then a throw and so on till all 22 throws are done. This can be pretty chaotic as we also are meant to use practise knives and a baton (for one throw) and there is no set positions we are meant to be in, if he makes eye contact hit him :) . Would you consider this a kata esque form thingy?

I do agree though with the explantion of what is happening and possible extrapolations from it to get the student thinking.

Andy Murray

17-Jun-2002, 08:25 AM

Hi again. Gripping stuff this.

To Dave Green;

The big problem I see with forms is that there is absolutely no relationship to a moving resisting opponent. Repeating moves over & over in the air will do absolutely nothing to improve your ability to use those moves on a moving target.

Absolutely right. That is why there are usually other forms of practice in each art to develop timing and accuracy.

I've seen Karate tournaments, Kung Fu tournaments - and I've yet to see anyone pull off a kata sequence. Even the stance & footwork goes out of the window. I see Karate peple teaching rooted postures & flat footed stances in kata "for power" - then as soon as they fight it's up on the toes for mobility - why the duality?

Stance and foundation in technique really requires a seperate thread. No one walks down the street in Horse Stance ( except maybe in Brighton ). Yet again though, stancework and footwork are merely aspects of training, and important ones at that.

To MMAFITER;

Pesilat, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say this; I find in martial arts when I question a person's beliefs on a particular issue, the response is often "Well you must not have learned it right." or "There something's wrong with you." which is basically what you wrote.

I can't see where Mike said this, but I can see where I did.

It's hard for me to defend the 'Kata no Kata' thing without saying " Look beyond the end of your nose ". I have a lot to learn about the arts, but I learn a little more each day.It is a little 'know-it-all' to say Kata is a waste of time. "Don't concentrate on the finger............."

Given the choice between 30 minutes Bagwork, 30 minutes sparring and 30 minutes Kata. I would far rather do them all, than just pick one.

Kata is a tool. Take it or leave it.
:woo:

YODA

17-Jun-2002, 10:05 AM

No one walks down the street in Horse Stance ( except maybe in Brighton )

ROFLMAO :D

Kata is a tool. Take it or leave it.

Now THAT is the ultimate point in this debate I feel. I kinda do both. I take it because I enjoy the forms I do without having to justify them combatively - and I leave it when it comes to teaching people to fight.

In fact - I study one art in which there is only Kata. Kata makes up 100% of it's practice. No partner work - just solo Kata. Any guesses? :D

mmafiter

17-Jun-2002, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Andy Murray

I can't see where Mike said this, but I can see where I did.

It's hard for me to defend the 'Kata no Kata' thing without saying " Look beyond the end of your nose ". I have a lot to learn about the arts, but I learn a little more each day.It is a little 'know-it-all' to say Kata is a waste of time. "Don't concentrate on the finger............."
:woo:

I'm not really sure what you're saying here, but I think you're saying I'm being egotistical to say kata have no value.

If this is the case, then no, I'm not trying to be egotistical. I know I'm an idiot!:p

I still stand by my point that kata/forms are basically a waste. I learned the bunkai/oyo or secret techniques of the kata and they were mostly outdated or nonsensical. Maybe they would be of more use if they were taught in a "free" way, as opposed to the "Ich, Ni, San" militarized one count one move that is common.

Even then, I'd still argue that most of the moves aren't going to work.
:woo: :eek:

LilBunnyRabbit

17-Jun-2002, 11:08 AM

You have to do them one count, one move? We practice them in our own time, and mainly use the time as a warm up, generally we call it cardio. It does give you a chance to work on body positioning with each of the techniques though, without having to worry about hitting or being hit, so you can work on the mechanics of the technique without applying it to a target. If you occasionally practice one technique or a combination of techniques repeatedly then that's essentially our patterns.

mmafiter

17-Jun-2002, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by ckdstudent
You have to do them one count, one move? We practice them in our own time, and mainly use the time as a warm up, generally we call it cardio. It does give you a chance to work on body positioning with each of the techniques though, without having to worry about hitting or being hit, so you can work on the mechanics of the technique without applying it to a target. If you occasionally practice one technique or a combination of techniques repeatedly then that's essentially our patterns.

It sounds to me like what you are doing is essentially shadow boxing, a totally different animal. Shadow boxing is good, to a certain extent.:)

LilBunnyRabbit

17-Jun-2002, 11:23 AM

As I've said before, Choi is slightly different to other martial arts. I wouldn't say its shadowboxing exactly, because there are set combinations which you perform in a certain order, but they are simple, easily applicable combinations which can be used in actual combat or even in sparring. I guess maybe it is shadowboxing after all.

Cooler

17-Jun-2002, 02:07 PM

Are kata/forms practicle for a real fight? No. Then why train them?

1/ balance
2/ coordination
3/ timing
4/ footwork
5/ focus
6/ stamina

:) Cooler

Kosokun

17-Jun-2002, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by mmafiter

Granted maybe I didn't learn them correctly, although I was trained somewhat and graded for both Dans by the grandmaster's sons, but I would like to ask you this. Have you ever honestly seen anyone use that combination you've described in a free sparring session?

That's not the intention of the kata. Kata are catalogues of techniques to be used in a situation where you're *nearly* sucker punched. A surprise situation, as implied by my interpretation of the old saying, "karate ni sente nashi" (no first strike in karate). Contained within the kata are many useful defenses for such situations.

That being said, I have used some movements (moves 3-5 of the Shotokan Heian shodan) in freesparring. Another set of moves from kata that I've used in freesparing comes from Heian Sandan. (elbow block and backfist). While not exactly like the form, straight line, I employed body shifting, the concepts employed were exactly from the form. I did this was at the North American Cup in 1990 and at the Mexican Olympic Sports Festival in 1991 and the Caribbean Games, in 1992. These were high level WUKO sanctioned events, as only the National Squads from invited countries were competing. These weren't some local tournaments, and I definitely wasn't up against any slouches.

Rob

Kosokun

17-Jun-2002, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by pesilat
[B]Now ... let's get to a specific:

TKD catches a lot of flak (some of it deserved ... but, again, this is due to a fault of the of practitioners, not the art itself ... though over time, if unchecked, the art as a whole begins to suffer ... but that's a whole *different* thread).

However ... I'll use the first 2 movements of a TKD form to illustrate something that commonly happens.

From the website: http://martialarts.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.unc.edu/student/orgs/tkd/forms.html

Here are the first 2 movements of Taeguk #1.

Movement 1:
turn 90° left(CounterClockWise), moving left foot into a left walking stance left arm low block

Movement 2:
step forward with right foot into a right walking stance right hand middle punch

This is how this is often taught (as a "low block" and a "middle punch"). With this mindset, these 2 motions are *very* limited (and not, IMHO, particularly practical). This is how a lot of TKD instructors leave it ... and the students take it for granted that *that* is what those movements are ... period.

They've gotten lost in the form.

Have they?
The taeguk forms are really, really new forms. They were created maybe in the late 70's to replace the Palgue's (which replaced the Pyong Ahn forms).

The creators of the forms or their students are still with us, unlike the creators of the old, traditional karate forms. So, what did they say the movements were about?

But ... does this mean that these movements have no practical use?

Absolutely not.

Agreed, but my question is are you bolting on applications (however good they are) onto Hyung movements where none were intended? You did mention a completely different beast (Tae guk) from say, Yun Be or Ship su or Chul gi or Kong song goon.

Rob

Kosokun

17-Jun-2002, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by YODA

I've seen Karate tournaments, Kung Fu tournaments - and I've yet to see anyone pull off a kata sequence. Even the stance & footwork goes out of the window. I see Karate peple teaching rooted postures & flat footed stances in kata "for power" - then as soon as they fight it's up on the toes for mobility - why the duality?

No duality. Those stances are for training. Gichin Funakoshi, expressed the commonality of thought in karate when he penned his Niju Kun and said, "Low stances are for training, in an actual confrontation, move naturally."

If you've ever been formally coached in any sport, but let's take basketball for example. There's a particular way that the bounce pass or the chest pass is executed as a part of their fundamentals. When was the last time you saw Michael Jordan or Jason Kidd do a pass that way in the game? Probably never. However the concept and the basic motion pattern was ingrained by the fundamental movement that they've undoubtedly repeated thousands of times.

I've answered your point about the use of actual sequences of kata in an earlier post.

Rob

Kosokun

17-Jun-2002, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Cooler
Are kata/forms practicle for a real fight? No. Then why train them?

1/ balance
2/ coordination
3/ timing
4/ footwork
5/ focus
6/ stamina

:) Cooler

I think this misses the mark. There are far better/ and or efficient ways to train the above items. (What's focus anyway?)

Rob

LilBunnyRabbit

17-Jun-2002, 04:21 PM

Concentration, and if there are better and more efficient ways to train all six at the same time on your own then please, what are they?

Kosokun

17-Jun-2002, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by ckdstudent
Concentration, and if there are better and more efficient ways to train all six at the same time on your own then please, what are they?

If focus = concentration, why not use concentration? It's less ambiguous and more correctly conveys your meaning.

I've got a drill, that I blatantly stole from Jeof Thompson, called a "Pad Drill". It's a partner drill with pads wherein I can effectively hit balance, coordination, timing, footwork, "concentration" and stamina. If I intersperse some push ups, or "Burpees", it addresses the strength issue even more.

I can devise some medicine ball drills or other plyometric exercise that can also address these elements (without adding burpees).

Rob

LilBunnyRabbit

17-Jun-2002, 04:57 PM

Yes, we use pad drills. You need a partner for them. You don't need a partner for patterns. You don't even need any equipment. Also pad drills don't always help with technique, sometimes they can hinder more than help because people start to tense up and put effort into their technique rather than simply relaxing and letting the mechanics work for them.

Freeform

17-Jun-2002, 05:14 PM

Nicking what Andy and Kosokun said, Kata is meant to be a 'living book'. The problem being is that students aren't being tought to read. They just go 'Yeah, Heian Sandan, I had to do that for my Blue belt and now I have to learn Godan'.

You may be able to perform the kata but you never really lived it. You've got to be imagining what your doing and I don't mean this kick, block, punch crap. Kata is good for Solo practice, balance and co-ordination.

In saying that nothing beats a real live partner to beat up on!

Kata's a training tool, just like a punch bag.

Thanx

LilBunnyRabbit

17-Jun-2002, 05:25 PM

Actually I have seen combinations from our patterns used by students, I've used some of them myself.

Andy Murray

17-Jun-2002, 08:15 PM

Yoda said;

In fact - I study one art in which there is only Kata. Kata makes up 100% of it's practice. No partner work - just solo Kata. Any guesses?

Nope, you got me. I give in, what is it?

Not Morris Dancing I hope!

You English guys.....sheesh:rolleyes:

Melanie

17-Jun-2002, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by mmafiter
I'm starting this thread to ingnite some discussion here.

Do you think forms/kata are a valuable tool for training? Explain your answer a little, so we can see your logic and have some debate.:)

Yes - to a certain degree. As it is repeated so often it benefits the beginners in learning the basics and potentially help them seek further applications if they can picture why they are doing the moves.

My personal view is kata are more of a hinderance than a help. I used to train Meibu-kan Goju-ryu karate for 9 years and achieved my 2nd Dan and I honestly feel that much of that time spent sweating and exerting myself was a waste of time.:mad:

What a shame.

I have never used a move from a kata in a fight, nor have I seen anyone use any move from a kata in an altercation. They teach you outdated practices that could get you hurt and the movements are unrealistic.

I agree (to a point :D)

The live training I receive in BJJ and kickboxing, I have used many times though and it has come through for me.

There are a few minor benefits of forms; learning your body, balance, etc; but these can be learned just as easily and much more quickly shadow sparring, hitting focus pads, heavy bags, live sparring etc.

Now, I know not everyone takes up martial arts to fight; quite the contrary, they more than likely hope to avoid confrontation. But here is the heart of many people's disillusionment with martial arts; they (martial arts) are portrayed as tools one can use to defend oneself. The inference here is that you will learn to be able to FIGHT off an attacker. Where forms are concerned, this I believe is a fallacy.:(

I agree (in my completely uninformed opinion!). I do self defence using Shotokan techniques but in a looser, higher stance, to be honest its far more realistic, more natural. However, I have only ever witnessed street fights, thankfully I have never been in one.

I have always considered Shotokan to be impractical for self defence....but I still have a lot to learn!

Ok, let's here some opinion's!:D

There's mine :)

Kosokun

17-Jun-2002, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by YODA

In fact - I study one art in which there is only Kata. Kata makes up 100% of it's practice. No partner work - just solo Kata. Any guesses? :D

Iaido.

Rob

Freeform

18-Jun-2002, 10:05 AM

A really bad school of Tai Chi?

Cooler

18-Jun-2002, 12:40 PM

Are kata/forms practicle for a real fight? No. Then why train them?

1/ balance
2/ coordination
3/ timing
4/ footwork
5/ focus
6/ stamina
I think this misses the mark. There are far better/ and or efficient ways to train the above items. (What's focus anyway?)
I am not disputing that fact I am giving my opinion of what benifits I feel kata/forms have in the martial arts.
If focus = concentration, why not use concentration? It's less ambiguous and more correctly conveys your meaning.
Focus is what I ment and I feel it conveys my meaning fine. When you train with pads you focus on them as your target, when you train kata/forms your focus is on imaginary opponents.

Cooler

khafra

18-Jun-2002, 01:05 PM

Kinda funny, but the kata: worthless to today's martial artist or not? Just went through a pressurepoints mailing list I'm on recently. Their general consensus (although there was as much disagreement as here) was that kata originally served as a "data compression" method of preserving and passing on techniques, kinda like oral histories got put in rhyme. A mnemonic device. They need to be "uncompressed," interpreted, to be useful. And with modern technology like written language assisting us in the preservation of techniques, we don't really need kata anymore.
I couldn't say, though, whether a martial artist could actually use bunkai type techniques in actual combat, or would revert to kickboxing and/or grappling.

Kosokun

18-Jun-2002, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by khafra

I couldn't say, though, whether a martial artist could actually use bunkai type techniques in actual combat, or would revert to kickboxing and/or grappling.

Why not? Isn't that what Kempo's about? Their training consists of a whole load of "self-defense" techniques. Kind of like bunkai without the kata.

Rob

Freeform

18-Jun-2002, 02:18 PM

Bunkai type techniques are the same as any other 'type' of technique, just think of them as shadow boxing. In Judo, we practice 'Uchi-komi's' which are basically shadow throws, we do this to help drill into ourselves the correct footwork and posture. Obviously when we're fighting we have to modify the technique to the situation, this I think was also the intention of kata.

Thanx

khafra

18-Jun-2002, 03:21 PM

Right, I'm just saying that I for one would find it hard, when faced with an angry Lou Ferrigno lookalike who wants to do me harm, to think back to my kata, think through each move and all the possible applications of it, select the most appropriate one, and use it before he's completed his attack.
In fact, with my less-than-stellar reaction time, unless an attack is telegraphed somewhat I'll rarely be able to evade, block, parry, or counter. I think teaching kata applications is meant to reduce the process required to evaluate and respond to an attack, but I'm saying it may not reduce it enough.
Thus the observed problem of practitioners of non-kickboxing type arts reverting to kickboxing type techniques when in a sparring situation.

khafra

18-Jun-2002, 03:41 PM

That's the fatal flaw, indeed: An impromptu kickboxer isn't going to do as well as a trained kickboxer. I myself never took more than a few months of karate, and certainly didn't get far enough to go beyond kata to their applications, but I have a feeling my teacher would never have gotten into visualization. It does sound like a very useful and workable idea, though. By working through different scenarios enough in your mind, when one of the actually happens you'd respond correctly and quickly.
Have you ever experienced that, responding to an attack with a technique you'd visualized? How did it go?

khafra

18-Jun-2002, 05:11 PM

Glad to hear that it works. Sounds like some good evidence for the value of kata and other solo forms, if repetitive visualization of good applications of the movements are used. If I'd known that back in the day, I might have stuck with karate for more than a few months.

pesilat

18-Jun-2002, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by mmafiter
Pesilat, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say this; I find in martial arts when I question a person's beliefs on a particular issue, the response is often "Well you must not have learned it right." or "There something's wrong with you." which is basically what you wrote.

Not ever having seen your instructor teach it, I have no idea if it was being taught wrong. Not ever having seen you do it, I have no idea if you were learning it right.

I was pointing out common problems that I've seen.

Granted maybe I didn't learn them correctly, although I was trained somewhat and graded for both Dans by the grandmaster's sons, but I would like to ask you this. Have you ever honestly seen anyone use that combination you've described in a free sparring session?

Absolutely not. That's not the intent. I have, however, seen each of the techniques I described done individually (i.e.: dropping into a "front stance" to protect the knee and punching the thigh as they kicked ... and parry/pulling their punch [Lap Sao in WC terms] into what I'd call a Bizet Dalam ... and into a Bizet Luar ... and into an armbar)

The motions, movements, positions get ingrained into the body through training the form ... then they come out when they are "felt" by the body.

This is the nub of my argument. The moves don't transfer. When you see to people sparring, they invariabley revert to what looks more like kickboxing or boxing than anything remotely like what they train in kata.

Ahh ... but it *does* look like what they train in forms. It may or may not be the specific techniques ... but the body mechanics that they ingrain in the forms should come out (if they've worked them enough to ingrain the mechanics).

I didn't mention this in my previous post because I was at Kinko's racking up fees as I typed.

But different forms have different purposes. Some are meant to be catalogs of techniques. Some are meant to develop good balance. Some are meant to develop body mechanics. Some are meant to develop breakfalling. Some are meant to develop coordination and dexterity. Some are meant for solo training. But *whatever* a particular form is intended to teach, the instructor should make sure the student understands what the form is trying to teach.

Most forms work on developing multiple attributes. Each form, though, in and of itself is nothing more than a single element of training.

I'm not trying to be a hardass here; I just believe in honestly evaluating training and martial arts.:)

As do I :-)

Mike

Ozebob

18-Jun-2002, 10:19 PM

Hi All,

Just catching up on this thread..

There are some serious problems with kata these days. Firstly, the modern styles (post WW2) were based on the new Budo concepts of self-development through studying Bu (Martial) Do (ways/path).

In Karate especially, there was a rush to popularise the art and have it fit in with Japanese society in a period of great upheaval. Back in Okinawa prior to the war, Kata were the tools of the teachers, a mobile living textbook that could be taken everywhere you went and under continual refinement.

If one person trained with Miyagi in 1925 then the kata he learned was most likely a little different in 1935. As students went on to teach themselves, they added to the mix and a great many versions of the same kata were developed.

After WW2, many of the modern karate teacher's had died, many of their top students also died in the war, those left had retired or were now old and the knowledge lost was a tremendous loss. Add in the advent of competition and a whole new set of training methodology wasdevised with kata application falling by the wayside.

Many modern teachers were not taught the meaning and purpose of their kata therefore ridiculous interpretations have been expounded due to ignorance on the part of the teachers and gullibilityon the part of their students. Think of the text book applications that were published routinely back in the 60's, 70's and the 80's.

Since Oyata, Dillman, Morris, McCarthy, Clark, etc. have been publishing books and articles and producing videos, there has beena flood of information. Some of that information early in the peace was not as well developed as itis these days and further misconceptions were spread widely. As an EG the famous no blocks in kata mantra.

There are still problems today with inexperienced Black Belts hallucinating applications to moves in the kata that would only work against handicapped attackers. The biggest mistake of all is to confuse the applications of kata with the fighting techniques one sees in a kumite match or kickboxing encounter.

Kata represent ways to respond to close quarter common assault situations and has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, training tools utilised by teachers to teach concepts and principles by way of situational examples. They are like the equations to be used to solve maths problem but are placed in a formal exercise rather than written on the blackboard.

Funamental kata such as Sanchin and Naihanchi allow the teacher to have students build the foundation necessary for further study. Other kata demonstrate responses to common assault situations and some kata have a recurrent theme which focus on a variety of joint-locks, such as Bassai Dai, or escapes such as Tensho..

As always, one needs to find a good teacher.

Regards,
Bob

Silver_no2

19-Jun-2002, 08:08 PM

It has taken me a fair bit of time to read my way through all these posts, I certainly wasn't expecting quite so many responses when I suggested that you start this thread mmafiter.

I'm not sure that I am qualified to say much on this subject as not only have I been in the MA's a very short while; I also do an MA that requires two people for kata.

I have to agree with those who feel that there is a point to kata. The main thing for me is that it helps to teach the student the mechanics of the technique and, more importantly, the principles behind the technique. The why is as important, if not more important, as the how.

Maybe things are different in my dojo than others but my honourable, if somewhat short, sensei (Tintin), always shows the applications of the techniques after the mechanics have been learnt. That way the students won't think that learning the basic 17 techniques will make them "hard".

The style of aikido that I do involves a certain amount of randori in which someone is trying to hit/stab you and you are trying to do techniques on them. This is, at best, a semi-realistic siuation but it does allow you to feel the difference between the kata, where your uke is working with you, and when you are working against someone. FreeForm, Andy Murray (our most venerable member) and some of the others got it right when they said that kata is a 'living book'. It is know different to any other textbook that is out there in that it teaches you the fundementals and leaves you to work out the applications as they apply to you.

I have used my aikido while I was working on the doors when somebody tried to hit me. It only happened twice but it did work. I believe that was largely down to the fact that I had visualised how I would respond should somebody attack me in certain ways. On both occassions this was the case. Being sober while the other person was drunk helped as well!

I have no illusions as to whether my aikido is good enough for me to use on the street in an all out fight...it's not! Until the techniques and movements become second nature it won't be. I have every intention of starting a second MA when I have achieved a dan grade in my aikido, which I will still continue to do. I will be looking to do a grappling or striking art so that I am more capable of defending myself in any situation.

Thanks for listening, and may Your god go with you. :D

Thomas Vince

20-Jun-2002, 08:46 AM

I don't use the word "Kata". That term as I understand it comes from the idea that there is a learned set of self defense techniques within a pattern of movement. This pattern of movement however as I have heard it said in this thread is that the student becomes lost in this Kata. I agree, I feel that Kata is ruining Traditional Martial Arts, because instructors now days do not fully understand the Kata or are afraid to think outside the box.
American Kenpo's Forms as they are called are designed to create good body harmony, coordination, stability of your base, and many other great qaulities. The next step incorporates the actual self defense techniques that are more like drills and teaches the student to graft the techniques together. Ed Parker taught us Traditional Kata, Self Defense Techniques and Street Sparring Techniques (64 of them). The Street Sparring techniques bring about the idea that you have executed one or a part of a self defense technique, like an outward block and a stright thrust kick to the groin, but the attacker takes it and raises up and the fight is on. In this situation because the parameters of the defense have changed you need to be on your toes moving quickly as you strike and boxing him out like a kickboxer. The problem with trying to take your self defense techniques from the point of a kickboxer is that a real attack is one where we cannot or did not see it coming until it was right on top of us. A boxer uses the ability to bob and weave as well as deflect punches off of the shoulders, jam them with his open palm etc.., yet even the boxer is somewhat predictable in what he will do. In a real attack you cannot predict because there are no rules. Power does come from a rooted position, and yes speed and power are enhanced by forward movement, however you still need to push off the ground with your foot to get moving forward. A Kickboxer tends to limit themselves to weapons that they would use in the ring, there are still rules to this type of fight. The groin or the eyes or the knees are not often looked at as a target, and the fists, elbows, knees and feet are the main weapons. In other arts Kata or Self Defense Techniques will make use of the Fingers to poke, rip, claw or spear and the Head to smash soft targets, as well as the stance. Stance should be thought of as a weapon.
Every Martial Artist should seek to be well rounded and although I feel that Traditional Kata energy could be put forth elsewhere I see its limited value and keep it in my arsenal. I also make sure that my adults spar not only to tag but they fight full contact with the idea of a real fight, and some of them get beat up. If you choose not use Kata thats fine, The Kenpo I study originally had no forms, it was a formless art. It was Mr. Parker and Jimmy Woo, one of Bruce Lee's instructors in San Francisco that brought the Kata back into Kenpo in the States. SO it worked for many years without form.

Ozebob

20-Jun-2002, 08:56 AM

Hello Thomas,

Originally posted by Thomas Vince
I don't use the word "Kata". That term as I understand it comes from the idea that there is a learned set of self defense techniques within a pattern of movement. This pattern of movement however as I have heard it said in this thread is that the student becomes lost in this Kata. I agree, I feel that Kata is ruining Traditional Martial Arts, because instructors now days do not fully understand the Kata or are afraid to think outside the box.

# It's not the kata, rather the instructors that do not understand their art that ruin karate.

American Kenpo's Forms as they are called are designed to create good body harmony, coordination, stability of your base, and many other great qaulities. The next step incorporates the actual self defense techniques that are more like drills and teaches the student to graft the techniques together. Ed Parker taught us Traditional Kata, Self Defense Techniques and Street Sparring Techniques (64 of them).

# Traditional kata are comprisd of self-defense techniques.

The Street Sparring techniques bring about the idea that you have executed one or a part of a self defense technique, like an outward block and a stright thrust kick to the groin, but the attacker takes it and raises up and the fight is on.

# This is what we refer to as dueling or mutually agreed confrontation.

(snipped- out of time :).

Regards,
Bob

Kosokun

22-Jun-2002, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Thomas Vince
I don't use the word "Kata". That term as I understand it comes from the idea that there is a learned set of self defense techniques within a pattern of movement. This pattern of movement however as I have heard it said in this thread is that the student becomes lost in this Kata. I agree, I feel that Kata is ruining Traditional Martial Arts, because instructors now days do not fully understand the Kata or are afraid to think outside the box.

Kata means form, that's it. Depending on the style, and the form, the kata may contain various things within it, or it may just be a movement pattern. Some kata, like the Taikiyoku series, IMO, are smiply movement patterns. Other kata are just chock full of defensive ideas.

As for ruining Traditional MA, that's some circuitous logic there. I must disagree. Kata can no more ruin an art than the presence or absence of an makiwara.

I's my experience that most instructors in the Trad. Okinawan/Japanese arts have a pretty fair grasp of the applications contained within the kata. Certainly, those people who didn't leave their organization at an early stage in their training. Many instr's. didn't get the info, because they didn't stay long enough or simply weren't interested. My experience with Hsing-I and Tai Chi is that, if you ask, you'll get some applications. If you don't , you won't. Probably the reason for this is that they also have 2 person forms that help elucidate the applications, if you apply a little thought.

As for not thinking out of the box, who do you mean, Paleface?
Seems that there's a lot of creativity out there. So many people are out of the box, even in Shotokan, that there's lots of room inside.

American Kenpo's Forms as they are called are designed to create good body harmony, coordination, stability of your base, and many other great qaulities. The next step incorporates the actual self defense techniques that are more like drills and teaches the student to graft the techniques together.

Parker made up forms that do the same things that forms in Traditional MA do? :eek: In your next sentence, below, you say that he added traditional MA Forms! :eek: Aren't you concerned that it'll ruin American Kempo?

Ed Parker taught us Traditional Kata, Self Defense Techniques and Street Sparring Techniques (64 of them). The Street Sparring techniques bring about the idea that you have executed one or a part of a self defense technique, like an outward block and a stright thrust kick to the groin, but the attacker takes it and raises up and the fight is on. In this situation because the parameters of the defense have changed you need to be on your toes moving quickly as you strike and boxing him out like a kickboxer.

That's the concept of zanshin. Effectively, zanshin is to be in a position( mentally and physically), after you've executed a technique, to be able to follow up however is required (block, strike, move, whatever). This concept is central to Traditional karate, at least, and certainly in karate kata. I'll let other traditional MA'ist speak for their arts, as I'm certain it's not the sole province of karate.

The problem with trying to take your self defense techniques from the point of a kickboxer is that a real attack is one where we cannot or did not see it coming until it was right on top of us.

This is the premise in karate forms, IMO. That you were *nearly* sucker punched, taken by surprise. The concept of a dual, isn't addressed in traditional karate kata.

A boxer uses the ability to bob and weave as well as deflect punches off of the shoulders, jam them with his open palm etc.., yet even the boxer is somewhat predictable in what he will do. In a real attack you cannot predict because there are no rules. Power does come from a rooted position, and yes speed and power are enhanced by forward movement, however you still need to push off the ground with your foot to get moving forward. A Kickboxer tends to limit themselves to weapons that they would use in the ring, there are still rules to this type of fight. The groin or the eyes or the knees are not often looked at as a target, and the fists, elbows, knees and feet are the main weapons. In other arts Kata or Self Defense Techniques will make use of the Fingers to poke, rip, claw or spear and the Head to smash soft targets, as well as the stance. Stance should be thought of as a weapon.
Hmm, seems you don't like kickboxing, eh?
Limiting oneself to only a few techniques isn't necessarily a bad thing. Does anyone really think that Lennox Lewis is in trouble in a real confrontation, since he limits himself to only the jab, cross, uppercut and hook punches? Clearly he's more limited in techniques than a kickboxer, say, since he doesn't utilize kicks.
I for one, would be happy to have Mr. Lewis backing me up in a brawl.

Every Martial Artist should seek to be well rounded and although I feel that Traditional Kata energy could be put forth elsewhere I see its limited value and keep it in my arsenal. I also make sure that my adults spar not only to tag but they fight full contact with the idea of a real fight, and some of them get beat up. If you choose not use Kata thats fine, The Kenpo I study originally had no forms, it was a formless art. It was Mr. Parker and Jimmy Woo, one of Bruce Lee's instructors in San Francisco that brought the Kata back into Kenpo in the States. SO it worked for many years without form.

Many years? Sounds like nonesense to me. Let's do the math.
Let's assume that Mr. Parker didn't do forms at all with Mr. Chow.
He left Mr. Chow for BYU in maybe 1952?
Mr. Parker opened his first studio in Pasadena in 1956. He met Mr. Woo in 1960/61
So, that's not a long time without forms. Really, we're talking about 4 years (56-60/61) since prior to that, he was really doing Chow's stuff, and going to college at BYU.

Rob

(Ps. The info above on Mr. Parker is from the Official Tracy Bros. Website.)

Andy Murray

22-Jun-2002, 05:06 PM

If I might just mumble away in a corner for a moment;

I personally feel that Forms are the Brain and Heart of a style. Change the Forms in anyway and you are changing the style.

If you have people wandering off and starting their own version of a style, who have no understanding of it, the spinoff is like a sickly, brain damaged child.

Referring to a styles 'Kata' as being the gospel is singularly arrogant.

If you don't see value in the Kata, then you don't see the value in the style.

Kata have nothing whatsoever to do with sport.

Sport ( read Kickboxing ) has little to do with self defence.

Kata makes the Style, but the style and the Kata are only tools for the individual.
Without the comprehension of the individual, then nothing has value.

If I invent a Kata tommorow, do you think you could tell the difference between what I had invented, and a Kata I had learned which was of more ancient origin?

:woo:

mmafiter

22-Jun-2002, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Andy Murray
If I might just mumble away in a corner for a moment;

Sport ( read Kickboxing ) has little to do with self defence.

:woo:

I have to totally disagree with this statement. A full contact fighter, is continually tested on a live opponent and knows what it feels like to be hit. Generally, traditional martial artist's don't experience this much. A kickboxer/boxer has more of a chance of recovering from a sucker punch in my opinion.

Now, someone's gonna say; "At my club we go full contact all the time!" To which I will reply, do you? Are you sure you're going full contact? Many times when people say they spar full contact, they are confusing full contact with point sparring taken up a notch or two. This is not the same thing.

Andy Murray

22-Jun-2002, 09:55 PM

I have to totally disagree with this statement. A full contact fighter, is continually tested on a live opponent and knows what it feels like to be hit. Generally, traditional martial artist's don't experience this much. A kickboxer/boxer has more of a chance of recovering from a sucker punch in my opinion.

I understand your reaction, but your reply belongs on a seperate thread. I was attempting to Clarify the 'Kata' issue. What about the rest of my post?

( I should really have finished off with ' flame away' )

;) Andy;)

ladyhawk

23-Jun-2002, 12:14 AM

I believe kata to be like basics and an important learning tool but I don't think it should be limited to only the moves taught for that particular kata. They are the ground work to various techniques that can be improvised and adapted to different situations and circumstances.
If I was attacked, I'm not going to fight the battle by doing Seisan or whatever kata. I'm going to uae a variety of moves from different kata and adapt them as needed. Hope that made sense.

mmafiter

23-Jun-2002, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by ladyhawk
I believe kata to be like basics and an important learning tool but I don't think it should be limited to only the moves taught for that particular kata. They are the ground work to various techniques that can be improvised and adapted to different situations and circumstances.
If I was attacked, I'm not going to fight the battle by doing Seisan or whatever kata. I'm going to uae a variety of moves from different kata and adapt them as needed. Hope that made sense.

That made sense to me, and quite frankly I think you might be on the right track regarding kata.:)

LilBunnyRabbit

23-Jun-2002, 02:16 PM

Today actually I got to see kata trained properly, and I see where the argument comes in. Ours are nothing more than basics put into combinations to practice technique, speed and stamina. There are no hidden applications in ours other than 'block with this, then hit them lots of times with these'.

Having seen the applications behind them I actually understand why people would want to do them, but the applications should be taught first, as seperate techniques, and then the kata should be demonstrated to link them. Just my opinion.

Melanie

23-Jun-2002, 08:27 PM

Hmm - wonder where you saw that Jimmy? :D

koyo

15-Jun-2006, 11:46 AM

In the kummi tachi sword kata of aiki ken each kata also contains what is known as kaeshe waza that is alternate techniques that may be used instead of the first one learned therefor when you are training the kata are not set in stone there is a flexibility to them. O Sensei Ueshiba expressed a dislike for kata but did see the need for them. Another aspect of kata is perfection of form in that since you must use the technique demanded that technique must be perfected. When a novice is free to use any technique he may wish to rarely does he act decisively having too many choices. Martial arts should be the retention of physical and mental energy until the explosive moment of action. As has been mentioned form and decisive technique are often lost in competition. Executed correctly kata teaches us just that. Of course kata must be accompanied by basics basics and more basics. It is interesting to read other people's take on this aspect of martial arts. They have been most informative.Thank you to those who have posted them.

Koyo

Banpen Fugyo

15-Jun-2006, 12:30 PM

Just so you know, most of the people who posted in this thread left about... mm... 4 years ago. ;)

James R

15-Jun-2006, 01:22 PM

I do Systema mostly, which is very freeform and has no kata or forms. I also have done bagua and still practise a little Tai Chi, which both do have forms. I find that in the freeform work in systema, moves from the chinese IMA forms come out all the time as different spontanois applications.

Maybe this is because the Chinese IMA have a different approach to forms (emphasising internal relationships and body connection) than do Karate Kata.

This is a guess - never done Karate kata.

J

TheWaterMargins

15-Jun-2006, 02:01 PM

Pesilat, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say this; I find in martial arts when I question a person's beliefs on a particular issue, the response is often "Well you must not have learned it right." or "There something's wrong with you." which is basically what you wrote.

Granted maybe I didn't learn them correctly, although I was trained somewhat and graded for both Dans by the grandmaster's sons, but I would like to ask you this. Have you ever honestly seen anyone use that combination you've described in a free sparring session? This is the nub of my argument. The moves don't transfer. When you see to people sparring, they invariabley revert to what looks more like kickboxing or boxing than anything remotely like what they train in kata.

I'm not trying to be a hardass here; I just believe in honestly evaluating training and martial arts.:)

Good question ..... I was going to answer with a 'well you musn't have been taught right' answer but then read this post and thought about it again .....

But I honestly do believe that kata is only useful when 'it is taught right'.

Without using the ideas of kata in a live situation, it simply becomes no more than a dance.

If you begin to apply the meanings to a more and more live situation, then the uses become far more applicacble. An example of this is Iain Abernathy's idea of 'Kata based sparring' in which specifically kata based ideas and techniques are put into a live, more realistic scenario.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of karate-ka haven't been taught this kind of skill/knowledge and therefore end up believing that karate is not applicable to real life.

Alexander

15-Jun-2006, 02:04 PM

Just so you know, most of the people who posted in this thread left about... mm... 4 years ago. ;)
Whatever has happened to Yoda? I haven't seen any posts from him in a donkey's ice age.

TheWaterMargins

15-Jun-2006, 02:05 PM

ap Oweyn

15-Jun-2006, 02:11 PM

freak

15-Jun-2006, 05:44 PM

i take goju because of the traditional way they do things, its very formal and i like the dicipline they teach..kata involves alot of concentration i just like the flow of it when i am doing a kata...i no its not practical to use the majority of what you do in a kata in a real fight. i do boxing because i like to fight aswell, theres no kata in boxing its just pure punching...i like both them both alot but in different ways..another thing that i like is compitition. goju i do for that traditional martial arts feeling, boxing i do for recreation, to stay in shape, and to learn to be better fighter (among other things), and i am starting judo soon as the competitive art that i want to do.

Timmy Boy

15-Jun-2006, 08:24 PM

Does that mean that kata techniques are inpractical for fighting or that karate tournament techniques are unrealistic? IMHO ..... depending on the MA club and teachers, it's that tournament techniques are far less applicable to real situations.

If the tournament techniques are even less realistic than those in the kata then the tournaments in question have serious realism problems.

To me, the very fact that there is a debate about kata is half the problem. Karateka of all belt colours don't agree on what it's for so how are we supposed to know who's actually right? I think if kata was really that useful the effects would be obvious.

These are the most common arguments I hear in defence of kata, followed by my humble opinions of them.

1) It's a living breathing textbook of techniques to ensure the art remains intact. This doesn't justify its practice, as people manage to study arts like judo that have no kata at all yet they don't just forget moves all over the place. Besides, some moves are just crap, so why hold onto them?

2) You can practice it on your own. This assertion is only correct if kata does actually have some other benefits, and I don't believe that it does. I think it's a much better idea, if you want to do something productive outside your formal training time, to concentrate on bringing up your fitness.

2) It's designed for training, not for fighting. I'm sorry, but... what the hell? You're training to fight, why the hell would you want to train in a way that's completely irrelevant?

3) The techniques may not be performed in the same way as when you fight, but that's because it's just designed to teach you the body mechanics. Why can't you learn the body mechanics by practicing the techniques you will actually use? Surely that's not only far quicker but also vastly more effective, as it's more relevant. I really don't see the point in deliberately shooting yourself in the foot, and no offence but to me this argument is so obviously wrong that it only highlights the lack of understanding that karateka have of their own art. And don't start lynching me here - I did karate and TSD (which was basically karate by another name) for over 3 years and it's the bulk of my MA experience.

4) But my instructor knows the real ultra deadly applications that were hidden in the kata. Yeah, yours and everyone else's. Until karateka are able to speak with one voice about the purpose of kata, or even what the actual techniques within the kata are supposed to be (is it a lower forearm block? Is it a throw? Is it a strike?) there's no way we can know what's going on.

Following on from this point...

5) You can use the kata as a template from which to extract the techniques you're going to use. OK, so why do you have to learn the whole kata off by heart and practice robotically reciting it all the time? Why can't you just learn the applications straight away? I really don't get why training can't just go straight into bunkai.

6) Well we've been doing this for God knows how many years so it must be right. Not true. Firstly, as I've said, no-one really knows what kata or the techniques therein are designed for so you don't know that you're still training like your predecessors did. Secondly, unless you count semi-mythical "challenge matches", there is little or no documented testing of the art in realistic combat situations and thus no reason to believe that kata was held onto due to experience.

7) It gets you fit/develops strength in your muscles. Kata is hardly the most efficient way of developing strength, especially when you consider that the movements you're doing are almost nothing like the movements you actually use when you fight. Plus any hard training in MA will help with your fitness anyway.

As I've said, I did an art that contained a lot of kata practice and it made no sense - no-one fought in a way that remotely resembled what they'd just spent half the lesson doing. No-one picked up skills that they were actually using in fighting. The sequences were different, the footwork was different and the stances were different. As much as I disliked the sparring at my old club, it was sadly the only drill we did that taught us how to use any kind of applicable skill e.g. timing, distancing, dealing with pressure and defending against attacks. Kata was nothing more than an exercise for your brain in remembering a sequence.

19thlohan

15-Jun-2006, 09:17 PM

I think sequence training has multiple purposes. Endurance training, mental focus, and remembering more techniques than you could individualy are probably the top three. One of the toughest classes I've ever taken part in was the endurance classes at Dr.Yang's school. It was all sequence training and you would do several in a row take a short break and go again for an hour and a half. If you made an honest effort to do good stances, stay low when transitioning between stances, move quick, and put power into each strike you got about as tough of a conditioning work out as anyone could take. I dropped kung fu for a while and just did san shou and I was amazed at how much strength and endurance I lost especialy in my legs.

As far as fighting goes I don't think it helps much. The conditioning is a benifit but you need to practise against people who fight back to devolp timing, reactions, and strategies. If anything I think fighting helps your sequence training becuase you can put that knowledge into sequences and preform with a better sense of enemy.

As far as not using the techniques in your sequences when you fight, I think that's wrong. I think alot of people and even a lot of so called teachers don't know what they're looking at when they watch forms. The see a funny stance with a fist at the end of an outstretched arm and think that the posture is telling them to stand funny when they punch when in fact your opponant me be right up tight to you in that technique. For one example you could be hooking legs and punching out over the shoulder with a fist full of clothing for a throw. I've been in fights and competitions and most of what I've used can be found in my sequences. Every throw Ive done in shuai chiao competitions is in a sequence that I know. Every punch, kick, and throw I've done in san shou is in one as well. I don't stop and pose and check/show my form on each technique so it doesn't look like a form but the transitions are there and so are the postures even if only for a fraction of a second. Most of the throws and many of the ground fighting techniques I've done in judo can be seen in my sequences as well.

You can be a great fighter without ever doing a sequence and you'll never learn to fight just by doing them but they can benifit your training and you can't possibly pass down and preserve any of the traditional systems in thier entirty with out them.

TheWaterMargins

16-Jun-2006, 08:07 AM

Have you seen more kata-like movements implemented in any scenario then? Self-defense? A better competition format?

I know it sounds stupid .... but when you see the triangles and locks in MMA ..... then look very closely at what certain katas show (not the classic bunkai ..... that just isn't real) then you will see very similar things ......

I refer you to Iain Abernathy's work ....

Timmy Boy

16-Jun-2006, 08:56 AM

I know it sounds stupid .... but when you see the triangles and locks in MMA ..... then look very closely at what certain katas show (not the classic bunkai ..... that just isn't real) then you will see very similar things ......

I refer you to Iain Abernathy's work ....

It doesn't sound stupid, but it's all very well to have hidden applications in the kata which are very similar to what you see in MMA - and I do think Iain Abernathy is doing a good thing for karate - it's not like you can go into any old shotokan class and find everyone doing armbars. I don't know how you train at your club but unless you understand all of the applications in the same way that Iain Abernathy does then no offence but I don't think it's valid to start referring people to Iain Abernathy's work. It's like that group of TKD guys who big up Juras all the time, they say he's the shining example of the effectiveness of TKD even though his training is nothing like theirs and far more like that of thai boxers.

Even then, supposing you understand all of the deadly grappling techniques within the kata, that still doesn't explain why people have to walk up and down the dojo reciting it verbatim. Discovering the correct applications might deal with one problem in kata, but it still leaves the problem of not developing relevant skills due to lack of resistance.

EDIT: I also get the feeling that, as much as everyone bigs up Iain Abernathy, his work is unlikely to ever impact mainstrem karate no matter how much the powers that be express their "respect" for him because the establishment is just too unwilling to accept change; of course this may not go for your club, but many of the big organisations are run by people who got their 150th dan or whatever through the conventional way of training and don't want to lose their ability to lord it over the lower orders. It's like Steve Morris; an incredibly well respected karateka, an awesome fighter, and a guy who came up with some radical ideas to reinvent how karate was taught, but while the bigwigs all said his ideas were great none of them really took them on board. I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get.

Moosey

16-Jun-2006, 09:55 AM

Steve Morris; an incredibly well respected karateka, an awesome fighter, and a guy who came up with some radical ideas to reinvent how karate was taught, but while the bigwigs all said his ideas were great none of them really took them on board. I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get.
Steve Morris has a very specific niche in the market though. His training methods would just plain not be suitable for the majority of public classes. He's an amazing fighter, but he's also a bit of a nutter. What I've seen of his classes, they are tougher than any MMA or Muay Thai class I've seen (and I'm not playing down MMA/MT, I'm saying I would never train with Morris as I'm not up to it). His kind of classes are usually attended by people who already have years of martial arts under their belt.

Ian Abernethy, on the other hand, seems like he is well aware of how to integrate his ideas safely into MA training. I would certainly take on board many of his methods if I taught a class.

Timmy Boy

16-Jun-2006, 10:04 AM

Steve Morris has a very specific niche in the market though. His training methods would just plain not be suitable for the majority of public classes. He's an amazing fighter, but he's also a bit of a nutter. What I've seen of his classes, they are tougher than any MMA or Muay Thai class I've seen (and I'm not playing down MMA/MT, I'm saying I would never train with Morris as I'm not up to it). His kind of classes are usually attended by people who already have years of martial arts under their belt.

Ian Abernethy, on the other hand, seems like he is well aware of how to integrate his ideas safely into MA training. I would certainly take on board many of his methods if I taught a class.

They might not have wanted to push their students quite as hard as Steve Morris suggested, but they're not stupid and they knew they didn't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They could have quite easily toughened the classes up a bit, introduced more live drills/replaced some dead ones and start doing grappling, but instead they just paid lip service to his ideas being "interesting" and that was it. I don't train anywhere near as hard as Frank Shamrock but what I do is still along the same lines.

I suppose another reason could be that if they've all trained in the Traditional(TM) way they simply wouldn't have instructors who were qualified to teach grappling and stuff. Then again, that would only mean getting some people in from other arts...

EDIT: You may well take on some of his methods when you start teaching a class. But a lot of karate is dominated by the big organisations who aren't nearly as receptive to radical ideas.

prowla

16-Jun-2006, 10:18 AM

Timmy Boy

16-Jun-2006, 10:21 AM

Kata is a way of stringing together a sequence of moves in a very stylised manner, and is as valuable as are basics.
If all you want is moves that are directly applicable to real-life "street fight" situations, then I can see why they might not seem relevant.
Perhaps they're more on the "art" side of "martial arts"...

AFAIK karate was designed first and foremost as a civilian self-defence system. You also don't need to do things that are inapplicable in order to appreciate the "art" side of "martial arts" and I really don't know where this idea came from. "Art" doesn't refer to aesthetics, it refers to the skill involved.

Moosey

16-Jun-2006, 10:42 AM

AFAIK karate was designed first and foremost as a civilian self-defence system. You also don't need to do things that are inapplicable in order to appreciate the "art" side of "martial arts" and I really don't know where this idea came from. "Art" doesn't refer to aesthetics, it refers to the skill involved.
I agree with you on this one.

I've strated to suspect that kata is a throwback to the Chinese origins and precursors of karate. If you look at the forms used in Wing Chun (for example) their entire art is based around what is found in the forms. Karate, on the other hand, has evolved since its origins and has almost "left the kata behind".

I still think that kata has some use as a karate relevant exercise, but on the whole I wouldn't be sad to see it's prominence in karate diminish.

TheWaterMargins

16-Jun-2006, 10:43 AM

It doesn't sound stupid, but it's all very well to have hidden applications in the kata which are very similar to what you see in MMA - and I do think Iain Abernathy is doing a good thing for karate - it's not like you can go into any old shotokan class and find everyone doing armbars. I don't know how you train at your club but unless you understand all of the applications in the same way that Iain Abernathy does then no offence but I don't think it's valid to start referring people to Iain Abernathy's work. It's like that group of TKD guys who big up Juras all the time, they say he's the shining example of the effectiveness of TKD even though his training is nothing like theirs and far more like that of thai boxers.

.

That was my original point ..... there are very few instructors who do understand the meaning of kata beyond the classic 'block and punch' applications.

As for the 'no offence' bit ..... none taken, and you're right, my karate is not there yet. But that is where it is heading as I feel it reflects far more the heart of karate than any tournament based training that I practised in the past ....

Timmy Boy

16-Jun-2006, 10:48 AM

That was my original point ..... there are very few instructors who do understand the meaning of kata beyond the classic 'block and punch' applications.

I completely agree. To me a lot of the "applications" are so shoehorned and obviously impractical *cough*lowstances*cough*chamberedpunching that there's just got to have been a serious communication breakdown at some point.

As for the 'no offence' bit ..... none taken, and you're right, my karate is not there yet. But that is where it is heading as I feel it reflects far more the heart of karate than any tournament based training that I practised in the past ....

Well it's good that your club is open minded enough to take these methods on board. I wish people using Iain Abernathy's approach all the best of luck, I just don't see him convincing the top brass of the big organisations.

TheWaterMargins

16-Jun-2006, 11:10 AM

I wish people using Iain Abernathy's approach all the best of luck, I just don't see him convincing the top brass of the big organisations.

Totally agree ... but I'm not sure how long the big organisations can remain big .....

The KUGB for example (the org that I started in and probably the biggest single style org in the UK) is diminishing quickly after Mr Enoeda's death. I can't help feeling (only my own perspective after talking to numerous higher grades about it) that a big part of the diminishing numbers in karate clubs is the belief that it is not practical ....

Timmy Boy

16-Jun-2006, 11:23 AM

Totally agree ... but I'm not sure how long the big organisations can remain big .....

The KUGB for example (the org that I started in and probably the biggest single style org in the UK) is diminishing quickly after Mr Enoeda's death. I can't help feeling (only my own perspective after talking to numerous higher grades about it) that a big part of the diminishing numbers in karate clubs is the belief that it is not practical ....

I think you're absolutely right (ooh err, I'm agreeing with TMAers a lot in this thread, let's hope this doesn't become a trend! :D). When karate first became popular in the UK in like the '70s and '80s there was a big martial arts craze going on and no-one really knew any better. Today the craze is over, so people aren't looking at MA through hollywood-tinted glasses so much and are actually realising that a lot (though not all) of the karate taught is stuff that will simply get you beaten up in a real fight. I've dabbled in several arts and one thing I've noticed is that there is a widespread belief among even other TMAs that karate as it's often taught is totally rigid and impractical; it seems to be regarded as the "sick man" of martial arts training. Let's hope people like Iain Abernathy can sort it all out.

Moosey

16-Jun-2006, 11:42 AM

I think you're absolutely right (ooh err, I'm agreeing with TMAers a lot in this thread, let's hope this doesn't become a trend! :D). When karate first became popular in the UK in like the '70s and '80s there was a big martial arts craze going on and no-one really knew any better. Today the craze is over, so people aren't looking at MA through hollywood-tinted glasses so much and are actually realising that a lot (though not all) of the karate taught is stuff that will simply get you beaten up in a real fight. I've dabbled in several arts and one thing I've noticed is that there is a widespread belief among even other TMAs that karate as it's often taught is totally rigid and impractical; it seems to be regarded as the "sick man" of martial arts training. Let's hope people like Iain Abernathy can sort it all out.
I think you're stating prejudices as fact. If you ask any martial artist what they think of another martial art, they'll always reel off the usual negative prejudices against their competitors. (karate = static, tkd can't punch, wing chun = slappy, MMA = meatheads brawling, aikido = all pre-arranged, etc etc etc).

What has changed is that the '80s karate craze is over and another television-led craze has started in the martial arts. One that has a whole new generation of people rushing starry-eyed to their local classes in the belief that they can be like their TV heroes.

And when this one has passed, another one will start.

prowla

16-Jun-2006, 11:43 AM

AFAIK karate was designed first and foremost as a civilian self-defence system. You also don't need to do things that are inapplicable in order to appreciate the "art" side of "martial arts" and I really don't know where this idea came from. "Art" doesn't refer to aesthetics, it refers to the skill involved.I didn't say there's no art in the fighting side of things, did I?
As far as I can see, the originators of karate decided to strip down movements back to the basics, to give a common foundation to build on.
Kata is an expression of that form, and has merit on that basis.
But nobody is suggesting that basics are the be-all and end-all, and certainly I don't think that anybody is suggesting that you should drop back into gedan barai zenkutsu dachi and ki-yai at the first sign of aggression! :)

Timmy Boy

16-Jun-2006, 11:46 AM

I think you're stating prejudices as fact. If you ask any martial artist what they think of another martial art, they'll always reel off the usual negative prejudices against their competitors. (karate = static, tkd can't punch, wing chun = slappy, MMA = meatheads brawling, aikido = all pre-arranged, etc etc etc).

I'm not stating prejudices as fact. I'm saying that there are a lot of people out there who are of the same opinion as those karateka that TheWaterMargins described, and that there is a hell of a lot of rubbish out there. I don't know how you train so I'm not saying I think your karate is rubbish, but if it's the kind of place that leaves you open minded enough to want to use Iain Abernathy's ideas then it's probably not.

What you're saying about all arts getting slagged off is true but karate does seem to be everyone's whipping boy for some reason. You have to remember I did karate for a fair old while myself and also that I'm not saying ALL karate training is bad.

What has changed is that the '80s karate craze is over and another television-led craze has started in the martial arts. One that has a whole new generation of people rushing starry-eyed to their local classes in the belief that they can be like their TV heroes.

And when this one has passed, another one will start.

You're probably right.

Timmy Boy

16-Jun-2006, 11:48 AM

I didn't say there's no art in the fighting side of things, did I?
As far as I can see, the originators of karate decided to strip down movements back to the basics, to give a common foundation to build on.

But why can't you just learn the correct movements in the first place? There's learning the basics and then there's deliberately shooting yourself in the foot. The actual techniques that get used in the kumite of the karate that I've seen or studied myself are actually simpler than the so-called "basics" within the kata; they're not "stripped down" versions of "advanced" techniques, they're completely different movements which, as people like Iain Abernathy are finding out, are often designed for completely different purposes to what a lot of karateka think they are.

Kata is an expression of that form, and has merit on that basis.
But nobody is suggesting that basics are the be-all and end-all, and certainly I don't think that anybody is suggesting that you should drop back into gedan barai zenkutsu dachi and ki-yai at the first sign of aggression! :)

Then why learn them?

ap Oweyn

16-Jun-2006, 12:21 PM

prowla

16-Jun-2006, 02:15 PM

But why can't you just learn the correct movements in the first place? There's learning the basics and then there's deliberately shooting yourself in the foot. The actual techniques that get used in the kumite of the karate that I've seen or studied myself are actually simpler than the so-called "basics" within the kata; they're not "stripped down" versions of "advanced" techniques, they're completely different movements which, as people like Iain Abernathy are finding out, are often designed for completely different purposes to what a lot of karateka think they are.Perhaps some people could.
But there is an underlying assumption that there is such a thing as a "correct movement".
The fact that there are so many martial arts suggests that there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" approach.
It is rather interesting that fencing (European) and karate (Japanese) have some fairly marked similarities, though.

Timmy Boy

16-Jun-2006, 03:16 PM

Perhaps some people could.
But there is an underlying assumption that there is such a thing as a "correct movement".
The fact that there are so many martial arts suggests that there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" approach.

If that's how you see it, then it surely proves my point. You have no way of knowing what's supposed to do what, do you? How can you apply an technique if you don't know what it is? If there's no such thing as a correct movement you might as well just make it up on the spot.

If you're going to punch in a certain way, then that is the way you should learn to punch from the beginning. I understand the idea of learning the basics first and then advancing, that makes perfect sense. What I don't understand is how shoehorning a dubious interpretation of a move from the kata that you don't really understand is "learning the basics".

It is rather interesting that fencing (European) and karate (Japanese) have some fairly marked similarities, though.

Well... yeah... probably... sorry mate but what's this got to do with anything?

Matt_Bernius

16-Jun-2006, 03:45 PM

My beliefs on Kata/Forms/You Name it:

To understand Kata, you need to understand the history of the art and the function of Kata.

I am a firm defender of good kata/forms as a teaching tool. I reject the notion of Kata as an end to themselves.

I also believe that if a system has more than four or five Kata, they most likely have too many and it's a sign that Kata has been given a function that isn't related to being a syllabus for the art.

And I also reject the notion that Kata is the end. It's the beginning. The A-B-C's. And I reject the notion that Kata in and of itself will teach you to fight.

And finally, I blame the mainstreaming of Karate into the Japanese School system and the shift in martial arts practice in 20th century China for most of the modern problems with Kata.

-- Let me know what points you want me to elaborate on

- Matt

19thlohan

16-Jun-2006, 04:31 PM

I also believe that if a system has more than four or five Kata, they most likely have too many and it's a sign that Kata has been given a function that isn't related to being a syllabus for the art.

I have to disagree with this.

First systems with many sets often repeat the key elements of thier style in each set. For example every Choy Li Fut set has three or four groupings of movements that appear in each of them. So when you learn your 8th or 9th sequence you are still focusing on the key techniques of your style. When you practise the same 4 or 5 sets for x amount of years they become a boring task to preform. You lose intrest and focus and that part of your training becomes a waste of time. When you learn new sets it gives you new material to think about which can revitalise your training but at the same time you continue training the core of your style within them as well.

Second a system isn't just for you. You don't just need the handfull of techniques that you are going to focus on and specialise in. Sets are designed to pass the entire system down. You could put more than enough techniques in 2 or 3 sets for yourself but what about all the different builds out there? Not everybody can fight the same. What about all the different mentalities out there? Not everybody wants to fight the same. Some will want to stay long range and use movement, others will want to get in close and set thier feet, and others still will want to wrestle. Some will be aggressive and some will be counter fighters. The Idea of a system is not for each individual to be able to do every technique but rather for the system to have an answer for every individual for as many situations as possible.

Timmy Boy

16-Jun-2006, 04:51 PM

Excellent post Matt, I have a few questions though if that's OK.

My beliefs on Kata/Forms/You Name it:

To understand Kata, you need to understand the history of the art and the function of Kata.

I think this is definitely where the problem arises. There's so much confusion and ambiguity surrounding karate/TSD, particularly the role of kata/forms, that it's impossible to tell what's going on.

I am a firm defender of good kata/forms as a teaching tool. I reject the notion of Kata as an end to themselves.

I also believe that if a system has more than four or five Kata, they most likely have too many and it's a sign that Kata has been given a function that isn't related to being a syllabus for the art.

If what you're talking about is the way that kata was actually intended to be used, I have never ever trained in such an art. How many people really have?

And I also reject the notion that Kata is the end. It's the beginning. The A-B-C's. And I reject the notion that Kata in and of itself will teach you to fight.

It's hard for me to get my head around this point when the techniques in the kata seem so much more complicated than - and biomechanically different to - the techniques actually used in kumite.

And finally, I blame the mainstreaming of Karate into the Japanese School system and the shift in martial arts practice in 20th century China for most of the modern problems with Kata.

-- Let me know what points you want me to elaborate on

So are you saying that Japanese karate as taught in schools became about performance as opposed to actual combat a la wu shu, hence why the usual applcations are often impractical for real fighting?

EDIT: Sorry I know this isn't really relevant, but did you get my pm? :Angel: lol

Matt_Bernius

17-Jun-2006, 02:37 PM

Quickie q: 19thLohan - how many forms does Choi have?

Also, I need to clarify one thing. When I made my four to five forms proclamation, I should have said no more than four or five "empty hand forms." There typically then should be one form for each weapon.

So are you saying that Japanese karate as taught in schools became about performance as opposed to actual combat a la wu shu, hence why the usual applcations are often impractical for real fighting?Let me start here. It's pretty well documented that when Karate was mainstreamed as a physical education activity in Japanese schools there was a shift from kumite to kata. The short (vulger) version is that the number of forms increased and there was an effort to rid them of outside cultural influence -- make them more Japanese. The end result was that more Kata were introduced as that was an easier (and safer) method for teaching children.

In my mind, this began the shift from Kata as a teaching tool to Kata as an end to itself.

I think this is definitely where the problem arises. There's so much confusion and ambiguity surrounding karate/TSD, particularly the role of kata/forms, that it's impossible to tell what's going on.Agreed. I think part of this gets back to the problem of the idea of Black Belts. Its commonly accepted Black Belt as teaching compitency and system mastery.

If what you're talking about is the way that kata was actually intended to be used, I have never ever trained in such an art. How many people really have?I think the Chinese Martial Arts tend to handle this better than many Japanese and Koream systems (I also think Okianwan systems tend to do it better as well). But the fact is that I think that, to your point, Martial Arts sometimes don't do a good enough job of training teachers or really trying to get people to understand the role of the forms. The Hung Ga (Yee family) folks that I know get it. Some underground Chinese schools I've been to get it as well.

I my mind, here's the general way to evaluate if a school/teacher gets a form - the Class spends some time learning/practicing the whole form. Then they spend a bit of time with a section broken out. Then the components of that section are disected and practiced separately. And that practice involves progressive live resistance testing across a few different scenarios. And then the form is put back together and practiced a bit more. That - in my mind - is how real form training is done.

It's hard for me to get my head around this point when the techniques in the kata seem so much more complicated than - and biomechanically different to - the techniques actually used in kumite.Again, I'll go back to the notion of forms as the "ABC" song. The alphabet song is a standard for teaching the alphabet here in the states. Every child learns it. It breaks down all of the component letters needed to speak and read english. Children repeat it over and over. And then break each letter of the alphabet out, learn to write it. Learn words that start with it. Learn to string letters together to form worlds. But if you look at the alphabet as simply:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

That's friggin' unwieldy -- all the letters run together. And if you had to sing the song every time you wanted to spell anything you'd never get anywhere. So a student of the alphabet (just like any form) needs to be able to view it both as an abstract whole and as functional subcomponents that can be reorganized as the situation calls for. If C always had to follow B in every word because it follows B in the "form" then the system falls apart.

BTW - here's one more critical thing, I also embrace the fact that one can learn to read and write English without ever learning the Alphabet song. There are other paths and methodologies.

And if you're simply taught to sing the alphabet song and that is never related to speaking, then it's wasted effort. Much like people who learn forms without ever relating them to combat. At that point, they might as well be taking kickboxing.

The thing is, I've meet people who do fight with the forms. Sadly they're in the minority.

EDIT: Sorry I know this isn't really relevant, but did you get my pm? :Angel: lolNo, I didn't... hmmm, sorry about that.

- Matt

bcullen

17-Jun-2006, 03:41 PM

I my mind, here's the general way to evaluate if a school/teacher gets a form - the Class spends some time learning/practicing the whole form. Then they spend a bit of time with a section broken out. Then the components of that section are disected and practiced separately. And that practice involves progressive live resistance testing across a few different scenarios. And then the form is put back together and practiced a bit more. That - in my mind - is how real form training is done.

Great post, Matt.

That was exactly how my old school used to handle forms. Due to the size of the forms they taught they would be shown in more manageable chunks of 1-4 techniques that would then be drilled with a partner to show some probable uses. As time went on you would be given more time to experiment and workout new uses on your own, so rather then being shown and trying to emulate a technique you would play with a live partner and ad lib. It gave you a chance to work out your relationship with the form and put your own personal spin on it. The forms are the same but the expressions of those forms are as unique as the people that practice them.

19thlohan

17-Jun-2006, 05:29 PM

Quickie q: 19thLohan - how many forms does Choi have?

Also, I need to clarify one thing. When I made my four to five forms proclamation, I should have said no more than four or five "empty hand forms." There typically then should be one form for each weapon
- Matt

Depends on the lineage. I know 12 empty hand sets from Choy Li Fut. As for weapons it's common for the basic 4 to have more than one set in each system.

kungfoolery

17-Jun-2006, 06:47 PM

Apart from using the form to work each technique into your 'muscle memory', i found a direct and undeniable connection between your general reflexes and time spent on forms.... but only when you seriously concentrate on every movement you make. when i do my forms a lot (with all my concentration and control), my reflexes inevtiably become noticeably MUCH sharper, ie. i grab falling objects with far more precision and ease that I KNOW i wouldnt have before.... its almost like time slows everytime something catches me by surprise.

but note that forms wont increase your reflexes like this if your just going through them without fully concentrating on your movement and 'feeling' where your body and limbs are in space.

Timmy Boy

17-Jun-2006, 09:54 PM

Let me start here. It's pretty well documented that when Karate was mainstreamed as a physical education activity in Japanese schools there was a shift from kumite to kata. The short (vulger) version is that the number of forms increased and there was an effort to rid them of outside cultural influence -- make them more Japanese. The end result was that more Kata were introduced as that was an easier (and safer) method for teaching children.

In my mind, this began the shift from Kata as a teaching tool to Kata as an end to itself.

Ah, makes sense. But if the focus is now not on fighting, why is karate advertised as a self-defence art?

Agreed. I think part of this gets back to the problem of the idea of Black Belts. Its commonly accepted Black Belt as teaching compitency and system mastery.

I think the Chinese Martial Arts tend to handle this better than many Japanese and Koream systems (I also think Okianwan systems tend to do it better as well). But the fact is that I think that, to your point, Martial Arts sometimes don't do a good enough job of training teachers or really trying to get people to understand the role of the forms. The Hung Ga (Yee family) folks that I know get it. Some underground Chinese schools I've been to get it as well.

I my mind, here's the general way to evaluate if a school/teacher gets a form - the Class spends some time learning/practicing the whole form. Then they spend a bit of time with a section broken out. Then the components of that section are disected and practiced separately. And that practice involves progressive live resistance testing across a few different scenarios. And then the form is put back together and practiced a bit more. That - in my mind - is how real form training is done.

Yeah. I've found that you're not really told why you do forms or whatever, you just do them because you're told to.

Again, I'll go back to the notion of forms as the "ABC" song. The alphabet song is a standard for teaching the alphabet here in the states. Every child learns it. It breaks down all of the component letters needed to speak and read english. Children repeat it over and over. And then break each letter of the alphabet out, learn to write it. Learn words that start with it. Learn to string letters together to form worlds. But if you look at the alphabet as simply:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

That's friggin' unwieldy -- all the letters run together. And if you had to sing the song every time you wanted to spell anything you'd never get anywhere. So a student of the alphabet (just like any form) needs to be able to view it both as an abstract whole and as functional subcomponents that can be reorganized as the situation calls for. If C always had to follow B in every word because it follows B in the "form" then the system falls apart.

BTW - here's one more critical thing, I also embrace the fact that one can learn to read and write English without ever learning the Alphabet song. There are other paths and methodologies.

And if you're simply taught to sing the alphabet song and that is never related to speaking, then it's wasted effort. Much like people who learn forms without ever relating them to combat. At that point, they might as well be taking kickboxing.

The thing is, I've meet people who do fight with the forms. Sadly they're in the minority.

I think we may be talking about different things here. My point here (this particular one at least) is not an objection to having to learn all the techniques first. I'm talking about the actual techniques themselves. What I mean is, if the techniques in the kata are the "basics" then why are they not only less practical but actually harder to do than the "proper" techniques used in kumite? For example, the "basic" lunge punch is a far more complex movement than the type of punch used in sparring, uses a far lower stance and involves chambering the fist at the hip. What the hell is that all about?

To borrow your alphabet example, to me the "kata lays the foundation" argument is like trying to teach someone to write in English but making them start off with the Greek alphabet. Surely it makes more sense to learn the English alphabet instead? It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Timmy Boy

17-Jun-2006, 09:57 PM

Apart from using the form to work each technique into your 'muscle memory'...

I don't know how it goes in other arts, but you cannot watch a karate or TSD lesson and say that the techniques are being ingrained into the students' muscle memories. The students just do not use the techniques from the kata in kumite. Like Yoda said, there's no correlation so what's the point?

Jang Bong

17-Jun-2006, 11:03 PM

Ah! This old chestnut :D

Excellent post Matt, I have a few questions though if that's OK.

You posted this, and then seemed to disagree (from your point of view) with each element of Matt's post - which part did you find to be 'Excellent' ? :Angel:

I know you don't think that Katas/Hyungs are an effective teaching tool, but can you accept that a particular body movement may be used for a number of different things??? You still seem to want each movement to have a (singular) use, and that use should be known. As long as you stick to this requirement then you can always fall back on the "nobody knows what the technique is for" argument.

It was interesting seeing you agreeing with TMA'ers a couple of pages ago - perhaps the differences of oppinion that you and I have had are down to my limited experience that has been totally open and accepting of those Iain Abbernathy concepts that you have expressed appreciation of. My instructor may not be as famous as Mr A, but he works in the same mold.

Step forward into a wide stance, high block while bringing the other hand back to the hip. (Basic form 2, and many other places ;)) For the following technique we split the block and the step-forward into 2 parts - but both parts are practiced in the form:-

I had just blocked a knife back-slash to the face and grabbed the wrist while getting side-by-side with my attacker (classmate). That actual block would be the previous 'high block' in the form, but it is softer and 'sticks' to the hand rather than bouncing it off. The left-hand high block went up under the attackers tricep as the other hand (grasping the knife-hand) came back to the hip. Then the step into a good front stance took place to put my leg in front of theirs, and the drive forward of my body (into his upper arm) took him over my leg and down to ground putting his captured hand (still at my hip) into a wristlock.

This was one of 3 attacks we learned today - started off compliant and then got steadily quicker (and messier). We ran out of time, but the follow on would be not knowing which of the 3 attacks was coming and having to deal with in on a non-compliant attacker.

YES you can learn that technique (and drill it) without knowing the form - but that is when the 'Kata as a blueprint' comes back into play. The form was not even mentioned in todays class, but next time I do a form with this movement in I have another picture in my head of what it could be used for.

kungfoolery

18-Jun-2006, 12:58 AM

I don't know how it goes in other arts, but you cannot watch a karate or TSD lesson and say that the techniques are being ingrained into the students' muscle memories. The students just do not use the techniques from the kata in kumite. Like Yoda said, there's no correlation so what's the point?

ive always felt that karate kata is simply misused, or not taught as it was originally intended... in wing chun, every part of the form is applicable to self-defence

Timmy Boy

18-Jun-2006, 01:01 AM

You posted this, and then seemed to disagree (from your point of view) with each element of Matt's post - which part did you find to be 'Excellent' ? :Angel:

Firstly, you don't have to agree with someone to think they made a good argument. Secondly, I know that Matt is very well read in the history of martial arts and is thus far more knowledgable than me about the intended purpose of certain drills. What is 'excellent' is the way he explains why kata practice became the shambles it often is today. I'm not disagreeing with him per se, there are just bits of what he said that I don't understand.

I know you don't think that Katas/Hyungs are an effective teaching tool, but can you accept that a particular body movement may be used for a number of different things??? You still seem to want each movement to have a (singular) use, and that use should be known. As long as you stick to this requirement then you can always fall back on the "nobody knows what the technique is for" argument.

It's not that I feel a movement should automatically only have one use. Although I don't really see how any given movement could have more than one use, what concerns me is the fact that people just don't know what those uses are. A move could have 10,000 intended uses for all I care, but I don't think that dubious interpretations of ambiguous techniques are a good starting point for learning how to fight. Some instructors just take what seems to be the most obvious application of a given technique - e.g. "this must be a punch" - and assume that's what it is regardless of how ineffective it is in that role. Others just think "well it might be this, this or this, we don't really know, there could be any number of uses" and just don't care that they don't understand, then they say the kata is a blueprint.

It was interesting seeing you agreeing with TMA'ers a couple of pages ago - perhaps the differences of oppinion that you and I have had are down to my limited experience that has been totally open and accepting of those Iain Abbernathy concepts that you have expressed appreciation of. My instructor may not be as famous as Mr A, but he works in the same mold.

TMA is a term of convenience in the extreme. There's no concrete definition, it's just a term we use to describe arts that fit a certain stereotype. Thus when it comes down to it as long as we're sensible there's not a great deal to disagree on at all.

Step forward into a wide stance, high block while bringing the other hand back to the hip. (Basic form 2, and many other places ;)) For the following technique we split the block and the step-forward into 2 parts - but both parts are practiced in the form:-

I had just blocked a knife back-slash to the face and grabbed the wrist while getting side-by-side with my attacker (classmate). That actual block would be the previous 'high block' in the form, but it is softer and 'sticks' to the hand rather than bouncing it off. The left-hand high block went up under the attackers tricep as the other hand (grasping the knife-hand) came back to the hip. Then the step into a good front stance took place to put my leg in front of theirs, and the drive forward of my body (into his upper arm) took him over my leg and down to ground putting his captured hand (still at my hip) into a wristlock.

The text I put into italics is what gets me about this quote. Why should there be any difference between the technique as performed in the kata and the technique actually used?

This was one of 3 attacks we learned today - started off compliant and then got steadily quicker (and messier). We ran out of time, but the follow on would be not knowing which of the 3 attacks was coming and having to deal with in on a non-compliant attacker.

YES you can learn that technique (and drill it) without knowing the form - but that is when the 'Kata as a blueprint' comes back into play. The form was not even mentioned in todays class, but next time I do a form with this movement in I have another picture in my head of what it could be used for.

How does this justify the idea of kata as a blueprint? You admit you can learn how to do it without learning the kata, so surely you could learn how to do the other potential applications without doing the kata as well. It just doesn't seem to bother you that you don't really know what the moves you're using are designed for whereas to me it makes the art far too unreliable if you plan on using it to defend yourself. You might find it interesting to speculate about what it's all designed for but it's not going to help you learn how to fight. True, that's not why everyone does martial arts, but to me this point is obvious from an effectiveness point of view. And if you're not bothered about effectiveness, then it shouldn't matter that some people who are dislike kata.

Timmy Boy

18-Jun-2006, 01:12 AM

ive always felt that karate kata is simply misused, or not taught as it was originally intended... in wing chun, every part of the form is applicable to self-defence

That's what I think. To my mind, it seems obvious that a training practice as monumentally important to karate as kata would not have just been taken on for no reason at all. The disadvantages of it as a training drill, and the dubiousness of the standard interpretations of the techniques, are so incredibly blatant to me that my question is not so much a rhetorical "what's the point?" as a genuinely inquisitive "OK, so what exactly WAS intended in the first place, and what happened along the way to create this mess?" For example, the standard "lunge punch" as usually taught in kata and kihon is obviously impractical - it's too slow and it leaves your face unguarded. It's so obviously crap as a punch that it makes me think "surely they couldn't have meant it for that".

Inazuma

18-Jun-2006, 02:35 AM

Seems like you guys have moved from Kata in general to Kata in Karate...
Have you asked your teacher about the background of the kata that you perform? what does he say?

By the way, ABCDE... is not a form in this analogy. 'A' would equal a punch, 'B' a kick, etc. The forms you build from them (kata) would be then equal to the words (which follow the grammatical rules of the linguistical system, or in the case of kata the biomechanical rules of the physical system i.e. human body). Then your Kumite is the actual speech.
But the entire analogy is silly given the fact that the two things are completely irrelevent to each other. :)

On the general kata in question, has anyone here studied a traditional system rather then a modern interpetation?

Sparkle

18-Jun-2006, 02:45 AM

Hi all

I've seen Karate tournaments, Kung Fu tournaments - and I've yet to see anyone pull off a kata sequence. Even the stance & footwork goes out of the window. I see Karate peple teaching rooted postures & flat footed stances in kata "for power" - then as soon as they fight it's up on the toes for mobility - why the duality?

I haven't posted in this thread at all, or even read most of the start so forgive me if I'm just coming in with something totally random but I felt this was in injustice to kata a bit.

I have always been told that you aren't going to use a kata sequence or anything like that in a fight, it's just something to practice your technique. It's no different really then to throw combinations in boxing, although in boxing you may use the combination because it's quicker. Kata are really a pretend fight, you're supposed to imagine doing the techniques to the person/people.

As for seeing people do a technique in kata, I've seen plenty, and you have too. For example, punch and kick. I don't know what kata you guys are doing, but there are punches and kicks and ours, and if you haven't seen people do those in a fight then something awckward is going on. Technique tends to get a bit strained or bad looking in a fight though. I assume there are boxers who throw jab, cross, hooks that didn't look as good in the fight as it did in their bag routine.

I also use a lot of the stuff taught in katas in my sparring, and I tend to do very well. You just have to learn how to use those "strong stances" in a way to your benifit. I'm not saying I use them all the time though. I also don't think kata should be the only way you learn fighting, not at all. The best way to learn to do anything is to do it. I think kata is as relevant to fighting as going through the motion with no weights is to learning how to do olympic lifts in weightlifting. It isn't going to be the best way to get stronger and learn to do it, but it will help out with form, which in turn helps you be stronger.

Again, sorry if I've said something completely random in irrelevant or already said in the thread : P.

kungfoolery

18-Jun-2006, 03:07 AM

that wasnt random that was applicable to the convo... you know the more i learn about martial arts the more i realize that it is never the techniques or systems that are fallable, it is inevitably the particular instructors or practitioners who are in the wrong.

there are some karate teachers who know the meaning of the kata and what it should be used for, there are much more who do not. there are some practitioners who understand how the kata applies and practise it in respect to these ideas... there are many who can not.

ultimately, the kata is not meant to be a combination of moves to be used in a fight, it is a set of techniques to be performed in order to train the subconcious and (more importantly) allow the practitioner to slightly tailor each technique to his/her particular strengths

TheWaterMargins

19-Jun-2006, 09:36 AM

That doesn't sound stupid. I'm actually not surprised. I guess what I'd be looking for, though, is a continuity of progression. I just don't think it works to teach a kata, have the person master it, and then tell them later "hey, there are key locks in there you know." Without anything in between. If those moves are there, they should be trained as such. Know what I mean? Otherwise, you're expecting people to make that leap of logic on their own. Often at "go time" (when they actually need to apply this stuff).

Stuart

I agree with you .... that is where many karate classes fall down (if they are practicing to fight of course .... there are other reasons to train karate I guess). In order to master the kata you must also master the meaning ...... it's like learning to read .... there's no point reading a book if you don't understand what the words mean ....

Ragnarok2005

19-Jun-2006, 10:05 AM

I don't care much for Kata or patterns.

I don't do Kung-Fu so I don't have valid opinion on whether the forms are worth anything.

You get told in any Kata art that you're doing these over and over so the moves come naturally to you. - I personally think it's ridiculous. If you want to learn how to do an uppercut you don't do a 10 punch cobo that has 2 uppercuts in it.

If I want to learn/practice a move then I'll do that specific move over and over again. With a training partner, alone and on any target [if applicable] until I learn it. Not do a pattern that uses that move half way through.

Sparkle

19-Jun-2006, 10:10 AM

You get told in any Kata art that you're doing these over and over so the moves come naturally to you. - I personally think it's ridiculous. If you want to learn how to do an uppercut you don't do a 10 punch cobo that has 2 uppercuts in it.

Lol, I've seen a lot of katas like that : P. Mostly in TKD. I would hate doing those types of forms. The ones we do are alright to do, it's like a dance really. I don't epecially like doing them but I can see how they can be used to learn/teach. If I had it my way, we would all learn how to fight by doing just that every night, fighting.

Timmy Boy

19-Jun-2006, 10:28 AM

Jang Bong

19-Jun-2006, 10:42 AM

Firstly, you don't have to agree with someone to think they made a good argument.

No argument there ;) It's a sign of an educated mind to be able to entertain a though without agreeing with it [From a 'thought for the day' calendar :D ]

Although I don't really see how any given movement could have more than one use,

:confused: In life as well as in MA learning I continually see movements that (ignoring all surroundings / opponents / etc) are identical for different purposes. Perhaps it is my life as a systems analyst that means I have a habit of seeing through the surface to the core mechanics of something.

Some instructors just take what seems to be the most obvious application of a given technique - e.g. "this must be a punch" - and assume that's what it is regardless of how ineffective it is in that role. Others just think "well it might be this, this or this, we don't really know, there could be any number of uses" and just don't care that they don't understand,

You missed the 3rd group of instructors who say " it can be this, this or this, whichever is appropriate to your situation" and then prove the point by demonstration and drilling.

The text I put into italics is what gets me about this quote. Why should there be any difference between the technique as performed in the kata and the technique actually used?

Because then you would need a kata for every situation. Like the letters of the alphabet or the notes on a piano, the bits that are learned and practiced can be re-arranged to suit what you want to do with them. We DO practice our forms fast & hard ('karate' style), soft & slow (almost 'tai chi' style), and various combinations in between - this may also be part of seeing different uses for the same movement.

How does this justify the idea of kata as a blueprint?

I didn't say that my wording in inself JUSTIFIED the idea. I can see from my understanding of the forms I have learned and my knowledge of teaching (non-MA) how all the moves are wrapped up in sequences of movements that build (in some specific cases) on on top of another.

I still think that if you only drilled the things your teacher remembered, then those that go on to teach can only pass on the things they drilled. Memory is an unreliable storage device.

It just doesn't seem to bother you that you don't really know what the moves you're using are designed for

Without meeting the person(s) who designed them, we'll never know this answer - so in that sense I'm not bothered. What we do learn is what they CAN do - that is what I would hope to have on my side in a self-defence situation.

Last week at work I was asked to do the 'manly' thing and get the top off a plastic bottle of pop - failed miseribly :( Used the junior hacksaw to try and break the seal around the top - still couldn't turn the damn thing (the woman who had tried before had hand cream on :bang: ) So I used the Phillips screwdriver to poke 3 holes in the plastic top - not what the tool was designed for, but effective anyway :D

Timmy Boy

19-Jun-2006, 10:52 AM

You missed the 3rd group of instructors who say " it can be this, this or this, whichever is appropriate to your situation" and then prove the point by demonstration and drilling.

But do they actually KNOW that their applications are correct or are they just speculating?

Because then you would need a kata for every situation. Like the letters of the alphabet or the notes on a piano, the bits that are learned and practiced can be re-arranged to suit what you want to do with them. We DO practice our forms fast & hard ('karate' style), soft & slow (almost 'tai chi' style), and various combinations in between - this may also be part of seeing different uses for the same movement.

No, you wouldn't. Plenty of arts manage without katas at all. In kumite, people don't use the techniques in the kata for a different purpose, they use completely different techniques that aren't actually in the kata. I have never seen anyone in kumite use a low stance, chamber their punches at the hip or use hard blocks. It doesn't matter how quickly or slowly you practice the kata, if the techniques don't work for the purpose you were told they could be used for then something is wrong. There's rearranging the notes and sequences you learned on the piano, and then there's just dropping it and playing a guitar instead.

I didn't say that my wording in inself JUSTIFIED the idea. I can see from my understanding of the forms I have learned and my knowledge of teaching (non-MA) how all the moves are wrapped up in sequences of movements that build (in some specific cases) on on top of another.

I still think that if you only drilled the things your teacher remembered, then those that go on to teach can only pass on the things they drilled. Memory is an unreliable storage device.

Then explain why plenty of people manage to learn how to fight without doing a single kata yet they don't forget techniques all the time.

Without meeting the person(s) who designed them, we'll never know this answer - so in that sense I'm not bothered. What we do learn is what they CAN do - that is what I would hope to have on my side in a self-defence situation.

What I meant was that you just seem perfectly happy to speculate about applications and leave it all to the realms of hypothesis. That cannot be a reliable method of training practical self defence habits.

Last week at work I was asked to do the 'manly' thing and get the top off a plastic bottle of pop - failed miseribly :( Used the junior hacksaw to try and break the seal around the top - still couldn't turn the damn thing (the woman who had tried before had hand cream on :bang: ) So I used the Phillips screwdriver to poke 3 holes in the plastic top - not what the tool was designed for, but effective anyway :D

But you admit it wasn't the best tool for the job?

Alexander

19-Jun-2006, 11:31 AM

But do they actually KNOW that their applications are correct or are they just speculating?
Generally Kata can be thought of as 'short hand' (going back to the language metaphor). The Kata are simply collections of techniques most useful in a scrap. In my opinion, as MattBernius said, Kata are useless as an end in themselves. This is where one step sparring cames in - it is used to make these techniques completely instinctive.

That's where my position differs from many classical martial arts guys in that they assume Kata repetition will imbue concepts into your muscle memory that you can then use in a fight instinctively. I think that this is unlikely - the moves have to be drilled against opponents, preferably 'live' ones to use Matt Thornton's terminology, in order to get the feel of how a technique would actually work.

The typical response from modern martial artists at this point is 'why don't you just do free sparring?' I'll answer that in a sec.

No, you wouldn't. Plenty of arts manage without katas at all. In kumite, people don't use the techniques in the kata for a different purpose, they use completely different techniques that aren't actually in the kata. I have never seen anyone in kumite use a low stance, chamber their punches at the hip or use hard blocks. It doesn't matter how quickly or slowly you practice the kata, if the techniques don't work for the purpose you were told they could be used for then something is wrong.
One fallacy made when dealing with kata is the assumption that kumite mirrors reality. Perhaps if two kyokushin karateka were in a pub, got rowdy and then had a fight, THEN the fight might look like Kyokushinkai kumite. But if one kyokushin karateka was in a pub and got into a fight with just a random thug the fighting probably would look quite different.

Kata assume that the person you are fighting against is untrained and instinctive. Therefore the applications of kata are best used against haymakers and crude headlocks rather than jabs, crosses and turning kicks. This is why one step is necessary for effective practice of Kata. In free sparring two martial artists will only use attacks they can get to work against each other. An untrained thug will just use relentless brute force and thus free sparring with a partner will not effectively simultate that kind of attack.

Ideally, of course, free sparring should be integrated with one step. The opponent throws a haymaker and the defender tries to apply move from the kata. If this fails then it goes into free sparring.

This is also the reason why the defender would start in the typical parallel ready stance/passive outlet stance. This roughly should simulate the posture your adopting when someone decides to apply a rough headlock to you or smash you in th face.

Timmy Boy

19-Jun-2006, 11:37 AM

Generally Kata can be thought of as 'short hand' (going back to the language metaphor). The Kata are simply collections of techniques most useful in a scrap. In my opinion, as MattBernius said, Kata are useless as an end in themselves. This is where one step sparring cames in - it is used to make these techniques completely instinctive.

That's where my position differs from many classical martial arts guys in that they assume Kata repetition will imbue concepts into your muscle memory that you can then use in a fight instinctively. I think that this is unlikely - the moves have to be drilled against opponents, preferably 'live' ones to use Matt Thornton's terminology, in order to get the feel of how a technique would actually work.

The typical response from modern martial artists at this point is 'why don't you just do free sparring?' I'll answer that in a sec.

One fallacy made when dealing with kata is the assumption that kumite mirrors reality. Perhaps if two kyokushin karateka were in a pub, got rowdy and then had a fight, THEN the fight might look like Kyokushinkai kumite. But if one kyokushin karateka was in a pub and got into a fight with just a random thug the fighting probably would look quite different.

Kata assume that the person you are fighting against is untrained and instinctive. Therefore the applications of kata are best used against haymakers and crude headlocks rather than jabs, crosses and turning kicks. This is why one step is necessary for effective practice of Kata. In free sparring two martial artists will only use attacks they can get to work against each other. An untrained thug will just use relentless brute force and thus free sparring with a partner will not effectively simultate that kind of attack.

Ideally, of course, free sparring should be integrated with one step. The opponent throws a haymaker and the defender tries to apply move from the kata. If this fails then it goes into free sparring.

This is also the reason why the defender would start in the typical parallel ready stance/passive outlet stance. This roughly should simulate the posture your adopting when someone decides to apply a rough headlock to you or smash you in th face.

You should never EVER assume that your opponent won't be able to fight just because he's not had formal training. Strength, aggression and experience can also be powerful advantages. This is why martial arts training is no guarantee even against untrained attackers. It would have to be one HELL of a slow haymaker, even for an untrained person, in order to be caught by one of karate's slow hard blocks. To me this is largely the problem with karate - it makes too many assumptions about what it thinks or hopes a real fight would be like. The reality is that people in real life will often know how to fight and using low stances, hard blocks and chambered punches against these people is suicide.

If the sparring is hard contact it will be a more realistic indicator of what works then prearranged hypothetical drills like kata will ever be.

TheWaterMargins

19-Jun-2006, 12:37 PM

That's what I think. To my mind, it seems obvious that a training practice as monumentally important to karate as kata would not have just been taken on for no reason at all. The disadvantages of it as a training drill, and the dubiousness of the standard interpretations of the techniques, are so incredibly blatant to me that my question is not so much a rhetorical "what's the point?" as a genuinely inquisitive "OK, so what exactly WAS intended in the first place, and what happened along the way to create this mess?" For example, the standard "lunge punch" as usually taught in kata and kihon is obviously impractical - it's too slow and it leaves your face unguarded. It's so obviously crap as a punch that it makes me think "surely they couldn't have meant it for that".

I think the bold bit sums up the problem that karate has ..... part of the process of popularisation of karate was the loss of the meaning of kata. Most karate systems before this process (very sweeping statement) were; like many kung fu systems; based on the bunkai of a handful of kata, and each move will have had very specific meanings. Unfortunately (IMHO) the Japanisation of karate meant the kata became a calesthenic exercise more than a budo exercise and the meaning 'disappeared'.

That is why certain people are now trying to rediscover (or invent new) meanings for kata ..... and to be honest, the likes of Iain Abernathy, Bill Burgar, Mark Carroll etc are more traditional than any other karate people I know. They are absolutely trying to recreate the genesis of true karate.

ps I like that last sentence ..... It is now my signature!!! :)

TheWaterMargins

19-Jun-2006, 12:45 PM

Whys my signature not come up?

Ahhh ... there it is ....

GeeMac

19-Jun-2006, 02:29 PM

I think kata are useful if you understand the techniques within a kata. They are a kind of shorthand for keeping track of techniques. If one has no idea of the meaning of the movements I guess they can still be a useful form of exercise but lose much of their martial arts orientation.

Jang Bong

19-Jun-2006, 04:48 PM

But do they actually KNOW that their applications are correct or are they just speculating?

Did you read the end of my sentence where it says "they prove by demonstrating and drilling."? This is tied to the later comment aboout meeting and talking with the kata developers - nobody """KNOWS""" but learned minds who care to have investigated and put forward ideas.

Then explain why plenty of people manage to learn how to fight without doing a single kata yet they don't forget techniques all the time.

The same way that some people can learn 3 guitar chords and go out and make money (Oh! - hang on - we've done this one before :D) Learning how to fight and dedicating yourself to learning an art are two different things - even if the art involves fighting.

What I meant was that you just seem perfectly happy to speculate about applications and leave it all to the realms of hypothesis. That cannot be a reliable method of training practical self defence habits.

We don't speculate about applications - we work on real responses to potentially likely situations we may (heaven forbid) find ourselves in. The only 'speculation' you can be talking about is if this is the original meaning of the move in the mind of the inventor of the kata - I've already said we'll never know, but that is not a reason to do away with kata.

But you admit it wasn't the best tool for the job?
It got the job done - it got a result. In a true self defence situation I don't think anyone would ask for more than that.

Note: The term 'best tool for the job' did not refer to kata as a tool for teaching, it referred to a movement demonstrated in one way being adapted as a solution to a different problem.

Timmy Boy

19-Jun-2006, 04:57 PM

The same way that some people can learn 3 guitar chords and go out and make money (Oh! - hang on - we've done this one before :D) Learning how to fight and dedicating yourself to learning an art are two different things - even if the art involves fighting.

I didn't just ask you why people still manage to fight without learning katas. I asked you why people don't forget techniques left right and centre. It hasn't happened in judo, wrestling, muay thai...

I also disagree that learning an art and learning how to fight are different things. Martial arts are designed to teach you how to fight. The best method of learning is therefore the most efficient.

As for the rest of your post, OK then. I agree that if you go through the katas, find interpretations and you know through application that they work, fine. But many (dare I say most?) instructors really don't have the foggiest idea what they're doing - they just robotically teach the same shoehorned, impractical syllabus they learned before. So they have students using stances and techniques that they just don't use in kumite. This is the main problems I have with katas - I just don't see a crossover.

Ragnarok2005

19-Jun-2006, 05:11 PM

This is the main problems I have with katas - I just don't see a crossover.

Then you aren't studying it enough or don't know your Kata well or aren't open-minded enough.

Timmy Boy

19-Jun-2006, 05:24 PM

Then you aren't studying it enough or don't know your Kata well or aren't open-minded enough.

I'm not just talking about me, I'm talking about every single lesson I see where people do katas. They train one way and fight another. It makes no sense. It's all very well trying to point the finger at the practitioners but if they're all having the same problems that says more about the teaching, doesn't it?

ap Oweyn

19-Jun-2006, 05:33 PM

Then you aren't studying it enough or don't know your Kata well or aren't open-minded enough.
I'd say that kata are habitually not being taught well enough if that's their intent. In my experience, kata is taught as a distinct exercise with its own merits and weaknesses. Not as part of a progression toward something. So if it's part of a progression, I would want to see a detailed plan of that progression and a demonstration that it works. If it has its own merits, I would want to talk about what those are specifically.

Note I'm not saying forms are useless. I do, however, believe that if they're to be a useful tool, then the people using them need to know what that tool can do and how to use it. And I don't believe most do. And that's an issue with the teaching methodology.

Stuart

LiveWire

19-Jun-2006, 06:30 PM

I'm starting this thread to ingnite some discussion here.

Do you think forms/kata are a valuable tool for training? Explain your answer a little, so we can see your logic and have some debate.:)

My personal view is kata are more of a hinderance than a help. I used to train Meibu-kan Goju-ryu karate for 9 years and achieved my 2nd Dan and I honestly feel that much of that time spent sweating and exerting myself was a waste of time.:mad:

I have never used a move from a kata in a fight, nor have I seen anyone use any move from a kata in an altercation. They teach you outdated practices that could get you hurt and the movements are unrealistic.

The live training I receive in BJJ and kickboxing, I have used many times though and it has come through for me.

There are a few minor benefits of forms; learning your body, balance, etc; but these can be learned just as easily and much more quickly shadow sparring, hitting focus pads, heavy bags, live sparring etc.

Now, I know not everyone takes up martial arts to fight; quite the contrary, they more than likely hope to avoid confrontation. But here is the heart of many people's disillusionment with martial arts; they (martial arts) are portrayed as tools one can use to defend oneself. The inference here is that you will learn to be able to FIGHT off an attacker. Where forms are concerned, this I believe is a fallacy.:(

Ok, let's here some opinion's!:D

A Kata is something that is Street Effective and resembles a story told by who teaches it to you. Such as in my system Kata 1 resembles a young man in the Shao Lin Temple training and being made fun of. And In the middle of the Kata there is a Salutation that symbolizes he is done messing around, And from them on there is no kidding around, All from that point are kills. Such as a Spear hand to the Throat.

Pinyons are a different type of forum teaching Fluidity and Focus. They more less represent a workout.

This is my Interpretation of Katas/Pinyons I dont know if its right or not But Its what I believe they represent.

kungfoolery

19-Jun-2006, 07:31 PM

QUE?! please explain how kata is street effective?
Trying to use kata on the street is like trying to tango with a girl at a club... the odds of you both executing the same movements is hopeless

slipthejab

19-Jun-2006, 07:34 PM

Obviously you're not going to right clubs with girls who know how to tango.

Jang Bong

19-Jun-2006, 10:02 PM

Trying to use kata on the street is like trying to tango with a girl at a club...

:confused: :confused: :confused:

I've enjoyed some wonderful tangos with a wide variety of girls - up close & personal in 10-seconds flat :) (ah!!!! memories :D)

bcullen

19-Jun-2006, 10:09 PM

:confused: :confused: :confused:

I've enjoyed some wonderful tangos with a wide variety of girls - up close & personal in 10-seconds flat :) (ah!!!! memories :D)

But if your tango isn't alive how will you be able to do the Tube Snake Boogie? ;)

Jang Bong

19-Jun-2006, 10:27 PM

My Tango was always alive - and then there was the Rhumba ;)

Guizzy

20-Jun-2006, 03:28 AM

Dancing discussions aside...

I've always considered forms to be a workout. If doing a form is not painful, then I go lower, faster and stronger.

In our Kung Fu style, many forms are reversible; the second half of the form is a defense against the first half's attacks. In that way, they are practiced with partners, making them even more of a workout. When I practice a paired form with someone with much less experience than me, it is very, very obvious that doing forms does help with the development of his fighting; his bridge is weak and easily collapsed (and my hits can go through easily), his footwork is lacking (I can push him around the class), his strikes are slow, weak and easy to parry, his timing is poor. These are all attributes that are trained by doing forms. In sparring, our best fighters are often the best in paired forms.

LiveWire

20-Jun-2006, 04:33 AM

QUE?! please explain how kata is street effective?
Trying to use kata on the street is like trying to tango with a girl at a club... the odds of you both executing the same movements is hopeless

Kata-Alot of kill strikes, and quik movements.

Pinyon-Fluidity

I dont know what kind of MA you take but thats how mine is.

LiaoRouxin

20-Jun-2006, 07:15 AM

Judo Kata are cool, but not very useful. I think they're better than almost every solo kata. I do some solo forms to calm down sometimes or just when I'm bored.

The difference between doing the kata version of something in Judo and say drilling it over and over again, is that the drill can be adapted to have resistance. The kata really can't be. Which makes the drill more valuable as an alive training method, because it can be scaled as needed. I can have two people doing a drill from O-soto gari to armbar in a drill, and then tell them to resist at 5%, then I can have them go 50%. Then I can have them practice the position (i.e. starting with good grips and set up for the throw, they continue to ippon, armbar, or successful defense)

It's the same with hitting pads. It starts as a static drill to build form, then it escalates into an active, resisting drill.

This is what seperates active drills from forms, in my view at least. It's hard to make a good comparison between the two, the best I can come up with is that they both go over essential techniques and supposedly show application

TheWaterMargins

20-Jun-2006, 12:36 PM

My Tango was always alive - and then there was the Rhumba ;)

Do you rhumba?

Then take a rhumba from one to ten .....

Groucho Marx. ... what a leg end!

Jang Bong

20-Jun-2006, 01:22 PM

In our Kung Fu style, many forms are reversible; the second half of the form is a defense against the first half's attacks.

I've never seen one like that, but I like the idea :)

A couple of our weapons 'drills' could be classed as 2-man 'forms'. When on my own I've run through the sequence of moves, but never thought to flow from being the 1st person into being the 2nd as a single 'form'. I'll give that a try next time - thanks for the idea :)

:D LOL :D at TheWaterMargins :D

Matt_Bernius

20-Jun-2006, 02:55 PM

I knbow the thread has progressed a bit since Timmy and my exchange, but I wanted to return back to it to unpack a few things...

(Regarding the mainstreaming of Karate into the Japanese School System and the increase in Kata - circa 1910 or so)
Ah, makes sense. But if the focus is now not on fighting, why is karate advertised as a self-defence art?This is a bit of an oversimpliciation as it relies on the fact that there is a "single" form of Karate and that it hasn't changes since 1910. There's way to much history in the last century to make this type of assumption or ask this question.

However, I do agree that there are many Martial Arts programs (both traditional and modern) that market themselves as "self defense arts" without really understanding or teaching good self defense. That's a different topic though.

--

(Regarding the role of forms as a teaching tool)

Yeah. I've found that you're not really told why you do forms or whatever, you just do them because you're told to.This is a subjective thing Tim. I've been taught forms in a variety of "traditional" and "modern" styles - in most of those cases, the instructors have been very up front in discussing the function of forms and utilizing them as a training tool in the way that I described in the previous post:

"the Class spends some time learning/practicing the whole form. Then they spend a bit of time with a section broken out. Then the components of that section are disected and practiced separately. And that practice involves progressive live resistance testing across a few different scenarios. And then the form is put back together and practiced a bit more. That - in my mind - is how real form training is done."

Clearly this you haven't had that experience.

I think we may be talking about different things here. My point here (this particular one at least) is not an objection to having to learn all the techniques first. I'm talking about the actual techniques themselves. What I mean is, if the techniques in the kata are the "basics" then why are they not only less practical but actually harder to do than the "proper" techniques used in kumite? For example, the "basic" lunge punch is a far more complex movement than the type of punch used in sparring, uses a far lower stance and involves chambering the fist at the hip. What the hell is that all about?

To borrow your alphabet example, to me the "kata lays the foundation" argument is like trying to teach someone to write in English but making them start off with the Greek alphabet. Surely it makes more sense to learn the English alphabet instead? It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.Ahh... got it. It seems to me that you issue isn't with Kata/Forms but rather with an art's approach to fighting. Let me attempt corsely translate:

Why the heck are they using esoteric punches and kicks?

Then we get to the follow up: Why are katas/forms teaching esoteric punches and kicks and then no body uses them?

Both valid question. Both have little to do with the notion of forms as a training tool. Both have everything to do with teaching methodology and personal practice.

In my mind, esoteric punches and kicks (if such things exist) should never be taught to beginners. And good beginning forms that I've seen reflect that. As to a disconnect between forms and performance -- I personally see that as a sign that a given school/teacher doesn't understand the purpose of forms or even how to teach their art. And if that's the case, then the forms might as well be ejected from the ciriculum as they no longer serve a purpose. Further, those folks would probably better be served taking good kickboxing lessons rather than back TMA lessons.

But I don't see the forms as the issue in those cases. Rather I see the instruction as the issue.

- Matt

Matt_Bernius

20-Jun-2006, 03:07 PM

Again, I'll state that I believe that forms should be:

A syllabus of the core (doctine, strategy, and techniques) of an art. Its the reproduction and transmission of physical data through physical/visual means. It's similiar to my understanding of the Catholic concept of a "living rule" -- namely that is all information about a religion is lost, you could understand the core of it by watching a individual who is a "living rule" pray (carry out the office of thier faith). In much the same way, you should be able to understand a heck of a lot about an art by watching their core form. And that's beyond punching and kicking.

BUT IT IS NOT AN END TO ITSELF!

AND IT IS NOT A SUBSTITUTION FOR ACTIVE TRAINING! IN FACT, IT SHOULD BE A GATEWAY FOR ACTIVE TRAINING!

But most importantly - if you are not learning to fight and move the way that your forms demonstrate, then throw away the friggin forms. Because, at that point, they have become a hinderance to learning how to fight. But understand that if that happens, it's not the fault of the forms but the actions of the teacher/coach who was supposed to be teaching you the system (You should also understand that you're also not learning the "traditional" martial art that you think you are).

- Matt

New Guy

25-Jun-2006, 04:30 PM

In my mind, patterns are just sample answers to different questions, to give you ideas on how techniques could be used... then it is up to you to do whatever you like in a real fight.

Like in Maths, you may be taught the technique of integration by parts, then you are given some questions to practise on... but then in real life, you will not be told to use integration by parts, you have to work out what you have to do then DECIDE to use integration by parts... it would look nothing like you did in the practise questions since you are not just given equations to work with but just data which you have to put them into equations then work out what to do.

But the thing I don't understand is, if patterns are just another training tool, like sparring, shadow boxing... then why is it so special that it is like the big thing in gradings? Surely if you are skilled, people can tell from looking how you do your pattern, but that is un-affected by what pattern you do or how many patterns you know!

Kwan Jang

25-Jun-2006, 06:20 PM

Once again, Matt has been able to aticulate the essence of what I would have said. My expeience with forms is that FAR too many instructors do not understand them or even thier pupose so can not convey it to their students. Those instructors themselves use forms only as "filler". Keep in mind, if you ask an instructor the question: Why do we do this? And the instructor's awnser is: It's tradition. The instant translation is that they don't understand it themselves.

Katas/forms are of great value IMO as a part of training for realistic combat (though only as a part and not as a substitute for live training) for advanced practitioners. It can also be good for intermediates for laying down a foundation for later, even though most can't effectively use it at that point. Basically planting seeds for later harvest.

I see the root of the problem coming from how many Asian masters of the past tried to shroud so much of their teaching in secrets and how they restricted so much of the practical applications of what they taught to so many of their students. This has caused curent generations to either not understand/apply things correctly or to want to throw out a valuable training aid rather than look deeper into it. Both sides are missing out IMO.

elektro

25-Jun-2006, 07:34 PM

I'm not just talking about me, I'm talking about every single lesson I see where people do katas. They train one way and fight another. It makes no sense.

Do you,or does anybody you know - play guitar? Do they do scales and arpeggios and finger exercises? Do they actually play like this? No. Do the scales and arpeggios help? Yes. Same thing. Hoever if one only ever played scales, this is not a golden ticket to becoming a good guitarist. However it is an essential part of their training.

Kata works very well when combined with other methods of training and when utilized with a good vision and understanding of the meaning of the moves you're doing. On it's own, it's not going to do much apart from confuse you, and certainly won't win you any fights.

This is what I've learned about kata (being a Shotokan student I get kata up to my ears):

There is the traditional Kata way of interepreting a kata move. More often than not this is useless in a real life situation, as it depends on you opponent becoming a statue. However it is often a little more tricky than the slightly more realistic "free" way of performing the move as it needs to remain geometric. Because of this it is a good excercise in distance, balance, co-ordination.
For example - step back in a straight line and block, then counter. Probably going to get your head knocked off doing it like this. The counter will probably be to the stomach or face.

THen there is the "realistic" interpretation. The move above would now become more like step foward into the opponents space diagonally (foward and side step at the same time), block AND counter all at the same time, which is slighly more effective. The counter will now be altered to a vital point such as throat or groin or kidneys etc.

I could go on but I'd send you to sleep. The block counter example I give is a bad one but an easy one. As a matter of fact, very few moves in the katas have a "street" block/counter interpretation because this is unrealistic and too slow. Leave teh block/counters to the basics. Almost all of them involve doing two or more things at the same time when it comes to the street interpretation.
There are a literal plethora of moves in the katas. There are lots of two handed techniques, joint locks, takedowns, breaks, groin grabs and twists (!),eye gouges, throat strikes, etc.

Anyone who doesn't understnad the deep and intricate meaning of the kata moves they are doing to some extent is wasting their time as far as using them for fighting effectiveness, however if you do understand them and practise them not only in the kata but with a resisting partner, adapting them for street use, then they become very effective.
Watch out for schools that teach that for example the "street" appplication of the first two moves of Kihon for example mean to walk FOWARD(???!) into a kick in a straight line, and blcok it then counter punch. Broken arm , anyone?
We are taught that the application (or one of them) of these two simple moves is for example a groin strike and a throat punch at the same time, (there are some other interpretations as well) in other words most of what you think are block in katas actually become attacks in he "street" interpretation.

Those are my thoughts on it for now.

Timmy Boy

25-Jun-2006, 08:40 PM

Do you,or does anybody you know - play guitar? Do they do scales and arpeggios and finger exercises? Do they actually play like this? No. Do the scales and arpeggios help? Yes. Same thing. Hoever if one only ever played scales, this is not a golden ticket to becoming a good guitarist. However it is an essential part of their training.

As it happens, I do play the guitar. Learning scales is not the same thing as learning the kata because, when you go from practicing scales to playing an actual song, although the order in which you play the notes is different, you still play those notes in the same way. Using kata is IME more like trying to improve your guitar skills by practicing on a piano.

There is the traditional Kata way of interepreting a kata move. More often than not this is useless in a real life situation, as it depends on you opponent becoming a statue. However it is often a little more tricky than the slightly more realistic "free" way of performing the move as it needs to remain geometric. Because of this it is a good excercise in distance, balance, co-ordination.
For example - step back in a straight line and block, then counter. Probably going to get your head knocked off doing it like this. The counter will probably be to the stomach or face.

Here's a couple of better ways to improve your distance, balance and co-ordination - padwork, sparring and bagwork. Why are they better? 1) because you're practicing the actual techniques that you will use, 2) you're hitting an actual target so you can gauge power and see if you're distancing correctly and 3) because you're training against resistance so that the movements can become ingrained. Yes, I know you can do both kata and live drills, but IMO these drills are so superior in every possible way that kata is simply made redundant for the purposes you described.

THen there is the "realistic" interpretation. The move above would now become more like step foward into the opponents space diagonally (foward and side step at the same time), block AND counter all at the same time, which is slighly more effective. The counter will now be altered to a vital point such as throat or groin or kidneys etc.

I could go on but I'd send you to sleep. The block counter example I give is a bad one but an easy one. As a matter of fact, very few moves in the katas have a "street" block/counter interpretation because this is unrealistic and too slow. Leave teh block/counters to the basics. Almost all of them involve doing two or more things at the same time when it comes to the street interpretation.

This is what makes absolutely no sense to me though. I understand that you need to learn the basics first, but learning a load of techniques that you won't actually use isn't "learning the basics", it's learning a load of irrelevant stuff that's no use to you whatsoever. The pentatonic scale and power chords may not be the most complicated things you can play on a guitar but they are basic, core things that lay a foundation and you will actually use them.

There are a literal plethora of moves in the katas. There are lots of two handed techniques, joint locks, takedowns, breaks, groin grabs and twists (!),eye gouges, throat strikes, etc.

Anyone who doesn't understnad the deep and intricate meaning of the kata moves they are doing to some extent is wasting their time as far as using them for fighting effectiveness, however if you do understand them and practise them not only in the kata but with a resisting partner, adapting them for street use, then they become very effective.

Why should it take so much arsing around just to understand what the techniques are? Why can't you just get stuck into learning the street effective stuff in the first place like everyone else does? I agree you shouldn't rush things, but there's taking time to do things properly and then there's shooting yourself in the foot unnecessarily by wasting time.

@Matt Bernius: not that I don't believe you, but what arts have you trained in where they taught kata in the way you described? The bulk of my MA experience is with karate/TSD and at every club I trained you just spent ages learning the katas only to throw it all out of the window in sparring.

Jang Bong

25-Jun-2006, 09:18 PM

@Matt Bernius: not that I don't believe you, but what arts have you trained in where they taught kata in the way you described? The bulk of my MA experience is with karate/TSD and at every club I trained you just spent ages learning the katas only to throw it all out of the window in sparring.

Sorry if I've picked the wrong bit, but if the above question relates to:

"the Class spends some time learning/practicing the whole form. Then they spend a bit of time with a section broken out. Then the components of that section are disected and practiced separately. And that practice involves progressive live resistance testing across a few different scenarios. And then the form is put back together and practiced a bit more. That - in my mind - is how real form training is done."

Clearly this you haven't had that experience.

Then I think that we follow a very similar use of forms in our classes:

This was one of 3 attacks we learned today - started off compliant and then got steadily quicker (and messier). We ran out of time, but the follow on would be not knowing which of the 3 attacks was coming and having to deal with in on a non-compliant attacker.

The art? Tang Soo Do! {As if I needed to say it ;) }

Tsumetai

25-Jun-2006, 09:37 PM

Timmy Boy

25-Jun-2006, 09:46 PM

The art? Tang Soo Do! {As if I needed to say it ;) }

Jang Bong, I'm sure even you will agree that such open-minded schools are in the minority.

Tsumetai

25-Jun-2006, 09:50 PM

Jang Bong, I'm sure even you will agree that such open-minded schools are in the minority.

I'll agree with that. :-O!

Timmy Boy

25-Jun-2006, 09:53 PM

This quote from the JKD page on Wikipedia sums up my opinion of kata nicely: "Circumstances in a fight change from millisecond to millisecond and thus pre-arranged patterns and techniques are not adequate in dealing with such a changing situation."

In the words of the Sijo, "If you want to learn to fight, fight."

I don't think this is so much of a problem if you only use kata as a stepping stone in the way Matt Bernius described and don't obsess over it. If you start spending loads of time perfecting its recital and you don't actually use the techniques in it, you're wasting time.

elektro

25-Jun-2006, 10:24 PM

As it happens, I do play the guitar.
LOL. I just knew it. I can still smell a fellow guitarist a mile off. If there's a "guitar" thread on here we'll have a chat. And I still think Slayer, although they're old men now, live, wipe the floor with all the other metal bands at the moment - my God they're tighter than Scrooges bank account on Christmas day, but I diversify........

although the order in which you play the notes is different, you still play those notes in the same way.
I would beg to differ, When I practise scales they are minus vibrato, pitch bend, thumb harmonics, etc. - the way you would play those notes in a real piece of music is COMPLETELY different albeit very subtley.
But yes I get your point.

Using kata is IME more like trying to improve your guitar skills by practicing on a piano.
1 : Not USING Kata but PRACTISING kata - if you used kata successfully someone would be very hurt. I'm sure that was just a typo on your part.
I wouldn't draw that analogy. I would say that studying Kata is more like reading a piece of music and having the theory behind that music explained to you before you pick up the guitar.
The Kata is like a script of information. Like I say it's useless for self defense unless you also incorporate live interpretation on a resisting target - but this also counts as Kata practise to my mind.

Here's a couple of better ways to improve your distance, balance and co-ordination - padwork, sparring and bagwork. Why are they better? 1) because you're practicing the actual techniques that you will use, 2) you're hitting an actual target so you can gauge power and see if you're distancing correctly and 3) because you're training against resistance so that the movements can become ingrained. Yes, I know you can do both kata and live drills, but IMO these drills are so superior in every possible way that kata is simply made redundant for the purposes you described.

How does punching a bag help you when someone grabs you from behind? Or is kicking you when you're corned and the only option is to take that kick on with your hands? Karate Katas assume that your opponent is playing dirty - attacks from behind, to the side, grabs, locks, etc. - bag work may be good for competition sparring, adn also freestyle sparring is good for sparring (obviously) but like I say - on the street you're unlikely to be allowed to put your guard up and square up to your opponent "sparring" style.

but learning a load of techniques that you won't actually use isn't "learning the basics", it's learning a load of irrelevant stuff that's no use to you whatsoever.
Admittedly there is such a plethora of techniques that there are some you might never use , but the majority of kata techniques interpreted in the correct way are very usable - very few of them are revolved around competition sparring. For that you need to do er.... competition sparring.
Kata is more concerned with the guy that tries to headbutt you, grab your lapel and punch, take a swing with a bat, take you down with a tackle, etc. - which in my HUMBLE opinion (and it's only an opinion) are the fundamental types of attack you need to worry about from yer basic street thug. Now admittedly there are types of street thug who are trained in sparring etc. - which one is it you think you're more likely to encounter? You tell me - you have said that you've been atttacked a few times (is that right?)- what happened?

The pentatonic scale and power chords may not be the most complicated things you can play on a guitar but they are basic, core things that lay a foundation and you will actually use them.
I have had to use Kata applications in real life briefly to escape from someone holding me - and it worked. The situation was nothign heavy, but still enough for me to want free of it.
Kata contains simultaneous block/attack moves, round punches, uppercuts, crosses, double punches, rising punches - now if you take these out of the kata and do them on a bag in the "street" way of doing the kata or on an opponent (the line of the kata gets ignored at this point and varied to suit the situation - hence the word "interpretation") how is this of no use in sparring?
Your training techniques you're talking about if they utilise these moves are actually a way of practising kata if I might venture, it's just required that you practise it the form way as well. And the form way keeps your techniques crisp and sharp when you utilise them in the street way. It's to do with muscle development.

Why should it take so much arsing around just to understand what the techniques are? Why can't you just get stuck into learning the street effective stuff in the first place like everyone else does?
You can "learn" the techniques in about five minutes. What you are doign in kata is TRAINING. That is stopping your muscles from developing bad habits, such as your punches being telegraphed and stuff like that. If you only ever did "realistic" stuff your technique would suffer, sure you'd become harder but at the expense of technique. The key is to combine durability and speed with technique if you want to become a good fighter.

Oh to clear something else up - of COURSE you don't follow the sequence of moves in the kata in a real life situation that was obvious to any fool from day one. They are just in that sequence at the end of the day to help you catalogue them. They should be taken out and used indivdually for street effectiveness.

elektro

25-Jun-2006, 10:34 PM

That last paragraph wasn't for you Timmy I know you knew that already it was for the guy who said something about it earlier in the thread.

Timmy Boy

25-Jun-2006, 10:47 PM

LOL. I just knew it. I can still smell a fellow guitarist a mile off. If there's a "guitar" thread on here we'll have a chat. And I still think Slayer, although they're old men now, live, wipe the floor with all the other metal bands at the moment - my God they're tighter than Scrooges bank account on Christmas day, but I diversify........

Yeah, Slayer do rule the universe. Best live band I've seen.

1 : Not USING Kata but PRACTISING kata - if you used kata successfully someone would be very hurt. I'm sure that was just a typo on your part.
I wouldn't draw that analogy. I would say that studying Kata is more like reading a piece of music and having the theory behind that music explained to you before you pick up the guitar.
The Kata is like a script of information. Like I say it's useless for self defense unless you also incorporate live interpretation on a resisting target - but this also counts as Kata practise to my mind.

By "using kata" I mean using it as a training tool. What I mean is, kata should be a script of information. It should be the theory that people need to understand before they start sparring. This much I understand. What I'm saying is that people aren't using that theory when they spar, they're using something else. Somewhere along the line, something is going wrong.

How does punching a bag help you when someone grabs you from behind? Or is kicking you when you're corned and the only option is to take that kick on with your hands? Karate Katas assume that your opponent is playing dirty - attacks from behind, to the side, grabs, locks, etc. - bag work may be good for competition sparring, adn also freestyle sparring is good for sparring (obviously) but like I say - on the street you're unlikely to be allowed to put your guard up and square up to your opponent "sparring" style.

Having a rigid and inflexible stance, using unworkably slow blocks and not protecting your face is just as bad on the street as it is in the ring. True, they may not let you get your guard up, but once you're in that situation and you're fighting there's no excuse not to get into a proper fighting stance and use proper techniques unless you get so completely clobbered in the first place that nothing would save you anyway.

Admittedly there is such a plethora of techniques that there are some you might never use , but the majority of kata techniques interpreted in the correct way are very usable - very few of them are revolved around competition sparring. For that you need to do er.... competition sparring.
Kata is more concerned with the guy that tries to headbutt you, grab your lapel and punch, take a swing with a bat, take you down with a tackle, etc. - which in my HUMBLE opinion (and it's only an opinion) are the fundamental types of attack you need to worry about from yer basic street thug. Now admittedly there are types of street thug who are trained in sparring etc. - which one is it you think you're more likely to encounter? You tell me - you have said that you've been atttacked a few times (is that right?)- what happened?

If your competition sparring is really that unrealistic then that's more of a problem with your sparring than kata as a drill. As for the quality of opponents you get attacked by, while they may not be the prettiest of fighters they often still know what they're doing from mere experience. When I got attacked, all my theory from TSD went out of the window because the applications I'd been taught just didn't work - my guard went up and I used soft blocks. That's how I managed to fight them off - my instinctive brawling habits that I'd picked up rather thab my formal training. There were no low stances, no chambered punches from the hip and no gedan barais.

The problem with the "untrained people will attack you differently to a trained martial artist" idea is this: why do you think we train in the first place? The way to beat untrained people is to be better trained than them. That's the whole reason why you learn to do things like keeping your guard up, not telegraphing punches and staying light on your feet. For example, what do you think would happen if you tried to attack a trained boxer using wild haymakers, or if you tried to attack a trained wrestler using a rugby tackle?

I have had to use Kata applications in real life briefly to escape from someone holding me - and it worked. The situation was nothign heavy, but still enough for me to want free of it.
Kata contains simultaneous block/attack moves, round punches, uppercuts, crosses, double punches, rising punches - now if you take these out of the kata and do them on a bag in the "street" way of doing the kata or on an opponent (the line of the kata gets ignored at this point and varied to suit the situation - hence the word "interpretation") how is this of no use in sparring?

It's of use in sparring if what you're training is what you will use. Often, it isn't.

Your training techniques you're talking about if they utilise these moves are actually a way of practising kata if I might venture, it's just required that you practise it the form way as well. And the form way keeps your techniques crisp and sharp when you utilise them in the street way. It's to do with muscle development.

It doesn't develop your muscles and it doesn't make them instinctive if that's what you mean. You're not training against resistance so reciting the kata is simply a memory exercise.

You can "learn" the techniques in about five minutes. What you are doign in kata is TRAINING. That is stopping your muscles from developing bad habits, such as your punches being telegraphed and stuff like that. If you only ever did "realistic" stuff your technique would suffer, sure you'd become harder but at the expense of technique. The key is to combine durability and speed with technique if you want to become a good fighter.

I'm not saying you shouldn't train, I'm not stupid. What I'm saying is that kata isn't a good way to train.

ANCIENTMASTER

25-Jun-2006, 11:06 PM

What I'm saying is that kata isn't a good way to train.

What if someone attacks you with a rear choke, headlock, lapel grab, rear bear hug, or some other attack you wouldnt see in the ring? There are a myraid of different drills for different situations. Kata acts as a textbook and a method for a person to practice and organize all their drills. Pick up a book, I suggest Way Of The Kata, it will show you the extremely useful application of a kata and how it can be made into a "good" way to train. I especially think kata is useful for learning submission holds(this obviously must be a 2 man form). Kata helps a trainee remember, organize, and train a vast repotoire of moves. The moves of the kata can be broken down into drills, these drills are done with a partner. If the kata is not broken down and done with an actual human being, than it is about as useful as a dance.

elektro

25-Jun-2006, 11:33 PM

Yeah, Slayer do rule the universe. Best live band I've seen.
Motorhead give them a good run for their money though admittedly.

What I'm saying is that people aren't using that theory when they spar
How so? If you use a move from the kata in sparring such as a light block/attack combination AS a light block/attack combination which is what a lot of sparring consists of, how aren't you using that theory when you spar? :confused:

Having a rigid and inflexible stance
That's isometric leg development. Of course you're not meant to stand like that in a real life situation. It's like training with weights on your legs.Comes in useful for basic stand up grapping though, having a rigid stance......not to say you should be rigid all the time, but you know what I mean.

using unworkably slow blocks
It's the preparation for these blocks that are the blocks, the blocks themselves are more often than not attacks. Hence rising block - the prepartion is the block (fast and soft) and the block is a strike. Slow full block are only designed for slow rigid moves, and are rarely used compared to soft fast blocks, of which there are plenty in almost every kata, although on the surface they are hidden. My opinion is the Japanese/Okinawans are not stupid and would not think that a slow block would parry say a jab or a right cross. For that you need a quick soft parry.

True, they may not let you get your guard up, but once you're in that situation and you're fighting there's no excuse not to get into a proper fighting stance and use proper techniques
There's a very good excuse. For example you have your arms pinned, have been grabbed from the back and another guy is about to kick you in the nuts. What kind of "fighting stance" are you going to take in this situation?
Or a guy has you a headlock. What fighting stance are you going to take?
Of course if you are allowed to square up to the guy you will see karateka have just as good a guard as anyone (bar perhaps boxers). Our guard is very adaptable, ther's no set way of doing it.

When I got attacked, all my theory from TSD went out of the window because the applications I'd been taught just didn't work - my guard went up and I used soft blocks. That's how I managed to fight them off - my instinctive brawling habits that I'd picked up rather thab my formal training. There were no low stances, no chambered punches from the hip and no gedan barais.
Sounds like your instructor was up the spout, mate if he didn't tell you from day one that low stances, chambered punches etc. are training methods and not to be used in a real life situation? There are actually meanings to them as well, such as teh retractign hand acts as a pull, thereby denying the person the chance to ride the incoming punch, but they're very rarely used in real life, I would guess.

It doesn't develop your muscles and it doesn't make them instinctive if that's what you mean. You're not training against resistance so reciting the kata is simply a memory exercise.
Kata is just a collection of basics strung together. Basics are designed for muscle development and sharp technique, so yes it does develop your muscles. In the sense of telegraphing, economy of movement, ironing out of bad habits etc.
But you WOULD have to combine this with resistance training to get the whole story. This I agree about 100%

I'm not saying you shouldn't train, I'm not stupid. What I'm saying is that kata isn't a good way to train.
Train for what? And I never for a moment thought you were stupid, quite the opposite.

Timmy seriously it sounds like you might actually be suprised of the effectiveness of the Kata moves (forget about kata as a string of moves for a moment) if you were taught them properly. Very few people are actually taught them properly, which is part of the reason Karate has such a bad name now.
Nobody's saying stand there like a muppet just waving your arms about, but do 1/3 kata, 1/3 kata techniques on a bag, and 1/3 kata techniques on an opponent while understanding the meaning of the moves correctly then I'd be interested to know what you thought about it.

elektro

25-Jun-2006, 11:33 PM

Excellent post ANCIENTMASTER.

Timmy Boy

25-Jun-2006, 11:54 PM

What if someone attacks you with a rear choke, headlock, lapel grab, rear bear hug, or some other attack you wouldnt see in the ring? There are a myraid of different drills for different situations. Kata acts as a textbook and a method for a person to practice and organize all their drills. Pick up a book, I suggest Way Of The Kata, it will show you the extremely useful application of a kata and how it can be made into a "good" way to train. I especially think kata is useful for learning submission holds(this obviously must be a 2 man form). Kata helps a trainee remember, organize, and train a vast repotoire of moves. The moves of the kata can be broken down into drills, these drills are done with a partner. If the kata is not broken down and done with an actual human being, than it is about as useful as a dance.

Then why is it necessary to keep reciting the kata over and over with no resistance, and why are the "basic" techniques in the kata not used? They're not all dealing with unlikely ring attacks, a lot of them are - at least in their mainstream interpretation - just not workable.

Timmy Boy

26-Jun-2006, 12:08 AM

How so? If you use a move from the kata in sparring such as a light block/attack combination AS a light block/attack combination which is what a lot of sparring consists of, how aren't you using that theory when you spar? :confused:

When was the last time you saw someone use hard blocks, lunge punches and low stances, which are *apparently* basic techniques?

That's isometric leg development. Of course you're not meant to stand like that in a real life situation. It's like training with weights on your legs.Comes in useful for basic stand up grapping though, having a rigid stance......not to say you should be rigid all the time, but you know what I mean.

If you want to strengthen your legs, do squats or do bodyweight exercises in your spare time. Low stances are a really inefficient method.

It's the preparation for these blocks that are the blocks, the blocks themselves are more often than not attacks. Hence rising block - the prepartion is the block (fast and soft) and the block is a strike. Slow full block are only designed for slow rigid moves, and are rarely used compared to soft fast blocks, of which there are plenty in almost every kata, although on the surface they are hidden. My opinion is the Japanese/Okinawans are not stupid and would not think that a slow block would parry say a jab or a right cross. For that you need a quick soft parry.

Then why aren't they taught as strikes from the get go?

There's a very good excuse. For example you have your arms pinned, have been grabbed from the back and another guy is about to kick you in the nuts. What kind of "fighting stance" are you going to take in this situation?
Or a guy has you a headlock. What fighting stance are you going to take?
Of course if you are allowed to square up to the guy you will see karateka have just as good a guard as anyone (bar perhaps boxers). Our guard is very adaptable, ther's no set way of doing it.

I've used fighting stances in self defence and they work fine. If your arms are pinned then you can't do anything striking-wise until they're free, and in standup there is no reason not to have it up. If he has you in a headlock then you use your LIVE GRAPPLING training to deal with him.

Plus, and this is one for Ancientmaster too, sparring doesn't necessarily have to be focussed on ring fighting, scenario wise. You can try things like multiple opponents in sparring.

Sounds like your instructor was up the spout, mate if he didn't tell you from day one that low stances, chambered punches etc. are training methods and not to be used in a real life situation? There are actually meanings to them as well, such as teh retractign hand acts as a pull, thereby denying the person the chance to ride the incoming punch, but they're very rarely used in real life, I would guess.

Regardless of whether he was good or not, what's the point in learning techniques you're not going to actually use?

Kata is just a collection of basics strung together. Basics are designed for muscle development and sharp technique, so yes it does develop your muscles. In the sense of telegraphing, economy of movement, ironing out of bad habits etc.
But you WOULD have to combine this with resistance training to get the whole story. This I agree about 100%

But it's not developing muscles or sharp technique because the techniques you're learning are not the ones you will actually use.

Train for what? And I never for a moment thought you were stupid, quite the opposite.

Train for anything. If it's used as an introduction - the ABCs as Matt Bernius described - and the techniques and skills are ones that you will actually use, then I understand its place in a training regimen. It's all this "we don't actually fight like this, it's just for training" stuff that I don't get - why the distinction between training and fighting in this way?

Timmy seriously it sounds like you might actually be suprised of the effectiveness of the Kata moves (forget about kata as a string of moves for a moment) if you were taught them properly. Very few people are actually taught them properly, which is part of the reason Karate has such a bad name now.

I get your point, but here's the thing: everyone says this, yet really they still train in the same way. There's still no carryover from katas to fighting.

Nobody's saying stand there like a muppet just waving your arms about, but do 1/3 kata, 1/3 kata techniques on a bag, and 1/3 kata techniques on an opponent while understanding the meaning of the moves correctly then I'd be interested to know what you thought about it.

Like I've already said, if people really do understand what they're learning and they actually use the techniques they're learning in a sparring situation, then yeah, I see the point of kata. Further, if kata is restricted to its proper place in the curriculum - as an intro and nothing more - then again I get it. What I don't understand is learning one set of techniques only to use a completely different set in a real fight.

Matt_Bernius

26-Jun-2006, 12:30 AM

@Matt Bernius: not that I don't believe you, but what arts have you trained in where they taught kata in the way you described? The bulk of my MA experience is with karate/TSD and at every club I trained you just spent ages learning the katas only to throw it all out of the window in sparring.Wan Yi Chaun - It's the system of Kung Fu that I study. It's modern. I credit this approach to my teacher and my teacher's teacher.

XingYi - Basically we began each class working the basic five fist form and the connected sets and then each class would be dedicated to breading out a fist and moving from there.

Tony Blauer's PDR - I can't say if this is standard for all Blauer programs, but my coach had a basic 14 step "self defense form" that progressed through a basic confrontation. It featured all of the key concepts of the system. We'd work it from time to time and then break out a section as we went.

Shootfighting - My coach in that worked both basic combination drilling (which he referrered to as "basic 5") for both punches and kicks. We also continued to work a 12 position ground flow drill. While these might not necessarily seem like "katas", they were all fixed move drilling. All it would take is to stop calling them "drills" and switch them to "katas" and no one would bat an eye.

Also I've seen Yee system Hung Ga trained and I know that they take a similiar approach.

So those are the immediate ones I've had contact with. I've also seen similiar work at other CMA schools in the area.

- Matt

TheCount

26-Jun-2006, 12:45 AM

Personally, I don't see how kata can be valueable in training. You are not practicing any techniques you would really use quite often, you are not doing anything with an opponent of any sort so you cnt even gain a sense of target. You are not practicing any viable move either. Unlike person to person technique drills, you arent really practicing much useful and you dont even get any sense of handling a person or sense of how to aim etc. This is just my opinion however but I believe the time is better spent.

Guizzy

26-Jun-2006, 01:18 AM

Like I've already said, if people really do understand what they're learning and they actually use the techniques they're learning in a sparring situation, then yeah, I see the point of kata. Further, if kata is restricted to its proper place in the curriculum - as an intro and nothing more - then again I get it. What I don't understand is learning one set of techniques only to use a completely different set in a real fight.We're actually having a pretty fruitful discussion on that subject in the Kung Fu forum. A few of us believe it's because sparring is introduced too hard, too soon in the curriculum.

Let me explain:

Many Martial Arts (especially Karate and Kung Fu) fight in ways that are unnatural to the body. Low stances, lunge punches and hard blocks are good examples of that. They're counter-intuitive, and the body will not naturally do them. If a beginner is sent sparring for training, to train these techniques, not only will he not train them because they do not come in naturally (for instance, I wouldn't trust to train something I haven't quite mastered when I see a full-power fist coming at my nose), but he will ingrain and "wire" himself to using the natural response rather than the technique in his forms. Which is pretty much why you see the forms and the sparring as using two different sets of movements. For a good student, there should be no distinction between them.

Many dubious schools throw the sparring out there with no restrictions, no easing into and next to no guidance. As if the instructor knows it has to be done, but would prefer it to be done as quickly as possible so he can get on with the rest of the curriculum.

Not until the student is able to do naturally the techniques in his forms during forms repetition, drilling, partner training and restricted sparring should he train regularly in hard/full contact sparring. Unless he prefers to train the natural reactions, in which case there are probably martial arts that would suit that student better.

This, of course, is one approach to it. One that tries to remove natural movements and replace them by trained, efficient movements. It takes more time before significant increases are noted in fighting efficiency, but when it starts coming, it comes in significant amounts (assuming, of course, that this level of skill is then maintained and honed during regular hard sparring). I suppose that this is what, for JMAs, the black belt should represent. Other martial arts prefer to work on natural movements, and tool them into fighting techniques, much like blacksmith working the metal with a hammer. With that, the increase in fighting efficiency is constant and linear.

elektro

26-Jun-2006, 01:24 AM

Then why is it necessary to keep reciting the kata over and over with no resistance
Depends what the move is - no point in practising an arm lock where the opponent "resists" you - this would in my eyes be as unrealistic as it would be realistic. In a real life situation is it liekely that if an opponent grabs you that he know exactly what you're going to do next? In the dojo, your partner who you've practised this on many times knows exactly what you're going to do and so deliberately resists you.
If I punch you and I know you're going to parry that punch, I can resist you by pushing my fist against the parry. If however I don't know you're going to parry it, or which direction you're going to parry it, then chances are I'll end up suprised and off balance.
Now in the real world you will get resistance sometimes if you get a move slightly wrong etc. so I agree with you a bit of resistance training IS useful, but it's just as important to learn to switch to anoher slightly differetn move if the one you're doing isn't working. This would have to include knowing a good arsenal of omves and their meanings, part of what Kata teaches you.
What I'm saying is (controversially) - having an opponent deliberately resisting you when they know what you're going to do is as unrealistic as it is realistic (50/50) as much as practising the Kata on it's own is as unrealistic as it is realistic. If you find people resisting all your moves, you are surely not executing your moves ok.
I often find if I'm against a biger opponent I make them think I'm going to parry them one way, then parry them exactlythe opposite way at the last moment - sends them way off balance, and the look of suprise on their face is priceless. Their mistake was deliberately trying to anticipate and resist me.

and why are the "basic" techniques in the kata not used? They're not all dealing with unlikely ring attacks, a lot of them are - at least in their mainstream interpretation - just not workable.

You answered yourself. Mainstream interpretation. "Mac Kata" . How would you like it if I said "All heavy metal is is a load of blokes showing off on the guitar and screaming into the Mike. As a musical form it's worthless" - that would be the "mainstream" interpretation of heavy metal. You and I though, having a greater subtler adn more informed understnading of it, know that this is not the case.
But anyway another reason - like I said before - muscle development which I think we'll have to agree to disagree about. The long form straight punch for example - muscle training for the short punch. Like having weights on your arms. Improves dynamic elasticity in the muscles, develops triceps. But you MIGHT use it in it's basic form if it's as a counter move. If you can punch long, you can punch short, but not necessarily the other way round.
There's not a lot of "basics" in the Kata I can think of that are unusable....it's just that some of them need adjusting slightly in a real life situation. You can't tell EXACTLY how you're going to have to do a move, so one of the ways round this is practise a "generic" version of that move that is easily adaptable.
For example - I find long straight chambered punch training has improved ALL my punches - uppercut, hook etc. If you train the most difficult punch (long locked straight punch) the other puinches seem to come naturally. Not to say that you won't isolate and practise the other punches as well though.

I'm unsure what you mean by "won't actually use" - what sort of self defence situations are you thinkning of?

Then why aren't they taught as strikes from the get go

It could be that they consider it more efficient to teach multiple moves in one, than to teach all the moves seperately. Of course, you have to practise all teh applications of that move. Rising block can be used for example as - a hard block, or a soft block/counter where the counter is a forearm to the throat which just HAPPENS to be the same movement as a rising block. Make sense? A bit like saying face punching & throat punching are the same apart from a few inches.
BTW - ther's some good boxing on KOTV at the moment.

elektro

26-Jun-2006, 01:40 AM

Guizzy has put a lot of stuff better than me as well. Nice post.

Timmyboy - also when you talk of "realistic" training - the only 100% "realistic" training I can think of is to go to Glasgow , go up to the nearest skinhead and accuse him of being a soft Scottish ***insert word here*** in which case if we all trained like that there'd be none of us left. Training against a "resisting" opponent like I said before isn't 100% realistic. Sparring isn't 100% realistic. Moves into thin air isn't 100% realistic.
There is in fact in my opinion no way of simulating a "real" figth other than to have a real fight. A very risky way to train.

Timmy Boy

26-Jun-2006, 09:21 AM

Depends what the move is - no point in practising an arm lock where the opponent "resists" you - this would in my eyes be as unrealistic as it would be realistic. In a real life situation is it liekely that if an opponent grabs you that he know exactly what you're going to do next? In the dojo, your partner who you've practised this on many times knows exactly what you're going to do and so deliberately resists you.
If I punch you and I know you're going to parry that punch, I can resist you by pushing my fist against the parry. If however I don't know you're going to parry it, or which direction you're going to parry it, then chances are I'll end up suprised and off balance.

You're massively underestimating untrained people to a dangerous degree. They're not all as incompetent as you think. They're not just going to stand around letting you punch and armbar them.

Now in the real world you will get resistance sometimes if you get a move slightly wrong etc. so I agree with you a bit of resistance training IS useful, but it's just as important to learn to switch to anoher slightly differetn move if the one you're doing isn't working. This would have to include knowing a good arsenal of omves and their meanings, part of what Kata teaches you.

You don't need kata for this.

What I'm saying is (controversially) - having an opponent deliberately resisting you when they know what you're going to do is as unrealistic as it is realistic (50/50) as much as practising the Kata on it's own is as unrealistic as it is realistic. If you find people resisting all your moves, you are surely not executing your moves ok.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this at all. Just because they're resisting doesn't mean they're resisting successfully. If you don't learn how to apply moves against a resisting opponent then they won't work when it comes to the crunch.

I often find if I'm against a biger opponent I make them think I'm going to parry them one way, then parry them exactlythe opposite way at the last moment - sends them way off balance, and the look of suprise on their face is priceless. Their mistake was deliberately trying to anticipate and resist me.

Resistance doesn't mean powerhousing, it simply means nit just letting you perform the moves on them.

You answered yourself. Mainstream interpretation. "Mac Kata" . How would you like it if I said "All heavy metal is is a load of blokes showing off on the guitar and screaming into the Mike. As a musical form it's worthless" - that would be the "mainstream" interpretation of heavy metal. You and I though, having a greater subtler adn more informed understnading of it, know that this is not the case.
But anyway another reason - like I said before - muscle development which I think we'll have to agree to disagree about. The long form straight punch for example - muscle training for the short punch. Like having weights on your arms. Improves dynamic elasticity in the muscles, develops triceps. But you MIGHT use it in it's basic form if it's as a counter move. If you can punch long, you can punch short, but not necessarily the other way round.
There's not a lot of "basics" in the Kata I can think of that are unusable....it's just that some of them need adjusting slightly in a real life situation. You can't tell EXACTLY how you're going to have to do a move, so one of the ways round this is practise a "generic" version of that move that is easily adaptable.

But it's not a "generic" version of the move, is it? It's a completely different technique. In boxing they teach you how to jab in the way that you will actually jab. They teach you how to hook in the way you will actually hook. And so on. If you're going to fight in a certain way that is how you should train. There's no need to shoot yourself in the foot by wasting time practicing pointless drills and techniques, and there's no sense in saying "well we train this way even though it's not how we fight".

For example - I find long straight chambered punch training has improved ALL my punches - uppercut, hook etc. If you train the most difficult punch (long locked straight punch) the other puinches seem to come naturally. Not to say that you won't isolate and practise the other punches as well though.

Your uppercut will improve even more if you just practice your uppercut.

I'm unsure what you mean by "won't actually use" - what sort of self defence situations are you thinkning of?

Any. Lunge punches, hard blocks and low stances simply do not get used.

It could be that they consider it more efficient to teach multiple moves in one, than to teach all the moves seperately. Of course, you have to practise all teh applications of that move. Rising block can be used for example as - a hard block, or a soft block/counter where the counter is a forearm to the throat which just HAPPENS to be the same movement as a rising block. Make sense? A bit like saying face punching & throat punching are the same apart from a few inches.

This is making it more complicated unnecessarily.

Timmyboy - also when you talk of "realistic" training - the only 100% "realistic" training I can think of is to go to Glasgow , go up to the nearest skinhead and accuse him of being a soft Scottish ***insert word here*** in which case if we all trained like that there'd be none of us left. Training against a "resisting" opponent like I said before isn't 100% realistic. Sparring isn't 100% realistic. Moves into thin air isn't 100% realistic.
There is in fact in my opinion no way of simulating a "real" figth other than to have a real fight. A very risky way to train.

You don't need to train by doing nothing but fighting skinheads in Glasgow to learn how to fight. However, you can practice live drills which develop relevant skills which you will actually use when you fight. This is why I learned far more in my first few MMA and judo lessons than I did in 3 years of TSD. The only restrictions are there for safety (sparring) or to allow you to concentrate on certain aspects (isolation drills).

Timmy Boy

26-Jun-2006, 09:26 AM

We're actually having a pretty fruitful discussion on that subject in the Kung Fu forum. A few of us believe it's because sparring is introduced too hard, too soon in the curriculum.

Let me explain:

Many Martial Arts (especially Karate and Kung Fu) fight in ways that are unnatural to the body. Low stances, lunge punches and hard blocks are good examples of that. They're counter-intuitive, and the body will not naturally do them. If a beginner is sent sparring for training, to train these techniques, not only will he not train them because they do not come in naturally (for instance, I wouldn't trust to train something I haven't quite mastered when I see a full-power fist coming at my nose), but he will ingrain and "wire" himself to using the natural response rather than the technique in his forms. Which is pretty much why you see the forms and the sparring as using two different sets of movements. For a good student, there should be no distinction between them.

Many dubious schools throw the sparring out there with no restrictions, no easing into and next to no guidance. As if the instructor knows it has to be done, but would prefer it to be done as quickly as possible so he can get on with the rest of the curriculum.

Not until the student is able to do naturally the techniques in his forms during forms repetition, drilling, partner training and restricted sparring should he train regularly in hard/full contact sparring. Unless he prefers to train the natural reactions, in which case there are probably martial arts that would suit that student better.

This, of course, is one approach to it. One that tries to remove natural movements and replace them by trained, efficient movements. It takes more time before significant increases are noted in fighting efficiency, but when it starts coming, it comes in significant amounts (assuming, of course, that this level of skill is then maintained and honed during regular hard sparring). I suppose that this is what, for JMAs, the black belt should represent. Other martial arts prefer to work on natural movements, and tool them into fighting techniques, much like blacksmith working the metal with a hammer. With that, the increase in fighting efficiency is constant and linear.

I'm not saying that sparring is the only drill you should do, or that you shouldn't have the technique introduced to you first. A properly executed hook or uppercut isn't a natural movement either, yet boxers don't have to do katas. First, they learn the technique and practice it in the air for a bit. Then, they do isolation drills. Finally, they use in sparring. The resistance is therefore increased progressively allowing the technique to become instinctive, and teaching them timing, distance and power.

DRMA

26-Jun-2006, 01:28 PM

I agree with the points that there is no point practicing forms if you aren't going to use the moves. I have done styles such as TKD where the forms are absolutley useless. Not all styles are like this but I agree if you aren't using the moves in them then they are a waste of time.

Now in Response to Timmy Boy you keep saying you see no hard blocks in tournaments well I se them all the time. Just look at this vid for example

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1274302017525395825&q=100+man+kumite

Notice he blocks heaps of kicks using hard blocks while almost simultaneously taking out the bottom leg. Obviously he isn't going to pause holding the block for every body to look at but the moves are there.

As for low stances they are really common too. Low stances are the best way to get quickly into the opponent which is why they are so commonly employed by grapplers.

eg:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq_8KfmSZrw

This guy is pretty good if you ask me. Even is starting stance is pretty low and very solid looking but he goes really low when he penetrates inward for takedowns (eg: 1:00 and 1:44) Even his punches are done from solid stances.

This is not uncommon you just have to pay attention.

Guizzy

26-Jun-2006, 03:25 PM

I'm not saying that sparring is the only drill you should do, or that you shouldn't have the technique introduced to you first. A properly executed hook or uppercut isn't a natural movement either, yet boxers don't have to do katas.The difference here is that with a few repetitions, a boxer is able to do an uppercut, even if it's not a perfect one, it's still an uppercut.

After months of training i'm not even close to being able to generate power the way my martial arts teach. Even in an unperfect manner, and in thin air. Trying to use it with resistance would be useless until I'm at least able to do that.

Of course, not everything is that hard to learn, but since there are things that are, this is why the "practice in thin air" part is longer for some traditional martial arts than in boxing or modern martial arts.

elektro

26-Jun-2006, 03:48 PM

You're massively underestimating untrained people to a dangerous degree. They're not all as incompetent as you think. They're not just going to stand around letting you punch and armbar them.

Obvioulsy not, and I didn't state that I think untrained people are incompetent, stop putting words into my mouth. My point is that they won't necessarily resist you in the way that your partner has done in the dojo.

You don't need kata for this.
Of course not, it's just one method , that's all. You don't need it, but on the other hand it's a useful tool if you do decide to train this way.

Resistance doesn't mean powerhousing, it simply means nit letting you perform the moves on them.
How are they "not going to let you do the move" if they don't know what move you're going to do?

But it's not a "generic" version of the move, is it? It's a completely different technique.
Well I'd argue it isn't a "completely differnt technique" either. Practising punching by practising a kick would be a completely different technique.

In boxing they teach you how to jab in the way that you will actually jab. They teach you how to hook in the way you will actually hook. And so on.
And if most beginner's boxing matches are anything to go by, they don't have any technique at all, which usually loses them the fight. Wild panicky telegraphed haymakers. When I watch beginner's boxing matches the commentators always comment themselves on how thye'd like to see a little more technique. Standing there whacking a bag 24/7 won't give you good technique if your form isn't right.

If you're going to fight in a certain way that is how you should train.
This makes it sound like you have a pre conceived idea of the "way" in which you're going to fight. This may apply in ring sports but not in reality.

Your uppercut will improve even more if you just practice your uppercut.
Boxers use press ups and weight training to improve their punches. These two activites on the surface have not a lot to do with punching. They improve their uppercut by othre methods as well as just hammering away at an uppercut for ages.

Any. Lunge punches, hard blocks and low stances simply do not get used.
I think they may be too quick you're missing them. Used where anyway? The ring? Competitions? If you're stand up grappling is it not a good idea to have a strong stance?

This is making it more complicated unnecessarily.
Fair enough if you think that, it's not everyone's choice of method of training.

However, you can practice live drills which develop relevant skills which you will actually use when you fight. [/QUOTE]
How do you know you will use these when you fight if you never fight?

Timmy Boy

26-Jun-2006, 04:22 PM

Now in Response to Timmy Boy you keep saying you see no hard blocks in tournaments well I se them all the time. Just look at this vid for example

I didn't say tournaments, I said sparring, as in the kind of sparring you see in most karate dojos rather than what shokei matsui does. I also conceded that when katas are taught properly then yes I understand there can be a correlation, but there is too often no correlation.

Timmy Boy

26-Jun-2006, 04:23 PM

Of course, not everything is that hard to learn, but since there are things that are, this is why the "practice in thin air" part is longer for some traditional martial arts than in boxing or modern martial arts.

Hang on a minute, I thought the techniques in the kata were supposed to be "basics"?

Timmy Boy

26-Jun-2006, 04:28 PM

Obvioulsy not, and I didn't state that I think untrained people are incompetent, stop putting words into my mouth. My point is that they won't necessarily resist you in the way that your partner has done in the dojo.

I'm not putting words in your mouth mate, you just seem to be assuming that an untrained person won't resist simply because they haven't done martial arts training.

How are they "not going to let you do the move" if they don't know what move you're going to do?

They won't just stand there while you're trying to grab them or hit them.

Well I'd argue it isn't a "completely differnt technique" either. Practising punching by practising a kick would be a completely different technique.

To me it's like practicing a jab to improve your hook.

And if most beginner's boxing matches are anything to go by, they don't have any technique at all, which usually loses them the fight. Wild panicky telegraphed haymakers. When I watch beginner's boxing matches the commentators always comment themselves on how thye'd like to see a little more technique. Standing there whacking a bag 24/7 won't give you good technique if your form isn't right.

Key point here: BEGINNERS.

This makes it sound like you have a pre conceived idea of the "way" in which you're going to fight. This may apply in ring sports but not in reality.

Of course you're going to fight in a certain way, you're going to fight in the way you were trained to fight.

Boxers use press ups and weight training to improve their punches. These two activites on the surface have not a lot to do with punching. They improve their uppercut by othre methods as well as just hammering away at an uppercut for ages.

These activities have LOADS to do with punching. By doing weightlifting they're strengthening the muscles they will use. Surely even you cannot think that kata comes close to being as effective for strength training.

I think they may be too quick you're missing them. Used where anyway? The ring? Competitions? If you're stand up grappling is it not a good idea to have a strong stance?

OK, if the strong stance is designed for grappling, why is it necessary to practice walking around punching and kicking from it?

How do you know you will use these when you fight if you never fight?

If you're fortunate enough not to have ever been in a fight then hard sparring should fill this gap.

Guizzy

26-Jun-2006, 04:31 PM

Hang on a minute, I thought the techniques in the kata were supposed to be "basics"?Well, not everyone agrees on that.

If you mean basics as in "building blocks" from which fighting style arises, then yes.

But I don't see them as particularly easy to do. In the system I'm currently learning, I've got forms to learn until the day I die.

As I stated before, styles that put emphasis on the first method of training I talked about previously do not care a lot about making you a good fighter quick. So if learning the "basics" takes years to learn, well, too bad.

Timmy Boy

26-Jun-2006, 04:35 PM

Well, not everyone agrees on that.

If you mean basics as in "building blocks" from which fighting style arises, then yes.
But I don't see them as particularly easy to do. In the system I'm currently learning, I've got forms to learn until the day I die.

As I stated before, styles that put emphasis on the first method of training I talked about previously do not care a lot about making you a good fighter quick. So if learning the "basics" takes years to learn, well, too bad.

In the clubs I'm talking about, even the black belts don't use the techniques in the katas.

I'm not against arts taking a long time to learn per se. Even in the arts I like such as boxing, muay thai, judo, MMA etc, it takes a long time to become really good. However, you don't need to have done years and years of studying just to know how to punch properly because the training drills are more efficient. You don't waste time training one way and fighting another. What I'm against is shooting yourself in the foot unnecessarily.

Guizzy

26-Jun-2006, 04:47 PM

In the clubs I'm talking about, even the black belts don't use the techniques in the katas.Well, I don't know what else to say; probably they did not apply the training method correctly or attempted some other type of curriculum I'm not aware of.

I'm not against arts taking a long time to learn per se. Even in the arts I like such as boxing, muay thai, judo, MMA etc, it takes a long time to become really good. However, you don't need to have done years and years of studying just to know how to punch properly because the training drills are more efficient. You don't waste time training one way and fighting another. What I'm against is shooting yourself in the foot unnecessarily.As I said, forms are not supposed to be trained one way only to be ignored during sparring. Sparring too hard, too soon, not easing into sparring, not enough supervision during sparring, not understanding how forms are to be used; these are all reasons why you see many clubs training one way and fighting another. They do not do this willingly, but because they aren't even able to do at all the techniques in the forms before they are asked to spar. Thus they do not use them, and rather practice their natural instincts. In my club, the higher grades fight the way they train.

Timmy Boy

26-Jun-2006, 04:49 PM

Well, I don't know what else to say; probably they did not apply the training method correctly or attempted some other type of curriculum I'm not aware of.

The strange thing is that I hear horror stories like this from loads of other people and every karate dojo I go to is the same. I'm not saying it's impossible for kata to be a useful training drill if it's used within its proper limits. All I'm saying is that there is a LOT of crap instruction out there from people who don't really understand what the kata is for, including people who *think* they're one of those few clubs who do.

Guizzy

26-Jun-2006, 05:01 PM

Yeah, I agree that there is too much bad training. I believe the reason for this would be because knowing how to use teaching tools correctly is not a martial skill, but a didactic skill, in which many senseis, sifus or whatnot have next to no experience and knowledge.

elektro

26-Jun-2006, 05:32 PM

I'm not putting words in your mouth mate
Fair enough :)

you just seem to be assuming that an untrained person won't resist simply because they haven't done martial arts training.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I am saying that on the street someone might not resist in the way you think they will. Especially if they are untrained and unpredictable. A trained person in the dojo will maybe resist in a different way.

They won't just stand there while you're trying to grab them or hit them.

To me it's like practicing a jab to improve your hook.
Not quite the same - the jab and hook in Karate would be considered offshoot punches of the long straight punch. The long straight punch although having some real life applications is designed with the purpose I mentioned specifically in mind, whereas the jab is not.

Of course you're going to fight in a certain way, you're going to fight in the way you were trained to fight.
So if you're a boxer and you're grabbed from behind and your arms are pinned, you're going to put up a guard and start punching?

These activities have LOADS to do with punching. By doing weightlifting they're strengthening the muscles they will use. Surely even you cannot think that kata comes close to being as effective for strength training.
The kata does incorporate strength training, but does not NEED to come close to that for strength training. For a start we won't be wearing big thick boxing gloves when we punch.
There are a lot of excercises incorporated in the kata which directly influence your punching ability. Some strength based, some not.
Different arts punch in different ways.

OK, if the strong stance is designed for grappling, why is it necessary to practice walking around punching and kicking from it?
To develop your muscles. Isometrics.

If you're fortunate enough not to have ever been in a fight then hard sparring should fill this gap.
I don't really indulge in hard sparring, but the lighter sparring sessions I've had have been nothing like a fight IMHO. In sparring I don't tend to swing haymaker punches, bite, kick to the groin, wrestle the other guy to the ground in a disorderly manner, aggresively shout abuse at the other guy, run at the other guy, headbutt him etc. Apart from anything else if you did these things in HARD sparring it would be dangerous to the point of imbecility adn suicide in my opinion.
However - we DO do these things in controlled drills. For self defence training. Sparring for reactions, drills for self defence. Drills allow you to practise extremely dangerous techniques in a controlled manner. Your opponent can resist you in whatever way you request him to, or not at all, or in a random way you don't know about. This is where students help each other when sparring.

This thread's fast isn't it. I can't keep up. My keyboard's knackered.

Timmy - I respect what you're saying and agree with some of it. It doesn't reallly sound like you should do kata if you dislike it that much, but if the opportunity comes your way one day to study it a bit more in depth, maybe you might find a good teacher who could sway you a little bit.....it's not the end of teh world if you don't do it though. Personally I like it - I use it for all kinds of things.

elektro

26-Jun-2006, 05:36 PM

The strange thing is that I hear horror stories like this from loads of other people and every karate dojo I go to is the same. I'm not saying it's impossible for kata to be a useful training drill if it's used within its proper limits. All I'm saying is that there is a LOT of crap instruction out there from people who don't really understand what the kata is for, including people who *think* they're one of those few clubs who do.

Agreed. I think it's up to the individual to make up their mind as to whether they think what they are learning would work for them. You should always question what you're taught a little bit.
I have foudn myself growing more fond of katat over the years, and I was absolutely sure I'd find it pointless and get bored of it for abotu teh first three years of training , but it seems not, quite the contrary.

madmike

26-Jun-2006, 05:44 PM

kata is the single most annoying and pointless thing to do in a martail arts lesson.

elektro

26-Jun-2006, 06:10 PM

kata is the single most annoying and pointless thing to do in a martail arts lesson.

That's what we need. Statements which are actually backed up by some argument. :rolleyes:

madmike

26-Jun-2006, 06:14 PM

i h8 kata because its slow and in real life their are no practical appilcations

callsignfuzzy

26-Jun-2006, 06:49 PM

Hehe, better late than never...

I find kata and forms most useful as a syllibus of technique and as a physical excercise. I do my karate katas when I need a change in a workout, as it's great conditioning. You're basically moving from a squat possition (strengthening the legs), you tense your muscles up on impact (isometrics), and you have to monitor your breathing. I'd go so far as to say my breath control when I started grappling was better than most because of doing kata for years; I'd already been aware of what my breathing pattern under stress was like. I've just recently learned the beggining of Wing Chun's Sil Lum Tao, and I use it somewhat as a dynamic tension excercise. In addition, doing some of my katas in slow motion, like you'd commonly see with group T'ai Chi, has made me more aware of what my body's doing. Kenesthetic awareness, something like that.

In addition, some of my recent reading material (The Way Of Kata, Shotokan's Secret, Bunkai-Jitsu) have made kata as much a mental excercise as anything. I keep playing around with what the different movements represent. For example, Abernethy's "Bunkai-Jitsu" portrays a motion I learned as a "backfist" as a hair grab.

I can also see them as a way of teaching masses of people a variety of techniques without having to write anything down, or spend too much time on individual instruction, if time is an issue.

All that being said, I prefer more modern methods of sparring and hitting the pads, working partner drills, etc. Punching and kicking the air does nothing for coordination, especially for a begginer. The idea that one can simply visualize an attacker is also somewhat flawed, as the practitioner who's never been in a physical situation won't know what to reference. And truth be told, it seems to me that many of the movements don't translate directly to a confrontation, certainly with someone who's not a chump (someone who can fight, in other words).

I can certainly see where Timmy's coming from. It makes much more sense to me to train a movement as it would be used in combat as opposed to some variation that's "used for training the body". Comparing kata movements to how I actually fight:

1) I have more mobility in my normal fighting stance as opposed to those used in kata, even the low stance when going for a takedown

2) My hands are always up in an on-guard possition, as opposed to kata

3) I drill to never cross my fight during sparring, while it's done often in kata (Nahanchi, anyone?)

The only time I can see the movements of kata come into play, to any degree, is at the beggining of a confrontation. Some of the movements might be used to ward off a grab, but after that, it's hands up, MMA stance.

I'm not yet done exploring kata, but they make up a small part of my training now. I just don't feel that they're as effective against the attacks I'm likely to encounter as my boxing/grappling/MMA training.

elektro

26-Jun-2006, 09:34 PM

Punching and kicking the air does nothing for coordination, especially for a begginer.
It does a lot of things for co ordination and balance recovery, however it doesn't do much for power adn impact training - for that you need a bag/something to hit.

And truth be told, it seems to me that many of the movements don't translate directly to a confrontation, certainly with someone who's not a chump (someone who can fight, in other words).
Horses for courses - what works for me might not work for you. Different body types, different ages, different strengths, flexibility etc.

I can certainly see where Timmy's coming from. It makes much more sense to me to train a movement as it would be used in combat as opposed to some variation that's "used for training the body".
It's the variation that trains your muscle memory out of bad habits. Straight punching trains you not to telegraph, to keep the form compact etc. Now when you come to do a jab and cross you find they are both straighter. Ok you could just train with a jab and cross but it's by doing the exaggerated version of it that you receive the training. Look at 100m sprinters - they sprint 200m, 400m,800m in order to train for the 100m. Why? Because it's a training method. And one that is included in all types of sports.

Comparing kata movements to how I actually fight:

1) I have more mobility in my normal fighting stance as opposed to those used in kata, even the low stance when going for a takedown

2) My hands are always up in an on-guard possition, as opposed to kata

3) I drill to never cross my fight during sparring, while it's done often in kata (Nahanchi, anyone?)

1 : Assuming you are in in a situation where a figthing stance is appropriate. If someone's trying to take you down you might be better trying to root yourself. Are you saying in a stand up wrestling match you would stand light on your toes like in sparring? You're surely going to get knocked off your feet.....

2 : You walk down the street with your hands in the guard position? Kata assumes you are street fighting, not dojo sparring. Hence most of the moves are done from a position which is a natural hand position i.e. by your hips. This is (yet another) application of training with chambering. To train the move to come from your hips, not a guard position. Kata assumes that on the street you might not have time to get a guard up which is very possible.

3 : You mean your feet crossing (fight?typo?) - There are applications for this. Kata doesn't encourage foot crossing in normal situations though.

The only time I can see the movements of kata come into play, to any degree, is at the beggining of a confrontation. Some of the movements might be used to ward off a grab, but after that, it's hands up, MMA stance.
Are they the hands that are pinned to your side while another attacker is coming for you? Good luck in getting that MMA stance going.

I'm not yet done exploring kata, but they make up a small part of my training now. I just don't feel that they're as effective against the attacks I'm likely to encounter as my boxing/grappling/MMA training.
Please don't stop now - give it a chance to discover the deeper meanings etc. then judge it. Also how do you know what attacks you are "likely to encounter"? In most atttacks I can GUESS through common sense I might get on the street, getting a guard up might hardly come into it at all.

Street fighting is not sparring.

Lily

26-Jun-2006, 10:31 PM

Gotta say I love kata as we have very little in our JJJ syllabus and they're beautiful when done with 'alive' technique. I think they're also great as a warm up, warm down, work out in themselves, use for moving meditation (as I like to call it) and we do weapon katas which are fun as well. It makes up about 5% of what we do and I like it that way!

elektro

26-Jun-2006, 11:39 PM

The only time I can see the movements of kata come into play, to any degree, is at the beggining of a confrontation. Some of the movements might be used to ward off a grab, but after that, it's hands up, MMA stance.

Actually to correct myself - I agree with you on principle - if you can get free then sure take a freefighting stance, now you're on an even playing field with your attacker, but while you are at a disadvantage, kata moves can be employed to at least level things up. This may be the turning point of the fight, so it's a very important one. If you fail to break out of this "grab" that you mention do you really think you're actually going to be around to put your hands up in a fighting position in the first place?

New Guy

27-Jun-2006, 06:04 AM

elektro, I have been reading through the thread and it seems like you are just arguing like "what if this and that happens?".

But you know, there is like a billion of possiblities can happen in the real world, and I believe there is not a single method that covers them all, not even Tuls.

I mean, it is like the food chain, no one is really on top of it, (except maybe humans, heh.)

elektro

27-Jun-2006, 06:21 AM

elektro, I have been reading through the thread and it seems like you are just arguing like "what if this and that happens?".

As examples of situations, like most people talk about on here....are you suggesting we should go totally unprepared? I think everybody's been asking the same question, otherwise why would they be debating about kata?

But you know, there is like a billion of possiblities can happen in the real world, and I believe there is not a single method that covers them all, not even Tuls.

I mean, it is like the food chain, no one is really on top of it, (except maybe humans, heh.)

I agree with you, and no amount of any kind of training of any style at all, even mixed styles, can give you a guaranteed result against those billion possibilities. And viruses or something similar are probably top of the food chain in some form IMHO. Different thread.
I don't quite see why you made that point? Surely that really covers the fact that whatever you study so long as you're good at it, you come at least partially prepared? But never fully prepared? I would have thought that was obvious.....

Guizzy

27-Jun-2006, 04:19 PM

I mean, it is like the food chain, no one is really on top of it, (except maybe humans, heh.)Not even. Close, though. I think the polar bear is the only animal that considers humans as a natural part of his diet (read: would eat someone even if not really starving).

callsignfuzzy

27-Jun-2006, 07:43 PM

Elektro-coments interspersed...

It does a lot of things for co ordination and balance recovery, however it doesn't do much for power adn impact training - for that you need a bag/something to hit.

To me, having a target such as a partner and fucus mitts does much better for coordination because you have a real, as opposed to imagined, target. Balance recovery (or "learning what it's like to miss") can be done from simple shadowboxing, which allows for improvisation, since it's not a fixed pattern like kata

Horses for courses - what works for me might not work for you. Different body types, different ages, different strengths, flexibility etc.

Fair enough.

It's the variation that trains your muscle memory out of bad habits. Straight punching trains you not to telegraph, to keep the form compact etc. Now when you come to do a jab and cross you find they are both straighter. Ok you could just train with a jab and cross but it's by doing the exaggerated version of it that you receive the training. Look at 100m sprinters - they sprint 200m, 400m,800m in order to train for the 100m. Why? Because it's a training method. And one that is included in all types of sports.

When you get hit with an adrenaline dump, as will likely happen under the stress of a confrontation, your movements naturally become larger, not smaller. Train for big movements, they become bigger in the field. Train for small movements, and they become not-as-big under pressure. I know folks who've got nothing but boxing training, and their punches are straight and untelegraphed. This is the result of good training and attention to detail, and not doing big, long punches to train the shorter ones.

1 : Assuming you are in in a situation where a figthing stance is appropriate. If someone's trying to take you down you might be better trying to root yourself. Are you saying in a stand up wrestling match you would stand light on your toes like in sparring? You're surely going to get knocked off your feet.....

My fighting stance is designed for MMA. It takes both strikes and takedowns into account. The weight distribution is about 70% front, 30% rear. I'm nearly always "rooted" with the front leg, but the knees of both legs are flexed, like a sprinter. All I have to do to defend against a close-in takedown is simply flex the knees more. I'm mobile, but not particularly "light on my toes", as you'd see in point sparring, for example. Kata's forward stance is similar, but the rear leg is fully extended, which actually takes away any movement that that leg has. The only thing that leg can do is flex, which limits mobility. The horse stance has a 50-50 distribution, which COULD allow for both kicking and punching, but it so low that any kick would be severely telegraphed. As well, I don't trust the 50-50 distribution that much; too easy to be pushed on that rear leg and taken down. Other stances commonly used such as the back and cat stance are, to me, best utilized for pulling (which I don't actually need the back stance for) or kicking (which I'm not a huge fan of, especially in a real-world confrontation). At any rate, I'm sure you'd remind me that a street confrontation is neither dojo sparring or a stand-up wrestling match, so neither stance nor strategy used for those two would be the ideal for that.

2 : You walk down the street with your hands in the guard position? Kata assumes you are street fighting, not dojo sparring. Hence most of the moves are done from a position which is a natural hand position i.e. by your hips. This is (yet another) application of training with chambering. To train the move to come from your hips, not a guard position. Kata assumes that on the street you might not have time to get a guard up which is very possible.

Do you talk to someone with your hands by your side? Do you confront someone with your hands in your pockets? If you've never been exposed to it, I'd suggest looking into Geoff Thompson's "Fence" system or Sammy Franco's "De-Escellation Stance" (same basic animal). Brazilian JJ also has a "prayer stance" that can serve the same purpose. The common thread with these systems is that when faced with a confrontation, you bring your hands in front of you in a cassual, non-threatening manner. While you're trying to de-escellate the situation verbally, you're prepared to defend yourself, and it looks as if you're simply using your hands to make a point. During this time, you also set your feet into what would be a fighting stance (boxer's stance, more or less). Only a trained observer could even tell that they're being set up. As for the notion that I might not have time to get a guard up, chances are if my hands are inexcusibly by my side during a dangerous time, I'm probably reaching for something in my pocket OR will simply use a more appropriate defense, like a headbutt, knee to the groin, or the old getting-out-of-the-way trick.

3 : You mean your feet crossing (fight?typo?) - There are applications for this. Kata doesn't encourage foot crossing in normal situations though.

Yes, thank you, it was a typo. Although my spelling is typically horrid to beggin with. I just prefer the step-slide advance of boxing to the full step or crossing step of kata.

Are they the hands that are pinned to your side while another attacker is coming for you? Good luck in getting that MMA stance going.

While I'll admit it's possible that I may end up having my hands pinned to my side, facing two attackers, I find it very unlikely. Remember the self-defense continuum: awareness, avoidance, escape, disuassion, violence. I have four levels to get past before anyone even thinks of grabbing me. As well, strategy says that once danger is iminent, keep the threat in front of you and at or beyond arm's length. And even then, under these proposed circumstances, chances are I'm looking for a tool (read: improvised weapon) to even things up. Now, let's play devil's advocate and assume that I've been semi-retarded, blind, and otherwise couldn't see this bad situation coming, yet still have the wherewithall to defend myself. Punching from the hip is still not an option, since my hands are pinned. Other escapes I know, however, will work, and while some of those escapes may be included in kata, that's not where I learned them. Instead, I'll probably utilize the skill I've acquired with live sparring and partner drills. (And seriously, if the guy's dumb enough to initiate his attack by pinning the wrists to my side, the last thing he's probably going to hear before he goes to sleep is, "You're an idiot")

Please don't stop now - give it a chance to discover the deeper meanings etc. then judge it. Also how do you know what attacks you are "likely to encounter"? In most atttacks I can GUESS through common sense I might get on the street, getting a guard up might hardly come into it at all.

First, I haven't "given up" entirely on kata, as I mentioned I'm still learning forms and reading books on kata analysis, but I can't see any real benifit of kata that I can't acqire elsewere, and probably more efficiently. As for what attacks I'll likely encounter, I've got various resources: fights and assaults captured on CCTV, police reports, FBI studies, working some time as Shore Patrol in Japan, witnessing fights, being involved in a few. It all comes down to the same stuff: bull-rush tackle, swinging kick aimed at the groin, wild roundhouse swing, gripping the collar or front of the shirt, head-incircling techniques such as headlocks and chokes... You're perfectly correct about not getting a guard up: pre-emptive strikes from the "fence" possition should take care of a lot of it. As would grappling defenses I've learned in relation to MMA. Again, perhaps some movements are included in kata that might be applied, but I've learned them, and trained them better, elsewhere.

Street fighting is not sparring.

And neither is it kata.

elektro

27-Jun-2006, 08:10 PM

callsignfuzzy rather than quote and debate you, I agree with everything you're saying. I'm just making the point that Kata is also a good way to train.
Some folks seem very black and white about this - you incorporate kata into you training and it helps - so you don't do ALL kata or NO kata but SOME kata.
To say it has no use whatsoever is a bit extreme IMHO.

New Guy

28-Jun-2006, 01:38 PM

I still don't get it... if Forms aren't really an essential part of training, then why is it so special that it is often "the thing" people do at gradings? (In most T arts.)

Llamageddon

28-Jun-2006, 02:10 PM

I still don't get it... if Forms aren't really an essential part of training, then why is it so special that it is often "the thing" people do at gradings? (In most T arts.)

spose it just comes down to interpretation. We all have our likes and dislikes of kata/forms; some of us see the point, some don't.

Timmy Boy

28-Jun-2006, 04:54 PM

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I am saying that on the street someone might not resist in the way you think they will. Especially if they are untrained and unpredictable. A trained person in the dojo will maybe resist in a different way.

So your solution to this is to just not have them resisting at all?

Again, the main problem with this reasoning is that the whole point of training to fight is to make you better than an untrained person. A boxer trains to punch and defend in the way that he does because he would get killed if he got in the ring without training. Pro fighters don't fight in a certain way just for the sake of it, they fight that way because that's the best way to do it.

Not quite the same - the jab and hook in Karate would be considered offshoot punches of the long straight punch. The long straight punch although having some real life applications is designed with the purpose I mentioned specifically in mind, whereas the jab is not.

Which specific purpose is that? Isometric exercises?

So if you're a boxer and you're grabbed from behind and your arms are pinned, you're going to put up a guard and start punching?

That's the point where you need clinch grappling training and no method of punching will help you.

The kata does incorporate strength training, but does not NEED to come close to that for strength training. For a start we won't be wearing big thick boxing gloves when we punch.

So you think boxers do strength training just so that they can hold up the gloves? Mate, 16ozs is not exactly a ton.

There are a lot of excercises incorporated in the kata which directly influence your punching ability. Some strength based, some not.
Different arts punch in different ways.

The best way to influence your punching ab8ility is to practice punching in the way you will punch. If you want to get better at karate, do you go to your karate club or do you go to a wing chun club?

To develop your muscles. Isometrics.

It's ineffective for that purpose and doesn't justify the decrease in efficiency of the training method for the main purpose of learning how to punch.

I don't really indulge in hard sparring, but the lighter sparring sessions I've had have been nothing like a fight IMHO. In sparring I don't tend to swing haymaker punches, bite, kick to the groin, wrestle the other guy to the ground in a disorderly manner, aggresively shout abuse at the other guy, run at the other guy, headbutt him etc. Apart from anything else if you did these things in HARD sparring it would be dangerous to the point of imbecility adn suicide in my opinion.However - we DO do these things in controlled drills. For self defence training. Sparring for reactions, drills for self defence. Drills allow you to practise extremely dangerous techniques in a controlled manner. Your opponent can resist you in whatever way you request him to, or not at all, or in a random way you don't know about. This is where students help each other when sparring.

If this is the case then no offence but it just shows how unrealistic your sparring is. In mma-style sparring there is very little in the way of effective techniques that aren't actually legal. The few that remain are things like eye gouges, groin grabs and fish hooks which are extremely unlikely to work, expecially against someone who knows what they're doing. Punching, kicking, knees, takedowns and groundwork can all be trained hard but safely.

elektro

28-Jun-2006, 05:12 PM

So your solution to this is to just not have them resisting at all?
Nope. Stop thinking in black & white. ;) - do it with them resisting, not resisting, vary it a little bit.

Again, the main problem with this reasoning is that the whole point of training to fight is to make you better than an untrained person. A boxer trains to punch and defend in the way that he does because he would get killed if he got in the ring without training. Pro fighters don't fight in a certain way just for the sake of it, they fight that way because that's the best way to do it.

[QUOTE]Which specific purpose is that? Isometric exercises?
One of them , yes, and trains you to follow through , not just bounce off. Yes I KNOW you need bag training as well, before you say. Amongst others.

That's the point where you need clinch grappling training and no method of punching will help you.
Obviously yes. So how long have you got to clinch grapple before his mate kicks you in the groin? Couple of seconds?

So you think boxers do strength training just so that they can hold up the gloves? Mate, 16ozs is not exactly a ton.
No. You got me wrong. The point was hitting someone with your knuckles is different from hitting them with gloves on. If a boxing match was bare knuckle, how long do you think it would last?

The best way to influence your punching ab8ility is to practice punching in the way you will punch.
In your opinion. This is not to say that Karateka don't ALSO practise punching in the way that they will punch if they're practising properly. The combination of form and reality is a good one. One withouth the other is less effective, which is what you're suggesting.

It's ineffective for that purpose and doesn't justify the decrease in efficiency of the training method for the main purpose of learning how to punch.
Assuming that it is indeed ineffective for that purpose. Which again is only a matter of your opinion vs. mine which quite frankly we could debate until one of us is too old to walk, let alone punch.

In mma-style sparring there is very little in the way of effective techniques that aren't actually legal.
What do you mean "legal"?

The few that remain are things like eye gouges, groin grabs and fish hooks which are extremely unlikely to work, expecially against someone who knows what they're doing.
How do you know? Depends on the skill of the practitioner, surely.
Punching, kicking, knees, takedowns and groundwork can all be trained hard but safely.
If they're being trained "safely" then I would argue that this kind of training is also unrealistic.
My points are these:
No point arguing style vs style, it's the skill of the practioner, not the style which will determine the outcome of a situation.
There is no type of training or sparrign which is totally realistic, therefore that means that both the sparring I do and the sparring you do are both unrealistic. You could argue that yours is more "real" than mine, but how can it be when it procludes some moves from being used becasue they are "illegal". You could argue that mine is more "real" than yours but how can it be when we don't go full contact.
See my point?

Timmy Boy

28-Jun-2006, 08:37 PM

Nope. Stop thinking in black & white. ;) - do it with them resisting, not resisting, vary it a little bit.

TBH mate I don't really get what this has to do with anything.

One of them , yes, and trains you to follow through , not just bounce off. Yes I KNOW you need bag training as well, before you say. Amongst others.

Then surely the argument that untrained people will attack differently is invalid? What do you think would happen if someone got into a ring with a good boxer and started throwing wild haymakers?

Obviously yes. So how long have you got to clinch grapple before his mate kicks you in the groin? Couple of seconds?

Clinch grappling is what you need to be able to escape from their grip. You're not going to escape using a lunge punch.

[No. You got me wrong. The point was hitting someone with your knuckles is different from hitting them with gloves on. If a boxing match was bare knuckle, how long do you think it would last?

So you think that because you're punching with bare knuckles strength is less important? Look at MMA fighters, they wear only 4oz gloves yet they still do loads of weightlifting.

In your opinion. This is not to say that Karateka don't ALSO practise punching in the way that they will punch if they're practising properly. The combination of form and reality is a good one. One withouth the other is less effective, which is what you're suggesting.

Why not just punch in the way they will actually punch ALL the time instead of wasting time on irrelevant techniques?

What do you mean "legal"?

Your point was that sparring prohibits too many techniques in comparison to drills. My counter is that if the sparring is realistic then 1) very few techniques are actually illegal in it, and those that are illegal are not reliable enough to be effective, and 2) the fact that your opponent is fully resisting is far more important than a few barrel-scraping unreliable techniques.

How do you know? Depends on the skill of the practitioner, surely.

To a large extent, the art dictates the training methods which dictate how good the practitioner will be.

If they're being trained "safely" then I would argue that this kind of training is also unrealistic.

No, it just means putting on protective gear and tapping out of locks before the joints break. It's more realistic than just practicing them in the air because they're applied against resistance. Unless you do full contact bare knuckle sparring with all techniques allowed.

My points are these:
No point arguing style vs style, it's the skill of the practioner, not the style which will determine the outcome of a situation.

See above.

There is no type of training or sparrign which is totally realistic, therefore that means that both the sparring I do and the sparring you do are both unrealistic. You could argue that yours is more "real" than mine, but how can it be when it procludes some moves from being used becasue they are "illegal". You could argue that mine is more "real" than yours but how can it be when we don't go full contact.
See my point?

I see your point but I disagree with it completely. Being able to make your techniques work against resistance is FAR more important than having an exhaustive catalogue of techniques on your notebook. This is why full contact sports clubs spar - if you put someone in a judo match when they haven't done any randori before they'll get thrown around like a rag doll and then end up looking like a windsor knot on the ground. Judo techniques are actually pretty easy to defend against if you don't learn how to apply them.

elektro

28-Jun-2006, 09:23 PM

What do you think would happen if someone got into a ring with a good boxer and started throwing wild haymakers?
Well I watch it when I can, and usually what happens is the boxer puts a couple "down the pipe" as they say thereby beating the other guy to the punch. Overcoming power with technique. And blocking of course. While we're talking boxing, let me tell you two things I have heard boxing commentators say recently that have stuck in my mind :
1 : "The reason he's losing is he's a tall guy. He needs to make use of the leverage in his arms to get maximum power, thats' his only hope against this guy. He needs to root himself into his stance when he punches, but instead look at him, he's on his toes - you can NOT punch at your maximum strength when you are on your toes, you see that's the trade off." (A tall guy vs. a very short Tyson style guy. The Tyson guy was so "all over" teh tall guy teh commentators reckoned the tall guy should go for a knckout) - the point being about rooting the stance.
2 : "You see his punches go straight down the chute, and that's what you NEED against a looping wild puncher like this, down the chute, 1, 2, you see like this you beat the other guy to the punch, and that's the thing Mickey (or whatever) - that's what's wrong with boxing nowadays, the guys don't train enough straight punching, this is where thigns like Karate can REALLY help teh boxers because the Karate guys are very hot on technique. Very hot."

Yeah ok I could just be making these up, but trust me on it I made note of them, and they stuck in my mind. If you don't believe me watch the boxing for a while. I bet you a tenner one of the commentators (ex pro boxers ) says one of those comments within 2 fights.

Clinch grappling is what you need to be able to escape from their grip. You're not going to escape using a lunge punch.
Timmy do you really think I'm that stupid?
Low stance will however help you here.

So you think that because you're punching with bare knuckles strength is less important?
It depends on the targets.

Look at MMA fighters, they wear only 4oz gloves yet they still do loads of weightlifting.
Is teh weigth lifting directly related to the punching?Anyway I'm not saying weight lifting ISN't helpful for punching, I'm just saying that basics and Kata are too.

Why not just punch in the way they will actually punch ALL the time instead of wasting time on irrelevant techniques?
To train form out of bad habits. Hence the boxer punching "down the chute". The comparison is the 100m sprinter who trains by sprinting 200m. Why doesn't he just do the 100m after all, he's never going to sprint 200m in actual competition is he? You exaggerate the move to train out of bad habits. It's not the ONLY method of improving punching but it's one of them.

Timmy Boy

29-Jun-2006, 02:12 AM

Well I watch it when I can, and usually what happens is the boxer puts a couple "down the pipe" as they say thereby beating the other guy to the punch. Overcoming power with technique. And blocking of course. While we're talking boxing, let me tell you two things I have heard boxing commentators say recently that have stuck in my mind :
1 : "The reason he's losing is he's a tall guy. He needs to make use of the leverage in his arms to get maximum power, thats' his only hope against this guy. He needs to root himself into his stance when he punches, but instead look at him, he's on his toes - you can NOT punch at your maximum strength when you are on your toes, you see that's the trade off." (A tall guy vs. a very short Tyson style guy. The Tyson guy was so "all over" teh tall guy teh commentators reckoned the tall guy should go for a knckout) - the point being about rooting the stance.

Yeah, and then Tyson went up against Lennox Lewis and ate jabs with a side of coleslaw. True, Tyson was way past his prime, but Lewis had an awesome jab and that's what made him such a great boxer.

2 : "You see his punches go straight down the chute, and that's what you NEED against a looping wild puncher like this, down the chute, 1, 2, you see like this you beat the other guy to the punch, and that's the thing Mickey (or whatever) - that's what's wrong with boxing nowadays, the guys don't train enough straight punching, this is where thigns like Karate can REALLY help teh boxers because the Karate guys are very hot on technique. Very hot."

Yeah ok I could just be making these up, but trust me on it I made note of them, and they stuck in my mind. If you don't believe me watch the boxing for a while. I bet you a tenner one of the commentators (ex pro boxers ) says one of those comments within 2 fights.

Just because it's a good idea to use straight punches against wild looping ones doesn't mean you have to go to a karate lesson or start dropping your guard. The jab is the most important punch in boxing, the fact that some bad boxers don't use it enough isn't the point.

Timmy do you really think I'm that stupid?
Low stance will however help you here.

My argument on this point was that it's a stupid idea to be letting your guard down when you punch, hence why karateka don't do it when they spar. Your counter to this was that when someone grabs your arms you're unable to get your guard up, but in this situation you're not going to be using punches anyway so what's your point?

As for low stances, yes they can sometimes help in grappling, but we're talking about punching. If grappling skill is what you're after, you don't practice how to walk strangely and throw punches from a stance you will never use for punching against no resistance, you GRAPPLE.

It depends on the targets.

If you're talking about an actual punch with a closed fist as opposed to a phoenix eye or some other hand technique then no I don't think it's any less relevant.

Is teh weigth lifting directly related to the punching?Anyway I'm not saying weight lifting ISN't helpful for punching, I'm just saying that basics and Kata are too.

Yes, and I'm saying they're LESS helpful than weightlifting for muscle development. Much less.

To train form out of bad habits. Hence the boxer punching "down the chute". The comparison is the 100m sprinter who trains by sprinting 200m. Why doesn't he just do the 100m after all, he's never going to sprint 200m in actual competition is he? You exaggerate the move to train out of bad habits. It's not the ONLY method of improving punching but it's one of them.

So you train out of bad habits by using a completely impractical stance so that you can't move quickly enough and dropping your guard so that it's easier to hit you? These movements aren't just exaggerated, they're very different mechanically - the footwork is different, the position of the hands is different and the stance is different. It's not the same as the sprinter in your example because he still moves in the same way, he just does it for a longer distance. If he used your philosophy of training, he'd practice sprinting by doing the pole vault.

elektro

29-Jun-2006, 03:16 AM

Yeah, and then Tyson went up against Lennox Lewis and ate jabs with a side of coleslaw. True, Tyson was way past his prime, but Lewis had an awesome jab and that's what made him such a great boxer.
I believe I've seen Lewis root himself for punches - sure he's mainly an on his toes puncher but he knows when to root for a split second to get that power off. Unless my eyes deceive(d) me. Also I don't think Lewis was good because of his jab, his jab was good but not THAT good, it's just that he actually knows about distance, timing etc. and does seem to have a reasonably varied arsenal. Now if you said Ali won on his jab, perhaps that's a different story (although Ali was a better power puncher than people think). And I saw Ali with a guard down a lot of the time. He is a good example of a fighter who's good at punching from low down. Anyway, I get your point.

Just because it's a good idea to use straight punches against wild looping ones doesn't mean you have to go to a karate lesson or start dropping your guard.
No - you don't HAVE to but if you incorporate it in your training it adds another dimension. And also good Karate will encourage guard practise as much as any other technique IMHO - and there are a lot of guards including classic boxing style ones.

The jab is the most important punch in boxing
Oh come on. Surely it depends on the fighter. You know what examples I'm going to come up with even before I say them.

Your counter to this was that when someone grabs your arms you're unable to get your guard up, but in this situation you're not going to be using punches anyway so what's your point?
No. People were talking about taking fighting guard stances and I was trying to argue the point that this might not be possible. Obviously punching has nothgin to do with it. But this may however be where Kata is useful. Granted not MORE useful than grappling skills adn maybe not EVEN as good as grappling skills but it'll do the job very nicely if used properly.

As for low stances, yes they can sometimes help in grappling, but we're talking about punching.
See above - I'm not talking about punching.

If grappling skill is what you're after, you don't practice how to walk strangely and throw punches from a stance you will never use for punching against no resistance, you GRAPPLE.
Obviously. But "grappling" is not the only method of escaping holds. It may be the BEST way because it specializes in that, but Karate Kata if used properly is very effective against them too. Also, there are just some holds you can't get out of - you should know that from mma. So there's no perfect system by any means.

If you're talking about an actual punch with a closed fist as opposed to a phoenix eye or some other hand technique then no I don't think it's any less relevant.
Even gloves cover up teh shape of the knuckle. With bare hands teh front two knuckles are very effective, as in the sharp bits of a knurled club or something. And ues I know that you can get very light gloves which hardly make a difference, but the difference is still there.
Have you ever been hit sharply downward on the solar plaxus by a single/double knuckle?They can be applied nicely against pressure points too. With bare knuckles it's possible to paralyze soemone's arm fairly easily with a hit to the right place, or leg even if you're good enough. Take a look at pressure point Karate.
And before you say it, I admit that these points are small and hard to hit, sure - but my point is the effectiveness of the bare knuckle.
BTW - Pheonix eye? Sounds more like Kung Fu? :confused:

Yes, and I'm saying they're LESS helpful than weightlifting for muscle development.
I'll go with you on "less" but not "much less". It depends on which type of muscle development you're talking about. There are a few different types.

So you train out of bad habits by using a completely impractical stance so that you can't move quickly enough and dropping your guard so that it's easier to hit you?
That is EXACTLY the point. Spar without a guard in an impractical stance. Then try sparring WITH a guard in a practical stance. If you're a boxer, spar with one hand tied behind your back (ok perhaps not full contact LOL). Then release the hand after five minutes. The hand that wasn't tied has now hopefully become better. Why? Becasue it had to.
If you don't agree with that as a training method, fair enough, but there are those who do. It works for me, that's why there are differetn types of arts, to suit each practitioner.
This is by no means the main reason for doing kata as such but it is one of the many reasons why (I believe) the Karate basics are a good way of training. However, taught wrong the Karate basics mean zilch, really. I've seen black belts who still use their shoulder to generate the main power in a punch, for example.Hence Karate's got a really bad name at the moment.
This is only a part of training though. To do ONLY this would be inneffective. You have to combine it with all the other aspects, weight training, sparring, fitness, endurance etc. that much I grant you.

These movements aren't just exaggerated, they're very different mechanically - the footwork is different, the position of the hands is different and the stance is different.

Apart from the chambering issue, how so exactly ? Sure they aren't exactly the same but it's usually just a matter of altering things very slightly to make it work with a partner. This is what correct interpretation is all about. Not just having the "meaning" of the move but knowing how to make that work as well.
I usually find the moves turn out reasonably similar actually, depends where you draw the line between similar and different. You can never practise the "exact" moves you will use, because you never know the circumstances of the fight.A boxer practises a hook, but not the EXACT hook he's going to use in a fight. Each hook is subtley different. You need to have a "standard" move from which you draw and can alter to the circumstances. All sparring is effectively is putting this into action with a collection of techniques.
Again - to practise the standard one all the time would be useless too, you need sparring as well, it's a bit of a double edged sword.

Slappy

29-Jun-2006, 03:37 AM

Well, that depends on your situation. In the case of some beginners I know, If they got in a fight, they'd probablly start reciting Katas, because they think it will help them. But Katas really are just there so you know what to do in a certan situation. Personally I don't use Katas. they don't particuallry help me. But on the other hand, Some of them look pretty cool, so they can be quite intimidating.

tetsu ryu

29-Jun-2006, 04:10 AM

There are a few minor benefits of forms; learning your body, balance, etc; but these can be learned just as easily and much more quickly shadow sparring, hitting focus pads, heavy bags, live sparring etc.

All these things require equipment or other people!

Andy Murray :woo:[/QUOTE]

very true.. but Weapons for weapons katas must be purchased and you dont need someone else to shadow box. Or anybody to work on a heavy bag.

elektro

29-Jun-2006, 04:25 AM

If they got in a fight, they'd probablly start reciting Katas.

I did that in a fight once and my opponent got so bored he passed out. I then grabbed his neck and pretended I'd choked him out.

tetsu ryu

29-Jun-2006, 04:29 AM

In a complex form of martial art such as Kung Fu I could see where Katas could be practical for learning techniques and improving them.. but when compared to a style with less strikes and less complex movement such as boxing.. I dont see it necessary to make a long chain of slowly practiced movements and strikes.. Katas are important and a good training tool but simply arent necessary in other MA. Hmm.. I think the Instuctors use Katas as a teaching tool simply because they know what everything looks like.. and that way they can say a little higher.. or lower stance.. and know without a shout of a doubt that if the technique is even slightly of that they can correct it. I think it would be interesting to see a student make a Kata of various techniques and let the instructor try it for a change.. it would be quite a learning experience on both ends.

there's my 2 cents

Timmy Boy

01-Jul-2006, 11:55 PM

I believe I've seen Lewis root himself for punches - sure he's mainly an on his toes puncher but he knows when to root for a split second to get that power off. Unless my eyes deceive(d) me. Also I don't think Lewis was good because of his jab, his jab was good but not THAT good, it's just that he actually knows about distance, timing etc. and does seem to have a reasonably varied arsenal. Now if you said Ali won on his jab, perhaps that's a different story (although Ali was a better power puncher than people think). And I saw Ali with a guard down a lot of the time. He is a good example of a fighter who's good at punching from low down. Anyway, I get your point.

Mate, are you seriously comparing the rooting boxers do to get powers in their punches to the horrendously low stances used in karate?

No - you don't HAVE to but if you incorporate it in your training it adds another dimension. And also good Karate will encourage guard practise as much as any other technique IMHO - and there are a lot of guards including classic boxing style ones.

That doesn't address the point of why you have to train in punching without a guard even though you will NEVER DO THAT.

Oh come on. Surely it depends on the fighter. You know what examples I'm going to come up with even before I say them.

It doesn't depend on the fighter, no. Different fighters may prefer to use different punches as their main strength, but learning a good jab is one of the absolute core fundamental skills of boxing.

No. People were talking about taking fighting guard stances and I was trying to argue the point that this might not be possible. Obviously punching has nothgin to do with it. But this may however be where Kata is useful. Granted not MORE useful than grappling skills adn maybe not EVEN as good as grappling skills but it'll do the job very nicely if used properly.

If the situations where it might not be possible to get your guard up are situations where you won't be able to punch at all, then what's your point? If using a low stance and letting your guard down is a grappling technique, why are you practicing moving and throwing punches from it?

See above - I'm not talking about punching.

Then you're changing the subject, because I was asking why you use low stances and let your guard down when you punch only to throw all that out of the window in sparring, and you said this was because when you're grappling you will want a low stance and you won't be able to get your guard up.

Obviously. But "grappling" is not the only method of escaping holds. It may be the BEST way because it specializes in that, but Karate Kata if used properly is very effective against them too. Also, there are just some holds you can't get out of - you should know that from mma. So there's no perfect system by any means.

The only way you can learn how to grapple is to grapple. Escaping holds or avoiding them in the first place is the vast bulk of grappling and you're not going to learn that by practicing punches against no resistance with a stance you're not going to use.

Even gloves cover up teh shape of the knuckle. With bare hands teh front two knuckles are very effective, as in the sharp bits of a knurled club or something. And ues I know that you can get very light gloves which hardly make a difference, but the difference is still there.

Not nearly enough to provide an excuse. It's miniscule.

Have you ever been hit sharply downward on the solar plaxus by a single/double knuckle?They can be applied nicely against pressure points too. With bare knuckles it's possible to paralyze soemone's arm fairly easily with a hit to the right place, or leg even if you're good enough. Take a look at pressure point Karate.
And before you say it, I admit that these points are small and hard to hit, sure - but my point is the effectiveness of the bare knuckle.
BTW - Pheonix eye? Sounds more like Kung Fu? :confused:

Mate this sounds like hollywood fu to be honest.

I'll go with you on "less" but not "much less". It depends on which type of muscle development you're talking about. There are a few different types.

If you want endurance, you do compound lifts doing high reps with a low weight. If you want power, you do compound lifts doing low reps with a high weight.

That is EXACTLY the point. Spar without a guard in an impractical stance. Then try sparring WITH a guard in a practical stance. If you're a boxer, spar with one hand tied behind your back (ok perhaps not full contact LOL). Then release the hand after five minutes. The hand that wasn't tied has now hopefully become better. Why? Becasue it had to.

No-one spars without a guard in an impractical stance even in karate because there's no point. It's just too unwieldy.

If you don't agree with that as a training method, fair enough, but there are those who do. It works for me, that's why there are differetn types of arts, to suit each practitioner.
This is by no means the main reason for doing kata as such but it is one of the many reasons why (I believe) the Karate basics are a good way of training. However, taught wrong the Karate basics mean zilch, really. I've seen black belts who still use their shoulder to generate the main power in a punch, for example.Hence Karate's got a really bad name at the moment.
This is only a part of training though. To do ONLY this would be inneffective. You have to combine it with all the other aspects, weight training, sparring, fitness, endurance etc. that much I grant you.

If people manage to actually make it work in sparring then great. But you don't seem to be saying that. Instead, you seem to be arguing in defence of people who don't make it work in sparring.

Apart from the chambering issue, how so exactly ? Sure they aren't exactly the same but it's usually just a matter of altering things very slightly to make it work with a partner. This is what correct interpretation is all about. Not just having the "meaning" of the move but knowing how to make that work as well.

What do you mean "apart from the chambering issue?" That's like saying "apart from killing a load of innocent jews Hitler was basically a nice guy". That's the exact problem.

I usually find the moves turn out reasonably similar actually, depends where you draw the line between similar and different. You can never practise the "exact" moves you will use, because you never know the circumstances of the fight.A boxer practises a hook, but not the EXACT hook he's going to use in a fight. Each hook is subtley different. You need to have a "standard" move from which you draw and can alter to the circumstances. All sparring is effectively is putting this into action with a collection of techniques.
Again - to practise the standard one all the time would be useless too, you need sparring as well, it's a bit of a double edged sword.

Application will always create subtle differences depending on the practitioner and the situation, but karate punches used in kihon and kata are not just subtly different to those used in sparring, they're completely different techniques. If the techniques you're being taught are not the ones you're putting into action, something is very wrong with the teaching process. If you're going to punch a certain way when you spar, that is how you should punch when you train because otherwise you're wasting training time.

Kwan Jang

02-Jul-2006, 05:48 PM

Some of these points may have already been brought to light, I've only read part of this thread. The way I use Trad. basics and movements from katas is as grabs and strikes in mostly a trapping range. I train the kyusho and tuite applications (using the Okinawan terms) and have been quite efective at making them work against resisting opponents in live training.

My core training is MMA, so this is the way that I spar. I don't advocate punching from the hip or leaving my guard down. However, if I secure a control (say finger or wrist lock) and use two-way action to pull someone into my strike, it is just like movements in the katas. Also, when using this grab and strike motion, I do plant my feet like in the katas. These movements are basically the same ones that I use in Small Circle JJ. (It is my beli that this is the original intent of the forms).

IMO, this type of training gives me another element and layer of depth to my training. These types of techniques are not natural movements and do take years of training to build the coordination to use effectively, so we introduce them and begin drilling them at intermediate levels, but put a much greater emphasis on what a student can effectively use at their stage of training. Starting w/ more kickboxing and submission grappling (w/ an emphasis on adrenal stress). I preframe the students that the "trad. basics" are more of planting seeds for future harvest.

I do agree that far too many schools use forms as a "timebuster" or filler and that the instructors themselves do not understand and can not use the techniques in real application. However, IMO it is a mistake to disregard them and throw them out. Personally, I took the time to look deeper and found the rewards for my efforts.

elektro

02-Jul-2006, 09:28 PM

elektro

03-Jul-2006, 03:50 AM

Mate this sounds like hollywood fu to be honest..

Hollywood fu is lots of high kicks, running around and running up walls.
These aren't "mystcal" pressure points I'm talking about, it's your basic solar plexus, back of the ear, dead leg, dead arm etc. basic stuff, I would have thought?Kidneys perhaps? Back of the head?Temple?

xxionx

03-Jul-2006, 06:49 PM

Well how about this...do the katas, every simgle movement very slowly. even when raising a leg...do it as slow as you can. now will that hurt or not. that will make your body work out better. My point is that it is not the fact that you do the kata but how you do it. some martial arts have simple movements and it may not work out. BUT when you do Wushu, for example, It is hard as hell and and by doing it, it shows taht you can move and strongly you can.

Timmy Boy

03-Jul-2006, 10:49 PM

"However, if I secure a control (say finger or wrist lock) and use two-way action to pull someone into my strike, it is just like movements in the katas"

that explains chambering. Chambering most often than not is not in preperation for the next punch, it is an addition the the punch you are already doing. That's one of the reasons for it anyway.

So why do you practice moving into another punch from that position?

Hollywood fu is lots of high kicks, running around and running up walls.
These aren't "mystcal" pressure points I'm talking about, it's your basic solar plexus, back of the ear, dead leg, dead arm etc. basic stuff, I would have thought?Kidneys perhaps? Back of the head?Temple?

Single knuckle strikes are possible in MMA gloves since they're fingerless, and if by double knuckle strikes you mean punching with the first two knuckles that's what you're taught to do in MMA anyway.

Kwan Jang

04-Jul-2006, 04:52 AM

The reason to practice moving from one punch to another is that repetition is the mother of skill. When I teach my students how to do a triangle leg choke (as an example), once they have the coordination of the movement down pretty well, then I have them rep it out over and over. After it's in their muscle memory, then I put them in with someone with more experience and let them feel what it's like to do it both w/ resistance, then have it countered. From here, they can make adjustments and then we work on flow of transitions between this technique and others ("oops, I missed the leg choke, but I still got you w/ the arm bar").

I train my advanced students on "trad. basics" the same way. IMO, far too many instructors don't know what these movements were for in the first place. They were just told that they were important and did them. A few generations later, you have too much of the blind leading the blind. Or too amny people trying to throw out the baby with the bath water :rolleyes: .

Timmy Boy

04-Jul-2006, 03:12 PM

The reason to practice moving from one punch to another is that repetition is the mother of skill. When I teach my students how to do a triangle leg choke (as an example), once they have the coordination of the movement down pretty well, then I have them rep it out over and over. After it's in their muscle memory, then I put them in with someone with more experience and let them feel what it's like to do it both w/ resistance, then have it countered. From here, they can make adjustments and then we work on flow of transitions between this technique and others ("oops, I missed the leg choke, but I still got you w/ the arm bar").

I would understand the point of repetition if it was repetition of something they would actually do. In a fight, you're not going to punch from a forward stance and then do another punch from it, even your own example was something completely different.

Kwan Jang

04-Jul-2006, 06:05 PM

Edwyn Lilac

13-Aug-2006, 07:40 PM

Form/Kata isn't only about fighting. It's also about tradition and culture. People in earlier times didn't have weights or heavy machinery to train with, so they made their legs strong by doing stances. They forced their arms into muscle reflex by constantly doing repetitive movements. With forms form say the Five Animals, you could easily tell what influenced it; the aestetic beauty.

Forms/Kata are a way of demonstrating highly dangerous movements that could kill another human being without actually doing it to someone. Imagine doing a bushiken to another living human being in a sparring match. You could rupture his/her throat. Yet, if I were ever attacked, I would definately do a bushiken to immobilize the enemy. In forms/kata it's safe and controlled. Granted, it's not the same experience as doing it to another human being, the fear and power inherent in the attack.

Sparring is a training experience to learn how to respond in a fight. If you train on forms alone, then when a fight actually comes, you wouldn't know how to react. With sparring, you learn timing and blocking. You learn how to respond to situtions where a punch is actually coming at you.

How you train is also a difference. If you learn how to apply techniques, then form is a good thing. If you do forms without the knowledge of the mechanics of the form, then that's just a waste. Even sparring is still controlled and not close enough to a real fight. A real fight is completely irrational and has no rules to it whatsoever. In a real fight, I would do things that I would never think of doing in sparring; such as actually hitting to injure or maim, knees to the groin, throat hits, etc. Forms allows me to strike with purpose, whereas sparring allows me to be in a situation similar to what an actual fight could be like.

I think that a balance between forms and sparring is the best.

koto_ryu

13-Aug-2006, 09:22 PM

Kata is definitely an important part of the equation, as that is truly where you can find a lot of inspiration and techniques. Each kata was actually considered a "style" before (hence Gichin Funakoshi practicing Naihanci for the first nine years of his training), so each kata contains the most important elements of those styles and hence warrant some serious study.

However, without alive training (sparring, for example) and cross-training, you will never truly learn to apply what you have learned.

mojo shorin-ryu

13-Aug-2006, 09:34 PM

PeterG

13-Aug-2006, 11:46 PM

NaziKiller

13-Aug-2006, 11:53 PM

Katas, unless you train them for fun or aestheticism, are futile and uselss (IMHO).

CinMike

14-Aug-2006, 12:13 AM

Katas, unless you train them for fun or aestheticism, are futile and uselss (IMHO).

Katas aren't completely useless. They have their uses as stated by other posters. Some katas are very hard to do with good form and technique and athleticism.

It depends on the person. I do BJJ and MT and some basic Judo, and the only katas (are they considered katas?) I do are when performing throws on an unresisting opponent. Katas with 35-50 movements wouldn't really help my game. What helps my game is drilling leg kick/punch combinations (pad/bag work) and bjj techniques and then putting them to use in live sparring on a resisting opponent.

mojo shorin-ryu

14-Aug-2006, 06:44 AM

i SERIOUSLY think all of you should look at my last post on this thread because it seems like few of you know what katas are and wehre they come from and what their purpose is but anyway watch the videos in my last post, i put a link in there and it will help greatly-john

ap Oweyn

14-Aug-2006, 12:41 PM

oh man i hope my karate teacher gets a hold of this one...he'll have a field day...anyway kata moves arnet what exactly you would use in sparring or fighting...as originally believed by the men who came from japan after ww2 who were taught child's karate. there are these words " bunkai " and "oyo",which mean strict kata interperetation and loose interpretation. meaning a reach out with your hand grab the head and do a forearm strike doesnt mean thats the only move there is...it ocudl aslo be an s-wrist lock. But here we go i have some videos you should see it will help you understand why there is kata. this is some filming my karate class does...if you guys want A LOT of good info find the user "explorer" and force him to give you answers against his will....good luck, its nearly impossible to get him to make him not want to answer questions

http://martialarts.thepodcastnetwork.com/

look it up!
I can accept this explanation to a point. But the thing is that, unless you take those applications out of the kata and train them with good timing, distance, power, etc., they're probably not going to work. I just don't believe that, in the middle of "go time", you're going to relying on loose interpretations from your kata. You're not going to improvise with concepts like that. You're going to fall back on whatever basics you have drilled most instinctually into your brain. And those will be the ones you've practiced as they're to be applied ad nauseum.

Just to put this in context, I trained with kata for 10 years before stopping. And I'm not saying that they're useless. I'm saying that, the way I trained them (and the way I've seen other people train them), NOTHING from my katas ever came out in any sort of freeform environment (e.g., sparring). The instinct simply wasn't there.

I'm not suggesting that holds true for everyone. But if anyone HAS had any success implementing moves from their kata (either the standard bunkai or something more "loosely interpreted"), it would be really useful to this conversation for them to talk about that experience, how they trained it, etc.

Stuart

koto_ryu

14-Aug-2006, 01:05 PM

I've read two good books lately (primarily karate related but still applicable) which really cover a lot of this discussion.

The first is "Bunkai-Jutsu" by Iain Abernethy. He explains that the reason why there are so many misconceptions and BS bunkai is because people are too limited by their own training. He advocates cross-training in other arts so you can see more in your own, and sparring to apply what you learn. According to him, kata isn't a sequence of what you should do in a fight, it's a collection of techniques that you can use independently of each other. I found it to be a good read and definitely worth looking into.

The other is "Five Years, One Kata". The author (Dan Burgar <sp?> I believe) spent five years studying just one kata. No, he wasn't just doing it many times a day and that's it. He was breaking down each movement, seeing what he could get from each individual one, practicing with it, developing it, polishing it, then working to see the best way to apply it. Although a bit dry at times, he did have some valid points and some of the techniques he showed were interesting to say the least.

In my opinion, you get out of kata what you put into it. I was never much of a traditionalist before I picked up Bunkai-Jutsu. That got me interested into seeing what you can get out of it, and what makes it especially valuable is it's something you can do on your own outside of the dojo. Would I place it above hard sparring? Not at all. Would I say it's important though? Yep.

mojo shorin-ryu

14-Aug-2006, 05:30 PM

ap Oweyn

14-Aug-2006, 05:52 PM

owens, what is in here, does work, ive used it before in a real situation, The "rising counter" video works EXTREMELY well. And what form interperetation does is make the karateka think outside the box of the basic drills, often there are bunkai that work very well. Its not like when im being attacked i think of well pinan shodan 4th step okay, attack. What we do is break down different sections of the kata and figure out how they could apply to real life attacks, and if they work we use them...if they dont we throw them away or improve uppon them. yeah....-john
There you go then. I think that's a useful exercise. But it's important to recognize that different people mean very different things when they say "train kata." If that's what you mean by "train kata", then perhaps you're getting a lot out of it. But notice that what you describe as how you train kata is very similar to what I described as being what you'd need to do with kata.

In other words, we're in agreement.

Stuart

Yuske Urameshi

14-Aug-2006, 06:01 PM

I am a firm beliver that you won't get the 100% right movement of ANY art, traditional, or whatever, without some basics/kata. Here's why.

I have recently joined a Kickboxing gym and I have been going there for a couple weeks now. There is many sessions during the week, but thursday is usually the sparing day, but this week th teacher took out some time (most of the session) to practice, and learn correct punching and stance form.

So even though we train with aliveness a majority of the time, we still take out time to slow down and do kata-like practice to insure we arent being "training alively but bad" so to speak.

And let me tell you it help me alot so far.

"Even the most energetic, alive hyper human being needs to slow down and rest awhile!" :)

mojo shorin-ryu

14-Aug-2006, 07:21 PM

There you go then. I think that's a useful exercise. But it's important to recognize that different people mean very different things when they say "train kata." If that's what you mean by "train kata", then perhaps you're getting a lot out of it. But notice that what you describe as how you train kata is very similar to what I described as being what you'd need to do with kata.

In other words, we're in agreement.

Stuart

thweet...i like agreement

ap Oweyn

14-Aug-2006, 07:57 PM

thweet...i like agreement
I'm quite pleased with it myself. :)

CinMike

14-Aug-2006, 08:37 PM

Yuske Urameshi

15-Aug-2006, 03:35 AM

Why, thank you! :) Who's the person in your avitar?

kikr

16-Aug-2006, 07:50 PM

Kata is an integegral part of traditional martial arts. Martial arts practice was at one time illegal and was practiced in secrecy. Even today, with martial arts practice being an prevalent sport/hobby, many people practice without the people around them knowing about it. Kata was designed to be practiced in a small space and out of sight to allow practicioners the oppurtunity o train without being seen, arrested, and executed. A problem that I have encountered with modern Kata's is that they are watered down, and made unoffensive, and politically correct. I've seen techniques removed from Kata's because they were too violent or too offensive. If you are going to practice martial arts for protection purposes this kind of thinking is deadly, when I'm on the streets I want the most offensive, violent, and efficient techniques possible in my arsenal. I want to put the guys down before they can hurt me, my family, or any of the people I'm protecting. Kata are very effective training tools, if you use them properly, Study them, learn the meaning, discover the design, and practice them as if you are actually defending yourself. If you just learn the moves, and walk your way through them they arent doing you any good, but then again if thats your approach to practice your training is doing you no good anyways. Train hard, study hard, live easy.

CinMike

17-Aug-2006, 12:28 AM

Why, thank you! :) Who's the person in your avitar?

Toushiro Hitsugaya from "Bleach". Check it out if you like YYH.

Yuske Urameshi

17-Aug-2006, 05:33 AM

Toushiro Hitsugaya from "Bleach". Check it out if you like YYH.

Most definitely! Iv'e heard good things about it too.

Katas are good for warm ups, and part of MA history! They seem important to me.

-Yusuke

EternalRage

17-Aug-2006, 06:09 AM

You fight the way you train. If all your training is against air, that's what you're gonna be good at fighting.

The things kata can teach - balance, speed, tension, relaxation, as stated before, can be learned more directly with exercises that provide more resistance.

The applications of kata are useless, because no one fights like they do in structured patterns anymore. Overtraining kata would cause bad habits, like chambering at your hips for punches, because no matter how much you study the theory and potential application, all your body knows is retracting your hand to the hip.

And the hidden mumbo jumbo in kata? Ridiculous. Why study a form for things it may or may not contain? Even if you can squeeze an application out of a form, why do it in a structured manner against air??? Is real combat vs. air in a world devoid of randomness? Absolutely not. Do the drill against a live opponent. Do it against a kicking pad. Anything with more randomness and resistance than you would find in kata.

That being said, I will state that I do kata. I know quite a few. But I don't make it the bulk of my training, I try to minimize it as much as possible to prevent bad habits while still doing enough of it because I do like it for aesthetics, fun, and athleticism. I recognize it has little to nothing to offer for fighting, and also make sure juniors in the class understand it as well.

Jang Bong

17-Aug-2006, 10:44 AM

ER - Not sure how much you've read of this (and other) kata threads, but all of your points have been covered while still promoting the benefits of 'forms'.

I recognize it has little to nothing to offer for fighting, and also make sure juniors in the class understand it as well.

That quote makes you look like an 'older' member of the class, but not the teacher (apologies if you are the teacher). If I'm right, then your teacher uses kata as a teching mechanism, and I'm not sure if it is your place to influence younger members to dismiss it due to your (still young) analysis of it.

Next thing you know they'll be coming on internet forums and telling everyone that there's very little (or no) point in practicing kata :D

EternalRage

17-Aug-2006, 01:06 PM

ER - Not sure how much you've read of this (and other) kata threads, but all of your points have been covered while still promoting the benefits of 'forms'.
Ah see I figured this was one of those let's chase each other around in circular arguments threads... like who has teh real wing chun or style vs style, and I wanted to add to the merry go round.

That quote makes you look like an 'older' member of the class, but not the teacher (apologies if you are the teacher). If I'm right, then your teacher uses kata as a teching mechanism, and I'm not sure if it is your place to influence younger members to dismiss it due to your (still young) analysis of it.
You're right. I'm just a senior student. Teacher and assistant teachers share the same opinion. Says forms are part of the art, not the fighting. A great deal of our students come from other clubs (university club we are) where forms are like the end all of martial arts, and some reprogramming is in order. And yeah, I don't think I have as much experience in the martial arts as you. But whether I'm in it for a year, or thirty years, will never change the fact that I will never drop into a front stance with a down block and chambered fist to block a kick, or find any deep life changing secrets in the form, or work any principles, mechanics, or simple notions of fighting that I can't do more efficiently with a drill that encompasses randomness and resistance. <-- see adding to merry go round

Next thing you know they'll be coming on internet forums and telling everyone that there's very little (or no) point in practicing kata :D
God I hope so.
1.) Truth is beautiful.
2.) Can never have too many on a merry go round.

79samurai

17-Aug-2006, 02:35 PM

Hi,

I havent had time to check every post on this thread so if i repeat anything already mentioned then i apologise in advance!

Firstly in answer to the original question, yes i believe that Forms/Patterns/Hyungs/Katas etc.. are a valuable training tool for many reasons.

Firstly i ( along with many people i have met ) believe that its much easier to turn a champion in Kata into a good fighter as balance has been improved, visualisation and focus has been practiced, overall cardiovascular improvement has been made by repeated practice etc.

Also i keep hearing about having to train and pound another student as being the best way to train and learn fighting skills. Simply competing against another human being will soon get boring and repetitive. Forms practice for me provides a constant challenge as i strive to reach perfection whilst all the time knowing i will never achieve it.

I wont get into the realms of hidden meanings and applications in forms but i will state that without these traditions, and please dont call them outdated and useless we may as well not train in a dojang ( or wherever you train ) but rather outside a pub/club on a saturday whilst picking on the biggest guy we can find. We should stick to our traditions because it is our heritage and gift to pass on to others.

elektro

23-Aug-2006, 02:02 AM

You fight the way you train. If all your training is against air, that's what you're gonna be good at fighting.

Training into thin air has it's advantages - that's a whole other discussion. Of course it needs to be combined with training against a bag/ whatever.

The things kata can teach - balance, speed, tension, relaxation, as stated before, can be learned more directly with exercises that provide more resistance.

How do you learn to balance if you miss if you are always hitting something?

The applications of kata are useless, because no one fights like they do in structured patterns anymore.
You make it sound like there was a time when they did?

Overtraining kata would cause bad habits, like chambering at your hips for punches, because no matter how much you study the theory and potential application, all your body knows is retracting your hand to the hip.

This sounds like turning your brain off to me. I've been doing kata for 10-15 years and I don't retract my hand if I don't want to retract my hand. Or I do if I do. Pure training without also training the mind to adapt is very constrictive. If I only did what felt natural to me, I'd be punching them with my right hand , that's about it. This would probably lose me the fight.

Do the drill against a live opponent. Do it against a kicking pad. Anything with more randomness and resistance than you would find in kata.
"Studying kata" also involves isolating moves and studying them in the way you describe.

MaverickZ

23-Aug-2006, 02:13 AM

the mechanics of kicking air and kicking something are completely different.

Timmy Boy

23-Aug-2006, 06:49 PM

Timmy,
I may not understand what you are getting at. When we work (using my earlier example) leg chokes, we drill it both sides back and forth. When line drills were created, they were made to rep out usually for large groups of soldiers (at least in Korean arts). This made it easier to teach and rep in large groups.

In a form, you may see movements repeated and this is used to illustrate the variations of an attack. For example, using two-way action w/ a finger lock, or the same dynamic w/ a wrist lock, ect. Older trad. forms are basically a refference tool or pneumonic device to work on angle and direction of attack in common self defense scenarios. They also should (if you or the instructor know how to read the "map") teach how to compound the attack in combos.

What I'm getting at is that you don't see karateka using the kata techniques when they spar. Your argument seems to be that there is some value in repeating various versions of a certain technique so that you can learn the different ways you can do it. I'm not disputing this as it's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is when people learn techniques that are simply not used in sparring at all. Lunge and reverse punches from a low stance are too slow and impractical, so no-one bothers using them; this is not the same as showing someone the variations of an actual practical technique that they would use.

I'm sorry that when you studied TSD that your instructor did not teach this (and probably was never introduced to it himself). Unfortunately, this is pretty common. This does not change the fact that forms can be a very effective training aid. Similar to a college student having a dictionary or thes. to refer to when writing an English paper. You can obviously get by w/o them, but this can be a valuable resource if you know how to use it. The sad thing is that the tradition of many systems restricted who had access to the effective use of this info.

IMO if you train live and spar the need to search for hidden meanings of kata disappears unless you're like Iain Abernathy and you have the specific goal of making your kata practice work.

Timmy Boy

23-Aug-2006, 06:55 PM

Form/Kata isn't only about fighting. It's also about tradition and culture. People in earlier times didn't have weights or heavy machinery to train with, so they made their legs strong by doing stances. They forced their arms into muscle reflex by constantly doing repetitive movements. With forms form say the Five Animals, you could easily tell what influenced it; the aestetic beauty.

Weights aren't exactly cutting edge 21st century technology and karate isn't exactly ancient either.

Forms/Kata are a way of demonstrating highly dangerous movements that could kill another human being without actually doing it to someone. Imagine doing a bushiken to another living human being in a sparring match. You could rupture his/her throat. Yet, if I were ever attacked, I would definately do a bushiken to immobilize the enemy. In forms/kata it's safe and controlled. Granted, it's not the same experience as doing it to another human being, the fear and power inherent in the attack.

Sparring is a training experience to learn how to respond in a fight. If you train on forms alone, then when a fight actually comes, you wouldn't know how to react. With sparring, you learn timing and blocking. You learn how to respond to situtions where a punch is actually coming at you.

How you train is also a difference. If you learn how to apply techniques, then form is a good thing. If you do forms without the knowledge of the mechanics of the form, then that's just a waste. Even sparring is still controlled and not close enough to a real fight. A real fight is completely irrational and has no rules to it whatsoever. In a real fight, I would do things that I would never think of doing in sparring; such as actually hitting to injure or maim, knees to the groin, throat hits, etc. Forms allows me to strike with purpose, whereas sparring allows me to be in a situation similar to what an actual fight could be like.

With regard to the first and last of these particular paragraphs, I think you're overestimating the amount of techniques that are actually illegal in something like MMA sparring as opposed to tip-tap points sparring. The overwhelming bulk of the techniques you use can be practiced safely in sparring.

elektro

23-Aug-2006, 08:30 PM

the mechanics of kicking air and kicking something are completely different.

That's why you practise both ways ;) - not just slamming against a bag 24/7.

MaverickZ

23-Aug-2006, 08:47 PM

That's why you practise both ways ;) - not just slamming against a bag 24/7.

except that the air kicking way ultimately proves worthless in sparring. seeing as you're kicking SOMETHING and not air.

Timmy Boy

24-Aug-2006, 01:20 PM

That's why you practise both ways ;) - not just slamming against a bag 24/7.

But what you're training to do is hit a solid target, so what purpose does air-hitting serve?

Timmy Boy

24-Aug-2006, 01:31 PM

Training into thin air has it's advantages - that's a whole other discussion. Of course it needs to be combined with training against a bag/ whatever.

I don't think it really is a whole other discussion, since it's a large reason why kata gets criticised.

How do you learn to balance if you miss if you are always hitting something?

You do live pad drills.

You make it sound like there was a time when they did?

This I kind of agree on; although I don't think it proves your point, it's not an argument I'd use against kata.

This sounds like turning your brain off to me. I've been doing kata for 10-15 years and I don't retract my hand if I don't want to retract my hand. Or I do if I do. Pure training without also training the mind to adapt is very constrictive. If I only did what felt natural to me, I'd be punching them with my right hand , that's about it. This would probably lose me the fight.

On this point, then whatever way you look at it, kata isn't effective. Either it doesn't teach you bad habits like chambering at the hip, in which case the kata isn't making the techniques become instinctive, or it is making the techniques become instinctive but teaching you bad habits in the process. What you call "adaptation" in this context is just throwing karate technique out of the window in favour of something far more practical which you could learn much more effectively by just training that way in the first place.

"Studying kata" also involves isolating moves and studying them in the way you describe.

The point is that there is no need for practicing reciting the kata in order. The only skills you learn in kata are how to perform aesthetically pleasing techniques and remembering what order to do the techniques in when you recite it. It doesn't teach you good technique, because you don't use those techniques, and it doesn't improve strength or endurance any more than any other martial arts training, and is certainly less effective than bodyweight calisthenics and weightlifting. Even if you combine it with other training drills it's still not helping.