"Kata" - an amateur's perspective

So do you think perhaps competition has something to do with it?

To clarify, I don't mean that suddenly they re-wrote all the moves and overnight it turned useless. I'm not even saying it's useless now. What I thought happened was that the heads of karate federations stopped doing full contact fighting in their schools to concentrate on the other, less combat focussed elements of martial arts training, and without that goal of effective fighting, the standards of practicality in the techniques began to diminish to make way for more aesthetic quality. Hence the kata has impractical moves in it now, or so the story goes.

 

Oh, I see what you're saying. I think.

I don't know. I think it probably began out of an earnest belief in what we now dismiss as the "too deadly for competition" defense.

On the one hand, when you're talking about swordfighting, archery, halberd, etc., there really isn't a very good way to simulate that experience. Fencing doesn't give someone the experience of being stabbed. Or of stabbing someone else. It's still an abstraction. It's just that most of us find sparring less of an abstraction than forms are. And in a day and age where "combat" for most of us means getting punched or kicked rather than run through, that might well be true. But when martial arts first began to fade from "day-to-day" combat, it may well have been that kata were the next reasonable step. Unfortunately, that allows room for distortion and compromise. And in some cases (many cases) that distortion and compromise took root.

I have no idea whether this is the case. It's hypothesizing.

Think about the weapon arts that now spar though. I mentioned fencing. I can personally attest to the fact that stick sparring (at least WEKAF armoured stickfighting) isn't a very faithful representation of what it would be like to get bashed with a stick proper. Anymore than paintball is a faithful recreation of a fire fight.

I think I just muddied the waters more than cleared them. At least in my own head.

 

So the fact that they refused to practice realistically in compettition meant that they had to just speculate about the techniques and thus they're not as effective as they might have been had they been properly pressure tested and refined?

I can really see what you mean here. Many martial arts were designed to kill, hence the way that many of them include weapons training, so the people who designed them naturally thought "well, if we practice fighting like this in compettition, we'll all kill each other!"

I personally think it's a pretty damn good hypothesis. Here's my extension. Note - for the purpose of this post, I will refer to combat sports and martial arts as separate things for the sake of clarity, it is NOT an expression of an opinion and I'm not trying to go down the road of "is kickboxing a martial art":

Back in the old days, combat sports and martial arts were seen as separate things (and many see them separately today). One was designed to kill, the other was merely a sport that provided one with useful everyday combat abilities. Thus, it was never thought to compare martial arts with combat sports. Different things, different purposes, they existed in parallel.

Martial arts were therefore not seen as something you could really test. In battles, you would have a weapon anyway, and anyone unfortunate enough to lose their weapon in battle would only have one chance to see if their unarmed martial art really worked, and that chance would in all likelihood be against an armed opponent, probably in armour. Therefore the techniques remained in the realms of theory, so they didn't see anything especially wrong with learning kata as a codification of their techniques.

When the age of samurai and knights was long gone, martial arts began to be taught to civilians the world over. This presented those teaching the martial arts with two problems.

1) Killing someone in combat was no longer desirable, people wanted to learn martial arts for use in everyday fights.

2) Martial arts instructors would now have to put their money where their mouth was, as people would now be testing the arts in real fights.

This resulted in a crisis in martial arts. Many of the traditional techniques were found to be impractical, and often practitioners of the arts - being not used to combat situations - were unable to apply the arts in real fights. This had not been an issue before, but now it was. Boxers, wrestlers and other combat sportsmen remained confident in their abilities.

Then along came stuff like the UFC, PRIDE and K1, which were dominated by representatives of the combat sports. Limited as they were, the combat sports seemed in the eyes of many to be far more practical for real fighting, and people started to doubt the credibility of many martial arts.

And then we had threads like this one, trying to assess what was wrong!

THIS IS JUST A HYPOTHESIS. IT IS A SUGGESTION, NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT. I AM INVITING DISCUSSION, NOT FLAMING. I also appreciate that I'm generalising greatly.

Thankyou

 

It's interesting that some arts settled on kata, but others (wrestling, boxing, fencing, kenjutsu, jujitsu, etc) becamse sports (kenjutsu became kendo, Kano made judo safer so it could be practiced in randori, etc.).

 

Yeah, it really is. It's fascinating actually.

That's the thing. Either one is an abstraction, as I said. None of us are warriors. We're all engaged in simulation. And there's a dissonance between what we do and reality. For all of us. Every one of us has chosen to compromise on one side or another. Either by introducing rules and equipment or practicing patterns.

I choose the former. To my mind, the latter would make more sense if you could ward off the "cub scout game" effect. (We played it in cub scouts anyway.) Where you whisper a phrase into someone's ear and they go down the line. Then you see how distorted the message is by the end. That's kind of how I view some kata. If in that game each person was required to turn to someone outside the game and repeat the line, you'd have a constant check that the line hadn't changed. Or at the very least, that the sentence still made sense.


Stuart

 

That's the thing though. I think at a certain point in history, they probably were practicing realistically. The guys who actually knew what it was to apply their skills had a physical and mental model for recreating the moves in abstract. It's only as time wears on that application gets lost. Think about when a guy creates a kata today. Or even 100 years ago. How long had it been since the movements had actually been applied?

I don't know about you guys, but at 33 years old, I've never had a fight in my life. Never mind an actual life-threatening altercation. Am I the only one? Or does it seem likely that many of the people (the filters) through which a given system has passed also had no concrete experience?

That's the inherent source of dissonance in martial arts, to my mind.

Yeah. While I find it absurd that a guy can't enter a tournament because his system is reliant on eye gouges and kicks to the cash and prizes, it does make sense that in a time when safety gear hadn't been conceived, "sparring" wouldn't have seemed viable.

That makes sense. I mean, look how often on this board you have to convince someone that boxing, wrestling, or fencing are legitimate martial arts. Many of us still have a mental block that prevents us from accepting that.

I think that you're homing in on something important, yeah.

All of these debates, in my opinion, stem from the dissonance inherent in martial arts now. As I said before, none of us are waging war with this stuff anymore. Some martial artists have defended their lives or others' lives with their skills. And their perspectives should be heavily weighed in these discussions. But what each of us train day in and day out only gets part of the reality check. It never gets the whole thing. Thank God.

After that, we get defensive. We appeal to authority (Master X did it this way, so we do it this way or Chuck Liddell KO'ed a guy with this, so I do it this way). We rationalize (if our style was created for the battlefield, and the style survived for hundreds of years, it must work). And we go through countless other mental gymnastics. But the bottom line stays the same, in my opinion. What we do is, by and large, an abstraction.


Stuart

 

If is the key word there. I'm sure that has happened quite a bit. Then there are people who claim to find "hidden" meanings of the movements that probably weren't meant to be there before.

While there may be some truth to that, I don't think that's right. In the "old days" you are referring to, the roots of fencing weren't just sports. "Boxing" wasn't just a sport. Wrestling wasn't just a sport. These things were as "martial" as the Eastern martial arts. Eventually these things did become sports, but I think that is what kept them alive. Sadly many Asian arts didn't follow that path. Kano struck a balance between sport and the "dangerous" stuff by creating judo with both randori and kata (keep in mind kata in judo are done with two people, or at least that's what I've been told ). In Kano's time, kata may have been the best way to preserve these techniques. Now they can be recorded on vhs/dvd, saved on a computer, photographed, practiced on dummies that simulate targets (BOB comes to mind), etc.

I think to discuss this we would have to talk about the West and the East separately as they had a different mindset. I'm guessing you were referring at least in part to Japan. The Japanese would probably have trained differently than Europeans because to many of the Japanese, martial arts were spiritual. There are various websites that talk about martial arts in medieval Europe, and I've seen many examples of practicing with wooden or dull weapons with a partner.

Unfortunately, many instructors choose not to.

That's correct, but the heart of this thread is about how to make your training less of an abstraction. Some of us feel that the best way to do this is to get on a mat, in a ring, or in a cage. Others feel that it is best to do a kata. Neither is "real", but I feel the first option is closer to reality.

Maybe this is a subject for a new thread, but what is a "real fight"? Is it when someone pulls a knife on you and tries to kill you? Is it when some punk on the street tries to start something? The latter can often be resolved without any violence at all, but if it does become physical then there is no guarantee that any eye gouging etc will take place.

If a "real fight" can happen and not violate any rules of a MMA event (just using MMA as an example, feel free to substitute any combat sport), then what makes MMA not real? 4 ounce gloves that just protect your hands (allowing punches to be thrown harder without offering hardly any padding)? If a fight with gloves on isn't "real", then what if you are training in a MA class and then get into a fight with another student while wearing gloves? Is that "fake" even if you are trying to kill eachother?

Edit: I started a new thread in the general section so I don't hijack this one.

 

I believe Royce Gracie wrote something along these lines once. He spoke of the inescapable realism problem in martial arts training; to practice the arts with complete realism would be far too dangerous, and mitigations have to be made. This can be done in two ways: the first is to not practice realistic application and restrict movements to the kata and other such dead training drills; and the second is to work within a certain ruleset to allow realistic application and put oneself at risk of the criticism that there are no rules in real life. Either way results in a lack of realism and a barrage of disbelief in the applicability of the art in question, either because "it doesn't work in real life" or because it's "just a sport".

However, an instructor has to do SOMETHING, otherwise he cannot teach his art, so he has to sit down and think about what mitigations he will make, taking into account the effect it will have on the real-world practicality of the art. This, IMO, is where the effectiveness of a martial art is really decided; how well does the instructor cope with the reality problem? How realistic and practical can he make the martial art without making it too dangerous? Practicing the art will, as you say, always be an abstraction for the reasons above, but I think how much of an abstraction it is can be greatly affected.

I believe this corresponds with what you said, Pankration. I believe MMA represents that point where the reality problem is tackled at its greatest possible level. It is safe enough for regular practice, and realistic enough to provide that there is very little chance of the outcome being different if the few rules that do exist weren't in place. To put a finer point on it, eye gouges don't count for enough to have a significant chance of changing the outcome of a fight.

 

I agree entirely. I don't mean the actual combat sports we know today e.g. boxing or wrestling, I mean the entire concept of combat sports as a whole.

 

Hmm interesting debate here guys.

While I agree to a point, yes many arts have become too abstracted. However if I could introduce a few points.

First, all of us have the ability to fight, we don't need a martial art to do this. Just because you don't spend hours a week on a pnchbag doesn't mean you don't have a solid punch.

However, while MA training is abstract, they do provide the opportuinity to develop the necessary skills conditioning that IS applicable 'real' fights. Even an art such as aikido teaches fairly good habits - such as not turning your back, spacial awareness etc.

Second, I think that there has been plenty of 'real application' filtering into many of the TMA's. We sometimes forget that policemen, doormen etc all use MA's frequently in the course of their duties, and so they provide an alternative platform with which to evaluate training. MMA compos are only one avenue of analysis.

 

Yes, I think this is an important point. I don't want to appear to be writing off training other than my own as completely useless.

Again, agreed. I believe all martial arts have something useful to offer.

I think this post has reminded us of a very important point; that TMAs can still be very practical and useful for self defence. If they weren't, there wouldn't be so many people who have successfully defended themselves using them.

However, that doesn't mean that there are no bad training methods around, and there are still many high ranking martial artists around who lose real fights to untrained opponents pretty easily. I once saw a ju jutsu champion get absolutely worked, for example.

 

However, that doesn't mean that there are no bad training methods around

I wholeheartedly agree with you. A bit like being told that all that you need to do is train kata (ie just practise it over and over again) to become a good fighter! Hopefully people are becoming more informed about martial arts (a good thing about the UFC!) and will shop around for a good school

 

That's precisely what I mean! Many clubs do not use such practical training methods as the ones you described.

 

Yet again we arrive at the conclusion that the way you train is much more important than what you train.

MMA clubs probably have better training methodologies that the average TMA club, but this does not mean that all TMA clubs have bad training. Unfortunately I think that as the MMA market becomes more saturated with clubs and instructors the standards will drop. While things like UFC and PRIDE make MMA high profile and show off its good points, it may also encourage people to open schools of lower quality to cash in on people wanting to emulate this. In a similar way to what has happened to TMA's.

On the subject of patterns. As I do TKD we have patterns in the syllabus, i quite enjoy doing them, however I have never thought of or been told to think of them as simulating a fight. I think of as a mixture of ways to practice technique and a workout (they certainly make me sweat).

In my experience there does seem to be that if someone is a good sparrer (not fighter) they are also good at patterns. This is not to say in any way that practicing pattern's made them a good sparrer, more than likely that person trains hard and that training made them good at both aspects.

Finally I would say that patterns is only 50% physical, the rest is mental, if you just practice the movements it makes you good at those movements and simliar ones, just as drilling against stationary pads or compliant 'rolling' on the mat would. With patterns you need to engage your mind. Ask questions about what you are doing, would it work, if not why not and what do you think would. etc.

 

Damn right! However, some styles do have a tendency to train in certain ways.

I don't do MMA so don't think I'm being biassed, but I'm not entirely sure that's the case. Grappling is such a big part of MMA that I find it difficult to imagine how they could train without going all out.

I do think there comes a point where one can practice one's technique in the air too much.

Speculation is good, but sooner or later the hypothesis should be tested IMO.

 

THe internal side?

Fihting is only a small aspect of the whole thing. Forms exist as a way to train the self. The body goes, and there is always someone stronger waiting in the wings, but the mind remains. Forms are the core that hold the whole thing together from thr beginning until you die. Forms are the heart. Forms allow you to truly test yourself. there is no-one to blame, no easy ways out, nothing but will and heart.
It is easy to fight when you have something or someone to push against, but solo...can you keep the fire lit?
We all know how things slack off when you miss practices for one reason or another.
In the beginning I was all sparring and fighting, but as I have gotten older, I see the reason and inseperable value of the form. That is the true test of a lifer.
Sorry to start a fight, but it is ABSOLUTLY NECESSARY to know, master, and love forms. If you don't you are missing a BIG part of the richness, and that is sad. :bang: :bang: :bang:

 

Train the self in what exactly?

I think I speak for everyone when I ask you to explain this a little more clearly

What do you mean? Can we keep practicing the forms without getting bored?

What is the inseparable value of the form? And what is a lifer?

Absolutely necessary for what?

 

That tells me how you feel about forms. But it doesn't really tell me anything concrete about forms practice. The only concrete statement I get from this is that, as you get older, fighting becomes less accessible. And I can certainly get behind the idea that your practice needs to change as you get older. (Even at 33 years old, I'm having to make some serious adaptations to account for medical concerns.)

But there are plenty of martial artists in their 50s, 60s, and 70s who don't rely on forms practice. Ron Van Clief competed in the UFC in his 60s. George Foreman boxed in his 50s. Chuck Norris took up Brazilian Jiujitsu in his 50s. And Helio Gracie is still doing his thing.

I respect your right to believe this. Really. But I don't. I don't believe that pushing yourself to perform a form is harder than contending with a living, breathing, thinking human being.

After practicing forms for 12 years, I don't believe they're the anything. They're an option certainly. But not the be all-end all.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I don't really know what to say that I haven't already.


Stuart

 

Absolutely. And I think that's putting the cart before the horse. Instead of recognizing a situation that needs addressing and then finding a tool to fix it, that practice emphasizes finding a use for the tool you've got.

I tend to agree with you. I'm pretty sure I said as much in my last post. But if not, I'm saying it now.


Stuart


Edit: I started a new thread in the general section so I don't hijack this one.[/QUOTE]

 

Absolutely. But, while I have my own beliefs about what will and won't minimize that disparity, they're still not based on an experience of the reality. They're based on my experience of other approximations (e.g., sparring). So I'm going to try and not get too high-and-mighty about my beliefs. Know what I mean?

Great posts by Gyaku and Taliar! Gyaku, I agree that an art that doesn't train in the way I prescribe can still convey valuable skills. I think at the end of the day, the best I can do is make decisions about how I can best proceed. My approach won't fit all the facts. But as TST pointed out, you have to do something.


Stuart