street fighting

I can understand why people have the impression of kata that they do. I have never seen a kata performed that was more than a glorified dance. I have no doubt that resistance can be added to a kata, but I wonder if it would still be a kata at that point, personally I have only ever seen kata that have predetermined outcomes. With kata you get the impression that to actively resist a technique would be considered rude. I think the confusion here is finding at what point a kata becomes a drill. I would argue that if you are actively trying to thwart your opponent, then you are doing a kata based drill rather than performing a kata.

 

This is why, in the arts we are discussing, that the senior is the "attacker" it is their job to lead or guide the junior in the kata, to know when they should resist, when they should highlight a weakness and when they need to let the junior side just go through the motions.

It's still kata and what I have described is common in how kata is approached in these arts, of course some schools might just go through the motions.

 

This is probably more eloquent than I have put it.

http://seirenkanuk.wordpress.com/the-duty-of-the-uke-in-kata-geiko/

 

How often is the resistance effective? What I mean is that how often do the predetermined outcomes of the kata fail to happen, how often does someone get hit when they shouldn't? In the jab-slip drill I mentioned earlier, both participants are trying to prevent the other from carrying out their part. The guy training his jab wants to hit his opponent, the guy training to slip jabs wants to avoid his opponents strike. There are two mutually exclusive possible outcomes, essentially in every attempt there is a winner and a loser. This is clearly a drill, in contrast with a kata where there is a clear predetermined ideal outcome.

Whenever you get a list of techniques strung together in a series, and expect people to complete the techniques in their set order, then that is a strong disincentive to provide meaningful resistance. When you give people opposing goals then that is a strong incentive for resistance. That is probably the core problem I have with 2 person kata, both participants share a common goal (successful completion of the kata) so realistic resistance is strongly disincentivised.

I just read your link. It sounds like a good concept in theory, but I wonder how often the theory matches the practise.

 

IMO they should be viewed akin to ippon kumite (except with pre-arranged responses obviously). You attack with commitment and defend with same

Note SHOULD is the key word there

 

It's the only way to fly!

 

Ippon kumite isn't pressure testing the techniques either though. It's an idealised drill.

 

So is armbar from mount

 

Yes. And then you pressure test it when you spar. There are loads of techniques I can do in drills but I can't come close to pulling off in randori.

 

But thr pressure in pressure testing is allowed to be gradual. If you are doing ippon kumite only the attack is preset...the ferocity and effort can be tailored. Its akin to panatukan jab catch drilling or isolation spatring in boxing

Now granted i am not a fan of it overall, but if i try and split your wig with my attack then your defemse will be honest

Pressure has levels and people forget that

 

In the heat of armed melee? Someone is going to process the details of an exchange between one of his comrades and an opponent, analyse the outcome, choose an alternate response, and then overcome months to years of physical training to choose a different method of defense? That feels pretty far-fetched. On paper, it makes sense. But in the midst of a skirmish? I don't think it really works that way. That's a whole lot of thought process for those circumstances.

Even if you did have the time to do all that processing, there are countless reasons that a defense fails in the middle of a proper skirmish. Everything from uneven footing to imperfect timing. "Choose another counter" sounds more like a round of Magic: The Gathering than an actual battle.

 

The point is that mma is a solid self defense platform, just like the enfield is a solid platform to gun fight with, operator error and skill are a matter of training, ability, and a willingness to employ the methods needed to defend ones self.

 

Not meaning to be over confrontational but I have a few questions about that statement.

1, Do you do MMA or zanshin karate?
We have been over the differences before in the what is MMA thread. Zanshin karate is a hybrid style and is not MMA (as in the rule set/sport and the techniques used within it) How you use the term MMA is different to how many of us perceive it, it may avoid confusion if you simply refer to your art as zanshin karate and dropped the term MMA.

2, How do you know MMA is a "solid self defence platform"? Have you actualy used MMA in self defence? Do you think that style covers all aspects of self defence?
A quick look through the self defence forum will give you an idea of the things included in the phrase self defence. Unless you have actualy covered all that material in an MMA class and then used that knowledge in a self defence scenario how are you in a position to judge its self defence potential?

3, How do you know an Enfield is a solid platform to fight with? Have you ever used an Enfield in a fire fight ? How do you find it compares to say a Kalashnikov or an M4 or even an L85A2? I would refer you back to my logic above, if you have not used it then how can you judge its worth?

My intention here is not to start an argument, I agree with the gist of the statement you made but I just don't get how your are in a position to make absolute statements about these things. Please tell me if you think I have gotten anything wrong here and please feel free to debate what I have said, it's only my opinion (at 5.45am after 2 bottles of vino so apologies of this is incoherent or the tone of it comes across a bit strong).

 

Yeah... I was talking more about mulling over scenarios than if x, do y kind of stuff. Though, having said that, fighting cultures (including sports) will gravitate toward certain technical solutions borne of the success or failure of application. So maybe your nerdalogy is closer than you think.

Have you ever talked about fighting to someone who grew up in a rough place, where ad-hoc tactics and techniques were handed down along male family lines? The "choose another counter" way of thinking isn't too far off the way that can work for people who only ever know 3-5 techniques that they only get to "practice" for real.

I have certainly reflected upon, and assimilated lessons from, seeing people come a cropper in a fight.

I've never been in a battle, but I'd be suprised if, out of everyone who leaves the field, not a one takes home some technical, tactical or emotional lesson to reflect upon and improve performance to increase their odds of survival for the next time. I think that humans, in general, learn pretty fast when their lives are on the line, and can assimilate a lot of information for later processing when dosed with adrenaline. Even if it's not conscious reflection, there will still be dreams, daydreams, nightmares and flashbacks.

 

Sure, but you probably didn't do it in that moment.

 

No, of course not.

I didn't realise that's what you thought I was getting at.

Though, I would be very suprised if, in the history of warfare, someone didn't see the guy next to them die and think to themself; "well, I'm not going to do that!".

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUO8ScYVeDo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUO8ScYVeDo[/ame]

 

That isnt the point at all

The point is that eye jabs, stomps and othe such techniques need similar drilling and training to any other more "conventional technique

As an illustration kast week in class i had a pretty high level krav guy show my student a counter to a front choke/crank we were drilling, which happened to be a double eye gouge. I told him bluntly it wouldnt work and he said it woukd because it was so nasty. Fine, lets do it said I..i even let him set his hands in place too. Ready, set, go!

He tapped instantly

Noe can eye jabs work as counters? Hell yes! I teach them and use them all the time! But without the cortect platform and base and opprtunity to launch it it simply cannot be relied on...and that means you risk both failure AND escalation in the same breath