"Kata" - an amateur's perspective

And they're off :bang:

 

Please refrain from baiting one another...this is not the forum that likes that! Please stop now.

 

It always happens when I think I'm letting someone see a different point of view. Just scanned through the last page-and-a-half, and it looks like a totally different thread that has ignored all the constructive byplay (with differing views) that had gone before.


Sad!


If people want definitive statements, then in my oppinion "Learning a martial art", and "Learning to fight (effectively or otherwise)" are two different things.

Anyone that things there is no benefit in Kata/Hyungs may simply not be able to see the benefit.

 

To be fair Jang Bong, I have been trying very hard to keep this thread from degenerating into style-bashing and I really enjoyed it when it was going properly. I have still been making constructive comments, but sadly Fish of Doom took my opinions a little too personally.

I would welcome further discussion from yourself, Ikken Hitatsu, ap oweyn, Gyaku, and all others who have been able to discuss opinions like adults.

 

Unfortunately the sometimes observed opinion that "Kata does not relate directly to real life fighting" gets translated (sometimes by interpretation - sometimes by deliberate malice) into "Kata serves no purpose and is useless. Anyone who pratices it is wasting their time and should be fighting".


I know nothing about the gentleman mentioned in the following exchange:

... but if he was hard - and a good figher - and practiced kata..... then just maybe there is something in it.

I go back to my comments that you TST and IH have chosen arts that are heavily into direct combat as a major part and result of your training. I did not miss the point of it being a 'controlled and relatively safe' arena, but you sidestepped my reference to people who do not actively 'want to fight'.

You may look down on me for being a peaceable type of guy - but going back to my guitar anallogy, I reserve the right to learn to play without having to be a performance artist. My skills may never have been tested by your standards, but my hope is that they never will be.

The usual sidestep for the 'blueprint of the art' is the fact there are too many techniques and you shouldn't need the blueprint. This does not try to discredit the use of kata - it attacks the whole art in order to throw the learning of kata out. Not a good result.

At class last week (the 'shotokan karate' one I am a guest at) the drill was to block a punch to the jaw, and respond with an immediate attack of your own. The tricky part was that each response needed to be different. The lady I was working with didn't know how I could come up with so many - I was simply taking an appropriate move from each form in turn (starting off with a straight middle-punch from basic form 1 and going on from there).

OK - We're off again

 

Well no, and as I said, each to their own.

I haven't sidestepped it, Jang Bong. In my very first post on this thread I said that I was talking purely about people who DO train to fight. Besides, arts like judo all have mitigations so that people can spar realistically AND safely, so there's nothing to be scared of. I think you have sidestepped my point that there is a difference between hard sparring and real fighting.

I think you're confusing me for some kind of knucklehead. I'm not trying to put pressure on anyone to start fights with people, I'm simply inquiring as to why it's a bad idea to spar hard.

There's nothing wrong with a blueprint, I just have concerns about how much training time is devoted to simply repeating the movements of the kata rather than applying them.

Well if your goal is simply to learn loads of counterattacks, then yes, that was very well done. But even you implied that you were still training in how to fight, hence such statements as "my instructor says that if you learn 20 techniques you will only remember 1 so you need to learn loads to make up for it", and now you're talking about not being a fighting type of guy? The point is, we are ALL training in how to fight, even if we don't pla

First off, in judo and boxing, you don't HAVE to compete. Secondly, sparring in the lessons is NOT dangerous. When I talk about sparring hard, I'm not talking about two guys completely mullering each other. Like a real fight, you have to apply techniques under a lot of pressure, you have the adrenalin going etc. However, unlike a real fight, certain techniques are banned, the fight stops when you tap, in boxing you don't hit on absolute full power if it's not a compettition fight, your opponent (if he is a senior belt) will help you out, etc.

 

To Tang Sou Tim and others, you've made some really great posts.

I thought I might provide my schools take on kata ( I practise Tsubaeme-Ryu, which is an offshoot of Shotokan) and its place in karate training.

1.Pure Kata---------------2.Limited Kata---------------3.No Kata

If you look at the above 'diagram'.

At number 1, we have the practise of Pure Kata, here there is zero variation, practise is confined to a strict 'ideal'. Here we take a movement from a kata. Let us for take Tekki shodan as an example. The form opens with an open hand movement followed by an elbow strike.
At this level in practise, students have to apply correct principles to their these movements. So proper breathing, hip rotation etc are stressed.

Next we apply the movement against a non-resisting opponant. This is a bit like Ippon kumite or one step sparring.

At this point only an ideal kata is used.

2. At this point we start with variation.
Here we might use an isolation drill where one person tries to grab their opponant and land a punch. The Bunkai is applied in this setting, but with variation in timeing height etc. However, basic principles are still being applied, like breathing etc.

Eventually we move to randori or free fighting, where the student gets the opportunity to apply and ingrain the technique against a fully resisting opponant.

3. At this level we have residual effects of training, where the principles of the technique are applied in an endless variation. So proper breathing etc are applied to other completely different movements.
An example is during a very scrappy fight, although form is difficult to apply, proper breathing is still applied, hips are still used to throw punches etc.

Finally, we also see kata as a consolidation tool, in that it is a physical reminder of techniques and principles sharpened and applied in real kumite, rather than simply a learning tool.

 

In my previous post, that should have said "even if we don't plan to", not "even if we don't pla", I only realised that typo just now and it's too late to edit!

 

Ok Gyaku, thanks for helping to get this thread back on track . Now, a question with regard to your model of training. I think the crucial drill there is the second one, as it provides the bridge between kata and kumite. Could you possibly provide more details about it? In particular I'd be interested to hear about the speed, spontaneity, and what skills the drill specifically works on.

 

I agree, the isolation drills are vital, and make the bridge.

I take a either a thematic skillset approach to the drills.

Thematics are common types of attacks, for instance the old grab by lapel and punch is common, but you need to understand that is have infinite variety, you can be grabbed in many way, your oppnant might remain static and punch or they might even push and pull etc. In reality its very dynamic. So we work with a theme of attack rather than a very specific attack.

When we drill a theme, one person will attack using this method, but will try their best to resist any counters and land their punch (so they'll push and body punch, then head punch, whatever they can!) - which is exactly ho wit would happen in a real situation. The amount the person resists is up to the consent of students.

Other themes are kickers, knifers etc. Thet are basically common problems that occur in fighting. The kata technique is taught in relation to a thematic problem.

A skill set approach is different. Here we will help students build certain reflexs, balance, strength etc. One student might hold an impact bag while another delivers kicks that require the student to correctly position of the hips in kicking, for instance a stepping front kick, roundhouse kick and back kick sequence. Again to refer to kanku dai, we might practise this kata over and over to build aerobic endurance.

 

All sounds good to me, how much time is dedicated to the first of the drills?

Overall I think that setup is pretty good, it's someone taking the kata movements and actually using them in good, realistic drills.

It kind of reminds me in a way of what we do at judo. Sometimes, we modify the "textbook" techniques slightly in order to make them work better, e.g. putting both legs over for the cross armlock/armbar, rather than the traditional one, or this pin I got showed last lesson where simply moving one arm into a different position than the textbook move stopped uke from being able to move at all.

 

how much time is dedicated to the first of the drills?

Generally as soon as th estudent is ready. I have a flexible approach, once the student can cope at one level, they can step it up, more resistance, speed etc.

So in a class, I might have the beginners just doing simple one step drills so they can get a handle on basics, whie advanced students will be working with more resistance.

Overall I think that setup is pretty good, it's someone taking the kata movements and actually using them in good, realistic drills.

Thanks, it took me nearly 8 years to figure it all out! Although I must say most karate schools don't train this way, which is a shame.

What about the kata themselves. I don't think all kata or versions of kata are necessarily effective from a bunkai position. Some kata are better than others.

How do you approach kata, if you practise it?

 

I don't anymore but in TSD we just did the forms. We were told to learn and use the moves in the forms, but we only did this in one and three step sparring which were slow and unrealistic, so they all got thrown out the window when we did free sparring.

 

Because alot of the moves in forms aren't THAT applicable. Oh there are ones that are, Sao Choy, Gwa Choy, and all the combinations WITHIN the forms we do. However, the lones like eyepokes and the ones that involve heave stance transitions I dont' use yet, mainly because mine aren't that fast yet. . . . . .

 

Yeah, but with us, about 95% was considered unapplicable.

 

What exactly did you do anyways? Krappy Karate???

 

Ren Yi Wu Kwan Tang Sou Dao. Read my explanation on the first page for what was wrong with it.

 

While I disagree (I realize people study martial arts for different reasons, but they were created for just one), that statement makes the thread a lot shorter. I train mostly because I enjoy it, but I don't enjoy training that doesn't help me improve my ability to fight. For that reason, I don't do kata. I've done them before and I didn't really think they have any benefits. Besides, techniques done in forms are often different from their actual applications. I could go on and on about it, but this post from another forum (here) says it better than I can.

 

I do remember hearing somewhere that, over time/at some point (can't remember which), many of karate's head honchos became more concerned with the aesthetic qualities and the "martial way" rather than fighting, and as a result the movements became more stylised and impractical. Anyone know anything about this?

 

I doubt it was any sort of concerted effort or decision. I think it's just a predictable consequence of them no longer representing the state of the art in military technology. Without the constant reality check, rust builds up. In retrospect, it might look like a directed effort. But in reality, I think it just happened.


Stuart