"Kata" - an amateur's perspective

So really this would rest on the depth of knowledge regarding applications? So the flaw may not be in the kata themselves but rather in the way movements are interpreted? Poor interpretation means poor application.

The Bubishi (an old karate text) is very interesting in this regard. One of the bunkai it recommends is a take down in response to a 'headhunter'. Certainly most MMA's will buy into that a well tested method. However this same move (From Kanku-Dai) is normally taught by some karate organisations as a duck away from an over heard kick! Could this problem of 'lost in translation' apply to other techniques?

 

Perhaps, to a degree. But what about things like basic punches and kicks?

 

Perhaps, to a degree. But what about things like basic punches and kicks?

Again, perhap lost in translation. If you're refering to the basic hikite (hand drawn to hip) you could have a point, but if you refer to Kunakoshi's early texts he claims this is to pull an opponant into a punch, a far more feasible application.

 

Ah, now this makes more sense! So perhaps the solution could be found in bunkai?

 

Yup agree there. Of course you still have to spar to learn to apply the techniques.

 

I haven't actually read this thread because I can't be bothered to read all of your long winded posts

My opinion on kata is that if it helps you then do it. It helps me, so I do it, I don't need to justify it to anyone and I think these big arguments are pointless and never get anywhere. I will say though, that kata are very useful when done right. Just look at Mas Oyama, one of the toughest blokes in martial arts. He practised kata hundreds of times a day, and practised the "air basics" endlessly to perfect his technique, and he was inarguably a very good fighter. However kata for some people, is not the right way for them to train and so it holds them back, so my advice to anyone having doubts about their kata training, is to take a step back and see if it is helping you or not. If it is, then great, but if it's not, maybe you should find another art to train in, or just do less kata.

 

I would be interested to see a group construct a set of sparring drills specifically on movements from the kata. I've seen the reverse process, where kata are altered (higher stances for example) to more closely reflect sparring. But I haven't ever seen a karate class where they took two sparrers and said, "alright, Mike, you can only throw reverse punches using good front stances and Jim, you defend using your forearm blocks and the appropriate stance transitions."

See I'm willing to accept that kata has a point (though I don't personally make use of it). But I think kata gets treated like magic. You do it and the skills automatically have a positive impact on your sparring. And that, I don't really believe. Except for the more abstract benefits like stretching and conditioning.


Stuart

 

Well, you've not come to the right place, this is the articles forum lol!

They often do degenerate into pointless and unconstructive style bashing, but this one has been anything but IMO.

I personally think Oyama's ability was more to do with the fact that he trained himself into being hard as nails, he did some crazy stuff, not just kata and air basics.

I think what's more in dispute now is not the existence of kata but the purpose of it and how one should train with it/use it. So the discussion has progressed after all

 

I agree, there is a tendency to see kata in some magical alchemical light. By training kata you can suddenly apply all the movements.

I would be interested to see a group construct a set of sparring drills specifically on movements from the kata.

That would be interesting. However I have a problem with this. I train kata as a fixed movement. If you will, a 'standard' of technique or correct structure. Even your top MMA's like Shamrock talk about 'proper' structure etc. Kata is the codification of this 'proper structure'.

Kumite is the art of variation in technique and structure. Sometimes you must modify the technique, heighten the stance, lower the stance etc according to your opponant. In essence you're studying the amount of variation from that original form. For me kumite is an extention of kata.

I don't thing you need kata to fight well, but you need to fight well to do kata well!

 

If I may be just a little cynical for a moment... what if the sparring people do looks far more like kickboxing than the karate movements? Surely that's complete rejection of the techniques in the katas rather than modification of them? And do instructors teach you good ways of adapting them?

 

No, not cynical at all. I've often asked myself the same question.

To me its a problem of 'scrappyness'. A skilled karateka against an unskilled less able fighter will still maintain 'kata' - I know, because I can do it, and so can many of my students.

Scrappyness becomes a problem when you have equally able fighters. However, normally the fight is won (or at least is able to dominate) when one fighter is able to get in a technique that is correct in kata (proper use of hip etc).

If you look at MMA compos you'll see vast spaces of scrappy technique, that doesn't resemble kickboxing, karate or anything else, they're just doing what they can, which is fight. The first person who is able to exact a well structured (ie good kata) technique will usually win.

 

That's what I'm wondering too. I actually really like Gyaku's comments about a basis for the inevitable variation of sparring. But I think that in most cases, the variation is strong enough that it leaves the basis behind entirely. I'm thinking that if more sparring drills were done from the kata basics, then the degree of variation would decrease.

Good points all around though. Keep it up.


Stuart

 

The question of practice v. execution is one that most TMA's don't like to address. It can be broken down to a couple of ideologies:

1. In the end we're all programmed to fight a certain way and under stress we revert back.

2. Fighting always optimizes to match other fighting. Therefore if someone is kick boxing you, you have a tendency to kick box.

3. Training amd fight preparation are the issue. If you introduce sparring in a manner that allows for experiementation people are more likely to experiement and optimize.

4. That the techniques and kata originally looked closer to that type of fighting and became stylized.

There's arguments for each of these cases. From a training methodology standpoint I tend to closely align with the third option. I think the way that sparring is taught in many schools prevents beginners from utilizing their arts. That inability to access skills in turn instantiates a mental schism between kata and application. That schism in turn only widens as time progresses and the training methodologies stay the same.

There is a lot of truth in the other ideologies. I do think that we have a number of hard wired survival skills that we can't easily bypass. Evidence shows that we optimize training to the practical success vectors of the combat situation (a great argument against point sparring btw).

Finally, we get this idea that every second of sparring should look like a kung fu movie. The fact is, even in the UFC, that the stylistic differences, the killer moves, only briefly come out during matches. Take a Royce match, isolate the first minute or so, and show it to a person who doesn't know who he is. They'd guess he's a karate man or something along those lines. His BJJ only differentiated itself when the opportunity allowed. The same thing is true of much of Kata/Form material. Like in Aikido, basic punching and kicking does 70% of the work and creates the opportunities for usage of advanced techniques.

- Matt

 

I think this right here is the crux of the issue. That schism between practice and execution is the primary reason I balk whenever someone says "don't introduce sparring until much later, when the techniques have been internalized."

That reality check should be a constant process. I can subscribe to Gyaku's idea that kata represents an ideal from which we know we'll deviate in reality. But ONLY if that process of deviation is explored as you go along. So that when you learn a low block reverse punch combination (for example), you're exploring both the ideal and the reality at roughly the same time.

It does little good to learn the ideal for months or even a year before testing them in sparring. Because the feedback you're getting all in one go is too much for most people to single out individual facets of their game to work on. For example, a student spends 6 months learning the basic blocks, footwork, and kicks, then they spar. All of a sudden, the basic blocks aren't catching all the attacks. The student doesn't have the time to move from back stance to front stance to cat stance. The timing and range on the kicks are constantly changing. That's a lot of adaptation to do all at one time, in the midst of a sparring match.

If sparring drills were incorporated all along, then there would be less variance to learn to deal with at any given moment. The schism would be smaller at any given moment. In my opinion.


Stuart

 

Actually - if you read the forum description - this forum area is intended for discusion of articles posted in the ARTICLES SECTION. Not for posting articles in

 

Quite right Stuart. The only thing that I'd add is that the sparring should be optimized for each level of learning.

For as much as martial arts teachers often remind students to "go slow" first, beginner sparring environments (and the point sparring structure in general) tend to counteract this type of advice. Beginners get into an adrenaline dumping, performance situation, even with light contact, that negates all previous training.

Our solution is to temporarily take speed and strength out of the equaision. The goal is to place students in an environment that they build up a trust in their abilities while not worring if they're head is going to be separated from thier shoulders.

Once the student grows accustom to working within that frame work the pace can be increased at a rate that matches thier overall progress.

- Matt

 

ok, so i've read the thread now, and i agree with most of whats been said but i'm still definately pro kata because it has helped me become a better fighter and get good technique, which in turn leads to more power. And
tim you are right, i'm surprised to see that this hasn't turned into a kata bashing thread.

 

Good point Matt! Thanks for reminding me. I wanted to draw a distinction between free sparring and sparring drills. I absolutely agree. Variables should be limited to train specific things. Whether you're limiting speed, range of techniques, level of contact, etc. It's the difference between sparring for the full experience and sparring to achieve specific gains in a specific area of study.

I agree. Many teachers I've seen don't use sparring as a tool. Just as a proving ground. Or worse yet, as an undirected activity with no real connection to the other training methods in the curriculum.


Stuart

 

And that, like teaching people to kick knives out of hands, makes the baby Jesus cry.

- Matt

 

LOL

I just can't imagine what the objection is to it. Anyone?