# Kata



## Phil_n.ireland (May 18, 2013)

How important is kata ?does it actually 
Benefit you in learning and applying your style or is it just traditional, also any tips on practicing your art at home without a partner, I'm not talking about striking pads etc I'm talking about juijitsu technics 


If size mattered the elephant would be king of the jungle


----------



## GaryR (May 18, 2013)

An article I wrote on Kata can be found here http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/107949-What-s-Wrong-With-Kata?highlight=

As for practicing without a partner, it is very, very limited.  I would say especially as far as jujitsu goes.  With JJ I almost wouldn't bother.  Find a training partner, or don't expect to be able to use anything practically.

Best of luck.

G


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 18, 2013)

That varies on the system being studied but overall kata is very important.  The essence of the art is passed on through kata as examples of the art. If done properly one kata should adequately express the art in study.


----------



## K-man (May 18, 2013)

As *GaryR* has posted above, this is the link to a very good thread with in depth discussion.  What it demonstrates is that there is a big difference of opinion between, for example, *GaryR* and myself.  This doesn't mean one side is right and the other side is wrong. If you read *GaryR*'s article it is probably true in 95% of karate schools.  But there are other schools that recognise the true value of kata and teach in that way. 

The question to be asked is this.  In the times when martial arts training was life or death, why would kata be taught at all if it wasn't essential for the survival of the practitioner?  

And, as Gary said, practising alone is difficult. I do practise kata at home but what I do as I work through the kata is visualise an opponent. That is not something you can do when you are beginning and it is not something you can do until you know the kata inside out. But, it is something that makes training much more interesting and relevant, particularly as you get older.  :asian:


----------



## Cyriacus (May 18, 2013)

In my opinion, Kata is great if its actually being taught as something useful. If it isnt, if its just 'a thing you do', you seriously dont need it. For example, if you learn your kata just to pass your belt test, its useless to you. If you learn your kata for a kata competition, its a sporty thing to learn, like football, or judo*. If you learn your kata for using the thing, low and behold, youll get something you can use without needing to alter and adapt it to get something that may or may not be useful.

*And before anyone jumps on me, what i mean is, you need to tweak your judo a bit to use it outside of judo. Even if you dont do it consciously. Its a similar principle.


----------



## sopraisso (May 19, 2013)

In the most traditional styles of karate, kata is the main and most important source of martial knowledge from the various systems of fighting contained in the art. If you learn to understand the lessons contained in kata (that is related to kata analysis, widely known as bunkai), you will see a big importance on it.

But as K-man said, 95% of schools today don't really use kata in such a way. In that case, you won't really have such a big reason to care about it.

Another problem that I believe to happen today is that most movements in kata and their understating have been so diluted over generations of practitioners and versions that today more often than not your kata will have very little resemblance with what they were back in the time when karate had a much more practical approach to fighting. This makes understanding the strategy, techniques, tactics and principles contained in karate a much harder task. Even so, if someone asks me today where I get the (humble nonetheless) martial knowledge I have, I could say it is all in the kata I learned.

One last thing: if you look for MMA/sport fighting stuff in kata, you should be careful not to make mistakes: kata is all about self-defense, which is a completely different animal (but not everyone underrated/realizes the difference).

Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando o Tapatalk 2


----------



## Chris Parker (May 19, 2013)

Phil_n.ireland said:


> How important is kata ?


 
Well, the first thing to do is to define what you're meaning when you say "kata".... it's not quite as clear-cut as you might think. For instance, I, personally, have quite a different form of kata in mind than many... and, honestly, it's a more accurate usage of the term (taking into account the culture and language the word comes from).

But, to answer the question, it depends on your art. For those that use it, it's indispensable.



Phil_n.ireland said:


> does it actually benefit you in learning and applying your style or is it just traditional?



Why would you think they are different, or separated?



Phil_n.ireland said:


> also any tips on practicing your art at home without a partner, I'm not talking about striking pads etc I'm talking about juijitsu technics



Sure. Talk to your instructor about home training tips. They'll know what you can do, what your form of jujutsu has (it's far too broad a term to give anything definite as an answer here), what drills or exercises are useful, and so on. 



GaryR said:


> An article I wrote on Kata can be found here http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/107949-What-s-Wrong-With-Kata?highlight=



Yeah... look, as others said in that thread, that article shows a huge lack of insight or understanding about kata and other training methods.



GaryR said:


> As for practicing without a partner, it is very, very limited.  I would say especially as far as jujitsu goes.  With JJ I almost wouldn't bother.  Find a training partner, or don't expect to be able to use anything practically.
> 
> Best of luck.
> 
> G



And, again, this is something I'd completely disagree with (the idea of "I almost wouldn't bother" is anathema to development, really). Quite bad advice.


----------



## DennisBreene (May 19, 2013)

sopraisso said:


> In the most traditional styles of karate, kata is the main and most important source of martial knowledge from the various systems of fighting contained in the art. If you learn to understand the lessons contained in kata (that is related to kata analysis, widely known as bunkai), you will see a big importance on it.
> 
> But as K-man said, 95% of schools today don't really use kata in such a way. In that case, you won't really have such a big reason to care about it.
> 
> ...



It saddens me to see the loss of emphasis on kata.  There are so many depths of knowledge to be gained from dedicated practice and study of kata. It is not merely the training of stance, balance and movement of the beginner. As Mr. Parker stated, the bunkai of kata teaches you the breadth of the art. I also believe that concentrated study and practice of kata leads to a focused state of mind and is almost meditative.


----------



## rframe (May 19, 2013)

GaryR said:


> As for practicing without a partner, it is very, very limited.  I would say especially as far as jujitsu goes.  With JJ I almost wouldn't bother.  Find a training partner, or don't expect to be able to use anything practically.




Interesting perspective.  Helio Gracie actually taught Chuck Norris to practice BJJ in a form of kata, as an adaptation to keep his skills up as he aged.

http://www.gracieacademy.com/news/chuck-norris-tells-his-jiu-jitsu-story.asp


----------



## Sukerkin (May 19, 2013)

This is one of those questions that surfaces every now and again, usually prompted by a misunderstanding of what kata training is and what it is for.  It's also seems to usually be brought up by young men who don't actually want to practice but that's a whole other discussion :lol:.

A lot has been spoken of with regard to kata, the most productive arc being that the kata is the toolbox and manual of an art whilst sparring (whatever form it takes) is the exploration of applications of those tools and that knowledge when conditions are flowing and imperfect.

For me, being a musician as well as a swordsman, kata is the bedrock of everything in a martial art; for it is the perfection of scales, chord shapes and rhythm set within the developing limits of your knowledge of music.  You can't improvise (and still make music) without first knowing the forms and being able to execute them at will.


----------



## GaryR (May 19, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, the first thing to do is to define what you're meaning when you say "kata".... it's not quite as clear-cut as you might think. For instance, I, personally, have quite a different form of kata in mind than many... and, honestly, it's a more accurate usage of the term (taking into account the culture and language the word comes from).
> 
> But, to answer the question, it depends on your art. For those that use it, it's indispensable.



The definitions are as broad as the practice and use itself.  How is your "form of kata" different than the rest?  How is it a more accurate use of the term?  I think those answers may actually answer the OP question instead of just being conclusory conjecture. 





Chris Parker said:


> Yeah... look, as others said in that thread, that article shows a huge lack of insight or understanding about kata and other training methods.



Not a lack of understanding at all, simply the reality of it as it applies to the overwhelming majority.  As K-man said, that article applies to 95% of people doing kata.  Would you disagree with that statement?  Do we have any reason to suspect the OP's school is among the 5% exception?  Or that you are among that 5% exception for that matter?    





Chris Parker said:


> And, again, this is something I'd completely disagree with (the idea of "I almost wouldn't bother" is anathema to development, really). Quite bad advice.



For the sake of clarification--When I think JJ I think mainly locks/throws, and grappling.  Solo practice is better spent doing other things than grappling yourself.  For a newb to attempt to learn JJ skill through solo practice is just delusional, it's not going to happen.  One needs to prioritize their training methods by efficacy and efficiency, to grapple oneself as a use of your spare time is anathema to development.  

Cheers,

G


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 19, 2013)

Phil_n.ireland said:


> tips on practicing your art at home without a partner.


Kata is for teaching and learning. It's not for training. Drills are for training. You can create a set of "solo" drills (not from your Kata) that you can train home by yourself. The best "solo drills" are the "partner drills" without partner. For example,

if you want to train the striking art, 

- kick to your opponent's groin,
- parry his leading arm,
- punch to his face.

That will be a simple 3 steps kick, block, punch combo. You can train this on your heavy bag or just do solo into the thin air.

If you want to train the throwing art, you can add:

- pull your punch back,
- wrap your opponent's leading arm,
- push his neck,
- back kick his leg/legs, and
- take him down.

That will be a simple 4 steps combo (all the moves after the 3rd step should be combined as 1 move). You can also train this on your striking dummy (shown below) of just do solo into the thin air.

http://imageshack.us/a/img801/6973/dummyg.jpg

This clip can also give you some idea.


----------



## Cirdan (May 19, 2013)

Are drills important? Of course.


----------



## WaterGal (May 19, 2013)

I haven't studied jujitsu, so I'm not sure how the self-defense techniques you do are generally taught. Do you guys do it as preset sequences - e.g., "attacker" does X grab/strike, and then "defender" does Y techniques to subdue them?   If so, you can practice at least the footwork and general form of the sequence at home by yourself.  It's not the same as with a partner, for obvious reasons, but it can at least help you memorize the moves more quickly.


----------



## TKDTony2179 (May 20, 2013)

It is a training tool and to most an ecyclopedia of information on stances, blocks, strikes, foot work, breathing, and joint locks. I think a lot of people only do it because of tradition but for me it was tool to use to learn my art. 

I am sure grappling arts would be hard to do at home without a partner but I would think just practicing foot work hip postion, and arm or hand postion would be helpful to a grappler. Just sitting around thinking about wrist locks and remembering to grab the knife edge of the hand and putting your thumb in the right place of the back of your partner hand would be good to practice at home. May take some imagination though.


----------



## Phil_n.ireland (May 20, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> I haven't studied jujitsu, so I'm not sure how the self-defense techniques you do are generally taught. Do you guys do it as preset sequences - e.g., "attacker" does X grab/strike, and then "defender" does Y techniques to subdue them?   If so, you can practice at least the footwork and general form of the sequence at home by yourself.  It's not the same as with a partner, for obvious reasons, but it can at least help you memorize the moves more quickly.



Yes that's usually the way it works, the lower belts that I'm at most of it starts off with the attacker throwing a punch to the head or stomach and you block and perform your move, but as you move up you start countering throws and things too


----------



## MJS (May 20, 2013)

Phil_n.ireland said:


> How important is kata ?does it actually
> Benefit you in learning and applying your style or is it just traditional, also any tips on practicing your art at home without a partner, I'm not talking about striking pads etc I'm talking about juijitsu technics
> 
> 
> If size mattered the elephant would be king of the jungle




Some will be more in favor of kata than others, which is fine.  All of the arts that I do, as well as one that I used to do, have kata, thus, I practice kata.  Some will say that you're not going to fight in real life like you do in kata, which is a no brainer. Anyone who thinks that your opponents will be in the same exact spot, and you'll be able to perform as you would in kata, is living a dream..lol.

All kidding aside though, I do feel that it has some benefits, those being the techniques contained in the katas.  Of course, in some cases, the teacher doesnt know the meaning of the applications, thus they can't teach it to their stidents, which results in the students going thru a series of moves, with no clue behind them.  That happened to me, but I was fortunate to come across people who were able to show me the meaning, as well as doing some digging on my own.  

So to answer your question on kata...I'd say again, it'll depend on the person.  

As for training jujitsu on your own....no probably not.  There are things in the arts that you can do without a partnet, ie: kata, punches, kicks, foot/stance work, but when it comes to the techs, sure you could do the motions in the air, but that works only to a point.  You really need a live body to work with.


----------



## Phil_n.ireland (May 20, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> This is one of those questions that surfaces every now and again, usually prompted by a misunderstanding of what kata training is and what it is for.  It's also seems to usually be brought up by young men who don't actually want to practice but that's a whole other discussion :lol:.
> 
> A lot has been spoken of with regard to kata, the most productive arc being that the kata is the toolbox and manual of an art whilst sparring (whatever form it takes) is the exploration of applications of those tools and that knowledge when conditions are flowing and imperfect.
> 
> For me, being a musician as well as a swordsman, kata is the bedrock of everything in a martial art; for it is the perfection of scales, chord shapes and rhythm set within the developing limits of your knowledge of music.  You can't improvise (and still make music) without first knowing the forms and being able to execute them at will.



I absolutely do want to practice it but I want to know why I'm doing , when and how to do it so i can benefit from it, as I said I want to practice at home and kata is something can be done alone so I'm very keen


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 20, 2013)

GaryR said:


> The definitions are as broad as thepractice and use itself. How is your "form of kata" different thanthe rest? How is it a more accurate use of the term? I think those answers mayactually answer the OP question instead of just being conclusory conjecture.


I&#8217;m not speaking for Chris, but I believe part of what hewas getting at is that in Japanese arts kata are not long sequences of solo routines but are instead choreographed exercises between partners meant to express a particular lesson. The Okinawan concept of kata in karate is not the same as kata in most JMA.







GaryR said:


> Not a lack of understanding at all, simply the reality ofit as it applies to the overwhelming majority. As K-man said, that articleapplies to 95% of people doing kata. Would you disagree with that statement? Dowe have any reason to suspect the OP's school is among the 5% exception? Orthat you are among that 5% exception for that matter?


The form of kata you are discussing in that thread(karate I believe) has not been properly trained by the majority of schools inmy opinion. Still there is nothing wrong with kata and it is important; it&#8217;sjust people don&#8217;t know what it is for and are turning it into something uselessas opposed to a cornerstone of the art.







GaryR said:


> For the sake of clarification--When I think JJ I thinkmainly locks/throws, and grappling. Solo practice is better spent doing other thingsthan grappling yourself. For a newb to attempt to learn JJ skill through solo practice is just delusional, it's not going to happen. One needs to prioritize their training methods by efficacy and efficiency, to grapple oneself as a use of your spare time is anathema to development.


People have already pointed out how footwork drills arean example of solo training in a JJ system. Don&#8217;t you ever shadow box? This would be the same thing and helps a person focus on moving smoothly. It certainly doesn&#8217;t replace paired exercises though.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Kata is for teaching andlearning. It's not for training. Drills are for training.


How can you learn something if you do not train it? Your comment doesn&#8217;t make sense to me. Kata in karate is meant as a way of expressing and passing on the art. Everything important in karate should be evident in the kata.




Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can create a set of"solo" drills (not from your Kata) that you can train home byyourself. The best "solo drills" are the "partner drills"without partner


How is this in anyway different to a kata?




Kung Fu Wang said:


> For example,
> 
> if you want to train the striking art,
> 
> ...



These are just very short kata you have developed. There is no difference between kata and drills. A kata is a prearranged form of something. Anytime you work on something not spontaneous in martial arts, I would say you are doing something along the lines of a kata.




WaterGal said:


> I haven't studied jujitsu, so I'mnot sure how the self-defense techniques you do are generally taught. Do youguys do it as preset sequences - e.g., "attacker" does X grab/strike,and then "defender" does Y techniques to subdue them?


These exercises when choreographed and meant to express a lesson are called kata in jujutsu.


----------



## K-man (May 20, 2013)

Phil_n.ireland said:


> I absolutely do want to practice it but *I want to know why I'm doing , when and how to do it so i can benefit from it*, as I said I want to practice at home and kata is something can be done alone so I'm very keen


it is not easy to find instructors who teach good kata application. To see what you are looking for check out Iain Abernethy, who has lots of good kata related material. Another good reference is 'The Way of Kata' by Lawrence Kane and Kris Wilder.   :asian:


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2013)

Phil_n.ireland said:


> I absolutely do want to practice it but I want to know why I'm doing , when and how to do it so i can benefit from it, as I said I want to practice at home and kata is something can be done alone so I'm very keen



:chuckles:  Take no offence, Phil, those words weren't aimed at your goodself but rather the aggregation of the many times the sparring-vs-kata debate has arisen .


----------



## Flying Crane (May 20, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> sparring-vs-kata debate



really, I don't see it as a "vs" issue.  Rather, it's an "and" issue.  I don't understand why some people want to see them as opposed to each other (I'm not saying you do, Suke, that's just me sayin').  They are both useful tools that have a place within the training methodology.  They build different aspects of the skills and help each other to reinforce one's development.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 21, 2013)

GaryR said:


> The definitions are as broad as the practice and use itself.


 
This'll be covered as we go, but, no, the definitions aren't that broad. What the term is used to apply to, it seems, can appear that way, but again, it just isn't that broad.



GaryR said:


> How is your "form of kata" different than the rest?


 
I train in Japanese arts. In Japanese arts, aside from a very small number of notable exceptions (mainly due to safety concerns), kata are performed paired, as Himura said. There is no question of the "application", or the "bunkai" of the actions... you can see the immediate result with your partner.



GaryR said:


> How is it a more accurate use of the term?  I think those answers may actually answer the OP question instead of just being conclusory conjecture.



How is it more accurate? Kata (&#24418 is a Japanese term, meaning "form", or "shape". It is not a Korean term, nor an Okinawan, or Chinese one. It has been co-opted by a range of other arts from other cultures, and applied to other forms of training exercises, even to the point where this alternate training approach (using the same term) is taken as being the actual definition of the method. 



GaryR said:


> Not a lack of understanding at all, simply the reality of it as it applies to the overwhelming majority.  As K-man said, that article applies to 95% of people doing kata.  Would you disagree with that statement?  Do we have any reason to suspect the OP's school is among the 5% exception?  Or that you are among that 5% exception for that matter?



Yes, a lack of understanding of what kata is. Your entire article/post was criticizing improper and lacking training, and still missing the structure of kata training, turning it into a criticism of a method you don't understand. When it comes to K-Man's comments, yeah, I'd disagree. Mainly as I'd consider that saying that 95% aren't training kata... they're missing a range of essential facets. Anyone that thinks that kata teaches techniques has missed the point. Additionally, I don't think even some of the most respected bunkai folks have actually hit upon what kata is about.

As far as the OPs school, frankly, there have been a range of assumptions about what he trains, and what he has in his system under the term "kata" that makes most of this rather pointless for him. And as for myself? You wouldn't even recognize what I consider kata.... 



GaryR said:


> For the sake of clarification--When I think JJ I think mainly locks/throws, and grappling.  Solo practice is better spent doing other things than grappling yourself.  For a newb to attempt to learn JJ skill through solo practice is just delusional, it's not going to happen.  One needs to prioritize their training methods by efficacy and efficiency, to grapple oneself as a use of your spare time is anathema to development.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> G



Then you need to have a broader understanding of what jujutsu is, or can be. Solo training is not only possible, it's essential in traditional methods, and there are a range of methods of doing such... and, while traditional jujutsu is kata-based (it is the primary method of teaching and training, when all is said and done), it's not what you're thinking of as "kata". My arts have some 6 Jujutsu systems in them, I am familiar with the syllabus and methods of at least another dozen or so, and I train dominantly solo at home. But, when it's all over, the only person who can give the OP any assistance in training at home is his instructor. No-one here (unfamiliar with his system or training methodology) can offer any real advice that can be applied, as everyone is coming at it via a filter which is completely opposed, in cases, to the OPs actual system. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Kata is for teaching and learning. It's not for training. Drills are for training. You can create a set of "solo" drills (not from your Kata) that you can train home by yourself. The best "solo drills" are the "partner drills" without partner.



This is completely wrong. Kata are the art (in the arts it's used). It is specifically for training. And, when it is used in an art, it is indispensable. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> For example,
> 
> if you want to train the striking art,
> 
> ...



Leaving off how bad the video is, what on earth makes you think that you can offer techniques for someone else, training in something completely different to you? Who says that what you're suggesting is going to suit, or fit what the OP trains in? Seriously, this smacks of not really getting anything at all....



TKDTony2179 said:


> It is a training tool and to most an ecyclopedia of information on stances, blocks, strikes, foot work, breathing, and joint locks. I think a lot of people only do it because of tradition but for me it was tool to use to learn my art.



No, it's not. Kata is far from an encyclopedia of techniques, and that is actually pretty much opposite of what kata is designed for.



TKDTony2179 said:


> I am sure grappling arts would be hard to do at home without a partner but I would think just practicing foot work hip postion, and arm or hand postion would be helpful to a grappler. Just sitting around thinking about wrist locks and remembering to grab the knife edge of the hand and putting your thumb in the right place of the back of your partner hand would be good to practice at home. May take some imagination though.



Again, the OP needs to talk to his instructor... you're on the right track, though.



Himura Kenshin said:


> I&#8217;m not speaking for Chris, but I believe part of what hewas getting at is that in Japanese arts kata are not long sequences of solo routines but are instead choreographed exercises between partners meant to express a particular lesson. The Okinawan concept of kata in karate is not the same as kata in most JMA.




Close.... 



Himura Kenshin said:


> The form of kata you are discussing in that thread(karate I believe) has not been properly trained by the majority of schools inmy opinion. Still there is nothing wrong with kata and it is important; it&#8217;sjust people don&#8217;t know what it is for and are turning it into something uselessas opposed to a cornerstone of the art.




Yep, agreed there.



Himura Kenshin said:


> People have already pointed out how footwork drills arean example of solo training in a JJ system. Don&#8217;t you ever shadow box? This would be the same thing and helps a person focus on moving smoothly. It certainly doesn&#8217;t replace paired exercises though.




Actually, footwork drills can be quite an essential part of jujutsu training, for the record...



Himura Kenshin said:


> How can you learn something if you do not train it? Your comment doesn&#8217;t make sense to me. Kata in karate is meant as a way of expressing and passing on the art. Everything important in karate should be evident in the kata.




Yes, but people miss what the important things are... thinking it's to do with the techniques, for example... 



Himura Kenshin said:


> How is this in anyway different to a kata?




There's no coherent strategic approach.



Himura Kenshin said:


> These are just very short kata you have developed. There is no difference between kata and drills. A kata is a prearranged form of something. Anytime you work on something not spontaneous in martial arts, I would say you are doing something along the lines of a kata.




There is a huge difference between kata and drills. One teaches mechanics, the other teaches tactical expression.



Himura Kenshin said:


> These exercises when choreographed and meant to express a lesson are called kata in jujutsu.



Close.... and on the right track. Again, the OP's art might not be using the same terminology in that way.... 



K-man said:


> it is not easy to find instructors who teach good kata application. To see what you are looking for check out Iain Abernethy, who has lots of good kata related material. Another good reference is 'The Way of Kata' by Lawrence Kane and Kris Wilder.   :asian:



Knowing the OP's system, to be blunt, sources such as that wouldn't be particularly relevant....


----------



## GaryR (May 21, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> This'll be covered as we go, but, no, the definitions aren't that broad. What the term is used to apply to, it seems, can appear that way, but again, it just isn't that broad.



It can appear that way because different people assign different meaning and definitions of what they consider "kata", sure *your* definition is surely the correct and only true one, but that doesn't negate the spectrum of varying opinion and practices that people put under that umbrella of the term.




Chris Parker said:


> I train in Japanese arts. In Japanese arts, aside from a very small number of notable exceptions (mainly due to safety concerns), kata are performed paired, as Himura said. There is no question of the "application", or the "bunkai" of the actions... you can see the immediate result with your partner.



What percentage of schools do you figure practice kata as mostly paired? We too in the Chinese arts have countless two man "forms".  




Chris Parker said:


> How is it more accurate? Kata (&#24418 is a Japanese term, meaning "form", or "shape". It is not a Korean term, nor an Okinawan, or Chinese one. It has been co-opted by a range of other arts from other cultures, and applied to other forms of training exercises, even to the point where this alternate training approach (using the same term) is taken as being the actual definition of the method.



    Japanese eh? Gee whiz, all this time I thought it was from the rural part of Madagascar?  
You can file the rest of this comment under exactly what I meant when I said "broad".  




Chris Parker said:


> Yes, a lack of understanding of what kata is. Your entire article/post was criticizing improper and lacking training, and still missing the structure of kata training...



It was criticizing improper and lacking training--The point of the article was in the title "What's wrong with kata".  What kata_ is_ for 95-99% of folks, and what is _should be_ are two entirely different things. Kata should be more about mechanics and principles of movement rather than a a catalog of discrete techniques.  You can't bridge form and function of you have no "form" (no Shen fa) to begin with.  People get lost in what they think is Kata, they drown in it.  It becomes a bible with lots of details they try and take literally yet still cannot really translate.      



Chris Parker said:


> ...turning it into a criticism of a method you don't understand.



I understand full well what Kata SHOULD be.  The article explicates and reflects an understanding of the ACTUAL state of things.  The reality is that people need to recognize the poor excuse for what people teach as Kata is a systemic problem-- instead of act as apologists whilst providing nothing of real substance. 



Chris Parker said:


> When it comes to K-Man's comments, yeah, I'd disagree. Mainly as I'd consider that saying that 95% aren't training kata... they're missing a range of essential facets.



Now this is just semantic quibbling with K-man and I's point. The point is that 95% of people THINK they are truly and correctly training "kata" with more of a benefit than they are actually getting out of it.  



Chris Parker said:


> Anyone that thinks that kata teaches techniques has missed the point. Additionally, I don't think even some of the most respected bunkai folks have actually hit upon what kata is about.



We are in agreement here.  Again, you keep demonstrating why my article is applicable to most.  



Chris Parker said:


> As far as the OPs school, frankly, there have been a range of assumptions about what he trains, and what he has in his system under the term "kata" that makes most of this rather pointless for him.



Definitely could be pointless for him. Garbage in, garbage out.  If he wants more specific perspective he needs to provide more detail. 



Chris Parker said:


> And as for myself? You wouldn't even recognize what I consider kata....



I've seen and done enough of the spectrum of what is considered kata (or forms as we call them), that I guarantee what you're doing would recognizable as such. Perhaps you would fall into the 1-5% of people who would be doing something more useful and close to the "true" definition, but since you really won't demonstrate or explicate much, who knows?

You are here telling everyone they are wrong about kata, that 95%+ aren't really doing it, and are "missing a range of essential facets", including "the most respected bunkai folks".  So if you truly believe you are in this top 5% of people doing what is really supposed to be Kata / bunkai, why don't you do the community a service and share?  

It seems you are more interested in arrogant deflections with quotes like the above instead of explaining in detail or demonstrating why you think what you are doing is the exception and not the rule.

I don't have the time to survey your 4000+ posts--but if it even exists, perhaps you could link me to a video(s) where you demonstrate what you consider real Kata and Bunkai? If not, how about you create one?  Every cell phone has a decent enough video camera these days.     




Chris Parker said:


> Then you need to have a broader understanding of what jujutsu is, or can be. Solo training is not only possible, it's essential in traditional methods, and there are a range of methods of doing such... and, while traditional jujutsu is kata-based (it is the primary method of teaching and training, when all is said and done), it's not what you're thinking of as "kata". My arts have some 6 Jujutsu systems in them, I am familiar with the syllabus and methods of at least another dozen or so, and I train dominantly solo at home. But, when it's all over, the only person who can give the OP any assistance in training at home is his instructor. No-one here (unfamiliar with his system or training methodology) can offer any real advice that can be applied, as everyone is coming at it via a filter which is completely opposed, in cases, to the OPs actual system.



Perhaps so; I'll add that to my to-do list--narrower and only true definition of kata needed---check.  Broader definition of jujutsu needed---check. :salute:

Semantics aside, of the nearly 20 jujutsu systems you apparently know (or are familiar with), there probably isn't a _whole lot_ I am unfamiliar with, though the quality of my ground-game aspect is wanting due to a lack of practice in that realm.  I find it hard to believe that among those nearly 20 systems, you can't offer any real advice that wouldn't oppose the OP's system?  Convenient you seem to know-it-all, but find a reason not to demonstrate or explicate any real detail. 


I am definitely willing to accept you ARE in fact doing what should be truly defined as "Kata" and Bunkai .  Thus, I really hope to see some video in which you demonstrate what you  think kata / bunkai really is. Surely it would be more beneficial to the OP and the community at large than  the assumptions and arrogant conjecture you have provided thus far.   

Best,

G


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 21, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Actually, footwork drills can be quite an essential part of jujutsu training,for the record...


Im quite aware of that and didnt mean to imply it wasnt.Solo training is of equal importance to kata and randori. They must all bepresent in my opinion. 





Chris Parker said:


> There's no coherent strategic approach.


I would say that depends on the purpose of the drill.


Chris Parker said:


> There is a huge difference between kata and drills. One teaches mechanics, theother teaches tactical expression.


But do they have to be mutually exclusive? Mechanicsshould be sound when performing kata and the strategic reason behind themechanics should not be forgotten when drilling movement. I agree that onewould be _more_ focused on one aspectthan the other, but I dont think they are that different from each other.If Im practicing an iai kata on my own I am working on both mechanicsand need to remain aware of the strategic purpose behind the movements,correct? In this case it is both a drill and a kata is it not? 


GaryR said:


> It was criticizing improper and lacking training--The point of thearticle was in the title "What's wrong with kata". What kata_ is_for 95-99% of folks, and what is _should be_ are two entirely differentthings. Kata should be more about mechanics and principles of movement ratherthan a a catalog of discrete techniques. You can't bridge form and function ofyou have no "form" (no Shen fa) to begin with. People get lost inwhat they think is Kata, they drown in it. It becomes a bible with lots ofdetails they try and take literally yet still cannot really translate.


Instead of Whats wrong with kata shouldnt it be morealong the lines of Whats wrong _with theway people practice_ kata?The details of kata in any art should be of highimportance so the details matter a great deal. They should reflect the tacticaland strategic lesson taught in the kata. Every movement should have purpose. Iagree that I see people get worked up over how far you twist your fist or howfar your feet should be from each other without knowing why that is important.But just because someone doesnt know why its important doesnt mean its notimportant.





GaryR said:


> I understand full well what Kata SHOULD be. The article explicates and reflectsan understanding of the ACTUAL state of things. The reality is that people needto recognize the poor excuse for what people teach as Kata is a systemicproblem-- instead of act as apologists whilst providing nothing of realsubstance.


What would providing something of real substance entail?





GaryR said:


> Perhaps you would fall into the 1-5% of people who would be doing somethingmore useful and close to the "true" definition, but since you reallywon't demonstrate or explicate much, who knows?


Im curious where you are pulling these numbers from.95-99% do kata wrong? 1-5% do it right?  How big of a study sample do you have and areyou in position to know why they are doing kata the way they do it? I agreethat perhaps lot of commercial schools likely dont know what they are doingwith the kata, but that is the fault of the instructor either not understandingit properly or not teaching it properly, not the fault of the kata itself.


----------



## GaryR (May 21, 2013)

Himura Kenshin said:


> ?Instead of Whats wrong with kata shouldnt it be more along the lines of Whats wrong _with the way people practice_ kata?




Certainly that would also be an appropriate title.  But certainly I would classify some kata, even as traditionally taught, to be less than optimal training in almost all aspects except for maybe discipline. This is a very broad statement however, and it would have to be broken down and discussed via a specific Kata and it's respective alternatives to highlight the point appropriately.    




Himura Kenshin said:


> ... But just because someone doesnt know why its important doesnt mean its not important.




This is true.  But _someone, _especially the teacher should know why it's important.





Himura Kenshin said:


> What would providing something of real substance entail?




Well, much more than Chris P provided for sure, especially given he purports to know the true meaning and practice of it.  Most of what he said was basically equivalent to nuh-uh.  As I said, a video breakdown of what his kata looks like, and his bunkai would be sufficient for sure since he claims it is soooo different that what we may expect and is the true way.     




Himura Kenshin said:


> Im curious where you are pulling these numbers from.95-99% do kata wrong? 1-5% do it right?  How big of a study sample do you have and are you in position to know why they are doing kata the way they do it? I agree that perhaps lot of commercial schools likely dont know what they are doing with the kata, but that is the fault of the instructor either not understanding it properly or not teaching it properly, not the fault of the kata itself.



The 95% figure came from K-man, and confirmed (semantics aside) by Chris P.  My sample size easily exceeds 1000 schools.  I used to travel for a living globally and made it a point to walk into as many schools as possible and touch hands with people.  I am in the position to know for several reasons, one of which being the simple route--ask!  Folks in one of my main arts (Taijiquan) are among the most guilty of not being able to use their forms well, and not being so willing, or great at explaining the meaning.  Moreover, the proof is in the pudding; even folks who are not so hot at explanations and are instructor / BB level consistently fail to demonstrate under decent pressure the principals their forms attempt to teach them.   

Sometimes it is the fault of the Kata itself.  Not all styles are created equal, not all forms are created equal, and not all movements in the forms are the most effective way of conveying the body method, principals, and methods attempted therein.  I know we would all like to think our forms are perfect just because someone created the sequence a time long ago--but that is not the reality of it.     


Best,

G


----------



## DennisBreene (May 21, 2013)

I think in some cases we have been overly caught up in semantics.  My style is Korean and old school. Kata was often used as a short hand for forms in general even though our specific forms were Hyung. We were aware that kata specifically referred to Japanese styles. We also learned the applications of our forms and were considered an advanced school in the area of forms. A tradition the Grand Master has continued and added to (including 2 person forms).  The overarching philosophy in our study of form was to train in the various aspects of purposeful movement in a fighting sequence.  The layers of understanding and accomplishment increased as the practitioner advanced and I personally don't see that there is a true end point in what the practice of form can teach.  It doesn't matter to me which style or school is the point of origin. It does matter that the practice of form be respected and encouraged.  I think this is best served by promoting the positive aspects of form and relinquishing the urge to denigrate and overly criticize those practitioners who may be on a less "advanced" path in understanding form.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 22, 2013)

This might take a bit...



GaryR said:


> It can appear that way because different people assign different meaning and definitions of what they consider "kata", sure *your* definition is surely the correct and only true one, but that doesn't negate the spectrum of varying opinion and practices that people put under that umbrella of the term.



No. The detail of people using the term when it doesn't actually apply doesn't change what the term is. But more to the point, kata is kata... there really isn't any more to it. 



GaryR said:


> What percentage of schools do you figure practice kata as mostly paired? We too in the Chinese arts have countless two man "forms".



If they're Japanese arts, pretty much all of them. The major exceptions would be Kyudo, Shurikenjutsu, and Iai, mainly due to safety concerns... although they do feature kata as the primary teaching and training methodology, it's not paired... but then again, many Iai systems include paired forms of the kata with bokken, referred to as kumitachi.

Oh, and I'm really not referring to anything like Chi Sau here... can you provide some other form from Chinese systems?



GaryR said:


> Japanese eh? Gee whiz, all this time I thought it was from the rural part of Madagascar?
> You can file the rest of this comment under exactly what I meant when I said "broad".



Cute. The point is that the term is Japanese, so it's the Japanese arts definition that should be taken into account. As for the rest, mis-use is not the same as there being broad definitions. So, no.



GaryR said:


> It was criticizing improper and lacking training--The point of the article was in the title "What's wrong with kata".


 
Oh, I read the article (and it's title) a number of times... and it's deeply flawed in intent, expression, and understanding.



GaryR said:


> What kata_ is_ for 95-99% of folks, and what is _should be_ are two entirely different things.



No, kata is kata. If it's not being transmitted properly, it's no longer kata, and is just a sequence of actions. 



GaryR said:


> Kata should be more about mechanics and principles of movement rather than a a catalog of discrete techniques.


 
No, it's not. Principles and mechanics should be taught separately from kata, and then form the basis of the kata's study. You're missing the point of kata still.



GaryR said:


> You can't bridge form and function of you have no "form" (no Shen fa) to begin with.


 
Sure... except that's not what kata is designed to teach.



GaryR said:


> People get lost in what they think is Kata, they drown in it.  It becomes a bible with lots of details they try and take literally yet still cannot really translate.



To be frank, that sounds like it's describing your take on kata... which isn't really accurate.



GaryR said:


> I understand full well what Kata SHOULD be.  The article explicates and reflects an understanding of the ACTUAL state of things.  The reality is that people need to recognize the poor excuse for what people teach as Kata is a systemic problem-- instead of act as apologists whilst providing nothing of real substance.



No, you don't get what kata should be. Some examples of quotes from your article that show a deep lack of understanding of kata:

- "Trying to memorize long sequence of forms is counter-productive to such a goal."
- "The only real reason for Kata in the Self-defense context is so students can grasp the concept on which the technique turns."
- "...beyond the beginner level of teaching the concepts, Kata has no place. No matter how many years one perfects such forms; it will still not adequately prepare someone for a fight. Rarely is a Kata&#8217;s movement actually used exactly as practiced in a form, and even more seldom is the exact sequence of moves used."
- "By nature, learning long forms tends to require the students stop and start their movements / techniques over and over again. This is a product of trying to put long sequences into memory, recalling the next move or series of moves, and worrying about how the move &#8220;looks&#8221;, or how perfect the &#8220;form&#8221;. Moreover, the anxiety, even subconscious of trying to remember the Kata produces tension, and breaks the chain of relaxation and fluidity required to maximize combat potential.

Continuous movement is critical. Never assume a certain attack and defense will be effective. Never assume change of movement, direction, or method will not be required. Never assume that a certain sequence of movements will be successful. Making these assumptions can mean the difference between life and death. Continuous movement makes it more likely the opponent will not be able to recover, turning the tables and forcing them to react to you is more desirable than being behind the eight ball on movement. I call such principle &#8220;Counter Offensive Tactics&#8221;, but that is another article altogether." (Sure, it's a long one, but it's all bad...)
- "Kata is almost necessarily training one in the tit-for-tat mentality, and two-step, three-step fragmented methods. Teaching that for every exact attack, there is a counter, and such counter can be executed in sequence is a reckless fallacy. Even predicting the response of the attacker in such sequence, and that your long sequence will counter is a big mistake. Some natural responses can be expected, like someone putting their hands up to protect the eyes and face, or flinching to protect the groin. But the natural response of the foregoing should not be relied upon, and certainly a long chain of methods should not be expected to hold up so well in a dynamic chaotic attack."
- "Many who train and rely on Kata are left to think the techniques will work the same way every time. This fails to take into account that every real world attack is different, small variables such as body position, angle of attack, timing, speed, and even the environment come into play--which requires the Martial Artist learn to apply their concepts in almost infinite variation. Manifestations of techniques are often on the fly, spontaneous, and not pre-planned tit-for-tat as Kata pretends."
- "If you insist on learning a long kata, break it up into smaller pieces. Learn to transition seamlessly from one technique to the next without pause. Change up the order of the techniques, and if you have to start/stop often, you have learned too many moves, and strung more together than practical."

Hell, I could have just quoted the entire article... after all, this is about three quarters of it. 



GaryR said:


> Now this is just semantic quibbling with K-man and I's point. The point is that 95% of people THINK they are truly and correctly training "kata" with more of a benefit than they are actually getting out of it.



No, K-Man has an understanding of kata, and was lamenting the poor understanding in many schools; you have little to no understanding of kata, expect it to be one thing (when it's actually quite different), and don't see what you think martial arts are about being catered for. I, on the other hand, am limiting the idea of people training kata to those actually training kata. Not those who are training something that's little more than an imitation.



GaryR said:


> We are in agreement here.  Again, you keep demonstrating why my article is applicable to most.



Uh... no, Gary. We are not in agreement here. I really don't think you have the first understanding what I'm talking about, for one thing. And your article is fundamentally flawed as an attempt to critique a practice you don't understand.



GaryR said:


> Definitely could be pointless for him. Garbage in, garbage out.  If he wants more specific perspective he needs to provide more detail.



 Really missed the point... What I was saying was that his system doesn't have kata the way you're describing or discussing them. As far as him providing more detail, to be honest, he's quite a new student in his system, and likely doesn't have the experience or exposure to be able to differentiate.



GaryR said:


> I've seen and done enough of the spectrum of what is considered kata (or forms as we call them), that I guarantee what you're doing would recognizable as such. Perhaps you would fall into the 1-5% of people who would be doing something more useful and close to the "true" definition, but since you really won't demonstrate or explicate much, who knows?



You've actually already been told what I am referring to as kata, but we'll cover it again, as you're still on the completely wrong page.



GaryR said:


> You are here telling everyone they are wrong about kata, that 95%+ aren't really doing it, and are "missing a range of essential facets", including "the most respected bunkai folks".  So if you truly believe you are in this top 5% of people doing what is really supposed to be Kata / bunkai, why don't you do the community a service and share?


 
I'm not saying that 95% aren't doing it (I said I disagreed, remember?), I'm saying that if they're doing kata, they're doing kata... if not, they're not. That's it. Oh, and the last sentence/question there shows that you, still, haven't clued in on what I'm talking about... and still are looking at kata from the wrong direction. 



GaryR said:


> It seems you are more interested in arrogant deflections with quotes like the above instead of explaining in detail or demonstrating why you think what you are doing is the exception and not the rule.



Kata is a Japanese term for a training method found in Japanese arts. I train in Japanese arts that are dominantly, if not entirely kata based. If you can't see how that would have me consider that what I'm doing is actually kata training, I really don't know how simpler to explain it to you.



GaryR said:


> I don't have the time to survey your 4000+ posts--but if it even exists, perhaps you could link me to a video(s) where you demonstrate what you consider real Kata and Bunkai? If not, how about you create one?  Every cell phone has a decent enough video camera these days.



Oh boy. Listen, Gary, I pretty explicitly stated that the idea of "bunkai"  doesn't even enter into Japanese kata training, so to insist on that again and again just shows that you don't understand kata, especially not in the form I'm discussing. But we'll try an experiment... I'm going to link a range of clips, and I'm going to ask you to identify which ones contain kata training... in clips where there are a range of different methods shown, I'm going to ask if you can identify if any of it is kata, and if so, which section. Let's see how we go....



















































I've deliberately avoided karate kata, by the way.



GaryR said:


> Perhaps so; I'll add that to my to-do list--narrower and only true definition of kata needed---check.  Broader definition of jujutsu needed---check. :salute:
> 
> Semantics aside, of the nearly 20 jujutsu systems you apparently know (or are familiar with), there probably isn't a _whole lot_ I am unfamiliar with, though the quality of my ground-game aspect is wanting due to a lack of practice in that realm.  I find it hard to believe that among those nearly 20 systems, you can't offer any real advice that wouldn't oppose the OP's system?  Convenient you seem to know-it-all, but find a reason not to demonstrate or explicate any real detail.



Are you sure about that? I mean, the vast majority of Jujutsu, and pretty much everything aside from BJJ that I've trained in, have really little to nothing with regards to a "ground game"... are you sure you know what Jujutsu actually is? And yes, I can offer advice that doesn't oppose the OP's system (mainly as I'm fairly familiar with what they're training in), which I have... it is to talk to their instructor. 



GaryR said:


> I am definitely willing to accept you ARE in fact doing what should be truly defined as "Kata" and Bunkai .  Thus, I really hope to see some video in which you demonstrate what you  think kata / bunkai really is. Surely it would be more beneficial to the OP and the community at large than  the assumptions and arrogant conjecture you have provided thus far.
> 
> Best,
> 
> G



No such thing as "bunkai" in Japanese kata, mate... you're still way off in your understanding.



Himura Kenshin said:


> I&#8217;m quite aware of that and didn&#8217;t mean to imply it wasn&#8217;t. Solo training is of equal importance to kata and randori. They must all be present in my opinion.


 

Depends on the system as to what it utilises, but cool.




Himura Kenshin said:


> I would say that depends on the purpose of the drill.




Yeah, I was commenting on the specific ones described, as well as the context they were described in.




Himura Kenshin said:


> But do they have to be mutually exclusive? Mechanics should be sound when performing kata and the strategic reason behind the mechanics should not be forgotten when drilling movement. I agree that one would be _more_ focused on one aspect than the other, but I don&#8217;t think they are that different from each other. If I&#8217;m practicing an iai kata on my own I am working on both mechanics and need to remain aware of the strategic purpose behind the movements,correct? In this case it is both a drill and a kata is it not?




Hmm. Sure, mechanics need to be sound... but you don't learn mechanics from the kata. They should be developed first, then applied within the context of the kata. So while you do need to ensure your mechanics are correct and strong throughout the kata, that's kind of a given, really... and is still not the point, or the aim, of training in kata.




Himura Kenshin said:


> Instead of &#8220;What&#8217;s wrong with kata&#8221; shouldn&#8217;t it be more along the lines of &#8220;What&#8217;s wrong _with the way people practice_ kata&#8221;? The details of kata in any art should be of high importance so the details matter a great deal. They should reflect the tactical and strategic lesson taught in the kata. Every movement should have purpose. I agree that I see people get worked up over how far you twist your fist or how far your feet should be from each other without knowing why that is important.But just because someone doesn&#8217;t know why it&#8217;s important doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s not important.




Yep, that's on the right track.




GaryR said:


> Certainly that would also be an appropriate title.  But certainly I would classify some kata, even as traditionally taught, to be less than optimal training in almost all aspects except for maybe discipline. This is a very broad statement however, and it would have to be broken down and discussed via a specific Kata and it's respective alternatives to highlight the point appropriately.



Then you don't get what the kata are for. There are a range of kata that don't have immediate applicability to combat, but that's incredibly different to saying that they are "less than optimal training in almost all aspects except for maybe discipline". Frankly, Gary, it's comments like that that show just how lacking your take and understanding of kata really is.



GaryR said:


> This is true.  But _someone, _especially the teacher should know why it's important.



Sure. But that doesn't support your comments about kata itself being borderline useless.



GaryR said:


> Himura Kenshin said:
> 
> 
> > What would providing something of real substance entail?
> ...



I'll wait to see your response to the above videos to see if you can pick what I'm talking about first.



GaryR said:


> The 95% figure came from K-man, and confirmed (semantics aside) by Chris P.  My sample size easily exceeds 1000 schools.  I used to travel for a living globally and made it a point to walk into as many schools as possible and touch hands with people.  I am in the position to know for several reasons, one of which being the simple route--ask!  Folks in one of my main arts (Taijiquan) are among the most guilty of not being able to use their forms well, and not being so willing, or great at explaining the meaning.  Moreover, the proof is in the pudding; even folks who are not so hot at explanations and are instructor / BB level consistently fail to demonstrate under decent pressure the principals their forms attempt to teach them.


 
Not "confirmed" by myself, Gary. It was a figure that K-Man used to indicate how few he feels train in kata properly (with actual understanding of what they're doing, and why... I'd probably still argue with him... and have!... but that's another argument entirely...). As for the rest, bluntly, I'm still doubting you have any real clue what you should be looking for...  



GaryR said:


> Sometimes it is the fault of the Kata itself.  Not all styles are created equal, not all forms are created equal, and not all movements in the forms are the most effective way of conveying the body method, principals, and methods attempted therein.  I know we would all like to think our forms are perfect just because someone created the sequence a time long ago--but that is not the reality of it.
> 
> Best,
> 
> G



No, it's not the fault of the kata. You're wanting kata to be something it isn't. That's the real issue with your take on what it is.


----------



## Zero (May 22, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> This might take a bit...
> 
> 
> [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
> Hmm. Sure, mechanics need to be sound... but you don't learn mechanics from the kata. They should be developed first, then applied within the context of the kata. So while you do need to ensure your mechanics are correct and strong throughout the kata, that's kind of a given, really... and is still not the point, or the aim, of training in kata.



This is important and what is missed by many (and certainly in some clubs I have had experience with).  You work on and perfect the individual techniques themselves, execution, accuracey etc and then use them within the kata, howevevr, the kata is not the place where you should be learning the correct application and mechanics of each individual technique or even the techniques themselves.  Don't get me wrong, you are executing them correctly within the kata but the kata is not the forum for learning each application/strike.
I am not so heaviliy into kata myself and when younger and until recently (and bereft of a better appreciation and understanding) actually questioned what it could offer.  But Chris' statement (if I read it right) is my experience of the matter...but I study Okinawan Goju Ryu in itself.


----------



## Mauthos (May 22, 2013)

Even though there has been a vast amount of dicussion previous to this regarding the understanding of kata I wonder if I have a rather different take on it.

Kata is important in any style which it is taught in, in my opinion and believe me I find that impressive that I have said that considering how against kata I was when I initially started my martial arts journey, so much so that I gave up traditional karate and took up kick boxing.

Many years later I started Kenpo and found that I liked the kata, it was a great way of training, but at first I did not have any real understanding as to why I had to perform what I saw as particular sequences of movements.  I eventually progressed onto short form 3 and long form 3 which are the first forms that are pretty much comprised of certain SD techniques taken from the Kenpo syllabus.

For me it gave me a greater understanding of the kata, I understood what each of the moves were for and why I was doing it and my kata improved the more I trained the SD techniques.  I suppose in a way that it was almost like performing Bunkai (sp?).

Therefore, for me I did find that each helped each other, training the techniques improved my kata and practising the kata improved my techniques.

For me at least that makes kata just as important as the techniques although I fully understand that in a 'real' situation I may not perform my 'moves' exactly as they are performed within a kata, but then that also means I will not be performing the moves exactly like my techniques either.

Anyway, as this is the first time I have seen this topic, it is very interesting to see peoples views regarding kata especially from someone who for many years could not see the point of it and actively detested practising them.


----------



## K-man (May 22, 2013)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I&#8217;m curious where you are pulling these numbers from.95-99% do kata wrong? 1-5% do it right?  How big of a study sample do you have and areyou in position to know why they are doing kata the way they do it? I agreethat perhaps lot of commercial schools likely don&#8217;t know what they are doingwith the kata, but that is the fault of the instructor either not understandingit properly or not teaching it properly, not the fault of the kata itself.


My figure, plucked from the air, seems to be causing concern.  Let me clarify my position. The OP's listed art is jujutsu. I have no knowledge of jujutsu kata although there are grappling techniques in Goju kata.  And apart from Aikido, my knowledge of other MAs is superficial. So when *GaryR* posted his first reply to the thread, referring to his article and a previous thread, I felt the need to respond and it was specific in that my 95% referred to *Karate* practice.  (And, I believe my figure to be conservative.)

I wrote ...


> If you read *GaryR*'s article it is probably true in 95% of *karate* schools. But there are other schools that recognise the true value of kata and teach in that way.



"The *value* of kata" in this context refers to its use as a fighting system.

In actual fact, although I disagree almost totally with *GaryR*'s article, I can understand why he has reached that understanding. I am not saying that 95% of karate schools don't teach kata properly. Probably 99% of them do. But teaching kata and teaching the application of kata are two totally different things. It is the understanding of kata in karate that I find almost totally lacking and that is for several reasons that I have elaborated in other threads. If you have not been exposed to the teaching of application by an experienced instructor, you could be forgiven for agreeing with *GaryR*'s article. But those of us who have been exposed to that type of teaching would have a totally opposing view.

*Chris* is coming from a different perspective.  If my understanding of his Ninjutsu is correct, the kata handed down in his style come with the understanding of the kata. Unfortunately this did not happen with karate. In fact I have read numerous times where karate masters specifically asked their students not to pass their understanding on to Westerners. So from my perspective and from *Chris*' perspective, *Gary*'s article is deeply flawed as I pointed out in a previous thread and *Chris* has done in this one.
:asian:


----------



## chinto (May 22, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> really, I don't see it as a "vs" issue.  Rather, it's an "and" issue.  I don't understand why some people want to see them as opposed to each other (I'm not saying you do, Suke, that's just me sayin').  They are both useful tools that have a place within the training methodology.  They build different aspects of the skills and help each other to reinforce one's development.



I agree,  sparring teaches distancing and timing , kata teaches movement , basic footwork, techniques and doctrine.


----------



## Phil_n.ireland (May 22, 2013)

How can I learn kata properly and be sure that I am?


----------



## Flying Crane (May 22, 2013)

Phil_n.ireland said:


> How can I learn kata properly and be sure that I am?



That's the million dollar question.  I also believe that the vast majority of people do not practice kata properly and that is because they do not understand it properly and were never taught how to understand it properly.  And now those people are teaching it to the next generation.  Once that understanding is lost, it is all but impossible for someone to discover it on their own.  

All you can do is find the best teacher that you can, and you need to trust him.  And if you find someone else who you believe is better, then you need to train with him.


----------



## Janina (May 22, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> All you can do is find the best teacher that you can, and you need to trust him.  And if you find someone else who you believe is better, then you need to train with him.



Agreed. You should never under estimate the meaning of skillful teacher who can  teach you the proper way to practice your art. I think that trust, like  Flying Crane said, is important part of proper teaching. Just do the  best to adopt what your teacher tells and then analyze it carefully  yourself piece by piece. With experience you start to see difference in  techniques and can decide if the teacher you have practiced with is the  best for you..


----------



## Phil_n.ireland (May 22, 2013)

Found this caption on wiki does this seem like a far description or real kata  or is this the version that you say 95% of people do which is wrong 

The basic goal of kata is to preserve and transmit proven techniques and to practice self defence . By practicing in a repetitive manner the learner develops the ability to execute those techniques and movements in a natural, reflex-like manner. Systematic practice does not mean permanently rigid. The goal is to internalize the movements and techniques of a kata so they can be executed and adapted under different circumstances, without thought or hesitation. A novices actions will look uneven and difficult, while a masters appear simple and smooth.[2]


----------



## Chris Parker (May 22, 2013)

chinto said:


> I agree, sparring teaches distancing and timing , kata teaches movement , basic footwork, techniques and doctrine.



Actually, kata teaches timing and distancing quite well, if you understand it properly. In fact, that's one of it's primary uses. It is not, however, designed to be a teaching platform for "basic footwork, movement, techniques and docrine". In fact, I have no idea how it could be said to be teaching "docrine"... as that is a reference to written teachings. Footwork, movement and techniques are contained within kata, but it's more that they are used to allow the kata to teach what they're designed to teach, rather than the kata being designed to teach those aspects themselves... so your idea is backwards.



Phil_n.ireland said:


> How can I learn kata properly and be sure that I am?





Phil_n.ireland said:


> Found this caption on wiki does this seem like a far description or real kata  or is this the version that you say 95% of people do which is wrong
> 
> The basic goal of kata is to preserve and transmit proven techniques and to practice self defence . By practicing in a repetitive manner the learner develops the ability to execute those techniques and movements in a natural, reflex-like manner. Systematic practice does not mean permanently rigid. The goal is to internalize the movements and techniques of a kata so they can be executed and adapted under different circumstances, without thought or hesitation. A novices actions will look uneven and difficult, while a masters appear simple and smooth.[2]



Phil, I'm going to be blunt here, as I've kinda danced around this issue for yourself throughout the thread...

Your system, the WJJF, is a wholly modern creation of Robert Clarke, with no real traditional basis to it at all... the kata, such as they are, were created by Clarke and other seniors for the organization, taking templates from karate, but without actually being based in them at all. In other words, you are not doing anything close to traditional kata with any of the basis that any of this conversation actually applies to. The only people who can tell you if you are doing your systems kata "properly" are your instructors and seniors... which is why I have repeatedly said for you to ask them. Your kata, indeed, your form of kata, is only found within your group, and nothing anyone says here will do anything other than highlight the lack of actual basis that exists in your systems approach to the concept. It is different to, in some major ways, both traditional karate kata and traditional jujutsu kata, while at the same time, there are attempts to imitate both.

When it comes to the Wiki description, honestly, no, it's incorrect (or, rather, desperately incomplete to the point of being inaccurate). It is written from a single perspective (nothing to do with your organization's approach), and as such, is not truly indicative of what kata is about outside of that single perspective's take on things.

So, one more time, as what kata means in your organization is distinctly different to all other perspectives here, nothing anyone has said is really of value, or is even relevant to your methods of kata practice. You have one source to go to, and it's not the internet. Talk to your instructor to ensure you're doing things properly within the context of your system.

And, just to address something here...



K-man said:


> *Chris* is coming from a different perspective. If my understanding of his Ninjutsu is correct, the kata handed down in his style come with the understanding of the kata. Unfortunately this did not happen with karate. In fact I have read numerous times where karate masters specifically asked their students not to pass their understanding on to Westerners. So from my perspective and from *Chris*' perspective, *Gary*'s article is deeply flawed as I pointed out in a previous thread and *Chris* has done in this one.
> :asian:




Hmm, how to put this... Our kata (in fact, all Japanese kata) ARE the applications of the techniques. They are paired forms, with an attacking side (typically the more senior practitioner), and a defending side (although even that description is not entirely accurate...). There is no guesswork in terms of what this move is supposed to do, you can see it immediately... this throw is a throw, and you can tell because you've just thrown the opponent. This strike is a strike, and you can tell because you've just hit them, and so on. Again, I'm going to refer to the clips on the previous page, and see if people (mainly Gary, but all are welcome to have a comment) can pick which are kata, which aren't, and why.


----------



## Phil_n.ireland (May 22, 2013)

Lol I just found that book tonight I've ordered it so il see how it goes, really excited by this want to take it as far as I can


----------



## GaryR (May 22, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> This might take a bit...
> 
> No. The detail of people using the term when it doesn't actually apply doesn't change what the term is. But more to the point, kata is kata... there really isn't any more to it.



More quibbling.  The use of the term is broad and varied, regardless of whether you consider the use correct or incorrect.  But since you seem to know the only true definition, why don't you lay it out for us in detail?  So far your posts lack any real substance in and of themselves on the topic.   



Chris Parker said:


> Oh, and I'm really not referring to anything like Chi Sau here... can you provide some other form from Chinese systems?



I'm aware you are not reffering to Chi Sau, that is what I consider a two-person drill. Off the top of my head, small and large san-sau are paired forms.  




Chris Parker said:


> Cute. The point is that the term is Japanese, so it's the Japanese arts definition that should be taken into account. As for the rest, mis-use is not the same as there being broad definitions. So, no.



If I walk into a school and they say they are doing a "kata", I'm not going to argue with them on whether their definition is exactly on point.  To them, what they are doing is kata, misuse or not.  Hence the article applies to the reality of what is going on, what the majority perception is--not your ideal which you have still failed to demonstrate or explicate. 





Chris Parker said:


> Oh, I read the article (and it's title) a number of times... and it's deeply flawed in intent, expression, and understanding.



The article represents critique of what many regard as kata, i.e. what happens in the real world with the term, and not Chris P's fairytale land of ninjas special forms.  This is yet another conclusory statement, with no detail or reasoning to back it up.  Again, why don't you write your own article on what kata is/should be?  





Chris Parker said:


> No, kata is kata. If it's not being transmitted properly, it's no longer kata, and is just a sequence of actions.



Belaboring the same point again, this is semantics.  If a doctor doesn't perform a surgery exactly correctly do we no longer call it a surgery? 



I said--"Kata should be more about mechanics and principles of movement rather than a a catalog of discrete techniques."



Chris Parker said:


> No, it's not. Principles and mechanics should be taught separately from kata, and then form the basis of the kata's study. You're missing the point of kata still.



Hmmm, you are contradicting yourself then.  

You seem to agree it teaches mechanics--You stated: "There is a huge difference between kata and drills. One teaches mechanics, the other teaches tactical expression."

You also seem to agree it's not about being a catalog of techniques. --"Kata is far from an encyclopedia of techniques, and that is actually pretty much opposite of what kata is designed for."

What little you have said about kata has been self-contradictory, perhaps you should detail your own article instead of simply quote me and say over and over basically "nuh-uh". 








 Originally Posted by *GaryR* 

 
                 People get lost in what they think is Kata,  they drown in it.  It becomes a bible with lots of details they try and  take literally yet still cannot really translate."





Chris Parker said:


> To be frank, that sounds like it's describing your take on kata... which isn't really accurate.



 Not even a decent attempt at spin.  



Chris Parker said:


> No, you don't get what kata should be. Some examples of quotes from your article that show a deep lack of understanding of kata.....



Your lack of reading comprehension is startling.  The article was not titled "what kata should be", nor "my ideal kata".  Again, and please slow down while reading this next bit--the article reflects what's wrong with kata as practiced in a majority of schools, not what you think it should be. 




Chris Parker said:


> No, K-Man has an understanding of kata, and was lamenting the poor understanding in many schools; you have little to no understanding of kata, expect it to be one thing (when it's actually quite different), and don't see what you think martial arts are about being catered for. I, on the other hand, am limiting the idea of people training kata to those actually training kata. Not those who are training something that's little more than an imitation.



Well, lamenting that 95% of people have poor understanding certainly demonstrates my point of what is wrong with the training methods being used, and purported to be kata. If only 1-5% of people are truly doing "kata", my article is fair warning to the rest who think they are.  I wrote the article for the 99%, not for the 1% with your "limit[ed]" idea of what it is. 





Chris Parker said:


> Uh... no, Gary. We are not in agreement here. I really don't think you have the first understanding what I'm talking about, for one thing. And your article is fundamentally flawed as an attempt to critique a practice you don't understand.



Now you are just being ridiculous. 

     Before you stated: 


Chris Parker said:


> Anyone that thinks that kata teaches techniques has missed the point.  Additionally, I don't think even some of the most respected bunkai folks  have actually hit upon what kata is about."



I agree that "anyone that thinks that kata teaches techniques has missed the point".  That's not an ambiguous statement, it's absurd you can sit there and tell me I don't agree with that-especially given my prior statement about it not being about a catalog of techniques. Wow, just wow. 





Chris Parker said:


> You've actually already been told what I am referring to as kata, but we'll cover it again, as you're still on the completely wrong page.



Where is this detailed explanation?  You certainly didn't "cover it again" in this thread.  If your not going to maintain at least some level of intellectual honesty and follow-through, this conversation is a race to the bottom.  




Chris Parker said:


> I'm not saying that 95% aren't doing it (I said I disagreed, remember?), I'm saying that if they're doing kata, they're doing kata... if not, they're not. That's it. Oh, and the last sentence/question there shows that you, still, haven't clued in on what I'm talking about... and still are looking at kata from the wrong direction.



I remember, and do you remember my response?  "Now this is just semantic quibbling with K-man and I's point. The point  is that 95% of people THINK they are truly and correctly training "kata"  with more of a benefit than they are actually getting out of it."

Yet another "wrong direction", nuh-uh quote.  Getting tiresome.  All arrogant conclusions, and no substance.





Chris Parker said:


> Kata is a Japanese term for a training method found in Japanese arts.



Gee whiz, thanks again for that clarification. Once again you have overwhelmed me with new information. :s412:




Chris Parker said:


> I train in Japanese arts that are dominantly, if not entirely kata based. If you can't see how that would have me consider that what I'm doing is actually kata training, I really don't know how simpler to explain it to you.



I say again--"It seems you are more interested in arrogant deflections with quotes  like the above instead of explaining in detail or demonstrating why you  think what you are doing is the exception and not the rule."

YOU are the one asserting that it is your definition of kata that is correct, and most are doing something that is not an accurate reflection.  Therefore, it's not unreasonable to ask you to detail what you consider correct kata in purpose and practice.  I never stated what you are doing is not kata training.  I get Japanese arts are dominantly Kata based, and I also get that most are worthy of my critique for their version of the training methods they call "kata".  It's part of reason there is an overwhelming lack of combat viability in the Japanese arts and it's practitioners; very often poor mechanics, poor fluidity, poor training methods, and poor execution.  

Of course you would take offense to a critique of Kata since that is apparently most of what your arts training is entirely based on...






Chris Parker said:


> Oh boy. Listen, Gary, I pretty explicitly stated that the idea of "bunkai"  doesn't even enter into Japanese kata training, so to insist on that again and again just shows that you don't understand kata, especially not in the form I'm discussing.



Oh boy Chris, your reading comprehension is again seriously lacking.  I made it clear in this thread, and the other that I was not referring to Kata as bunkai:

I said--"You missed the point.  As I understand it Bunkai means to pick apart.   It's the term used in disecting applications from Kata,isolating  specific techniques.  Sure that is important--but not my point, I didn't  mention Bunkai"

Again in this thread I made the distinction--"perhaps you could link me to a video(s) where you demonstrate what you consider real Kata and Bunkai"  Notice the word AND, not AKA.  It was you who brought up bunkai folks doing it wrong, I simply wanted you to demo how to do that right as well. 





Chris Parker said:


> But we'll try an experiment... I'm going to link a range of clips, and I'm going to ask you to identify which ones contain kata training... in clips where there are a range of different methods shown, I'm going to ask if you can identify if any of it is kata, and if so, which section. Let's see how we go....
> 
> I've deliberately avoided karate kata, by the way.



I'm not going to comb through a bunch of clips and tell you why or why not I think they in whole or in part qualify as "Kata".  I could really care less what they specifically call the training methods. I am not about to quibble over a definition--if they call it Kata, I'm going to critique it using that definition and practice, not superimpose my own first.  It's sort of like the circular discussion of what "internal" means in my arts, or the "that's not the real Tai Chi" type arguments when someones practice doesn't exactly mirror their own. That kind of crap was a large motivator for me to stop calling what I do "taiji" or "Bagua" etc., I label and define my own material to avoid such ridiculous semantics. 

It is you who is the stickler for the narrow definition.  I asked to see a clip of YOU demonstrating what you believe to be good Kata, good bunkai, and why that is different from the majorities misunderstanding.  I guess in your 4000+ post history you haven't managed this despite your alleged superior knowledge on the subject and skill?






Chris Parker said:


> Are you sure about that? I mean, the vast majority of Jujutsu, and pretty much everything aside from BJJ that I've trained in, have really little to nothing with regards to a "ground game"... are you sure you know what Jujutsu actually is? And yes, I can offer advice that doesn't oppose the OP's system (mainly as I'm fairly familiar with what they're training in), which I have... it is to talk to their instructor.



It is you who wanted a broader definition of JJ.  BJJ and MJJ are ground-game arts and include the words JJ in their names.  So again, I'm not going to argue with them over whether that is _really _JJ.  They call it that, thus I include it in the category.  





Chris Parker said:


> No such thing as "bunkai" in Japanese kata, mate... you're still way off in your understanding.



Wrong again, I'm not off, see above quote and other thread where I very specifically distinguish bunkai from Kata. You seem to be seeing what you want to see, and not actually reading my posts...:s406:  










 Originally Posted by *GaryR* 

 
 Certainly that would also be an appropriate  title.  But certainly I would classify some kata, even as traditionally  taught, to be less than optimal training in almost all aspects except  for maybe discipline. This is a very broad statement however, and it  would have to be broken down and discussed via a specific Kata and it's  respective alternatives to highlight the point appropriately."



Chris Parker said:


> Then you don't get what the kata are for. There are a range of kata that don't have immediate applicability to combat, but that's incredibly different to saying that they are "less than optimal training in almost all aspects except for maybe discipline". Frankly, Gary, it's comments like that that show just how lacking your take and understanding of kata really is.



In part another contradiction.  So when Himura suggests an alternate title you say "Yep, that's on the right track", but when I agree with him on that my understanding is lacking?  

Of course there are Kata that "Don't have immediate applicability to combat", I never suggested otherwise.  There ARE some kata that are less than optimal ..., are you saying that ALL kata are perfect and are the best way to accomplish the desired result?  That is quite a grand assumption, it is completely wrong and shows you lack real world perspective, and that you are at best a sheep in all you practice.     








 Originally Posted GaryR
This is true.  But _someone, _especially the teacher should know why it's important"





Chris Parker said:


> Sure. But that doesn't support your comments about kata itself being borderline useless.



It wasn't meant to support that comment, that is why it was broken out in a separate response. I also never used the words "borderline useless", my critiques are much more specific--don't put words in my mouth.     





Chris Parker said:


> I'll wait to see your response to the above videos to see if you can pick what I'm talking about first.



See above.  Your little exercise only continues to prove the point I made earlier--"It seems you are more interested in arrogant deflections with [quotes  like the above] instead of explaining in detail or demonstrating why you  think what you are doing is the exception and not the rule.

I'll reiterate--"I don't have the time to survey your 4000+ posts--but if it even exists,  perhaps you could link me to a video(s) where you demonstrate what you  consider real Kata and Bunkai? If not, how about you create one?  Every  cell phone has a decent enough video camera these days."

You have time to mine for clips and post lengthy and vacuous critiques, yet you can't manage to post a video of yourself and any detail on what you consider to be real kata, the purpose of it, and real bunkai.  Pathetic. 







 Originally Posted by *GaryR* 

 
 Sometimes it is the fault of the Kata  itself.  Not all styles are created equal, not all forms are created  equal, and not all movements in the forms are the most effective way of  conveying the body method, principals, and methods attempted therein.  I  know we would all like to think our forms are perfect just because  someone created the sequence a time long ago--but that is not the  reality of it."     





Chris Parker said:


> No, it's not the fault of the kata. You're wanting kata to be something it isn't. That's the real issue with your take on what it is.



So again, you are saying that Kata is flawless, a perfect way of attaining it's goals, and nothing is the fault of Kata. This is demonstrably wrong.  There are countless Kata (forms) throughout all of the styles...ridiculous statement. My take on it is the reality of the state of "kata" at large.  You are the one asserting that your reality (and all Katas) are flawless, and the best way to attain the goals. Congratulations, my BS flag is now at full mast. 

:bs:

So let's move the discussion along, why don't you stop equivocating with your crap & conjecture and:

1) Provide a detailed explanation on what you believe the correct practice of kata entails and it's purpose (and what others are    misunderstanding and why). 

2) Why kata is flawless and the best way of achieving the aforementioned goals.

3) Provide video of yourself performing the categories of Kata, and video of you utilizing such skills in a simulated attack situation (even if not full power).  

I bet it would take the same amount of time, or less, as clip hunting and managing to make all of those empty and inaccurate conclusions.  Who knows, it may even be beneficial? Certainly more so than all of this hot air.  


Best,

G

PS: Thanks for the fun banter, amusing!


----------



## K-man (May 22, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, how to put this... Our kata (in fact, all Japanese kata) ARE the applications of the techniques. They are paired forms, with an attacking side (typically the more senior practitioner), and a defending side (although even that description is not entirely accurate...). There is no guesswork in terms of what this move is supposed to do, you can see it immediately... this throw is a throw, and you can tell because you've just thrown the opponent. This strike is a strike, and you can tell because you've just hit them, and so on. Again, I'm going to refer to the clips on the previous page, and see if people (mainly Gary, but all are welcome to have a comment) can pick which are kata, which aren't, and why.


This is why I said that we were coming from different perspectives. To say "all Japanese kata ARE the applications of the technique" is a little confusing to people who may not understand the difference between Okinawan karate and karate that has been modified in Japan. I would call Yamaguchi's Goju Kai, Funakoshi's Shotokan and Oyama's Kyokushin Japanese Karate. If you really want to be pedantic, ALL karate is Japanese as Okinawa has been 'Japanese' for about 200 years and karate,  as such was developed within that timeframe.

In Karate, almost all kata is NOT paired, unless you are making the point that there is an imaginary opponent. Even then, I would suggest Yamaguchi's Taikyoku kata are more a collection of techniques in sequence than a combination of techniques with martial integrity. Funakoshi's kata, even the basic Heian, were designed by Itosu (Pinan kata) to teach practical combination of techniques.

Then there is the enormous difference between Chris saying;


> _"Our kata  ARE the applications of the techniques. They are paired forms, with an attacking side (typically the more senior practitioner), and a defending side (although even that description is not entirely accurate...). There is no guesswork in terms of what this move is supposed to do, you can see it."_



and Goju Ryu kata where I would say;


> _"Our kata do not contain specific applications of the techniques. They are individual forms where the person performs a series of techniques where he/she may or may not have an understanding of the applications of those techniques. There is no indication as to the application of the kata as it is not visible to the untrained eye."_



The Japanese introduced 'pre-arranged sparring' which is exactly as Chris has described. Basically that is a choreographed set of exercises with an attacker and defender where there is a given attack followed by a set sequence of techniques from each person. Each person must learn the 'attack' and the 'defence'. Generally the exercise is performed at so called 'sparring distance'.

We have 'Oyo Bunkai' where there is no choreography. There may or may not be a given attack and the response is to engage from some point within the kata and proceed from that point with techniques in sequence from the kata. The attacker is restricted in the actions he can take because the exercise is conducted at close range. Either the attacker defends with a predictable response or he gets hit. His reaction sets him up for the next strike and so on. Only the person practising the bunkai needs to know it.  And the bunkai is an individual thing. Everyone can have their own bunkai that is at their level of understanding. All I ask is that it is pressure tested to ensure that it fits the principles and will work in the way it is intended.

Although this post is basically in response to Chris, it is not aimed at Chris, because he understands exactly what I am saying. I am just restating my position so others can see there is even debate over what constitutes 'kata' and how how you can 'use kata'. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man (May 23, 2013)

Wow! I'm going to 'cherry pick'. It is as if you two bulls are fighting each other but from separate paddocks.


GaryR said:


> If I walk into a school and they say they are doing a "kata", I'm not going to argue with them on whether their definition is exactly on point.  To them, what they are doing is kata, misuse or not.  Hence the article applies to the reality of what is going on, what the majority perception is--not your ideal which you have still failed to demonstrate or explicate.
> 
> I agree with you. I have argued in the past that perception is the reality and been slapped around. But to the people you are referring, what they are doing is kata. It is just that their 'reality' is different to your 'reality'. Whether what they are doing has practical value is a different question.
> 
> ...


You're both are making some good points but, Gary, I think that most of your argument is based on a flawed opinion of kata.  If you like kata great. If you don't like kata fine. But why, if you don't understand kata, do you try to discredit it? I'm not saying that to be discourteous, but if you truly understood kata, there is no way we would be having this discussion.
 :asian:


----------



## K-man (May 23, 2013)

Sorry, double post.
 :asian:


----------



## Grenadier (May 23, 2013)

Sometimes, you'll see a dojo using kata in a way that simply isn't very effective.  I've seen some dojo's try to teach Heian Shodan on the first day, and many times, a student gets frustrated.  

When someone starts training in Karate, the most important part of the training, is to get the fundamental techniques in place first.  There simply isn't much to be gained at that stage, by trying to have a student learning the techniques through the kata, since the student doesn't have enough of a foundation.  

Once the basics are solidly in place, that's when it becomes a good time to use kata in someone's training.  One needs to be able to do the techniques standing in place, also while twisting the hip (koshino-kaiten), and while moving forward / backwards before undertaking kata training.  This ensures that the correct timing is also used.  

Students can learn to refine and improve the techniques using the kata, and at that point, they can greatly benefit from practicing kata, since the improvements in their techniques will also carry over into their kumite as well.  As a result, improvement in one aspect should help the other one.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 23, 2013)

Phil_n.ireland said:


> Lol I just found that book tonight I've ordered it so il see how it goes, really excited by this want to take it as far as I can



Phil, I hope you get something out of the book, but really, the approach to kata that it deals with is not the same as in your organization. It's like asking for a book to learn Romantic languages, and everyone suggesting French text books, when you're actually learning Italian. I'm not saying this to discourage you, quite the opposite, but if you really want to understand kata as you're being taught it, talk to your instructor. The book you've ordered deals with a aspects of Karate kata that simply aren't present in what you do.

Now, Gary. Again, this won't be short.



GaryR said:


> More quibbling.  The use of the term is broad and varied, regardless of whether you consider the use correct or incorrect.  But since you seem to know the only true definition, why don't you lay it out for us in detail?  So far your posts lack any real substance in and of themselves on the topic.



  To get down to it, the use isn't really that broad either. It's used to refer to pre-set patterns... that's it. The most familiar form of which is the karate-style string of solo movements, although that isn't the only (or most original) form. As far as substance, perhaps if you understood what I was talking about, you wouldn't think that...



GaryR said:


> I'm aware you are not reffering to Chi Sau, that is what I consider a two-person drill. Off the top of my head, small and large san-sau are paired forms.


 
Then can you describe what is involved, what the purpose of small and large san-sau are? From what I've seen, they're actually solo forms that are then applied as a paired training exercise, to explore the applications... and, although I'd class it as kata-like, I wouldn't call it kata. But perhaps if you can clarify the purpose, we might get somewhere.



GaryR said:


> If I walk into a school and they say they are doing a "kata", I'm not going to argue with them on whether their definition is exactly on point.  To them, what they are doing is kata, misuse or not.



On that point, if it's not your place to tell them if what they're doing is properly kata or not, how is it your place to tell them if they're doing it "right" or not? How, with your lack of actual experience or understanding of the purpose of kata, are you in a position to say what's, in your words, "wrong" with it's practice today?



GaryR said:


> Hence the article applies to the reality of what is going on, what the majority perception is--not your ideal which you have still failed to demonstrate or explicate.



Actually, Gary, no, it doesn't. You may have wanted it to, but your words don't match your intent there. 



GaryR said:


> The article represents critique of what many regard as kata, i.e. what happens in the real world with the term, and not Chris P's fairytale land of ninjas special forms.  This is yet another conclusory statement, with no detail or reasoning to back it up.  Again, why don't you write your own article on what kata is/should be?
> 
> Careful with the slurs, son. You really have no idea what you're arguing against.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zero (May 23, 2013)

GaryR said:


> YOU are the one asserting that it is your definition of kata that is correct, and most are doing something that is not an accurate reflection.  Therefore, it's not unreasonable to ask you to detail what you consider correct kata in purpose and practice.  I never stated what you are doing is not kata training.  I get Japanese arts are dominantly Kata based, and I also get that most are worthy of my critique for their version of the training methods they call "kata".  It's part of reason there is an overwhelming lack of combat viability in the Japanese arts and it's practitioners; very often poor mechanics, poor fluidity, poor training methods, and poor execution.



Gary - OK, I can understand why you may be struggling to keep your cool in this never-ending trade of ripostes with Chris, but are you really saying that there is an "overwhelming lack of combat viability in the Japanese arts and its practitioners"?  When you say "combat", do you mean just fighting, be that non-sanctioned or in the ring or do you mean only in a war zone?  If you mean just plain simple fight ability, this comment is a nonsense, just ask anyone that has on a competitive setting or on an informal basis sparred or fought against high level Japanese practitioners. Also just look at old Pride or K1 as to their ability.  There are also many accomplished non-Japanese karate practitioners which have been champions in stand up and mixed martial arts, too many to count.  Many RBSD or SD trainers also have strong karate or japanese style (judo/jujitsu) backgrounds.

If you mean only with respect to a modern/contemporary military/war zone (fight to death, including armed combatants) environment then yes, there are "better", more streamlined/focused H2H systems on the bare essentials on what is needed but that could be said for many/most non-Japanese styles also, or are you saying BJJ or caipoera is better suited in a war zone or military setting? Please! I think a high level karate practitioner's "mechanics, fluidity and execution" rank equal with any other similar-level practitioner of other styles, be that tang soo do, TKD, win chun or muay thai.

The dominance of or focus on kata also varies from style to style and even teacher/dojo to dojo.  I do Okinawan Goju Ryu but have been in numerous Japanese karate dojos where the time spent on or dependance placed on kata varies enormously!! 

Another thing to understand is that even if you have a club where the kata applicaiton just stinks, you can have great fighters there.  Either they simply don't focus on kata or they have good technique and skills but do not have an idea on kata application itself - this does not mean they can't whip your butt in a fight.


----------



## Koryu Rich (May 23, 2013)

Chris,

Other than the obvious stand out dodgy ones there's one (legit) video in there that's a bit of a trick question, tut tut shame on you. 

:rules:


----------



## K-man (May 23, 2013)

Grenadier said:


> Students can learn to refine and improve the techniques using the kata, and at that point, they can greatly benefit from practicing kata, since the improvements in their techniques will also carry over into their kumite as well.  As a result, improvement in one aspect should help the other one.


I disagree with this totally. Depending on how you define kumite, I don't think kata has anything at all to with kumite. As I said, it depends on definition, but if the kumite is at sparring range as you see in point sparring I would question that it even worth wasting time on kata. There are dozens of drills that are far more beneficial. If you consider kumite to be at close range, that is grappling range, then kata might be extremely valuable, or totally useless depending on how you use the kata.

The only reason I can see for striving for perfection in kata, and the reason for using it as a grading requirement, it that it has to be passed on to the next generation of students as it was passed down to you. You might say here that competition is another reason but I dispute that claim too as a lot of people change the kata to produce a more flamboyant display to catch the judge's eye. 

I'm not suggesting you should not strive for good technique in training. That is the first stage of the learning process. Unfortunately a lot of practitioners never progress beyond that point. :asian:


----------



## Chris Parker (May 24, 2013)

Koryu Rich said:


> Chris,
> 
> Other than the obvious stand out dodgy ones there's one (legit) video in there that's a bit of a trick question, tut tut shame on you.
> 
> :rules:



Nothing is done without purpose, my friend... and what rules?


----------



## Koryu Rich (May 24, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Nothing is done without purpose, my friend... and what rules?



I don't know, I liked the smilie that's all. :ultracool


Ow look a Dalek. :dalek:


----------



## Chris Parker (May 24, 2013)

Cool.... the stairs natural prey....


----------



## Koryu Rich (May 24, 2013)

I'd like to hear Gary's input on some of the clips that have been posted. Those arts can be very interesting and looking at the way they transmit the knowledge contained within the school can be a worthwhile discussion.


----------



## Koryu Rich (May 24, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Cool.... the stairs natural prey....



Not anymore.

Levitate...LEVITATE!!!


----------



## Chris Parker (May 24, 2013)

Koryu Rich said:


> I'd like to hear Gary's input on some of the clips that have been posted. Those arts can be very interesting and looking at the way they transmit the knowledge contained within the school can be a worthwhile discussion.



Yep, agreed. That's really a big part of why I posted them, so we can get to the purpose and place of kata (in it's forms) within a system, and how to differentiate what is necessary, and what is a variable.


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 24, 2013)

Koryu Rich said:


> Chris,
> 
> Other than the obvious stand out dodgy ones there's one (legit) video in therethat's a bit of a trick question, tut tut shame on you.




Jeez, now I have to look through them again and see if Ican pinpoint that.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 24, 2013)

K-man said:


> The only reason I can see for striving for perfection in kata, and the reason for using it as a grading requirement, it that it has to be passed on to the next generation of students as it was passed down to you.



this begs the question: why?  Why does it need to be passed on to the next generation, as it was passed down to you?


----------



## K-man (May 24, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> this begs the question: why?  Why does it need to be passed on to the next generation, as it was passed down to you?


Quite simple. My teacher had no idea of the meaning of kata. Nor did his teacher. I doubt vey much if his teacher in Hawaii did either. Then we get back to Gogen Yamaguchi. How much he knew is a good question as is the limited time if any he trained under Chojun Miyagi. So the underlying bunkai of our kata has not been explored in 70 years but the fact that the kata has been handed down virtually unchanged in that time means, with contemporary knowledge, I have the opportunity to explore the kata in a way my teacher didn't have 30 years ago. I am not for one minute suggesting that I now have the mystical knowledge of the kata from 100 years ago, but I can pass on the kata I was taught so my students and their students have the same opportunity that was given to me.   :asian:


----------



## Flying Crane (May 25, 2013)

K-man said:


> Quite simple. My teacher had no idea of the meaning of kata. Nor did his teacher. I doubt vey much if his teacher in Hawaii did either. Then we get back to Gogen Yamaguchi. How much he knew is a good question as is the limited time if any he trained under Chojun Miyagi. So the underlying bunkai of our kata has not been explored in 70 years but the fact that the kata has been handed down virtually unchanged in that time means, with contemporary knowledge, I have the opportunity to explore the kata in a way my teacher didn't have 30 years ago. I am not for one minute suggesting that I now have the mystical knowledge of the kata from 100 years ago, but I can pass on the kata I was taught so my students and their students have the same opportunity that was given to me.   :asian:



In my opinion, if your teacher didn't understand the kata and could not teach it to you, then it is already too late.  The transmission of information has been lost and it is very unlikely that you can discover it on your own.

If this was the case for several generations prior to you, then it was too late long before you came onto the scene. 

You may be able to work up some other stuff of your own and that could be quite good in its own right, but the kata is lost.  You are preserving something for the sake of posterity, that has become meaningless.

I train in a very traditional Chinese method, that is heavy on forms training as a way of both teaching the system and practicing and developing skills.  But the forms must have meaning in order to be of any value.  They are a tool meant to help us develop certain skills (application of technique is only one part of it) and as long as they are fulfilling that purpose then they are of value in the training.  If they no longer function in that way, if we don't understand why we do them, if we don't understand how to do them properly, if we don't understand what the movement means and the purpose in using them to train, then there is no point.

My sifu has said that if you just want to learn to fight, you could study under him for one year and he could teach you to be a good fighter.  And you would not need to learn any forms at all.  So forms are not the only way to go about it.  They are only useful when properly understood and properly practiced.  Once that transmission of information has been lost, it's too late.  Work on something else.  There's no reason to keep forms as busy work, or to justify a promotion.


----------



## GaryR (May 25, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Now, Gary. Again, this won't be short.


Wow, this thing is getting long. Why dont you save some time and limit the animus to just one preface for the rest of your posts / comments with your opinion I am way off base. Nearly every segment of your posts ends with I have no clue re kata or something similarits redundant, I get it. You also keep repeating I have no clue what you are talking about, I get that opinion as well, and I have repeatedly called for you to elaborate more, which you have not.  

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
More quibbling. The use of the term is broad and varied, regardless of whether you consider the use correct or incorrect. But since you seem to know the only true definition, why don't you lay it out for us in detail? So far your posts lack any real substance in and of themselves on the topic.



Chris Parker said:


> To get down to it, the use isn't really that broad either. It's used to refer to pre-set patterns... that's it. The most familiar form of which is the karate-style string of solo movements, although that isn't the only (or most original) form. As far as substance, perhaps if you understood what I was talking about, you wouldn't think that...



There is no point in this game of semantics, its becoming circular.  Lets just go from the simplest definition-- that Kata is a pre-set pattern.  


Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
I'm aware you are not reffering to Chi Sau, that is what I consider a two-person drill. Off the top of my head, small and large san-sau are paired forms.



Chris Parker said:


> Then can you describe what is involved, what the purpose of small and large san-sau are? From what I've seen, they're actually solo forms that are then applied as a paired training exercise, to explore the applications... and, although I'd class it as kata-like, I wouldn't call it kata. But perhaps if you can clarify the purpose, we might get somewhere.



Kata-like ehwell, as  a Kata by the above simple definition is a pre-set pattern, it is definitely kata--as it is a pre-set pattern.  It can be taught initially without using a partner to get the movements down, but its not really practiced solo.  There are many useful things that come from it; mechanics of the movements are pressure tested immediately, and timing, distance, and tactile sensitivity to attacks are benefited.  It also assists in learning to adapt the movement to even the slight variables in a pre-arranged attack; after all, not every punch is exactly the same angle etc. even in two-person cooperative set.    

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
If I walk into a school and they say they are doing a "kata", I'm not going to argue with them on whether their definition is exactly on point. To them, what they are doing is kata, misuse or not.



Chris Parker said:


> On that point, if it's not your place to tell them if what they're doing is properly kata or not, how is it your place to tell them if they're doing it "right" or not?



If I thought it was my place to categorize their training method for them, then I would necessarily be telling them how I thought their practice did or did not fit my criteria of the definition.  Because I dont feel it my place to put my own definition on their method, I dont say this is wrong therefore is not kata, instead I say whats wrong with the training methodology, and if they call that methodology kata, that statement necessarily becomes whats wrong with your kata.  Get it yet?  :deadhorse



Chris Parker said:


> How, with your lack of actual experience or understanding of the purpose of kata, are you in a position to say what's, in your words, "wrong" with it's practice today?



You are again assuming I lack experience in Kata/forms and understanding.  See paragraph one.  I have extensive experience with forms / kata.  Taiji for example has a 100+ move old yang form; I have been doing that for over 20 years.  Ive done loads of forms of different stripes.    

Originally Posted by *GaryR*
Hence the article applies to the reality of what is going on, what the majority perception is--not your ideal which you have still failed to demonstrate or explicate.



Chris Parker said:


> Actually, Gary, no, it doesn't. You may have wanted it to, but your words don't match your intent there.


You are drawing an inference about my intent.  My words are my words, intent goes to my state of mind, which you are not in a position to know. It is the reality that many schools line students up and do long forms and that those students cannot apply that material in real world combat, absurd you try and spin this into an intent issue. 



GaryR said:


> The article represents critique of what many regard as kata, i.e. what happens in the real world with the term, and not Chris P's fairytale land of ninjas special forms. This is yet another conclusory statement, with no detail or reasoning to back it up. Again, why don't you write your own article on what kata is/should be?





Chris Parker said:


> Careful with the slurs, son. You really have no idea what you're arguing against.



Lets dispense with the son like names, youre not my father, if dont want me to further degrade you, dont talk down to me. I cant have an exact idea, you havent demonstrated anything, nor provided anything in appreciable detail to argue against. I can assure you, whatever you are doing; I will have an idea what Im arguing against. Ive met and touched hands with several Ninjitsu instructors, all of whom were no slouches, many with more years in than you.  There wasnt a single one I couldnt suck in like a tornado with and spit out broken, or melt through like butter. Using this clip as a reference point for skill -- 



 , some were just as good as this guy, some better, and some not as good.  



Chris Parker said:


> But, to the point, no, your article does not represent a critique of "what many regard as kata". It is a critique of kata training, and is peppered, I would say filled, with comments that are critiques, not on peoples understanding of their practice, but on the practice itself. I quoted a number of them in the last post here, but to highlight a few again:



As I said before, I take peoples word at face value what they are doing goes with their definition of kata, so Im critiquing the training methodology of what most of the people using that definition are doing.  This goes hand-in-hand with critiquing peoples understanding of such practice.  Once you accept this distinction, most of your points are moot. 


- "Trying to memorize long sequence of forms is counter-productive to such a goal."



Chris Parker said:


> Memorizing long sequences is not the goal of kata firstly, and secondly, in the context (the goal being training repeatedly until the skills bypass cognitive thought), you are 100% wrong. You're bluntly facing the wrong direction there, as that's one of kata's primary and main strengths as a training tool.



It may not be the goal, but it is often the fact of the matter, the person may very well be memorizing a long sequence.  Sorry, but it can also be a weakness.    

- "The only real reason for Kata in the Self-defense context is so students can grasp the concept on which the technique turns."



Chris Parker said:


> And this is based on, what, exactly? As, when you get down to it, kata begins far past that point. Frankly, this comment is just so outright wrong that it's hard to give all the ways that it is...



Once the concept is internalized, you dont need to put the movement in a pre-arranged sequence to manifest it, or practice it.  Practicing it in such sequence is not the most beneficial type of training in the self-defense context.  You comment is so outright wrong it tells me you have not reached a high enough echelon of skill where you can understand what Im saying.   

- "...beyond the beginner level of teaching the concepts, Kata has no place. No matter how many years one perfects such forms; it will still not adequately prepare someone for a fight. Rarely is a Katas movement actually used exactly as practiced in a form, and even more seldom is the exact sequence of moves used."



Chris Parker said:


> And, again, this is so far out of whack with what kata is that it's hard to know where to start with how wrong you are. But, as you clearly have no real experience with kata, and these things are understood through experience, it's difficult to explain just how out you are.



Another assumption, see above. I have plenty of experience with it. Plenty of people try and use the exact movements, and regardless the pre-set sequence no matter what the context does not adequately prepare one for a fight, if you disagree, well, you are wrong. 



Chris Parker said:


> But, to attempt to, kata is not a beginners tool. It is the essence of the art, the heart of the system, and it is the practice of the advanced practitioner. The ludicrous idea that anyone thinks that a kata's movements would ever be used exactly as presented is just... well... ludicrous. And no practitioner has claimed such a thing. To believe such an idea is to, well, not have the first clue about kata in the first place.



Its a beginners tool so far as learning what it is supposed to teach.  Once that is learned, doing only the kata is stagnating it, especially combatively. Once gotten down, the movements should free-flow, unplanned, not be pre-set. There are people who try to use the movements exactly, so no, its not ludicrous.  There are plenty that dont as wellsee my bible interpretation comment which eludes to this fact.   

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
Belaboring the same point again, this is semantics. If a doctor doesn't perform a surgery exactly correctly do we no longer call it a surgery?



Chris Parker said:


> You wouldn't call a butcher a surgeon, Gary. And you need to work on your metaphors and analogies.... this one was terrible, and false.



Its a good analogy, a karateka saying he is doing a kata, and screws it up, is just like a surgeon doing a surgery, and screws it up.  It doesnt make the surgeon a butcher, he is not cutting meat to be eaten and sold, just like it doesnt make the karateka a janitor. 

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
Hmmm, you are contradicting yourself then.

You seem to agree it teaches mechanics--You stated: "There is a huge difference between kata and drills. One teaches mechanics, the other teaches tactical expression."



Chris Parker said:


> Okay, I'll cop to putting things in a confusing order, but I figured that it was obvious which was which... if you think simple drills teach tactical applications, you have really missed the point.



Youre putting words in my mouth again, I didnt mention tactical applications or drills, I mentioned mechanics.  Are you now saying the inverse of your statement is true and that drills teach only mechanics? You are the one who mentioned drills .. Teaches tactical expression, dont try and attribute your words to me, and then tell me Im wrong, that is just silly.   

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
You also seem to agree it's not about being a catalog of techniques. --"Kata is far from an encyclopedia of techniques, and that is actually pretty much opposite of what kata is designed for."

What little you have said about kata has been self-contradictory, perhaps you should detail your own article instead of simply quote me and say over and over basically "nuh-uh".



Chris Parker said:


> Perhaps you need to read closer, Gary. And no, I have no intention of trying to make myself feel knowledgable or important by writing an article. I'm not really sure why you wrote yours, either... you said it was for your (CMA) site... where the dominant readership, I'd assume, don't practice kata in their arts, so it was really nothing more than a way  for you to seem like you have something valuable to add to a discussion you have no place in, yeah?



I dont need to read closer, you failed to address my actual statements, and your own contradictionconvenient.  I liken a catalog to an encyclopedia; the analogies to me are very similar.

I also didnt say you should write the article to feel important, just too simply convey your thoughts for the benefit of the community, and also because you are adamant about being right about your take on kata, writing at length on it would prevent these types of circular and vague disagreements.

CMA arts do practice kata (or forms as we call them), as you see I used the word forms in my article as well.  Heck, most internal martial arts guys do a lot of forms.  Taiji has the long and short forms, Xingyi has the animal forms, and five fist routines set in a pattern, and bagua has both linear and circular forms, as well as animal forms.  So yeah, I do have a place in the discussion, you are obviously ignorant to those arts practices.     

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
Not even a decent attempt at spin.



Chris Parker said:


> It wasn't spin, Gary, it was observation based on your posts, your article, and your comments.



It was spin, youre trying to say my own derisive comment applies to myself, spin. If you agree with my point you agree, if you disagree, you disagree, trying to impute my own negative comment to myself is spin, I understand what I wrote, and why.  Youre not in my head; your observations dont go that far.   

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
Your lack of reading comprehension is startling. The article was not titled "what kata should be", nor "my ideal kata". Again, and please slow down while reading this next bit--the article reflects what's wrong with kata as practiced in a majority of schools, not what you think it should be.
No, it doesn't. 



Chris Parker said:


> The majority of the article is deriding kata as a form of training, not deriding people training kata improperly. Your article wasn't titled "What's wrong with the way people train kata", it was "What's wrong with kata". It began with some negative stereotypes (and a negative title, "Window Dressing and Rank Fodder"), largely projected onto a nameless, faceless dojo, and then immediately launched into the beginnings of your comments that showed a deep lack of understanding of what kata is, how it is structured, and why it is done the way it is.



It is deriding the form of training they are calling kata and actually doing.  You define their training outside of kata if they are training it improperly, I do not.  Its not a lack of understanding; its accepting the label and critiquing the training method.



Chris Parker said:


> That was followed by the second section ("Stop and Start: The Necessity of Continuous Movement"), the title of which alone showed (again) a lack of understanding of the methods of training kata, the progression as a student develops, and so on, and was simply a criticism (based on false understanding) of the kata method itself. Not the practice, proper or improper, but of the very practice of kata itself.



Another you lack understanding like quote, again, the critique is on the reality of the training method.  It is based on objective observation of what is happening, and why it is not optimal.  



Chris Parker said:


> The third section ("Hit Me, Don't Quit Me") continued along that vein, criticizing kata in it's very structure, by assuming it's purpose and structure (which was, frankly, incorrect as well... kata does not teach a "tit for tat" mentality or approach, Gary), as well as a very false assumption of what people expect of kata. You then, incredibly arrogantly, proffer a solution to a non-existant problem (the problem only really being what you are expecting versus what kata really is)... which is essentially to abandon the kata itself. Say, here's some news for you... in these arts, there's a concept known as Shu Ha Ri... which already takes into account your apparent solution, but in a way consistent with kata and it's aims. Again, your lack of knowledge and understanding of this topic shines through.



What they expect and reality are likely two different things.  Thus, its not a false assumption at all.  Im not saying what I am expecting of them; rather what is more beneficial in that context. 

Keeping in mind the basic definition Kata is a pre-set pattern of movements, it would seem from the wiki definition (since you failed to expand on it, Ill use that one), that the Ha Ri portion of the term is essentially abandoning doing the pre-set form, and thus abandoning the katait no longer becomes Kata. :

From wiki--Next, in the stage of _ha_, once we have disciplined ourselves to acquire the forms and movements, we make innovations. In this process the forms may be broken and discarded. Finally, in _ri_, we completely depart from the forms, open the door to creative technique, and arrive in a place where we act in accordance with what our heart/mind desires, unhindered while not overstepping laws." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shu_Ha_Ri).

Hmmm, broken down and discarded.  This is exactly what I was saying in my article, once past the beginner level Shu, one should break up and then the Ri is exactly what I meant as well when I referred to manifesting the movements in free-form. This only proves my point; the kata is beginner level and can be abandoned in a sense when you achieve a higher level.  It would seem this point negates your entire problem with my core idea / methodology. Thanks. 



Chris Parker said:


> You finally end by offering advice to "break up the kata" (do you really think that approach is news to anyone who train in karate-style kata?), and then to "create your own", in place of what you consider an ineffective method of training.



It may not be new, but its not that widely practiced well, sure, the kata is sometimes learned in isolated pieces, but all too often once learned it is practices as a complete whole, not in repetitive small sections, and doesnt become functional.  See last paragraph



Chris Parker said:


> Seriously, other than the negative stereotypes given in the first section, the rest of your article wasn't about poor training practices for kata, it was a criticism of kata itself. And it was completely flawed in all of it's demonstrated understanding of the subject.



Its a typical situation statistically, which I perceive as a con.  Again, we are splitting hairs as far as Im concerned with it being a criticism of the kata itself, or practice itself. As I mention later, there are problems with both. 



Chris Parker said:


> I read plenty well, mate.



Reading and comprehending are two different things.  Curious-- what is your academic background, and your occupation, mate? 

Originally Posted by *GaryR*
Well, lamenting that 95% of people have poor understanding certainly demonstrates my point of what is wrong with the training methods being used, and purported to be kata. If only 1-5% of people are truly doing "kata", my article is fair warning to the rest who think they are. I wrote the article for the 99%, not for the 1% with your "limit[ed]" idea of what it is.



Chris Parker said:


> Garbage. Your article only goes to warn that you don't like, or understand, kata training. Bluntly, you don't even manage to identify what the issue with K-Man's 95% of schools really have.



I dont remember that K-man identified the issues with the 95% himself.  The point of the article WAS to warn about what I dislike, why I dislike it, and what should be done in place of that type of practice. Whats garbage is that youre trying to act as an apologist and say that simply because I disagree with the efficacy of the training method many call kata, you claim I lack understanding.  Seems like a theist insisting because I dont believe in God, I lack understanding of it.  It has nothing to do with belief in the ideal concept, but in the objective reality based on the evidence available. 

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
Now you are just being ridiculous.

I agree that "anyone that thinks that kata teaches techniques has missed the point". That's not an ambiguous statement, it's absurd you can sit there and tell me I don't agree with that-especially given my prior statement about it not being about a catalog of techniques. Wow, just wow.



Chris Parker said:


> Context is key, Gary. I said I didn't think you have the first clue what I was talking about in regards to what was the important aspect in kata, as you have shown no insight to tell me that you might get it. It's integral to the training methodology, really... and denies pretty much all of your criticism in your article.



You still failed to address this point with yet another you dont get it comment.  The statement re techniques is not ambiguous, it needs no further context, I agree with the brief statement on its face, nothing more or less was said on either side on the matter.  You havent shown me that you get it either, far from, so the feeling is mutual. 

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
Where is this detailed explanation? You certainly didn't "cover it again" in this thread. If your not going to maintain at least some level of intellectual honesty and follow-through, this conversation is a race to the bottom.



Chris Parker said:


> I was referring to the fact that Himura had answered before me:


 
Ok, fair enough in part, but you did fail to follow through as far as Im concerned you said but we'll cover it again, and you didnt.  Im still waiting for more than two lines on the subject from you.


.....

Himura saidA kata is a prearranged form of something.

Great, I agree, now we are back to a nice simple definition as stated above. 






Chris Parker said:


> I then provided a range of videos, which contained quite a lot of examples of kata (and a few that didn't) to see if you could get it. Sadly, it seems that you didn't.



I didnt comment on the videos content, I didnt even watch a single one all the way through, nor did I view all of them-- so to say I didnt get it is a false assumption, based on nothing. I asked for a video of YOU, and how you practice Kata, not for a bunch of strangers.  Anything in that video lump that had a prearranged sequence is Kata as far as I am concerned-but just because something appears to be pre-arranged doesnt mean it necessarily is pre-arranged, its often very obvious what is pre-arranged, but not always.  Like I said, if they say its kata, Ill go with that, I dont care enough to define it for them, I care to critique the efficacy of the training method as-is.  

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
I remember, and do you remember my response? "Now this is just semantic quibbling with K-man and I's point. The point is that 95% of people THINK they are truly and correctly training "kata" with more of a benefit than they are actually getting out of it."

Yet another "wrong direction", nuh-uh quote. Getting tiresome. All arrogant conclusions and no substance.



Chris Parker said:


> You asked if I considered that I was in this mystical 5% with proper kata/bunkai, why don't I share. I was pointing out that, again, kata in my arts have no bunkai, no need of it, and you are thinking of a completely different training approach that really, really doesn't apply to me. In other words, you're still not understanding what you're being told.



Another equivocation and you do not understand comment.  YOU brought up bunkai in this discussion, not me.  You can easily demonstrate the kata then, Im not trying to say anything that specifically applies to you personally, I am asking for you to demonstrate what does / does not apply to you and why.

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
Gee whiz, thanks again for that clarification. Once again you have overwhelmed me with new information. 



Chris Parker said:


> Cute, kid. Perhaps you'll listen to some of it now?



Ok Dad, what Im hearing is not new information, by repeating this information that is so basic its insulting, you have clearly demonstrated it is you who did not listen. 

Originally Posted by *GaryR*
I say again--"It seems you are more interested in arrogant deflections with quotes like the above instead of explaining in detail or demonstrating why you think what you are doing is the exception and not the rule."



Chris Parker said:


> For the twentieth time, Gary, what I am doing is not what you're lambasting. And you don't understand either.



For the twentieth time Chris, I dont know exactly what youre doing, which is why I am asking for a demonstration and detailed explication. Your deflections are getting annoying.  

Originally Posted by *GaryR*
YOU are the one asserting that it is your definition of kata that is correct, and most are doing something that is not an accurate reflection. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to ask you to detail what you consider correct kata in purpose and practice. I never stated what you are doing is not kata training. I get Japanese arts are dominantly Kata based, and I also get that most are worthy of my critique for their version of the training methods they call "kata". It's part of reason there is an overwhelming lack of combat viability in the Japanese arts and it's practitioners; very often poor mechanics, poor fluidity, poor training methods, and poor execution.



Chris Parker said:


> Son, you have no clue what you're talking about there. Kata training is, and has been the dominant method of transmission of martial arts (and other arts) in Japan for centuries... including during the most intense times of war the country saw.



Ok dad, you are using a basic logical fallacy here-appeal to tradition. Rub your two IQ points together and learn some basic critical thinking and logical reasoning.  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html.  Moreover, Ive personally been in two wars, and during which have transmitted martial arts / armed and unarmed combat training to combatants. Have you trained people in war zones, or do you just get your conjecture from ancient books?     



Chris Parker said:


> And, you know what, you're still thinking of the wrong form of kata... which is why I gave you the videos to watch.



I told you up front I accept a broad definition of kata training.  So, no, Im not thinking of the wrong form.  Ive seen plenty.  What Im thinking of is a pre-arranged sequence, be it trained using one or more persons. Typically this sequence is longer than just a few movements, but not always.  Erle Montaigues 12 most deadly katas for example are short.  

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
Of course you would take offense to a critique of Kata since that is apparently most of what your arts training is entirely based on...



Chris Parker said:


> When you can identify the form of kata I'm talking about, then you might have a clue how far off you've been.



I am critiquing what I have observed and identified, that objective observation is not far off. Until and unless I look at your training and compare our definitions and purposes, you cant say what I have a clue about.  Another arrogant deflection, I bet you feel special, lol. 

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
Oh boy Chris, your reading comprehension is again seriously lacking. I made it clear in this thread, and the other that I was not referring to Kata as bunkai:



Chris Parker said:


> No, you asked me (a number of times) to show what I consider "real kata and bunkai"... what I consider real kata, in my arts, doesn't have bunkai. And, again, I seriously doubt you'd recognize it as kata.



This is another serious equivocation, ok, so your art doesnt have bunkai (which puts you in even less of a position to say others arent doing it right as you did), but nonetheless, that shouldnt prevent you from demonstrating Kata, I did not say the two HAD to be done together.  Come on Chris, you know Im asking for you to demonstrate what you are talking about, avoiding the issue with this my art doesnt have bunkai BS is laughable. 

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
I said--"You missed the point. As I understand it Bunkai means to pick apart. It's the term used in disecting applications from Kata,isolating specific techniques. Sure that is important--but not my point, I didn't mention Bunkai"

Again in this thread I made the distinction--"perhaps you could link me to a video(s) where you demonstrate what you consider real Kata and Bunkai" Notice the word AND, not AKA. It was you who brought up bunkai folks doing it wrong, I simply wanted you to demo how to do that right as well.



Chris Parker said:


> Firstly, you're a little off in your take on bunkai... while it is a method of investigation, or exploration of the kata, it doesn't mean to isolate specific techniques.



That was not my definition, it was from Wiki, I made that clear in that thread.  I have never used the term, nor was that the topic of my article. 



Chris Parker said:


> In fact, that's kinda the wrong way to go about it. As far as pointing out that you weren't equating kata and bunkai, that's not what I was saying was besides the point... it was that you seem insistent on the idea that I train in something that has it (bunkai). And there's no way to demo it being "done right", as it's a difference in approach, not mechanics.



I didnt say it was mechanics, more words put in my mouth.  Well, it seemed that you thought I was equating the two, its all beside the pointI simply want you to demonstrate what you are talking about. Another deflection with you bunkai spiel. 

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
I'm not going to comb through a bunch of clips and tell you why or why not I think they in whole or in part qualify as "Kata". I could really care less what they specifically call the training methods. I am not about to quibble over a definition--if they call it Kata, I'm going to critique it using that definition and practice, not superimpose my own first. It's sort of like the circular discussion of what "internal" means in my arts, or the "that's not the real Tai Chi" type arguments when someones practice doesn't exactly mirror their own. That kind of crap was a large motivator for me to stop calling what I do "taiji" or "Bagua" etc., I label and define my own material to avoid such ridiculous semantics.



Chris Parker said:


> So what you're saying is that you aren't willing to open your mind to a different take on things (by the way, the naming convention isn't quite what you are thinking either... in a number of the clips I gave). And you've done nothing but critique by superimposing your own views on things... as you've completely missed what the important things in kata are, or what would be appropriate to criticize in the first place.



Your reading comprehension is again lacking.  The above has nothing to do with what I will open my mind too.  Quite the opposite, if you want to define kata as something and show me the practice, great! Ill amend my critique on the term when I reference your exact school / style / teaching.  Im critiquing what is being done and called Kata en mass.  Im not watching a practice after walking into a dojo saying that method is called X, not Y.  

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
It is you who is the stickler for the narrow definition. I asked to see a clip of YOU demonstrating what you believe to be good Kata, good bunkai, and why that is different from the majorities misunderstanding. I guess in your 4000+ post history you haven't managed this despite your alleged superior knowledge on the subject and skill?



Chris Parker said:


> You wouldn't recognize it, Gary. But for good examples, again, see the clips I already provided... of course, you didn't quite get what I was posting them for....



Wrong, I didnt say what you were posting them for, nor did I refer to their contents. See above.  Yet more arrogant deflections Chris.  

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
It is you who wanted a broader definition of JJ. BJJ and MJJ are ground-game arts and include the words JJ in their names. So again, I'm not going to argue with them over whether that is _really _JJ. They call it that, thus I include it in the category.



Chris Parker said:


> Please. Again, you're just showing a complete lack of understanding of, firstly, what you're talking about, and secondly, who you're talking to. You think I need to get a broader definition of Jujutsu because I pointed out that traditional forms don't have a "ground game"? Really?


 
I didnt say what definition you needed if I remember correctly.  I am not showing any lack of understanding; I am merely stating I consider BJJ and MJJ to be in the category I define as JJ, nothing more, nothing less, simple. 

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
Wrong again, I'm not off, see above quote and other thread where I very specifically distinguish bunkai from Kata. You seem to be seeing what you want to see, and not actually reading my posts...
Oh dear lord.... 



Chris Parker said:


> Gary. You continually ask me to provide myself showing kata and bunkai, despite my constantly telling you that there's no such thing as bunkai in my kata. None. Doesn't exist, don't need it. And, due to your take on things here, and the way you present things, I again suggest that you wouldn't recognize what I'd show as kata in the first place.



I dont care if its in your kata or not.  You are completely missing my point.  Demonstrate your training method, kata, picking your nosewhatever you do.  Ill accept your label as is.  Either my articles critique applies to your practice, or it doesnt, but it does apply to what I observe most people say and do as kata. You keep repeating this I dont do bunkai when asked to show what you do.  How many more times will you repeat yourself to avoid the real reason you wont put a kata clip up?

Originally Posted by *GaryR*
In part another contradiction. So when Himura suggests an alternate title you say "Yep, that's on the right track", but when I agree with him on that my understanding is lacking?



Chris Parker said:


> I wasn't disagreeing that you chose the title of your article poorly, Gary, I was saying the rest of your quote showed a lack of understanding of not only the structure of kata, but the range of methods that come under that term.



What you seem to be saying was that if I titled my article as Himura suggested, you would say I was on the right track and not wrong here.  That was my point.  Amusing you claim I dont get the range of methods when it seems from the get-go my definition was broader than yours.   

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
Of course there are Kata that "Don't have immediate applicability to combat", I never suggested otherwise. There ARE some kata that are less than optimal ..., are you saying that ALL kata are perfect and are the best way to accomplish the desired result? That is quite a grand assumption, it is completely wrong and shows you lack real world perspective, and that you are at best a sheep in all you practice.



Chris Parker said:


> You can only say if they're less than optimal if you understand their purpose. And I haven't seen that from you. With regards to "all kata are perfect and are the best way to accomplish the desired result", again, it depends on the desired result, or aim of the kata... but, in a very real way, yes. The fact that you can't see what the aim, or the method is, speaks volumes.



Seriously, how many times do you need to repeat yourself that you dont think I understand, yada yada, as an argument?  So you are saying they are all perfect in the ways intended then. That is absurd, you are simply wrong, not all kata are perfectly designed and are the best way to achieve their aim.  We havent even discussed any specifics of a single kata, and its purpose for you to make such assumptions. All of these vapid conclusions you are reaching speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
It wasn't meant to support that comment, that is why it was broken out in a separate response. I also never used the words "borderline useless", my critiques are much more specific--don't put words in my mouth.



Chris Parker said:


> The point was that your acceptance of Himura's statement denied your article's contention.


 
No, it didnt.  Kata can be flawed in several respects- a) as poorly trained, b) a specific kata itself, and c) the methodology.



Chris Parker said:


> you did say: "counter-productive", "needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt .... again, none of this was any type of critique of poorly trained kata, it was out and out a critique of the very methodology of kata itself... and was deeply, and desperately flawed from that perspective.


 
Ok, lets take this one relating to real world combat preparation--"no matter how many years... it still will not adequately prepare someone...  That is true of the methodology of kata as a whole.  A pre-arranged sequence no matter what the form in which it comes, will not adequately prepare you for real world self-defense, period.  If you think otherwise, you are delusional, and have no business teaching a _Martial _art.  


Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
See above. Your little exercise only continues to prove the point I made earlier--"It seems you are more interested in arrogant deflections with [quotes like the above] instead of explaining in detail or demonstrating why you think what you are doing is the exception and not the rule.

I'll reiterate--"I don't have the time to survey your 4000+ posts--but if it even exists, perhaps you could link me to a video(s) where you demonstrate what you consider real Kata and Bunkai? If not, how about you create one? Every cell phone has a decent enough video camera these days."

You have time to mine for clips and post lengthy and vacuous critiques, yet you can't manage to post a video of yourself and any detail on what you consider to be real kata, the purpose of it, and real bunkai. Pathetic.



Chris Parker said:


> Seriously? Pathetic? Son, you really don't know what you're talking about. I provided clips that show a hell of a lot of kata, you're claiming it's me avoiding showing you what I mean by kata? Watch the clips. Answer my question. Then maybe you can learn something.



Yes son, pathetic--epically pathetic. Im not claiming anything, its a fact--you have not provided a clip of yourself doing any kata, or demonstrating the intended result.  You have over 4000 posts that likely display the same level of arrogance and certitude that you are correct, yet you couldnt link me to a single clip of your primary training vehicle and a detailed explanation of such?  

Apparently you didnt understand my point the first time, so Ill repeatI'm not going to comb through a bunch of clips and tell you why or why not I think they in whole or in part qualify as "Kata". I could really care less what they specifically call the training methods. I am not about to quibble over a definition--if they call it Kata, I'm going to critique it using that definition and practice, not superimpose my own first



Chris Parker said:


> And, again, Gary, you will not get any video of my showing kata and bunkai... nothing I do has bunkai to it to show!!! And I've provided far better examples than I could take of myself, so you're just going to have to watch them to get some answers.



So just show the kata as Ive said before, simple.  I didnt ask for an example of other peoples training methods, they are not here to answer for themselves, nor are claiming anything regarding them.  YOU are here claiming to be correct, and that kata are perfect, so I want to see your clips.  Ive seen the training methods in each of those clips before, call them what you will, but Ive seen themI dont need any answers from them.  Im sorry that you lack the skill to get your point across better via video, perhaps then you have no business pretending to know-it-all, and that kata are a perfect training mechanism? I wasnt very impressed by what I did watch of the hand-to-hand clip, so if you cant do better, you should be practicing more than you are vomiting on the keyboard.    

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
So again, you are saying that Kata is flawless, a perfect way of attaining it's goals, and nothing is the fault of Kata. This is demonstrably wrong. There are countless Kata (forms) throughout all of the styles...ridiculous statement. My take on it is the reality of the state of "kata" at large. You are the one asserting that your reality (and all Katas) are flawless, and the best way to attain the goals. Congratulations, my BS flag is now at full mast. 




Chris Parker said:


> There's a reason it's been used for 600 years or more, Gary. But, as you haven't clued into what it is, I don't think there's much I could say to educate you.


 
Another use of the logical fallacy stated above Chris.  One reason was transmission/preservation of systems, but now we have other means of preservationlike video. Your second sentence isnt cogent, I dont understand, so you cant tell me?  Absurd, its apparent you are not here to attempt to educate anyone to your point of view, just to berate those who do share info you disagree with using vacuous conjecture.  

Originally Posted by *GaryR* 
So let's move the discussion along, why don't you stop equivocating with your crap & conjecture and:

1) Provide a detailed explanation on what you believe the correct practice of kata entails and it's purpose (and what others are misunderstanding and why).

2) Why kata is flawless and the best way of achieving the aforementioned goals.

3) Provide video of yourself performing the categories of Kata, and video of you utilizing such skills in a simulated attack situation (even if not full power).

I bet it would take the same amount of time, or less, as clip hunting and managing to make all of those empty and inaccurate conclusions. Who knows, it may even be beneficial? Certainly more so than all of this hot air.



Chris Parker said:


> You know, if you didn't refer to my posts as "crap", without having a clue what they're saying, or making such comments as "pathetic" and "all of this hot air", I might have been tempted to try to explain it to you.



I call it like I see it, you repeat over and over I dont understand, yet you provide no detail of what it is you think Im supposed to understand any why.  You just admitted you havent attempted to explain it-which is why your posts are crap and conjecture. Telling someone over and over and over and over they dont get it, and not explaining or demonstrating it is blowing hot air and is pathetic.  Welcome to reality.     



Chris Parker said:


> Tell you what, I still am... I will answer, in as much detail as I possibly can each of these three points (except the last one... but will explain why) if you will go back to the videos I linked, and answer my question there. Deal?



Thats one step forward and three steps back.  As many times as you have called me clueless its only courtesy to provide those items.  You claim kata to be perfect, and that you are correct on all of the foregoingwell, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.  You have provided none, not even decent rationale. 

Dont act like youre doing me any favors--I can guarantee, agree or disagree, you are not going to explain to me anything I havent heard before and/or do not already know from experience.  You have been equivocating on this the entire thread, and there has not been any real discussion because of that. Ill repeat, I dont care whats in the video clips, unless I can ask the people in the clips questions like do you consider that kata? Why? What is the goal(s) of that specific kata? The exercise is nearly pointless, and will do nothing to further this discussion.   



Chris Parker said:


> I will answer, in as much detail as I possibly can each of these three points (except the last one... but will explain why)..



Chris, no explanation you can give will be sufficient.  A picture is worth a thousand words, and a video is worth 30 frames per second.  It has its limitations certainly, and one cannot form a complete conclusion re skill from it, but it would spring the discussion light-years ahead of the current one on how/why youve reached your staunch conclusions, etc.  



Chris Parker said:


> Gary, you will not get any video of my showing kata



What are you afraid of? Maybe people will see someone with 4000+ bloviating posts who is only a keyboard warrior?  That the result doesnt match your heavy rhetoric? Moreover, are you afraid that that the discussion may move past your empty insults, certitudes and vagaries into actual examples that can be discussed with specificity? That might just make it a little harder to repeatedly claim I dont understand when we go into details and can picture what is really going on.      

Lets try this again.  Answer what you like, its a free internet after all, but if you only want to answer two, #1 and #3 would be nice, and if you only want to answer onedo #3 for a good starting point of discussion. If youre not going to provide #3 dont even bother to respond, we will just have to agree to disagree, and I will assume you are just full of hot air and a pathetic keyboard warrioryour choice: 

1) Provide a detailed explanation on what you believe the correct practice of kata entails and it's purpose (and what others are misunderstanding and why).

2) Why kata is flawless and the best way of achieving the aforementioned goals.

3) Provide video of yourself performing the categories of Kata, and video of you utilizing such skills in a simulated attack situation (even if not full power). State briefly the aim(s) of each kata before doing it.

This thing is getting hairy, why don't you wipe the slate of this mess and just go through those questions and ditch the circular tirades? 

G


----------



## GaryR (May 25, 2013)

Zero said:


> Gary - OK, I can understand why you may be struggling to keep your cool in this never-ending trade of ripostes with Chris, but are you really saying that there is an "overwhelming lack of combat viability in the Japanese arts and its practitioners"?  When you say "combat", do you mean just fighting, be that non-sanctioned or in the ring or do you mean only in a war zone?



Thanks for understanding brother, hopefully the tirade will come to an end and be productive! 

When I say combat I mean no rules, real fighting, and fighting in a war zone, yes.  My focus is not in ring / competitions, one of my specialties is military armed/unarmed combat, I was contracted by the DOD to teach at home an in war zones to give you some perspective on where I am coming from. 



Zero said:


> If you mean just plain simple fight ability, this comment is a nonsense, just ask anyone that has on a competitive setting or on an informal basis sparred or fought against high level Japanese practitioners. Also just look at old Pride or K1 as to their ability.  There are also many accomplished non-Japanese karate practitioners which have been champions in stand up and mixed martial arts, too many to count.  Many RBSD or SD trainers also have strong karate or japanese style (judo/jujitsu) backgrounds.



I would definitatly put money on more Japenese Karateka than TKD folks in a competition. There is an overwhelming amount of Karate schools, it's how countless people get a start.  But often the MMA, K1 doesn't end up looking like the original style.  Some are good fighters in spite of their style, not because of it. 



Zero said:


> If you mean only with respect to a modern/contemporary military/war zone (fight to death, including armed combatants) environment then yes, there are "better", more streamlined/focused H2H systems on the bare essentials on what is needed but that could be said for many/most non-Japanese styles also,



I agree "better" should be in quotes here.  Teaching should be matched to the situation, and the time-line to reach the desired goals.  But the bare essentials of most Japanese or Korean systems pales in comparison to the basics of say Xingyi or Bagua.  Streamline both and train them in a real context and the Chinese systems will wipe the floor with the Japanese/Okinawan/Korean systems.  Expand the timeline and the gap of combat viability will further widen, I would say there is however a period in-between beginner / advanced where the Karate systems come closer in combat viability, but do not surpass it assuming both are utilizing all of the best training methods native to their systems. I'm sorry if this is offensive, I mean no personal disrespect. (one of my senior students,a great guy, who is now a Colonel, was a Goju BB when he came to me.  He is the first to admit I was light-years ahead in all of the skills mentioned here B/C of the style and training methods native to our systems, and that was more than a decade ago, he is also a decade older than I. )



Zero said:


> ...or are you saying BJJ or caipoera is better suited in a war zone or military setting? Please! I think a high level karate practitioner's "mechanics, fluidity and execution" rank equal with any other similar-level practitioner of other styles, be that tang soo do, TKD, win chun or muay thai.



Absolutely not, BJJ and especially caipoera are from from war zone material. More of an argument can be made for BJJ, but if you are hand-2-hand things are already FUBAR, and if your on the ground, well you are well beyond FUBAR.  A very basic ground-game can be taught in a weekend, enough for any soldier. 

Most high level Karate practitioner's don't even come close to good mechanics and fluidity compared to some of the Chinese arts.  I have demonstrated this to countless Karate instructors much to their dismay. The body connection / mechanics, and more fluid movements to a high extent are not simply native to the material. Just look at the one-inch punch compared to a reverse punch in efficiency, power, and body connection. Moreover, the WC/JKD one-inch punch is somewhat lacking compared to the good Neijia version FWIW.  Again, sorry to seem so dismissive, it's not a conclusion I have come to lightly, and there are always exceptions due to personal ability, but they are too few and far between to be relevant.   



Zero said:


> The dominance of or focus on kata also varies from style to style and even teacher/dojo to dojo.  I do Okinawan Goju Ryu but have been in numerous Japanese karate dojos where the time spent on or dependance placed on kata varies enormously!!



I agree for sure.  The less dependent on Kata for combat viability the better, especially after the beginner levels. My article applies to those who rely on it more than less.  I wasn't making stylistic generalizations, just addressing it as a training method as it relates to high level skill / combat viability.  



Zero said:


> Another thing to understand is that even if you have a club where the kata application just stinks, you can have great fighters there.  Either they simply don't focus on kata or they have good technique and skills but do not have an idea on kata application itself - this does not mean they can't whip your butt in a fight.



Definitely, you can have good fighters where the Kata application stinks, that fact really kind of proves my point!   

Sorry to be so blunt here, it may be best just to leave this discussion at that.  I don't want to offend more people than I already have.  We are all brothers and sisters in the arts, and should strive to help one another progress, regardless of background and style.  

Respectfully,

G


----------



## Koryu Rich (May 25, 2013)

To highlight what Chris has in mind.

The following is from Legacies of the Sword by Karl Friday.



> To fully appreciate the function of pattern practice as a teaching and learning device, it is important to understand just what is supposed to be taught and learned, and the relationship of this knowledge to kata. The essential knowledge -the kabala- of a ryuha can be broken down into three components: hyoho - or heiho ("strategy"), te-no-uchi ("skill" or application of skill"), and waza ("techniques" or "tactics").
> 
> Hyoho refers to something along the lines of the "essential principles of martial art," wherein "essential" is taken in its original meaning of "that which constitutes the essence." As such, "hyoho" designates the general principles around which a ryuha's approach to combat is constructed: the rationale for choosing defensive or offensive tactics, the angles of approach to an opponent, the striking angles and distances appropriate to various weapons, the proper mental posture to be  employed in combat,  the goals to be sought in combat, and similar considerations.
> 
> ...




keep in mind this will be in relation to old systems of Japanese martial arts.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 25, 2013)

Good Small Gods Above and Below, gentlemen!  Did I not once read somewhere that brevity is the soul of wit?  We are seeing precious little brevity here :lol:.

Please bear in mind that, no matter how much we may disagree on some things, it is best to at least give the semblance of respect and politeness to each other ... until we know each other better at least .  It is also worth bearing in mind that this is the Internet and the "TL : DR" abbreviation came into existence for a good reason :chuckles:.


----------



## Koryu Rich (May 25, 2013)

One problem with asking Chris to show elements of kata in a simulated attack is that the viewer would need to be familiar with the kata in question, or the type of art, a verbal explanation may not be sufficient  and the expression of that kata may only be for an instant or it may be more generalised via distance or timing.

Gary, have a look at those videos Chris put up.


----------



## GaryR (May 25, 2013)

Koryu Rich said:


> One problem with asking Chris to show elements of kata in a simulated attack is that the viewer would need to be familiar with the kata in question, or the type of art, a verbal explanation may not be sufficient  and the expression of that kata may only be for an instant or it may be more generalised via distance or timing.



That is why I also asked Chris to show the kata in question first.  I think Chris is verbose enough to cover it :uhyeah:.



Koryu Rich said:


> Gary, have a look at those videos Chris put up.



See my other comments.  I'll add, that's a lot of material to discuss third hand.  I want to see and discuss a Chris specific Kata, use, and explanation thereof, not play 20 questions with tons of internet clips. 

Best,

G


----------



## jks9199 (May 25, 2013)

Folks,
MartialTalk isn't in the business of proving or verifying anyone's credentials.  Let the various readers judge for themselves, based on posting and whatever else someone chooses to make available.  It's also not a place for taking snide shots at each other.  If you can't discuss things politely and courteously, without using demeaning names and taking shots at each other, find a way to do so.

In other words:

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite & respectful.

jks9199
Assistant Administrator
*


----------



## K-man (May 25, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> In my opinion, if your teacher didn't understand the kata and could not teach it to you, then it is already too late.  The transmission of information has been lost and it is very unlikely that you can discover it on your own.
> 
> Possibly you are right. But having devoted the best part of ten years to learning to decipher and use kata as a fighting system, I feel I am getting a pretty fair understanding. There are people out there who have good ideas, there are similar skills in similar systems and there is a lot of literature.
> 
> ...



Let me give an analogy.  My great great grandfather was French and a great poet. He had composed a very beautiful and amazing piece of poetry that the family preserved through the generations. His son was also French and he copied the poem and recited it at family gatherings. He moved overseas and his children although they had no need of French learned a little and continued, at family gatherings, to recite the poem in French. Their children in turn, had no understanding of French at all, but they continued the tradition of reciting this verse in French. By this time, some of the family had said tradition is bunkum and dropped passing it on but some of the descendants kept on passing it down. Then one day one of the descendants was curious as to the meaning of this poetry so he began to learn French. He was amazed at what he now understood. The poetry now not only sounded beautiful as it always had been, but now he understood the meaning of the poetry. (My great great grandfather was neither French or a poet ... it's just a story.  )

But the parallel is there when we look at kata.  Do you need it? No. Can you learn to fight without it? Sure. Is it a waste of time and effort? For some people, yes.  If people learn how to 'read' the kata is it valuable? Absolutely.

Now let me ask you a question. What does the English word _'set' _mean? This is not a trick question. 'Set' is the English word with the most meanings. There are 462 in the dictionary. So how do we understand what it means? It depends on context. Now let's look at kata. We see a gedan barai. What does it mean? Well, most people would say it is a lower 'block'. I would say, "it depends". In a kata it could be a lower tettsui strike, it could be a neck crank, it might be an arm bar, it might be a take down. The one thing I will guarantee it is NOT, is a 'block'. But how do we know what it means? The answer is context. What comes before and what comes after? Once you start to understand kata they are like books. But they are very special books because the story told can have multiple beginnings and different endings. It is a different story for a tall person than a short one. It may be different depending on the practitioner's strength.

Kata is like an onion. You peel of one layer and find another, then another and another. If it wasn't for kata I think I would have stopped training many years ago. Kata gives meaning to what I teach.
:asian:


----------



## chinto (May 26, 2013)

K-man said:


> Let me give an analogy.  My great great grandfather was French and a great poet. He had composed a very beautiful and amazing piece of poetry that the family preserved through the generations. His son was also French and he copied the poem and recited it at family gatherings. He moved overseas and his children although they had no need of French learned a little and continued, at family gatherings, to recite the poem in French. Their children in turn, had no understanding of French at all, but they continued the tradition of reciting this verse in French. By this time, some of the family had said tradition is bunkum and dropped passing it on but some of the descendants kept on passing it down. Then one day one of the descendants was curious as to the meaning of this poetry so he began to learn French. He was amazed at what he now understood. The poetry now not only sounded beautiful as it always had been, but now he understood the meaning of the poetry. (My great great grandfather was neither French or a poet ... it's just a story.  )
> 
> But the parallel is there when we look at kata.  Do you need it? No. Can you learn to fight without it? Sure. Is it a waste of time and effort? For some people, yes.  If people learn how to 'read' the kata is it valuable? Absolutely.
> 
> ...



yes well put!  and if you work hard on understanding that kata, there are lots of answers for each movement.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 26, 2013)

I'm going to break these up, for the sake of ease of reading and the requested brevity... I'm also going to attempt to maintain civility a bit more... hopefully....



GaryR said:


> Wow, this thing is getting long. Why don&#8217;t you save some time and limit the animus to just one preface for the rest of your posts / comments with your opinion I am way off base. Nearly every segment of your posts ends with I have no clue re kata or something similar&#8212;it&#8217;s redundant, I get it. You also keep repeating I have no clue what you are talking about, I get that opinion as well, and I have repeatedly called for you to elaborate more, which you have not.


 
Well... yeah. Mainly as you continue to show no actual understanding beyond a very superficial observation. You've only ever looked at "what", not "why"... and there's actually been a fair bit of elaboration, but you seem to have missed exactly what that was. Part of it was the clips posted, by the way.



GaryR said:


> There is no point in this game of semantics, it&#8217;s becoming circular.  Let&#8217;s just go from the simplest definition-- that Kata is a pre-set pattern.



That's a simple definition, yeah... but you have to look at what kata's purpose is, if you want to actually understand it. That's a big part of where you fall down.



GaryR said:


> Kata-like eh&#8212;well, as  a Kata by the above simple definition is a pre-set pattern, it is definitely kata--as it is a pre-set pattern.  It can be taught initially without using a partner to get the movements down, but it&#8217;s not really practiced solo.  There are many useful things that come from it; mechanics of the movements are pressure tested immediately, and timing, distance, and tactile sensitivity to attacks are benefited.  It also assists in learning to adapt the movement to even the slight variables in a pre-arranged attack; after all, not every punch is exactly the same angle etc. even in two-person cooperative set.


 
That definition (in Himura's comments that I quoted) was just a part of the definition of kata, Gary. That you've decided that, being a simple definition, it's applicable as the entire answer is to, again, fundamentally miss what you're being told. For more detail (hey, me giving elaboration that you say I haven't done), go to post #38. And, yes, kata-like.



GaryR said:


> If I thought it was my place to categorize their training method for them, then I would necessarily be telling them how I thought their practice did or did not fit my criteria of the definition.  Because I don&#8217;t feel it my place to put my own definition on their method, I don&#8217;t say &#8220;this is wrong therefore is not kata&#8221;, instead I say what&#8217;s wrong with the training methodology, and if they call that methodology &#8220;kata&#8221;, that statement necessarily becomes &#8220;what&#8217;s wrong with your kata&#8221;.  Get it yet?  :deadhorse


 
Yes, I get what you're saying. You apply no critical or clinical discernment. That, bluntly, is another failing of yours in this discussion. Training practices aren't kata just because someone decided to use that term... again, the videos I chose were chosen (in a couple of cases) to demonstrate that. I really did pick the clips very specifically in order to see what you could pick out of them, and (hopefully) aid in your understanding... which might help avoid such "articles" in the future.



GaryR said:


> You are again assuming I lack experience in Kata/forms and understanding.  See paragraph one.  I have extensive experience with forms / kata.  Taiji for example has a 100+ move old yang form; I have been doing that for over 20 years.  I&#8217;ve done loads of forms of different stripes.



No, Gary, I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading your words, and gaining insight from there. If you have real experience and understanding, we wouldn't be having this discussion in this way... you might still not like kata, or believe in it's value, but that would be fine if you got what it was in the first place.

But to take it to your Taiji methodology, can you describe what makes the form a "form", rather than just a sequence of actions? What's the purpose of it? That'll take us closer to what I've been saying.



GaryR said:


> You are drawing an inference about my intent.  My words are my words, intent goes to my state of mind, which you are not in a position to know. It is the reality that many schools line students up and do long forms and that those students cannot apply that material in real world combat, absurd you try and spin this into an intent issue.



I can see intent pretty easily, Gary... it spills out with each letter typed. Your words, your entire article, is nothing but an insight into your understanding and intent... and I'm not talking conscious intent here. As far as your statement on what you feel reality is, you really missed what I was saying. My point was that that was the only part of your article that matched your claimed intention in writing it... the rest was an ill-informed criticism of the very method and idea of kata training itself.



GaryR said:


> Let&#8217;s dispense with the &#8220;son&#8221; like names, you&#8217;re not my father, if don&#8217;t want me to further degrade you, don&#8217;t talk down to me. I can&#8217;t have an exact idea, you haven&#8217;t demonstrated anything, nor provided anything in appreciable detail to argue against. I can assure you, whatever you are doing; I will have an idea what I&#8217;m arguing against. I&#8217;ve met and touched hands with several Ninjitsu instructors, all of whom were no slouches, many with more years in than you.  There wasn&#8217;t a single one I couldn&#8217;t suck in like a tornado with and spit out broken, or melt through like butter. Using this clip as a reference point for skill --
> 
> 
> 
> , some were just as good as this guy, some better, and some not as good.



  Oh dear lord... that gave me quite a good laugh there, Gary. So you know, the clip you picked is a teacher from one of the most well known fraudulent groups out there... there is nothing there of any authenticity whatsoever. It's also spelled "ninjutsu", not "ninjitsu", so I'm going to suggest that you've never actually come across any actual teacher of the art.... mainly as they (we) just aren't interested in what you're talking about. We don't go in for cross-matches and sparring and the like... so you wouldn't have had any chance to do anything of the kind.

Oh, and I've seen you move. Don't make me reduce this to a case of telling you you'd have little chance of "sucking me in like a tornado and spitting out broken"... it's firstly besides the point, and secondly damn laughable.



GaryR said:


> As I said before, I take people&#8217;s word at face value what they are doing goes with their definition of kata, so I&#8217;m critiquing the training methodology of what most of the people using that definition are doing.  This goes hand-in-hand with critiquing peoples understanding of such practice.  Once you accept this distinction, most of your points are moot.


 
Taking people at their word is fine... but if you're going to be so critical of a method you clearly don't understand or have any real definition of yourself, some education and discernment would go a long way. And, frankly, nothing in that idea makes my points moot, it makes your critiques baseless, as there's no filter or reference point to compare with.



GaryR said:


> - "Trying to memorize long sequence of forms is counter-productive to such a goal."
> 
> It may not be the goal, but it is often the fact of the matter, the person may very well be memorizing a long sequence.  Sorry, but it can also be a weakness.



Speaking for karate-style kata (one more time, vastly different to what I've been talking about), the idea of memorizing is only the initial stage of learning the kata, and only applies before it is really trained. So, no. Unless the student doesn't ever actually train it, this critique is not the reality. 



GaryR said:


> - "The only real reason for Kata in the Self-defense context is so students can grasp the concept on which the technique turns."
> 
> Once the concept is internalized, you don&#8217;t need to put the movement in a pre-arranged sequence to manifest it, or practice it.  Practicing it in such sequence is not the most beneficial type of training in the self-defense context.  You comment is so outright wrong it tells me you have not reached a high enough echelon of skill where you can understand what I&#8217;m saying.



And here you show complete ignorance of kata training, Gary, as well as the transmission of martial arts. Who says they're about self-defence training? That's a context you've insisted upon for kata, not one inherent in the training methodology itself. Additionally, your idea that there isn't a need to put the movement in a pre-arranged sequence is incorrect, depending on the intended reason and purpose of doing so. As for the last sentence there, mate, again, I've seen your skill. You've got a way to go. Besides, all I said was that actual kata training begins well beyond what you're describing in your article... how you can turn that into an indication of my not having reached a high enough echelon of skill, I have no idea. You're reaching. And missing.



GaryR said:


> - "...beyond the beginner level of teaching the concepts, Kata has no place. No matter how many years one perfects such forms; it will still not adequately prepare someone for a fight. Rarely is a Kata&#8217;s movement actually used exactly as practiced in a form, and even more seldom is the exact sequence of moves used."
> 
> Another assumption, see above. I have plenty of experience with it. Plenty of people try and use the exact movements, and regardless the pre-set sequence no matter what the context does not adequately prepare one for a fight, if you disagree, well, you are wrong.



Examples of people trying to use actual sequences from kata in self defence, please. Not bunkai/oyo waza, actually trying to use it in self defence. Hell, just provide an example of someone (other than you) saying that they believe exact sequences from kata should be used. 

Gary, I've been in this game for three decades. And, in all my time, I have never known a student or instructor of any art that thought, believed, or taught such a thing. In fact, it's only ever been kata-degraders (who universally don't understand it) who've made such a claim.



GaryR said:


> It&#8217;s a beginner&#8217;s tool so far as learning what it is supposed to teach.  Once that is learned, doing only the kata is stagnating it, especially combatively. Once gotten down, the movements should free-flow, unplanned, not be pre-set. There are people who try to use the movements exactly, so no, it&#8217;s not ludicrous.  There are plenty that don&#8217;t as well&#8212;see my bible interpretation comment which eludes to this fact.



No, that's the thing, Gary. Kata is not a beginners tool. It never has been. In karate terms, it would commonly be years of training before a student would be taught any kata... and particular teachers would focus on one, maybe two kata themselves. It's been said that each kata (or, in certain cases, groups of kata) are complete karate systems in and of themselves. The idea of multiple kata that we see today is more a result of cross-pollination between teachers and students and an early attempt to standardize karate, as well as common ancestral systems, particularly many Japanese forms coming from Shotokan. In traditional Japanese arts, kata are the primary method of transmission for the art... and, again, what kata you are exposed to (taught) changes as your experience and skill develops. They are not for beginners, when all is said and done. 

As far as the rest of your comment (what it all "should be"), bluntly Gary, that is what I'm talking about when I say you don't show any understanding of kata training itself. All of that is your value system, and has nothing to do with the discussion of what kata is, or what kata is for... especially as kata, when done properly, does teach flow, and does not stagnate the practitioner. In fact, it does the opposite.  



GaryR said:


> It&#8217;s a good analogy, a karateka saying he is doing a kata, and screws it up, is just like a surgeon doing a surgery, and screws it up.  It doesn&#8217;t make the surgeon a butcher, he is not cutting meat to be eaten and sold, just like it doesn&#8217;t make the karateka a janitor.



No, it's really not a good analogy, Gary. And it misses the point entirely.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 26, 2013)

GaryR said:


> You seem to agree it teaches mechanics--You stated: "There is a huge difference between kata and drills. One teaches mechanics, the other teaches tactical expression."



Did you seriously miss where I said I'd cop to typing them in a misleading order, Gary? Really? I'll spell it out for you then: Drills teach mechanics, kata teaches tactical expressions. I'm owning up to being at fault for you misunderstanding the first time (although I thought it was obvious which was which), but to continue to say this after I'd clarified? Are you sure you're reading things properly?



GaryR said:


> You&#8217;re putting words in my mouth again, I didn&#8217;t mention tactical applications or drills, I mentioned mechanics. Are you now saying the inverse of your statement is true and that drills teach only mechanics? You are the one who mentioned &#8220;drills&#8221; .. &#8220;Teaches tactical expression&#8221;, don&#8217;t try and attribute your words to me, and then tell me I&#8217;m wrong, that is just silly.



Gary, if you're going to accuse me of putting words in your mouth, try not to do the same with me. Please point out the word "only" in any of my comments there. The rest is down to your misunderstanding, my lack of putting things in a clearer order, and your insistence on seeing things incorrectly. 



GaryR said:


> What little you have said about kata has been self-contradictory, perhaps you should detail your own article instead of simply quote me and say over and over basically "nuh-uh".



Right. I'm going to challenge you to point out the contraditions, Gary. There haven't been any, other than a misunderstanding over the phrasing of one sentence. But, as you seem to insist, please list them, and I'll clarify.



GaryR said:


> I don&#8217;t need to read closer, you failed to address my actual statements, and your own contradiction&#8230;convenient. I liken a catalog to an encyclopedia; the analogies to me are very similar.



Then you need a larger vocabulary.



GaryR said:


> I also didn&#8217;t say you should write the article to feel important, just too simply convey your thoughts for the benefit of the community, and also because you are adamant about being right about your take on kata, writing at length on it would prevent these types of circular and vague disagreements.



I train Japanese arts. We know what kata is, we know the value of them, the purpose of them, and so on. There is no need for an article from me on such matters, especially when people such as Ellis Amdur, David Hall, and Prof. Karl Friday (quoted by Rich) have done so much better, and expressed things so eloquently before me.



GaryR said:


> CMA arts do practice kata (or forms as we call them), as you see I used the word forms in my article as well. Heck, most internal martial arts guys do a lot of forms. Taiji has the long and short forms, Xingyi has the animal forms, and five fist routines set in a pattern, and bagua has both linear and circular forms, as well as animal forms. So yeah, I do have a place in the discussion, you are obviously ignorant to those arts practices.



I'm more than familiar with the idea of forms within Chinese systems, Gary, but they're not really the same as kata, when it all comes down to it. Additionally, the point I was making was that your article, such as it was, in no way made any comment on Chinese systems, just on the Japanese/Korean/Okinawan arts. In other words, you were talking to one audience (your CMA guys) about non-CMA expressions... and getting much of it wrong. 



GaryR said:


> It was spin, you&#8217;re trying to say my own derisive comment applies to myself, spin. If you agree with my point you agree, if you disagree, you disagree, trying to impute my own negative comment to myself is spin, I understand what I wrote, and why. You&#8217;re not in my head; your observations don&#8217;t go that far.



Yes, it applied to you. You are lost in what you think kata is, without understanding it. You are lost in what you think it should be, without taking the time to understand it's actual purpose. I don't need to spin that, it's pretty obvious that the irony abounds in your statement. 



GaryR said:


> No, it doesn't.



Please. I went through the entire article, pointing out what you were actually saying (not what you thought you were saying, but what the words actually say), as well as using your actual words to demonstrate that.

In other words, yes, it does. And if you don't think it does, you really need to work on expressing yourself better.



GaryR said:


> It is deriding the form of training they are calling kata and actually doing. You define their training outside of kata if they are training it improperly, I do not. It&#8217;s not a lack of understanding; it&#8217;s accepting the label and critiquing the training method.



No, Gary, I said if they're not training kata, they're not training it. Not that if they're doing it badly, they're not really doing kata. It's a subtle distinction, but it's a vital one. And labels should only be accepted if they apply... otherwise, I have a "genuine Rolex" to sell you.... 



GaryR said:


> Another &#8220;you lack understanding&#8221; like quote, again, the critique is on the reality of the training method. It is based on objective observation of what is happening, and why it is not optimal.



And completely ignores the purpose of kata, the principles of it, the reason it exists, the methods of measuring it, and more, in order to apply your own false measurements and make blanket (and inaccurate) statements about the training form itself. It's not based on anything objective, Gary, it's based on your very subjective take on what it "should be" for, not what it is for.

Again, this is exactly what shows your lack of understanding. Gotta love the way you try to argue against it by providing more evidence, though. 



GaryR said:


> What they expect and reality are likely two different things. Thus, it&#8217;s not a false assumption at all. I&#8217;m not saying what I am expecting of them; rather what is more beneficial in that context.



I'm sorry, did you read that back before posting??? Your article asserts that students are taught "that for every exact attack, there is a counter, and such counter can be executed in sequence", and "Many who train and rely on Kata are left to think the techniques will work the same way every time." You then continue to point out that real life isn't so neat... well, really?!? What makes you think that wasn't understood? What makes you think that any student or teacher expects that "such counter(s) can be executed in sequence (in self defence)"? Or that "the techniques will work the same every time"? So yes, your idea of what is expected is a false assumption, as it's not backed up by any practitioner or instructor I've ever encountered. However, what it does show is what you expect of training (in any form, in this case, kata), which is that it should be immediately applicable and representative of a self defence encounter or real combat. Dude, not even close. 



GaryR said:


> Keeping in mind the basic definition Kata is a pre-set pattern of movements, it would seem from the wiki definition (since you failed to expand on it, I&#8217;ll use that one), that the &#8220;Ha Ri&#8221; portion of the term is essentially abandoning doing the pre-set form, and thus abandoning the kata&#8212;it no longer becomes Kata. :
> 
> From wiki--&#8220;Next, in the stage of _ha_, once we have disciplined ourselves to acquire the forms and movements, we make innovations. In this process the forms may be broken and discarded. Finally, in _ri_, we completely depart from the forms, open the door to creative technique, and arrive in a place where we act in accordance with what our heart/mind desires, unhindered while not overstepping laws." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shu_Ha_Ri).
> 
> Hmmm, broken down and discarded. This is exactly what I was saying in my article, once past the beginner level &#8220;Shu&#8221;, one should break up and then the Ri is exactly what I meant as well when I referred to manifesting the movements in free-form. This only proves my point; the kata is beginner level and can be abandoned in a sense when you achieve a higher level. It would seem this point negates your entire problem with my core idea / methodology. Thanks.



I'm going to mention again that you've questioned my reading comprehension here... then point out that the reason you had the term "Shu Ha Ri" to look up was that I told you it was an integral concept and part of kata study that you were unaware of, that dealt with many aspects you were thinking were your own solutions, but in a better, and more congruent fashion. So who are you talking to when you say that it sounds like some of the ideas you were putting forth? Oh, but don't take what Wiki says as being definitive, or even really correct, for the record...

But my point was that you don't need to offer these solutions, as it's already addressed. You seem to have missed that.



GaryR said:


> It may not be new, but it&#8217;s not that widely practiced well, sure, the kata is sometimes learned in isolated pieces, but all too often once learned it is practices as a complete whole, not in repetitive small sections, and doesn&#8217;t become functional. See last paragraph&#8230;



Of course it's practiced as a complete whole, Gary... it is a complete whole. To look at the individual parts the way you're thinking is to actually move away from functionality in training kata. It moves it back towards just being about the mechanics, which, as I've said, is to miss the point entirely.



GaryR said:


> It&#8217;s a typical situation statistically, which I perceive as a con. Again, we are splitting hairs as far as I&#8217;m concerned with it being a criticism of the kata itself, or practice itself. As I mention later, there are problems with both.



Then you really don't get anything about it.



GaryR said:


> Reading and comprehending are two different things. Curious-- what is your academic background, and your occupation, mate?



That has relevance? You've constantly missed what's being said, can't see what your own article is actually saying, haven't listened to K-Man previously, or myself now, and you're seeing fit to question me on my academic background??? To sate you, though, my career is based around personal interaction and use of language to both collect and disseminate information.. and my academic background is more than adequate (although, bluntly, I have far exceeded what my listed education would imply).


----------



## Chris Parker (May 26, 2013)

GaryR said:


> I don&#8217;t remember that K-man identified the issues with the 95% himself. The point of the article WAS to warn about what I dislike, why I dislike it, and what should be done in place of that type of practice. What&#8217;s garbage is that you&#8217;re trying to act as an apologist and say that simply because I disagree with the efficacy of the training method many call &#8220;kata&#8221;, you claim I lack understanding. Seems like a theist insisting because I don&#8217;t believe in God, I lack understanding of it. It has nothing to do with belief in the ideal concept, but in the objective reality based on the evidence available.



But if you have no real understanding of the type of practice that you're "warning" against, what value does your critique really have? I've shown how you've missed vital aspects of the training approach (Shu Ha Ri), your comments are focused not on what kata's purpose is, but your own desire and values, and you've failed entirely to grasp that in the five pages of this thread, and the three of your previous one. I say you lack understanding because everything you've written screams that. And I'm far from an apologist here, in fact I haven't apologized for any training practices at all (nor do I intend to). What I have been doing is trying to show you how lacking your take is, and therefore how misguided your opinions are in this subject. 



GaryR said:


> You still failed to address this point with yet another &#8220;you don&#8217;t get it&#8221; comment. The statement re techniques is not ambiguous, it needs no further context, I agree with the brief statement on its face, nothing more or less was said on either side on the matter. You haven&#8217;t shown me that you &#8220;get it&#8221; either, far from, so the feeling is mutual.



"Failed to address the point"? The point was that you had, again, misinterpreted what you were being told, and went off in the wrong direction. That wasn't the part I was calling your understanding out on. Got it now? 



GaryR said:


> Ok, fair enough in part, but you did fail to follow through as far as I&#8217;m concerned you said &#8220;but we'll cover it again&#8221;, and you didn&#8217;t. I&#8217;m still waiting for more than two lines on the subject from you.



Post #38. I can offer more, but only when I can get a read on exactly what you think kata is, and what it's for, as well as how it achieves it (or doesn't). That's what the clips are for, Gary... as well as actually being "more than two lines" in answer to your questions. But you still seem to want to ignore that....



GaryR said:


> .....
> 
> Himura said&#8212;&#8220;A kata is a prearranged form of something.&#8221;
> 
> Great, I agree, now we are back to a nice simple definition as stated above.



That was only part of what Himura said... and is only part of the contextual meaning of kata. See the whole board....not just the pieces....



GaryR said:


> I didn&#8217;t comment on the videos content, I didn&#8217;t even watch a single one all the way through, nor did I view all of them-- so to say I didn&#8217;t get it is a false assumption, based on nothing. I asked for a video of YOU, and how you practice Kata, not for a bunch of strangers. Anything in that video lump that had a prearranged sequence is Kata as far as I am concerned-but just because something appears to be pre-arranged doesn&#8217;t mean it necessarily is pre-arranged, it&#8217;s often very obvious what is pre-arranged, but not always. Like I said, if they say it&#8217;s kata, I&#8217;ll go with that, I don&#8217;t care enough to define it for them, I care to critique the efficacy of the training method as-is.



And, honestly, this is where the issue is. Seriously, watch the videos. They were all chosen for very specific reasons (Rich hinted at one or two already), and lead directly into a conversation of what kata really is. If you can't do that simple, single thing, then there's no way you're going to understand what could be said. 



GaryR said:


> Another equivocation and &#8220;you do not understand&#8221; comment. YOU brought up bunkai in this discussion, not me. You can easily demonstrate the kata then, I&#8217;m not trying to say anything that specifically applies to you personally, I am asking for you to demonstrate what does / does not apply to you and why.



Why/how would I be able to demonstrate kata that aren't part of my training, Gary? Additionally, as I've said, my comments on the "Bunkai masters" (not bunkai itself, it should be understood) is in the way they're looking at things, not in what they're doing... and, in that, a video from me, and especially of me, is rather useless.



GaryR said:


> Ok Dad, what I&#8217;m hearing is not new information, by repeating this information that is so basic it&#8217;s insulting, you have clearly demonstrated it is you who did not listen.



When you start listening, I'll add. But until I feel you have some grasp of what I've said so far, there's little point. 



GaryR said:


> For the twentieth time Chris, I don&#8217;t know exactly what you&#8217;re doing, which is why I am asking for a demonstration and detailed explication. Your deflections are getting annoying.



Watch the clips I provided... seriously, that's your answer, in some cases. 



GaryR said:


> Ok dad, you are using a basic logical fallacy here-appeal to tradition. Rub your two IQ points together and learn some basic critical thinking and logical reasoning. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html. Moreover, I&#8217;ve personally been in two wars, and during which have transmitted martial arts / armed and unarmed combat training to combatants. Have you trained people in war zones, or do you just get your conjecture from ancient books?



You really want to go there? Do you want me to describe just how much training army combatives is not the same as teaching or transmitting martial arts? Do you really want me to pull apart your history in this matter? Do you seriously think I'm employing a post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning here? And here's a clue for you... just because something can possibly be looked upon as a logical fallacy doesn't mean it actually is one... especially when, as in this case, the tradition isn't the backup, the history is.



GaryR said:


> I told you up front I accept a broad definition of kata training. So, no, I&#8217;m not thinking of the wrong form. I&#8217;ve seen plenty. What I&#8217;m thinking of is a pre-arranged sequence, be it trained using one or more persons. Typically this sequence is longer than just a few movements, but not always. Erle Montaigues 12 most deadly kata&#8217;s for example are short.



Yeah... again, you're just showing that you don't get what I'm saying. Go to the videos, then we can talk. 



GaryR said:


> I am critiquing what I have observed and identified, that objective observation is not &#8220;far off&#8221;. Until and unless I look at your training and compare our definitions and purposes, you can&#8217;t say what I have a clue about. Another arrogant deflection, I bet you feel special, lol.



You have, then, apparently observed and identified little. I'm not questioning that you've done a lot of observation, but the identification seems rather lacking. But to look at what I train in to compare, once again, go to the clips I provided. 



GaryR said:


> This is another serious equivocation, ok, so your art doesn&#8217;t have bunkai (which puts you in even less of a position to say others aren&#8217;t doing it right as you did), but nonetheless, that shouldn&#8217;t prevent you from demonstrating Kata, I did not say the two HAD to be done together. Come on Chris, you know I&#8217;m asking for you to demonstrate what you are talking about, avoiding the issue with this my art &#8220;doesn&#8217;t have bunkai&#8221; BS is laughable.



You constantly asked for kata AND bunkai... er, no, not from my arts. Oh, and for the record, the very lack of it in my systems means that I am in a better position to see what should be focused on... but that's getting to the purpose of kata, and you need to understand what kata is first. And, again, I have demonstrated it... by providing a range of clips. 



GaryR said:


> Again in this thread I made the distinction--"perhaps you could link me to a video(s) where you demonstrate what you consider real Kata and Bunkai" Notice the word AND, not AKA. It was you who brought up bunkai folks doing it wrong, I simply wanted you to demo how to do that right as well.



It's not about demoing, Gary. That's the damn point. And link you to a video or more? I have. Out of the 10 videos I provided, 6 of them show my forms of kata (in some cases in the specific arts I study... in others, in related or similarly structured ones), with 4 not. That's a really, really, really big clue as to what you should find in the clips, when you get to watching them.



GaryR said:


> That was not my definition, it was from Wiki, I made that clear in that thread. I have never used the term, nor was that the topic of my article.



Then you really should accept that, if you are going to argue something with people who deal with this idea regularly, but don't actually know what it is, perhaps you should listen to them, rather than arguing and relying on Wiki for education.



GaryR said:


> I didn&#8217;t say it was mechanics, more words put in my mouth. Well, it seemed that you thought I was equating the two, it&#8217;s all beside the point&#8212;I simply want you to demonstrate what you are talking about. Another deflection with you bunkai spiel.



And, again, you missed not only what was being said, but what you were saying yourself.


----------



## TimoS (May 26, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> I'm more than familiar with the idea of forms within Chinese systems, Gary, but they're not really the same as kata, when it all comes down to it.



But aren't the Chinese forms sort of the basis of karate kata? Or at the very least the Okinawan kata are heavily influenced by Chinese forms, i.e. long sequences of moves performed solo


----------



## Chris Parker (May 26, 2013)

GaryR said:


> Your reading comprehension is again lacking. The above has nothing to do with what I will open my mind too. Quite the opposite, if you want to define kata as something and show me the practice, great! I&#8217;ll amend my critique on the term when I reference your exact school / style / teaching. I&#8217;m critiquing what is being done and called Kata en mass. I&#8217;m not watching a practice after walking into a dojo saying &#8220;that method is called X, not Y&#8221;.



The practice and the definition is in those clips, Gary. The clarification can only begin when you've started by watching and commenting on them. When it all comes down to it, although the structure and outward form is different between arts, what makes it kata is the same in all forms (where it actually is kata). I'm trying to help you be able to identify it. So far, you are refusing to open yourself up to such education. 



GaryR said:


> Wrong, I didn&#8217;t say what you were posting them for, nor did I refer to their contents. See above. Yet more arrogant deflections Chris.



The fact that you stubbornly refuse to watch them shows that you didn't see what I was posting them for, Gary.



GaryR said:


> I didn&#8217;t say what definition you needed if I remember correctly. I am not showing any lack of understanding; I am merely stating I consider BJJ and MJJ to be in the category I define as JJ, nothing more, nothing less, simple.



Sure. I point out a larger view of the term (beyond things like BJJ), you tell me that I need a broader definition, but you weren't telling me what definition I needed... right.... 



GaryR said:


> I don&#8217;t care if it&#8217;s in your kata or not. You are completely missing my point. Demonstrate your training method, kata, picking your nose&#8230;whatever you do. I&#8217;ll accept your label as is. Either my articles critique applies to your practice, or it doesn&#8217;t, but it does apply to what I observe most people say and do as kata. You keep repeating this &#8220;I don&#8217;t do bunkai&#8221; when asked to show what you do. How many more times will you repeat yourself to avoid the real reason you won&#8217;t put a kata clip up?



Your critique doesn't apply to kata practice, Gary, that's the point. You are so far off in your understanding, expectation, and so on that it couldn't. This, and the previous thread, have been about showing you that, and you still haven't listened. 

And as far as "the real reason (I) won't put a clip up", the reason is simple. There's no need. You're asking to see something that you can't see. You would need to see the teaching of a kata over many, many years to see what I'm talking about. It cannot be seen by just showing a kata or two... but to begin the conversation of what kata is, you need to have a baseline... which is what the clips I posted are about.



GaryR said:


> What you seem to be saying was that if I titled my article as Himura suggested, you would say I was on the right track and not wrong here. That was my point. Amusing you claim I don&#8217;t get the range of methods when it seems from the get-go my definition was broader than yours.



Broader is not better. And I wasn't commenting on the alternate name for the article in my comments to you (you seem desperate to apply my agreement or disagreement to parts of posts I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with). I was saying to Himura that that was closer to what you were intending, that's all. You agreeing with that part didn't make your article any better, though.



GaryR said:


> Seriously, how many times do you need to repeat yourself that you don&#8217;t think I understand, yada yada, as an argument? So you are saying they are all perfect in the ways intended then. That is absurd, you are simply wrong, not all kata are perfectly designed and are the best way to achieve their aim. We haven&#8217;t even discussed any specifics of a single kata, and its purpose for you to make such assumptions. All of these vapid conclusions you are reaching speaks volumes.



You haven't addressed, commented on, implied knowledge of, or shown any understanding of the purpose of kata, Gary. In fact, all your posts have shown a deep lack of such. And, until you understand what the kata are about, you cannot comment on whether they are well suited, ill-suited, perfectly suited, or flawed.



GaryR said:


> No, it didn&#8217;t. Kata can be flawed in several respects- a) as poorly trained, b) a specific kata itself, and c) the methodology.



a) Sure. b) No c) Way off base.

Again, until I see something that indicates you have the faintest clue about either b or c, I'm going to continue to call you on the lack of understanding. After all, there is a fourth way of kata being flawed... and that is that it is not understood properly. Hence, well, this thread and your article.



GaryR said:


> Ok, let&#8217;s take this one relating to real world combat preparation--"no matter how many years... it still will not adequately prepare someone..&#8221;. That is true of the methodology of kata as a whole. A pre-arranged sequence no matter what the form in which it comes, will not adequately prepare you for real world self-defense, period. If you think otherwise, you are delusional, and have no business teaching a _Martial _art.



Again, hundreds of years of serious bloodshed and warfare with kata being the primary and dominant method of training.... mate, this single statement shows you have no grasp on what we're discussing.



GaryR said:


> I'll reiterate--"I don't have the time to survey your 4000+ posts--but if it even exists, perhaps you could link me to a video(s) where you demonstrate what you consider real Kata and Bunkai? If not, how about you create one? Every cell phone has a decent enough video camera these days."
> 
> You have time to mine for clips and post lengthy and vacuous critiques, yet you can't manage to post a video of yourself and any detail on what you consider to be real kata, the purpose of it, and real bunkai. Pathetic.
> 
> ...



Have you seriously not even entertained the fact that I've actually done exactly that, using better examples that I could show? Seriously, watch the damn clips! Your answers are there!!!



GaryR said:


> So just show the kata as I&#8217;ve said before, simple. I didn&#8217;t ask for an example of other people&#8217;s training methods, they are not here to answer for themselves, nor are claiming anything regarding them. YOU are here claiming to be correct, and that kata are perfect, so I want to see your clips. I&#8217;ve seen the training methods in each of those clips before, call them what you will, but I&#8217;ve seen them&#8212;I don&#8217;t need any answers from them. I&#8217;m sorry that you lack the skill to get your point across better via video, perhaps then you have no business pretending to know-it-all, and that kata are a perfect training mechanism? I wasn&#8217;t very impressed by what I did watch of the hand-to-hand clip, so if you can&#8217;t do better, you should be practicing more than you are vomiting on the keyboard.



If you can't answer the questions I posed about the clips, you aren't in any position to understand what I'd put on film. You know why? It'd look the damn same, Gary. Why? Because I deliberately linked clips that represent what I do! Got it?

Watch the clips. Answer the questions. Then we can discuss. They're there to give me a baseline to know how to explain things to you. Right now, you have no chance of getting what you'd be told. 



GaryR said:


> Another use of the logical fallacy stated above Chris. One reason was transmission/preservation of systems, but now we have other means of preservation&#8230;like video. Your second sentence isn&#8217;t cogent, I don&#8217;t understand, so you can&#8217;t tell me? Absurd, it&#8217;s apparent you are not here to attempt to educate anyone to your point of view, just to berate those who do share info you disagree with using vacuous conjecture.



Uh, no, again. Back in the day, the reason wasn't for preservation of a system (in many cases), it was because it was how the practitioners survived. And yes, you can't be educated until you have a clue what you're being educated about. It's rather esoteric, really... and is best done via experience, rather than observation. But you haven't gotten that yet either... 



GaryR said:


> I call it like I see it, you repeat over and over I don&#8217;t understand, yet you provide no detail of what it is you think I&#8217;m supposed to understand any why. You just admitted you haven&#8217;t attempted to explain it-which is why your posts are crap and conjecture. Telling someone over and over and over and over they don&#8217;t get it, and not explaining or demonstrating &#8220;it&#8221; is blowing hot air and is pathetic. Welcome to reality.



The way you see is flawed, though, Gary. And things are repeated when they aren't heard. There's actually been plenty of explanation, but you haven't recognized it.... so asking for more detailed answers when you haven't gotten the basic ones is an exercise in futility. Show me that you have some base of understanding (by, you know, watching the videos and answering my very simple questions), and we can move on. But so far, it's been stymied due to your lack of growth in this subject.



GaryR said:


> That&#8217;s one step forward and three steps back. As many times as you have called me clueless it&#8217;s only courtesy to provide those items. You claim kata to be perfect, and that you are correct on all of the foregoing&#8230;well, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. You have provided none, not even decent rationale.



There's nothing extraordinary about claiming that, due to training almost exclusively in kata-based systems, I have an understanding of kata... nor is there anything extraordinary about claiming that a method, honed over centuries to be specific to a set of requirements, suit those requirements. The detail that you can't see what those requirements are, what the purpose is, and more, doesn't mean that you are able to understand what you would be told. 



GaryR said:


> Don&#8217;t act like you&#8217;re doing me any favors--I can guarantee, agree or disagree, you are not going to explain to me anything I haven&#8217;t heard before and/or do not already know from experience. You have been equivocating on this the entire thread, and there has not been any real discussion because of that. I&#8217;ll repeat, I don&#8217;t care what&#8217;s in the video clips, unless I can ask the people in the clips questions like &#8220;do you consider that kata?&#8221; &#8220;Why&#8221;? &#8220;What is the goal(s) of that specific kata&#8221;? The exercise is nearly pointless, and will do nothing to further this discussion.



I highly doubt that you would have been exposed (properly, to the degree that you understood what was being said) to what I'd tell you. Mainly as you've missed it entirely throughout everything you've posted. 

You really don't need to ask the people in the clips, though. Whether or not they consider them kata (here's a clue... some that use the term aren't doing kata, as they, like you, have missed the point... some that are doing kata use different terminology, for a range of reasons... some that fit your description of "pre-arranged drill" aren't kata, and wouldn't be considered such, despite your definition... and so on), and the goal of the specific kata is besides the point. As far as "why", that is a question for you so that I can get a baseline of where you make your distinction, if you do.



GaryR said:


> Chris, no explanation you can give will be sufficient. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a video is worth 30 frames per second. It has its limitations certainly, and one cannot form a complete conclusion re skill from it, but it would spring the discussion light-years ahead of the current one on how/why you&#8217;ve reached your staunch conclusions, etc.



Well, 25 frames per second here... and 24 for film.... but, more to the point, if you can't get it from the clips already posted, video of me doing the same thing won't help at all.

Oh, and my "staunch conclusions" are from, you know, decades of training kata.



GaryR said:


> What are you afraid of? Maybe people will see someone with 4000+ bloviating posts who is only a keyboard warrior? That the result doesn&#8217;t match your heavy rhetoric? Moreover, are you afraid that that the discussion may move past your empty insults, certitudes and vagaries into actual examples that can be discussed with specificity? That might just make it a little harder to repeatedly claim I don&#8217;t understand when we go into details and can picture what is really going on.



Please. There's no fear, mate. I just understand the worth of such things, and in this case, there isn't any. 



GaryR said:


> Let&#8217;s try this again. Answer what you like, it&#8217;s a free internet after all, but if you only want to answer two, #1 and #3 would be nice, and if you only want to answer one&#8212;do #3 for a good starting point of discussion. If you&#8217;re not going to provide #3 don&#8217;t even bother to respond, we will just have to agree to disagree, and I will assume you are just full of hot air and a pathetic keyboard warrior&#8230;your choice:
> 
> 1) Provide a detailed explanation on what you believe the correct practice of kata entails and it's purpose (and what others are misunderstanding and why).
> 
> ...



Watch the videos. Answer my questions on that first. Why? Well, if we're going to go for politeness, I asked first. But, more importantly, your questions (and the answers) will make far more sense after you go through mine.


----------



## Koryu Rich (May 26, 2013)

The interpretation of that shu ha ri article is a bit misguided I think.

shu ha ri is a continuing process one goes through when studying the kata and the ryu, you don't simply stop studying the kata when you are at "ha".


----------



## Chris Parker (May 26, 2013)

GaryR said:


> Thanks for understanding brother, hopefully the tirade will come to an end and be productive!
> 
> When I say combat I mean no rules, real fighting, and fighting in a war zone, yes. My focus is not in ring / competitions, one of my specialties is military armed/unarmed combat, I was contracted by the DOD to teach at home an in war zones to give you some perspective on where I am coming from.



There is no such thing as "no rules" combat, even in a war zone. Higher stakes, certainly, but this whole "no rules, for realz" thing is fantasy. Additionally, that has absolutely nothing to do with the value or practice of kata... all it does is confirm that you're looking at things from the wrong side of the fence.



GaryR said:


> I would definitatly put money on more Japenese Karateka than TKD folks in a competition. There is an overwhelming amount of Karate schools, it's how countless people get a start. But often the MMA, K1 doesn't end up looking like the original style. Some are good fighters in spite of their style, not because of it.



And, what do you know, you missed the reality there as well... and, again, this is nothing to do with kata.



GaryR said:


> I agree "better" should be in quotes here. Teaching should be matched to the situation, and the time-line to reach the desired goals. But the bare essentials of most Japanese or Korean systems pales in comparison to the basics of say Xingyi or Bagua. Streamline both and train them in a real context and the Chinese systems will wipe the floor with the Japanese/Okinawan/Korean systems. Expand the timeline and the gap of combat viability will further widen, I would say there is however a period in-between beginner / advanced where the Karate systems come closer in combat viability, but do not surpass it assuming both are utilizing all of the best training methods native to their systems. I'm sorry if this is offensive, I mean no personal disrespect. (one of my senior students,a great guy, who is now a Colonel, was a Goju BB when he came to me. He is the first to admit I was light-years ahead in all of the skills mentioned here B/C of the style and training methods native to our systems, and that was more than a decade ago, he is also a decade older than I. )



How much Kool Aid are you drinking there, Gary?



GaryR said:


> Absolutely not, BJJ and especially caipoera are from from war zone material. More of an argument can be made for BJJ, but if you are hand-2-hand things are already FUBAR, and if your on the ground, well you are well beyond FUBAR. A very basic ground-game can be taught in a weekend, enough for any soldier.
> 
> Most high level Karate practitioner's don't even come close to good mechanics and fluidity compared to some of the Chinese arts. I have demonstrated this to countless Karate instructors much to their dismay. The body connection / mechanics, and more fluid movements to a high extent are not simply native to the material. Just look at the one-inch punch compared to a reverse punch in efficiency, power, and body connection. Moreover, the WC/JKD one-inch punch is somewhat lacking compared to the good Neijia version FWIW. Again, sorry to seem so dismissive, it's not a conclusion I have come to lightly, and there are always exceptions due to personal ability, but they are too few and far between to be relevant.



Ah, gallons of it. Right.....



GaryR said:


> I agree for sure. The less dependent on Kata for combat viability the better, especially after the beginner levels. My article applies to those who rely on it more than less. I wasn't making stylistic generalizations, just addressing it as a training method as it relates to high level skill / combat viability.



And missing the point and methodology entirely. Kata is not a beginners exercise.



GaryR said:


> Definitely, you can have good fighters where the Kata application stinks, that fact really kind of proves my point!



No, it just proves that you're looking at the wrong things.



GaryR said:


> Sorry to be so blunt here, it may be best just to leave this discussion at that. I don't want to offend more people than I already have. We are all brothers and sisters in the arts, and should strive to help one another progress, regardless of background and style.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> G



Right....



Koryu Rich said:


> To highlight what Chris has in mind.
> 
> The following is from Legacies of the Sword by Karl Friday.
> 
> ...



THIS!!!



Koryu Rich said:


> One problem with asking Chris to show elements of kata in a simulated attack is that the viewer would need to be familiar with the kata in question, or the type of art, a verbal explanation may not be sufficient and the expression of that kata may only be for an instant or it may be more generalised via distance or timing.
> 
> Gary, have a look at those videos Chris put up.



AND THIS!!!!!



GaryR said:


> That is why I also asked Chris to show the kata in question first. I think Chris is verbose enough to cover it :uhyeah:.



Sure. But do you have understanding to hear it? I doubt that. But to be frank, I haven't at any point been discussing kata in terms of specific kata... I've been discussing it as a methodology of training in general. Taking a single specific kata really isn't enough, nor necessarily applicable, and is certainly not anything other than a tiny sample that doesn't show what I'm talking about. You need to be able to see kata as a whole.



GaryR said:


> See my other comments. I'll add, that's a lot of material to discuss third hand. I want to see and discuss a Chris specific Kata, use, and explanation thereof, not play 20 questions with tons of internet clips.
> 
> Best,
> 
> G



It wouldn't help, Gary. It's like saying you want to understand Italian culture, so show a plate of spaghetti.



TimoS said:


> But aren't the Chinese forms sort of the basis of karate kata? Or at the very least the Okinawan kata are heavily influenced by Chinese forms, i.e. long sequences of moves performed solo



Yes, they are. And there are huge numbers of similarities. But the connection to Japan, and the native Japanese methodology influenced the karate forms and structure to a great degree, which, in ways, took them away from the Chinese origins. Then there's the focus of Chinese systems historically, part of which is influencing Gary's take on things, and is part of why he doesn't really understand what kata is.

I'll put it this way. The definition of kata does not include, at any point other than as an example of one expression, the idea of "long sequences of moves performed solo". That is really the most superficial description, and is a largely inaccurate one. In other words, just because there's a long string of solo actions doesn't make it kata... nor does a lack of such mean it's not.



Koryu Rich said:


> The interpretation of that shu ha ri article is a bit misguided I think.
> 
> shu ha ri is a continuing process one goes through when studying the kata and the ryu, you don't simply stop studying the kata when you are at "ha".



Damn straight! 

More to the point, the concept of Shu Ha Ri means that you can't understand kata by walking into "literally 1,000's of dojo" and seeing a mass class going through a sequence. You really do need to immerse yourself in the experience to get what it is.


----------



## Koryu Rich (May 26, 2013)

Another point to consider is that kata are at various levels within the "school" so even advanced students (aka not beginners) will undertake new kata. Also they will go back to fundamental kata and be taught deeper meanings that are often contained at higher levels.

A kata is not just what you may see at one time it will go hand in hand with kuden to form a deep learning experience.


----------



## TimoS (May 26, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Yes, they are. And there are huge numbers of similarities. But the connection to Japan, and the native Japanese methodology influenced the karate forms and structure to a great degree, which, in ways, took them away from the Chinese origins.


 Are you referring to Sokon Matsumura studying Jigen ryu? Because if not, I would like to know more. I can't remember other influences, except of course the fact that the Japanese occupied Okinawa


----------



## Chris Parker (May 26, 2013)

That's a part, but I am more referring to the more modern forms, including the more modern kata... older Okinawan ones are a bit different in some forms (think of Sanshin no Kata)....


----------



## TimoS (May 26, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> That's a part, but I am more referring to the more modern forms, including the more modern kata... older Okinawan ones are a bit different in some forms (think of Sanshin no Kata)....



Maybe I'm just missing your point entirely (most likely explanation), because I'm not sure what you mean by modern. The most recent ones that I practice are the two Fukyugata, from around 1941. They, along with Pinan, are the only ones that I would classify as modern from those that I'm familiar with. Of course e.g. Uechi ryu has some modern kata also, but since I'm not familiar with them, I can't really comment those.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 26, 2013)

Yep, that's what I was referring to as modern.


----------



## TimoS (May 26, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Yep, that's what I was referring to as modern.



Okay, now I'm really confused  What kind of influence have the Japanese systems then had on these modern kata and where did it come from? I'm assuming you're not referring to e.g. Pinan kata, since those are just old Okinawan kata repackaged


----------



## TimoS (May 26, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> I'll put it this way. The definition of kata does not include, at any point other than as an example of one expression, the idea of "long sequences of moves performed solo". That is really the most superficial description, and is a largely inaccurate one. In other words, just because there's a long string of solo actions doesn't make it kata... nor does a lack of such mean it's not.


Well, yes, of course the Okinawan kata format includes the applications of the moves (or let's say that should include, because without them the system isn't whole), so it isn't just the solo form, far from it. The contents of the kata, how to use them is more important than the mere form. But since I'm really only familiar with the Okinawan kata, I simplified my question to say that the kata is a long series of moves performed solo, which is partially true, just not the whole truth


----------



## K-man (May 26, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> > *Originally Posted by GaryR  *
> > - "Trying to memorize long sequence of forms is counter-productive to such a goal."
> >
> >
> ...


There have been some interesting developments in the discussion. What it is doing, at least in the area of karate kata, is demonstrating the depth of some people's knowledge and the paucity of other's.  :asian:


----------



## K-man (May 26, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> More to the point, the concept of Shu Ha Ri means that you can't understand kata by walking into "literally 1,000's of dojo" and seeing a mass class going through a sequence. You really do need to immerse yourself in the experience to get what it is.


What you see in the thousands of dojos with lines of students and what you see performed at its top level in world class kata competition is the 'Shu' form of kata. The difference is that you have the range of 'beginner' beginners right through to 'advanced' beginners. There are very few dojos that take kata to the next (Ha) level and a minuscule number training at the top (Ri) level. In fact, I would argue that you don't teach the Ri level at all. That is the level of self development.  :asian:


----------



## GaryR (May 26, 2013)

First, this is getting extremely repetitive. So I'm going to cherry pick a little.  If I eliminate the &#8220;you don't understand&#8221; comments, the post is cut by at least 2/3.  I will cut those comments when I quote you.  We can agree that you don't think I understand anything on the topic and move on.   


 Next, I don't know that you understand either.  You haven't demonstrated such supreme knowledge.  Simply repeating that I do not understand does not prove you actually do, no matter how insistent you are.


 Furthermore, our disagreements (that can even be discerned at this point) can be boiled down to a few crucial distinctions and issues, which I'll try and keep more succinct. If you want to agree to disagree pending any actual substance and evidence, fine, do that, but please, read carefully and stop the circles, I'll try and do the same.  




Chris Parker said:


> I'm also going to attempt to maintain civility a bit more


 

 Same here, attack the ideas, not the people.  No reason for hostility, it's not productive.  


 This whole thing is becoming quite silly.  If we remove the labels like &#8220;kata&#8221; from things, we are left with training methodologies and practices.  These methodologies and practices can be analyzed based on their efficacy. People on these forums go the rounds on hundreds of pages on definitions, like &#8220;internal&#8221; etc.  At the end of the day when gathered in a room people often go...oh yeah, we do something like that, but we call it X, not Y. The result can be the same, the aims can be the same, but the rhetoric differs.   





Chris Parker said:


> No, Gary, I said if they're not training kata, they're not training it. Not that if they're doing it badly, they're not really doing kata. It's a subtle distinction, but it's a vital one. And labels should only be accepted if they apply


 

 I understand it is a subtle distinction, that is really my point.  For the purposes of writing an article that applies to the masses, that distinction is irrelevant to me.  In order to convey the message, the label is accepted as is so people can match what I am talking about with what people at large label it.  If I had a dollar for every-time someone claimed to know what the meaning of &#8220;kata&#8221; was, I'd be a very rich man.




Chris Parker said:


> You've only ever looked at "what", not "why".


 

 That is completely inaccurate. Evidenced by the fact I told you I would want to ask those depicted in the clips &#8220;why&#8221;.  That is the most key question when looking at anyone&#8217;s training methods. The &#8220;why&#8221; matters so much more than the what for many reasons.  P_leas save your &#8220;nuh-uh&#8221; comment, every dojo I've ever walked into, I have as several why questions, every clip I view, etc. comes with a &#8220;why&#8221; question. _ 




Chris Parker said:


> That's a simple definition, yeah. [kata is a pre-set pattern].. but you have to look at what kata's purpose is, if you want to actually understand it.


 

 I agree completely, you must know the purpose/goal.  I've stated this before.  





Chris Parker said:


> For more detail (hey, me giving elaboration that you say I haven't done), go to post #38. And, yes, kata-like.


 

 Post 38 was from someone else and says only &#8220;Lol I just found that book tonight I've ordered it so il see how it goes, really excited by this want to take it as far as I can&#8221;


 Perhaps you meant 37, so I'll snip what little substance I could find and discuss. Maybe we shall get somewhere.    


_You wrote--&#8220;Actually, kata teaches timing and distancing quite well, if you understand it properly. In fact, that's one of it's primary uses. It is not, however, designed to be a teaching platform for "basic footwork, movement, techniques and docrine".&#8221;_


 Two person kata for sure should teach timing and distance.  In fact I would say most two-person exercises should. I say most because there are some tactile sensitivity drills that don't have that primary goal or effect in mind.   


 I teach basic footwork outside of any pre-set form or pattern.  I also teach basic mechanics outside such&#8212;for example, LHBF has what is called the &#8220;9-joint walk&#8221;, which is purely an exercise in mechanics training, and not a kata/form.   


_You wrote--&#8221;Hmm, how to put this... Our kata (in fact, all Japanese kata) ARE the applications of the techniques. They are paired forms, with an attacking side (typically the more senior practitioner), and a defending side (although even that description is not entirely accurate...). There is no guesswork in terms of what this move is supposed to do, you can see it immediately... this throw is a throw, and you can tell because you've just thrown the opponent. This strike is a strike, and you can tell because you've just hit them, and so on. &#8220;_


So you say kata is not the teaching platform for techniques, but they &#8220;are the applications of the techniques&#8221;.  So are you saying that doing &#8220;the applications of the techniques&#8221; is not part of the learning process?  Are you saying practicing throwing the opponent etc, is not part of the learning process, or contributes to the learning process?  


That seems to be the end of the substance there, again, not really much elaboration as far as I'm concerned, but hey, it's a start.  So back to the current post...





Chris Parker said:


> Yes, I get what you're saying. You apply no critical or clinical discernment. That, bluntly, is another failing of yours in this discussion. Training practices aren't kata just because someone decided to use that term... again, the videos I chose were chosen (in a couple of cases) to demonstrate that. I really did pick the clips very specifically in order to see what you could pick out of them, and (hopefully) aid in your understanding... which might help avoid such "articles" in the future.


 

It still doesn't seem like you do.  The article has no cited examples so it cannot have such discernment, it was a general critique of the practice of what many call kata.  Again, if I had a dollar for every-time someone said they had the true meaning, I'd be rich. So in the context of what articles I write, and what popular labels I assign, I don't care what you think the exact definition ought to be.  





Chris Parker said:


> But to take it to your Taiji methodology, can you describe what makes the form a "form", rather than just a sequence of actions? What's the purpose of it? That'll take us closer to what I've been saying.


 

So you want me to continue to write so you can offer vague disagreements?  How about instead of working to get &#8220;closer&#8221; to what you've been saying, you just say it?  Yeesh.




Chris Parker said:


> Oh dear lord... that gave me quite a good laugh there, Gary. So you know, the clip you picked is a teacher from one of the most well known fraudulent groups out there... there is nothing there of any authenticity whatsoever. It's also spelled "ninjutsu", not "ninjitsu", so I'm going to suggest that you've never actually come across any actual teacher of the art.... mainly as they (we) just aren't interested in what you're talking about. We don't go in for cross-matches and sparring and the like... so you wouldn't have had any chance to do anything of the kind.


 

 I'm glad I gave you a laugh!  I am talking about application skill, I'm not an expert in what is authentic Ninjutsu.  That said, I haven't seen any of it that impressed me much.  I've touched hands with guys that trace directly to Steven Hayes and Masaaki Hatsumi for starters, are they legit?  Why don't you link me to whom you believe to be authentic and the best example of skill?  I'm not talking about sparring competitions, I'm talking about private sessions exchanging knowledge and testing skills. 



Chris Parker said:


> Oh, and I've seen you move. Don't make me reduce this to a case of telling you you'd have little chance of "sucking me in like a tornado and spitting out broken"... it's firstly besides the point, and secondly damn laughable


 

 It is beside the point.  Thus far I only have basic material on video.  I haven't seen you move, do you have any video at all? You keep refusing to offer it, so I find it laughable you think you have such skill and yet refuse to demonstrate. I very much doubt you have ever touched hands with someone my level in my arts. Have you ever touched hands with Sam Chin, Luo de Xiu, Erle Montaigue, Wai Lun Choi, or anyone of the like?  With the internal arts especially, feeling is believing, thus you could have no idea what your looking at.  Perhaps we could make a deal to reimburse one another for plane tickets pending a match?  I have friends in OZ, and there is a chance I'll be there in the next year or two, its one of my favorite places to visit. The US isn't a horrible place to visit either.   




Chris Parker said:


> Speaking for karate-style kata (one more time, vastly different to what I've been talking about), the idea of memorizing is only the initial stage of learning the kata, and only applies before it is really trained. So, no. Unless the student doesn't ever actually train it, this critique is not the reality.


 

 Sure, but all too often Karate folks go from memorizing one to the next, it becomes rank fodder, and quantity, not quality.  Since you seemingly do something vastly different than the majority, the critique is not your reality.  Take your panties out of a bunch then!  



[QUOTE=Chris Parker;1576364]as well as the transmission of martial arts. Who says they're about self-defence training? [/QUOTE]


 They are called MARTIAL arts.  If they are not about combat, what are they about, please enlighten me.  Of course that is not their only benefit, but it is the reason for their existence as far as I am concerned, particularly my arts, I'm not a ninja historian, but I&#8217;m fairly sure combat/war/mercenary like reasons where the purposes for it.  





Chris Parker said:


> That's a context you've insisted upon for kata, not one inherent in the training methodology itself. Additionally, your idea that there isn't a need to put the movement in a pre-arranged sequence is incorrect, depending on the intended reason and purpose of doing so.


 

 I'm not insisting one context is correct, you are.  I'm simply saying what the majority call kata and am critiquing that.  You are still arguing a straw man here.   


 &#8220;Depending on the intended reason&#8221;, yup, and in my critique I thought I made it clear that I was referencing to it in the context of combative use.  




Chris Parker said:


> As for the last sentence there, mate, again, I've seen your skill. You've got a way to go. Besides, all I said was that actual kata training begins well beyond what you're describing in your article... how you can turn that into an indication of my not having reached a high enough echelon of skill, I have no idea. You're reaching. And missing.


 

 You don't know what you're looking at. I've not seen a ninjutsu instructor in the world in person or on video (and I've seen plenty of video) I'd bet on against myself, or those whom I consider higher level Neijia guys.  It's simply an inferior system.  You still don't have a clip up, that speaks volumes, your a keyboard warrior insisting on superiority. Laughable.  




Chris Parker said:


> No, that's the thing, Gary. Kata is not a beginners tool. It never has been.


 

 Like I said, then you aren't at a high enough level to see that a pre-arranged set of movements in not a beginners tool, and that other tools supersede kata later on.  As far as I'm concerned many Karate systems end where Neijia arts being ,combative skill-wise, and that has been the observation of many karate instructors I have trained, the quote is not my own. Of course, if you define kata exactly how you like it then the point may not stand, but the latter one does.  




Chris Parker said:


> In karate terms, it would commonly be years of training before a student would be taught any kata... and particular teachers would focus on one, maybe two kata themselves. ... The idea of multiple kata that we see today is more a result of cross-pollination between teachers and students and an early attempt to standardize karate, as well as common ancestral systems, particularly many Japanese forms coming from Shotokan...


 

 One or two to focus on would certainly be better, as I said, quality over quantity.  But that is not really the case at large now is it?  Often when you step in the door the first thing you do is &#8220;kata&#8221;, hence my critique stands, back to the same circle...




Chris Parker said:


> ... especially as kata, when done properly, does teach flow, and does not stagnate the practitioner. In fact, it does the opposite.


 

 Well, we can agree to disagree, I think perhaps what you consider &#8220;done properly&#8221; means applies to 1%, again, not the articles audience.  




Chris Parker said:


> .Did you seriously miss where I said I'd cop to typing them in a misleading order, Gary? Really? I'll spell it out for you then: Drills teach mechanics, kata teaches tactical expressions.


 

 There you go! Was it really that hard to spell something out?  Why don't you define what you consider &#8220;tactical expressions&#8221;. Better yet, demonstrate as well.   




Chris Parker said:


> I train Japanese arts. We know what kata is, we know the value of them, the purpose of them, and so on. There is no need for an article from me on such matters, especially when people such as Ellis Amdur, David Hall, and Prof. Karl Friday (quoted by Rich) have done so much better, and expressed things so eloquently before me.


 

 Ok, well, again, then leave your empty critiques at the door.  Why don't you link me to such article you feel mirrors your views then?  




Chris Parker said:


> I'm more than familiar with the idea of forms within Chinese systems, Gary, but they're not really the same as kata, when it all comes down to it. Additionally, the point I was making was that your article, such as it was, in no way made any comment on Chinese systems, just on the Japanese/Korean/Okinawan arts. In other words, you were talking to one audience (your CMA guys) about non-CMA expressions... and getting much of it wrong.


 

 I mentioned forms in the article, it applies to many CMA folks as well and their form practice.   


_Timos wrote--&#8220;But aren't the Chinese forms sort of the basis of karate kata? Or at the very least the Okinawan kata are heavily influenced by Chinese forms, i.e. long sequences of moves performed solo &#8220;_


_Chris wrote--&#8220;Yes, they are. And there are huge numbers of similarities...&#8221;_


 Hmmm, both the origin, and a &#8220;huge&#8221; number of similarities? Yeah, I'm sure the perspective is completely off as you say, lol.  Talk about special pleading. 



Chris Parker said:


> I'm going to mention again that you've questioned my reading comprehension here... then point out that the reason you had the term "Shu Ha Ri" to look up was that I told you it was an integral concept...


 

 Comprehension--&#8221;the act or action of grasping with the intellect&#8221;. In logic=&#8221;the totality of intentions, that is, properties or qualities that an object possesses.&#8221;  Being aware of a term and comprehending it once known are different. I only speak a bit of Mandarin, not Japanese, nor are Japanese arts what I now practice, so I don't care to know / remember all of the terminology.  




Chris Parker said:


> ...and part of kata study that you were unaware of, that dealt with many aspects you were thinking were your own solutions, but in a better, and more congruent fashion. So who are you talking to when you say that it sounds like some of the ideas you were putting forth? Oh, but don't take what Wiki says as being definitive, or even really correct, for the record...


 

 I don't think it a better or more congruent fashion, sorry.  I also never said I was the only one that used those solutions.  If you don't like the wiki definition, provide your own.  



Chris Parker said:


> But my point was that you don't need to offer these solutions, as it's already addressed. You seem to have missed that.


 

 Well, most people are not practicing that way, nor using my solutions, or the similar ones, so yeah, I do.  


_I said--&#8221;Reading and comprehending are two different things. Curious-- what is your academic background, and your occupation, mate? &#8220;_




Chris Parker said:


> That has relevance? You've constantly missed what's being said, can't see what your own article is actually saying, haven't listened to K-Man previously, or myself now, and you're seeing fit to question me on my academic background??? To sate you, though, my career is based around personal interaction and use of language to both collect and disseminate information.. and my academic background is more than adequate (although, bluntly, I have far exceeded what my listed education would imply).


 

 It is absolutely relevant.  Your formal education level is likely material to your ability to comprehend these discussions and arguments.  You have constantly missed what is being said, and you continue to fail to provide any appreciable detail.    


 Despite typing a whole paragraph in response, you still did not answer the simple questions, what is your education level and occupation?   




Chris Parker said:


> Post #38. I can offer more, but only when I can get a read on exactly what you think kata is, and what it's for, as well as how it achieves it (or doesn't). That's what the clips are for, Gary... as well as actually being "more than two lines" in answer to your questions. But you still seem to want to ignore that....


 

 Ok, sorry, it appears there were 9 lines, a few of which were saying what kata is not.  You don't need a read on exactly what I think to simply define what you think kata is, it's aims, etc.  If every author required an understanding of what the readers knew on the subject before writing, there would be no textbooks or the like.  If people can learn physics and medicine etc, via text, your explanations on the purpose of kata etc, is surely doable. Nice attempt at an excuse though, pathetic.  





Chris Parker said:


> You really want to go there? Do you want me to describe just how much training army combatives is not the same as teaching or transmitting martial arts? Do you really want me to pull apart your history in this matter?


 

 Martial = &#8220;Of relating to, or suggestive of war.&#8221; , &#8220;characteristic of or befitting a warrior&#8221;.  Do you forget it was you who brought up the context of war? Let me remind you...&#8221;_including during the most intense times of war the country saw.&#8221;  _No, please spare me the knowledge you only have by way of reading history books or blogs.  




Chris Parker said:


> Do you seriously think I'm employing a post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning here? And here's a clue for you... just because something can possibly be looked upon as a logical fallacy doesn't mean it actually is one... especially when, as in this case, the tradition isn't the backup, the history is.


 

 No, I don't, appeal to tradition is not the same thing as post hoc. Amusing you use the full phrase, not the normal abbreviation, yet completely miss the definition.  This goes back to why I asked your education level.  Clearly, you have overestimated your own intellect / knowledge. Post Hoc has to do with the issue of causation (it's a causal fallacy).  It says that because A occurred, then B occurred.  The appeal to tradition is merely saying that because A is old or traditional, A is better.  These are different fallacies all-together.  Your quote below is the latter, even assuming for the sake of argument it's not, the two fallacies are not the same.  Nice try though, this is solid evidence of your lack of intellect, education, and reading comprehension. Just think, it you are wrong about this (and you are), what else in this thread are you wrong about?


 &#8220;_Son, you have no clue what you're talking about there. Kata training is, and has been the dominant method of transmission of martial arts (and other arts) in Japan for centuries... including during the most intense times of war the country saw &#8220;_




Chris Parker said:


> You constantly asked for kata AND bunkai... er, no, not from my arts. *Oh, and for the record, the very lack of it in my systems means that I am in a better position to see what should be focused on*...


 

 Wow, still avoiding the heart of the demo question...  I constantly asked for just Kata and eliminated bunkai in the last post.  *Incredible! You think because you lack it, you are in a better position to critique it! So the same must be true of kata? If someone lacks true kata in their system they are in a better position to see what they &#8220;should be focused on&#8221; instead?  Do you see how that statement negates nearly every single point you have made?  *My BS flag just blew through the roof and is sailing through the air, you sir, are ridiculous.




Chris Parker said:


> Then you really should accept that, if you are going to argue something with people who deal with this idea regularly, but don't actually know what it is, perhaps you should listen to them, rather than arguing and relying on Wiki for education.


 

 I did accept their definition, did you see an article I wrote titled whats wrong with Bunkai? No, you didn't.  Did you see me argue back and forth with anyone on the meaning of the term, no you didn't.   





Chris Parker said:


> It's not about demoing, Gary. That's the damn point. And link you to a video or more? I have.


 

 It's about you explaining and demonstrating, that's the point Chris.  I want to see exactly what result you have achieved, what type of training YOU consider kata exactly, and have you answer for yourself, and your own material.  The people in those clips are not on here arguing.  We can't ask them &#8220;why&#8221; and discuss it with them, I'm not going to assume your are qualified to answer for them.  You did NOT link me to a video of yourself, which is what I asked for.   


 In conclusion, like your snide and incorrect use of basic fallacy arguments, you are wrong about my understanding on the subject here.  You refuse to answer my call for demonstrative evidence and detailed explanations of your &#8220;kata&#8221; and any other training methodologies, and results thereof.  When I answered your arrogant conjecture with a request for such evidence and explanation, I was met with countless evasions, and a video quiz&#8212;to which I gave detailed reasons for being inadequate and too over-broad for this discussion.  


 For the purposes of my article as it relates to mass relevance; I am not interested in what YOU deem the exact purpose and only true thing worthy of the label kata, I care to discuss common training methods and methodologies productively, no matter the name.   


 My simple definition of Kata? As I said, a pre-arranged sequence involving one or more persons.  As soon as the sequence varies or is dynamic I would call it a drill or &#8220;free-form&#8221; practice.  The purpose?  Whatever the practitioner says it is. Whether that particular &#8220;kata&#8221; is the best suited path to achieving that stated purpose I assess on a case-by-case basis.  It's that simple really.  Agree or disagree, I have no need or desire to debate the meaning of the term further beyond the scope of that definition.  Now, if you care to show your kata or drill, or whatever, describe its goal, and show how that goal was achieved, you will at least have a modicum of credibility.  But as it seems, in your 4000+ post history you haven't managed this, so I won't expect it now. I'll just leave it at the fact you are demonstrably a keyboard warrior, more interested in going page-after-page without more than a dozen substantive lines.   


 Unless and until you are going to explain your view in detail and provide clips, please Chris, don't bother to waste much more of your time responding.  Go fight another war with your keyboard.


 Cheers,


 G


----------



## GaryR (May 26, 2013)

I broke this response out due to the repetition and complete lack of substance, hence ignoring most of it...




Chris Parker said:


> There is no such thing as "no rules" combat, even in a war zone. Higher stakes, certainly, but this whole "no rules, for realz" thing is fantasy. Additionally, that has absolutely nothing to do with the value or practice of kata... all it does is confirm that you're looking at things from the wrong side of the fence.



Zero wasn't mentioning kata specifically, save your straw man. What fantasy are you living in?  Unless you are referring to the rules of physics et al, of course there is such a thing as combat with no rules.  We choose to have ROE in war, but that is a choice, not a necessity. I consider it no rules when someone is attempting to kill or injure you with no regard for their method, level of damage, or engaging in any formalities, like dueling, etc. Talk about war when you have been there.  





Chris Parker said:


> More to the point, the concept of Shu Ha Ri means that you can't understand kata by walking into "literally 1,000's of dojo" and seeing a mass class going through a sequence. You really do need to immerse yourself in the experience to get what it is.



HA! Again I'll repeat this section of the last post--







 Originally Posted by *Chris Parker* 

 
 				You constantly asked for kata AND bunkai... er, no, not from my arts. *Oh, and for the record, the very lack of it in my systems means that I am in a better position to see what should be focused on*..."



 Wow, still avoiding the heart of the demo question...  I constantly  asked for just Kata and eliminated bunkai in the last post.  *Incredible!  You think because you lack it, you are in a better position to critique  it! So the same must be true of kata? If someone lacks true kata in  their system they are in a better position to see what they should be  focused on instead?  Do you see how that statement negates nearly every  single point you have made?  *My BS flag just blew through the roof and is sailing through the air, you sir, are ridiculous.

Oh, and I've done more than spectate in a Japanese school, I've picked up a few BB's, and had very in-depth sessions post CMA with countless Karate instructors, so immersed I am.


----------



## K-man (May 26, 2013)

Wow! Am I glad you cherry picked.  I can only imagine the length of post if you hadn't.


----------



## GaryR (May 26, 2013)

K-man said:


> Wow! Am I glad you cherry picked.  I can only imagine the length of post if you hadn't.



Hahahahahaha, riiiight!


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 27, 2013)

Perhaps someone else should address some things just toadd some more weight to the arguments. Please forgive me when my words run together.



GaryR said:


> Next, I don't know that you understand either. You haven't demonstrated suchsupreme knowledge. Simply repeating that I do not understand does not prove youactually do, no matter how insistent you are.


Personally I think Chris&#8217;s comments show a soundunderstanding. Demonstrating something would not prove anything to anyone notfamiliar with the system being demonstrated. What would you be looking for inhis demonstrations of kata anyway? Combat efficacy?  They are based on centuries old practices.The kata do not reflect what a fight would look like today, and perhaps didn&#8217;treflect what how an actual fight looked like back then in some cases either(Jumonji no kata, Chris?). The kata teach principles which are only noticeableto observers of the kata when they have first-hand experience with it.





GaryR said:


> This whole thing is becoming quite silly. If we remove the labels like &#8220;kata&#8221;from things, we are left with training methodologies and practices. Thesemethodologies and practices can be analyzed based on their efficacy.


Kata do are a form of training methodology and are meantto be trained in over and over again for decades. What makes kata differentfrom other training methodologies is why they are designed a certain way andwhat one should be focusing on when training them. If an instructor does notunderstand kata then he can&#8217;t make something up and call it kata just becauseit looks like one on a superficial level.
To use your analogy, a man with no business doing surgerytries to cut someone open and do a heart transplant is not doing surgery. Hehas neither the training nor the knowledge. To hack someone up with theintention of saving them is not the same as a trained surgeon doingmalpractice, just as someone with no understanding of kata trying to make theirown &#8220;kadda&#8221; is not the same as a person messing up a kata that has realpurpose.




GaryR said:


> I understand it is a subtle distinction, that is really my point. For thepurposes of writing an article that applies to the masses, that distinction isirrelevant to me.


The masses are not in position to know that thedistinction is rather important. Basically what the article does is cloudpeople&#8217;s minds with a false concept of what kata training is simply becausemost people either do it wrong or don&#8217;t really do it at all (in the classicalJapanese sense of the term), and your article gives the impression that katathemselves are pointless when in fact they are not. If a kata is pointless thenit isn&#8217;t a kata. Therefore people who &#8220;mess up&#8221; kata or make their own &#8220;kadda&#8221;are not doing kata no matter what they say.



GaryR said:


> In order to convey the message, the label is accepted asis so people can match what I am talking about with what people at large labelit. If I had a dollar for every-time someone claimed to know what the meaningof &#8220;kata&#8221; was, I'd be a very rich man.


The label is incorrectly applied. Kata has one Japanesedefinition applied to many arts not just martial arts. I&#8217;m pretty sure teaceremonies have kata. The Okinawans adopted the term when they adopted thelanguage as it was likely the closest concept they could use. Karate kata andJapanese kata express the essence of the art, everything else about them isdifferent. If you see someone practicing what they call a kata but it doesn&#8217;texpress the essence of the art then they aren&#8217;t doing a kata. 
It&#8217;s been a long time since I practiced karate and I wasnot particularly skilled at it so if I attempted seisan kata or another Isshinryu kata I would mess it up. I would not be accurately doing the kata, I&#8217;d bedoing an imitation of the kata. There would be nothing wrong with the kata, theproblem does not lie with it but with me, the practitioner who does notunderstand it.







GaryR said:


> So you say katais not the teaching platform for techniques, but they &#8220;are the applications ofthe techniques&#8221;. So are you saying that doing &#8220;the applications of thetechniques&#8221; is not part of the learning process? Are you saying practicingthrowing the opponent etc, is not part of the learning process, or contributesto the learning process?


The point, I believe, was that one does not need toguess at the application like one does with bunkai. The kata is theapplication. Kata teach principles and those principles are performed in thekata the way they would be performed in combat with the expected alterationsdepending on the unique circumstances involved.


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 27, 2013)

GaryR said:


> Same here, attack the ideas, not the people. No reasonfor hostility, it's not productive.



No. Its not. Yet I still sense hostility because



GaryR said:


> I'm not an expert in what is authentic Ninjutsu. Thatsaid, I haven't seen any of it that impressed me much.


From the forum rules:
*1.10.2 NoArt bashing. *

No one art is "the best", no one "style" is the best. Allhave their strengths and weaknesses. Do your research and find what best fitsyour ability and need.
Be careful how you word things. It sounds like you areinsulting ninjutsu, which may or may not be your intention.
That said, there is a lot of bad practitioners of artsout there. Just because a lot of people think they know what they are doingdoesnt mean they actually do. You can find terrible examples of anything onyoutube. 


GaryR said:


> I've touched hands with guys that trace directly toSteven Hayes and Masaaki Hatsumi for starters, are they legit? Why don't youlink me to whom you believe to be authentic and the best example of skill?



My teachers trained with Hayes, Hoban, and a bunch ofguys you dont know so I wont post their names, but unless you trained withsomeone who knew what they were doing it doesnt matter who they can tracetheir training back to. What makes a person legit in ninjutsu is not just whothey trace their training to, but if they understand they training they received.


GaryR said:


> I'm not talking about sparring competitions, I'm talkingabout private sessions exchanging knowledge and testing skills.



What knowledge was exchanged and how were the skillstested? Im legitimately curious.





GaryR said:


> I very much doubt you have ever touched hands withsomeone my level in my arts.



What do you mean by touched hands? Is that a sparringthing? What is your level in your opinion?



GaryR said:


> feeling is believing, thus youcould have no idea what your looking at.


Sounds like kata training.



GaryR said:


> Perhaps we could make a deal toreimburse one another for plane tickets *pendinga match?* I have friends in OZ, and there is a chance I'll be there in thenext year or two, its one of my favorite places to visit.


I sincerely hope this is not a physical challenge. Thatviolates the rules 1.8 second paragraph.






GaryR said:


> Sure, but all too often Karate folks go from memorizingone to the next, it becomes rank fodder, and quantity, not quality.


Then they are not properly training kata. A kata not doneproperly is no kata at all. Sure a person moving up from the lower ranks wontgrasp the meaning or value of kata in its entirety, but that doesnt mean theyhavent gotten valuable lessons out of it and wont discover more of the arts truthin it as they master it. This of course, depends on if they are being properlyinstructed in it.



GaryR said:


> Since you seemingly do somethingvastly different than the majority, the critique is not your reality. Take yourpanties out of a bunch then!



What happened to - 


GaryR said:


> Same here, attack the ideas, not the people. No reasonfor hostility, it's not productive.



Seems pretty hostile to me.


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 27, 2013)

[QUOTE=Chris Parker;1576364]as wellas the transmission of martial arts. Who says they're about self-defence training?[/QUOTE]




GaryR said:


> They are called MARTIAL arts. If they are not aboutcombat, what are they about, please enlighten me.


Combat and self-defense are not the same thing.


GaryR said:


> I've not seen a ninjutsu instructor in the world inperson or on video (and I've seen plenty of video) I'd bet on against myself,or those whom I consider higher level Neijia guys. It's simply an inferiorsystem. You still don't have a clip up, that speaks volumes, your a keyboardwarrior insisting on superiority. Laughable.


Inferior how? I&#8217;m curious as to what makes you think itis inferior. I&#8217;m curious as to what you even mean by &#8220;system&#8221; when you sayninjutsu as if it were one thing. If I train poorly in your system and post avideo of me doing my attempts at it does that make your system inferior? 


In most cases you are probably seeing people do katapoorly or randori poorly. Most people don&#8217;t understand their training just likemost karateka nowadays don&#8217;t seem to get it. Again, that is not a flaw of thesystem that is a teaching flaw of individual instructors and of the studentswho cannot grasp the concepts in the way they are presented.
Honestly, I think no matter what Chris posted, even if itwas the best damn thing you&#8217;d ever seen, you would still make only negativecomments about it. 
And again, this is how you &#8220;attack ideas, not the people&#8221;,by calling Chris a keyboard warrior?







GaryR said:


> Like I said, then you aren't at a high enough level tosee that a pre-arranged set of movements in not a beginners tool, and thatother tools supersede kata later on.


It is a beginner&#8217;s tool and a master&#8217;s tool. Shu Ha Ri isinfinitely repeated not just with new kata but with past ones too as youcontinue to refine the movements and gain deeper understanding of theprinciples.



GaryR said:


> One or two to focus on would certainly be better, as I said, quality overquantity. But that is not really the case at large now is it? Often when youstep in the door the first thing you do is &#8220;kata&#8221;, hence my critique stands.


What they are doing may be of little value, but they aredoing it wrong if that is the case. Kata is not flawed only the student&#8217;sexpression of the kata can be wrong or a person&#8217;s though on what they think thekata is does not change what it is actually supposed to be.




GaryR said:


> There you go! Was it really that hard to spell something out? Why don't youdefine what you consider &#8220;tactical expressions&#8221;. Better yet, demonstrate aswell.


In the videos Chris already posted you can see kata with &#8220;tacticalexpressions&#8221; done by people who know what they are doing. You can also seepeople not doing kata but rather drills or in some cases nonsense.
Still looking for that &#8220;trick question&#8221; Rich mentioned.


----------



## grumpywolfman (May 27, 2013)

This has been an intense thread with important lessons a person could learn from experienced martial artists. In order to commit to memory what I have learned, I've decided to place the various stances presented into two groups which I have condensed down in form to the letters "*I*" and "*U*."


----------



## Chris Parker (May 27, 2013)

TimoS said:


> Okay, now I'm really confused  What kind of influence have the Japanese systems then had on these modern kata and where did it come from? I'm assuming you're not referring to e.g. Pinan kata, since those are just old Okinawan kata repackaged



Kinda depends on which approach to the Pinan/Heian you're talking about.... Itosu created them (in the early 1900's), most likely from older Okinawan kata (some contention over exactly where from, though), and later Funakoshi adopted them for Shotokan. The Pinan sets were created specifically to be a simpler teaching method for school children, with the performance being a bit more "overt", rather than the more esoteric approach of the older forms. When Funakoshi adopted them, he changed the order, as well as the name (to make it more Japanese...), as well as other kata having a range of changes applied.

That said, when looking at the older kata, the approach and actions are rather distinctly separated from the more "modern" (20th Century) kata... at least, to my eyes and mind.



TimoS said:


> Well, yes, of course the Okinawan kata format includes the applications of the moves (or let's say that should include, because without them the system isn't whole), so it isn't just the solo form, far from it. The contents of the kata, how to use them is more important than the mere form. But since I'm really only familiar with the Okinawan kata, I simplified my question to say that the kata is a long series of moves performed solo, which is partially true, just not the whole truth



Hmm. While I don't disagree with any of that, that wasn't really what I was saying. My point was that, while a long string of solo movements can be a kata, it is not the definition of a kata. It's like saying that the definition of Italian food is spaghetti, rather than seeing that spaghetti is a form of Italian food, if that makes sense.



K-man said:


> _Sorry to butt in and interupt you gentlemen but this point needs clarification. I am only referring to karate kata here as I have insufficient knowledge of other systems. Memorising the kata is part of the initial stage of learning the kata. The memorising not only includes the sequence of techniques but also the angle and direction of the techniques. Within 'performing' the kata, this never changes and is as important to the master as it is to the beginner._



Yep, that's pretty much what I was saying... Memorizing is done so you can then actually train the kata itself. If you're still at the point where you're trying to "remember" the next move, you're not up to actually "training" it yet. Which means Gary's criticism of it being necessary to "memorize strings of movements" is ignorant of the detail that that's not actually the training idea or ideal of kata. You only do that so you can actually move on to the kata itself. Oh, and don't worry, I'm familiar enough with other systems and approaches... 



K-man said:


> _Karate kata *are* for self defence, no doubt. Even Sanchin and Tensho, which have a deeper meaning again, are for self defence. For example, there is a Bagua kata within Tensho._


_
_
Hmm, they can be (for self defence), but are you saying that that's their primary function? I'd disagree there, and say it comes down to the specific kata itself (some, yes, others, no). But whether or not self defence is at the core of the kata in question, really, isn't part of the equation. The discussion of what kata is cannot be done by discussing individual kata, as you would, by definition, be ignoring or omitting far too much. Instead, the discussion has to be of kata training as a methodology, regardless of the individual kata itself, and it's purpose. Of course, that's a comment for Gary, I know you understand that, K-Man....



K-man said:


> _Chris, you are absolutely, categorically and completely right (don't you love tautology?  ) with regard to the sequence. Without the sequence it is not kata. You can't just pick individual techniques from a kata. You can pick any individual technique from your knowledge base but the kata gives you the sequence of techniques and the targets of those techniques. Now we are starting to discuss the aspect of Kyusho in kata, but I haven't seen Gary mention that._



Ha, yeah... except even that's not getting to what I was saying. I'm saying that the sequence itself is the important thing... and, just to make things more confusing, the individual actions/movements/techniques don't really matter at all. You need to be able to look at what the sequence itself is telling you...



K-man said:


> _OK Chris, you probably can't see me from you place but I'm standing on the roof waving my arms in the air shouting "me, me, me" and the neighbours are giving me funny looks!  If I wasn't using the exact sequence I wouldn't be using the kata. I think what you mean is that I would use the bunkai but not the kata. It is a very fine line and probably most of the time the bunkai is identical to the kata. (I don't really want to elaborate more here but that may come later.) Now, in fairness to Gary, what he has said is that you wouldn't use the entire kata but you break it down. That is simplistic but has some truth. But once you have taken that smaller sequence, you still must use it as it is trained._



Hmm, yes, you could very easily be using the kata, but not the exact actions as seen in the kata sequence itself. And, no, I wasn't referring to using the bunkai rather than the kata itself, I was literally meaning that the exact sequence (this stance with this block, followed by this step, and this strike, and this grab etc) aren't something that should be expected to be used in a real situation. And, no, you don't have to use it as it is trained... at least, not on a simple mechanical level. On other levels, absolutely.



K-man said:


> _Mmm! I think it's time we had another coffee! (Seriously, give me a call __ )_



Well... I do have this week off, mate...!



K-man said:


> There have been some interesting developments in the discussion. What it is doing, at least in the area of karate kata, is demonstrating the depth of some people's knowledge and the paucity of other's.  :asian:



Ha!



K-man said:


> What you see in the thousands of dojos with lines of students and what you see performed at its top level in world class kata competition is the 'Shu' form of kata. The difference is that you have the range of 'beginner' beginners right through to 'advanced' beginners. There are very few dojos that take kata to the next (Ha) level and a minuscule number training at the top (Ri) level. In fact, I would argue that you don't teach the Ri level at all. That is the level of self development.  :asian:



Yep, absolutely true that the "ri" level is a personal journey, and not something that can be rotely "taught"... in fact, that's a large part of the point of it. "Ha" is an interesting development level, though... and it's seen again and again throughout all martial forms.... including in multiple forms of karate. Thing is, it's very difficult to say who's at what point ("shu", "ha", or "ri") by observing them... especially when looking at something like karate kata, where things are so structured. But, if you know how to look at it, it's a little more obvious... and certainly should be from within the system, when sufficient experience has been gained. I'm sure if I put a group of Goju Ryu practitioners in front of yourself, for instance, and had them all demonstrate, say, Geki Sai, you'd be able to differentiate who is simply following their instructors teachings (Shu), who had found a way to make the kata "theirs" (Ha), and who demonstrated deeper understanding (Ri). It would be seen in the movement, the timing, the speed, the rhythm, and more. And all of this is to do with the training of the kata, not just the "learning of the sequence", which is really not "training" it.

That said, I'd suggest that, if there really is a lack of "ha" in dojos, then they simply aren't "training" the kata, and are just limiting themselves to "learning" the sequence, and thinking that's the same thing. It ain't. "Ha" is essential... without it, there's no martial art there. We might need to discuss this concept a little more in person....


----------



## TimoS (May 27, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> while a long string of solo movements can be a kata, it is not the definition of a kata. It's like saying that the definition of Italian food is spaghetti, rather than seeing that spaghetti is a form of Italian food, if that makes sense.


Yes it makes perfect sense. There are people who treat these kind of sets as kata, but they are wrong.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 27, 2013)

Himura has dealt with a fair bit, so I'm just going to deal with a few of the other things that leapt out at me.



GaryR said:


> This whole thing is becoming quite silly. If we remove the labels like &#8220;kata&#8221; from things, we are left with training methodologies and practices. These methodologies and practices can be analyzed based on their efficacy. People on these forums go the rounds on hundreds of pages on definitions, like &#8220;internal&#8221; etc. At the end of the day when gathered in a room people often go...oh yeah, we do something like that, but we call it X, not Y. The result can be the same, the aims can be the same, but the rhetoric differs.




You're right that this is getting a bit repetitive... but honestly, that's because you still keep making the same basic mistakes. Here's another one, where you seem convinced that the distinction is in the usage of the term (partially, but not entirely), instead thinking that, if we remove the terminology, we're left with the methodology, and would agree with you... uh, no. You have displayed constant misunderstanding of the methodology, which has led to your comments. 




GaryR said:


> I understand it is a subtle distinction, that is really my point. For the purposes of writing an article that applies to the masses, that distinction is irrelevant to me. In order to convey the message, the label is accepted as is so people can match what I am talking about with what people at large label it. If I had a dollar for every-time someone claimed to know what the meaning of &#8220;kata&#8221; was, I'd be a very rich man.




We'll come back to this. The idea that proper definitions are irrelevant to you when you're discussing other people's practices is, to me, gigantically arrogant, woefully irresponsible, and desperately lacking in ethics.




GaryR said:


> That is completely inaccurate. Evidenced by the fact I told you I would want to ask those depicted in the clips &#8220;why&#8221;. That is the most key question when looking at anyone&#8217;s training methods. The &#8220;why&#8221; matters so much more than the what for many reasons. P_leas save your &#8220;nuh-uh&#8221; comment, every dojo I've ever walked into, I have as several why questions, every clip I view, etc. comes with a &#8220;why&#8221; question. _
> 
> ..........
> 
> I agree completely, you must know the purpose/goal. I've stated this before.


 

Okay, if you have always applied such questions, the question is begged as to why you show so little understanding of such. So, to help you make your point, can you explain what the purpose of kata is? And, before you say "it depends on the kata", no it doesn't. Kata as a training methodology has a very distinct purpose.




GaryR said:


> Post 38 was from someone else and says only &#8220;Lol I just found that book tonight I've ordered it so il see how it goes, really excited by this want to take it as far as I can&#8221;
> 
> Perhaps you meant 37, so I'll snip what little substance I could find and discuss. Maybe we shall get somewhere.


 

Yep, you're right, post 37.




GaryR said:


> _You wrote--&#8220;Actually, kata teaches timing and distancing quite well, if you understand it properly. In fact, that's one of it's primary uses. It is not, however, designed to be a teaching platform for "basic footwork, movement, techniques and docrine".&#8221;_
> 
> Two person kata for sure should teach timing and distance. In fact I would say most two-person exercises should. I say most because there are some tactile sensitivity drills that don't have that primary goal or effect in mind.


 
Nope, all kata (martially speaking). Solo or paired.



GaryR said:


> I teach basic footwork outside of any pre-set form or pattern. I also teach basic mechanics outside such&#8212;for example, LHBF has what is called the &#8220;9-joint walk&#8221;, which is purely an exercise in mechanics training, and not a kata/form.



And? That's just saying you use a different training methodology... don't know if you noticed, but so do many, many others.... 




GaryR said:


> _You wrote--&#8221;Hmm, how to put this... Our kata (in fact, all Japanese kata) ARE the applications of the techniques. They are paired forms, with an attacking side (typically the more senior practitioner), and a defending side (although even that description is not entirely accurate...). There is no guesswork in terms of what this move is supposed to do, you can see it immediately... this throw is a throw, and you can tell because you've just thrown the opponent. This strike is a strike, and you can tell because you've just hit them, and so on. &#8220;_
> 
> So you say kata is not the teaching platform for techniques, but they &#8220;are the applications of the techniques&#8221;. So are you saying that doing &#8220;the applications of the techniques&#8221; is not part of the learning process? Are you saying practicing throwing the opponent etc, is not part of the learning process, or contributes to the learning process?


 

Yes, no, and you missed the point.




GaryR said:


> It still doesn't seem like you do. The article has no cited examples so it cannot have such discernment, it was a general critique of the practice of what many call kata. Again, if I had a dollar for every-time someone said they had the true meaning, I'd be rich. So in the context of what articles I write, and what popular labels I assign, I don't care what you think the exact definition ought to be.


 

See, now here's the real problem with you saying that you're not caring about the definition... you've decided that, no matter what a particular system is doing, if they call it kata you can apply your critique... while at the same time deciding you can apply your own opinion of what their methods should be focused on??? The only way you can apply a single value/criteria to judge things on is if they are all the same thing... and not caring if they are, just what certain people decide to label them as, means that you can't actually do it. This is what I meant when I said this approach was ethically bad, as well as deeply flawed.

I'll put it this way... if I decided to start teaching something based in, let's say, a few months of BJJ, some Escrima, and some Army Combatives, but called it Taiji (because I didn't understand the name), would it be right to accept that I was actually teaching Taiji? And therefore you could apply a value of proper Taiji methodology to what I was showing, even though it would be obvious that what I was doing wasn't the same thing at all? That's what you're saying here.




GaryR said:


> So you want me to continue to write so you can offer vague disagreements? How about instead of working to get &#8220;closer&#8221; to what you've been saying, you just say it? Yeesh.




No, Gary, I was offering you an opportunity to expand the conversation....




GaryR said:


> I'm glad I gave you a laugh! I am talking about application skill, I'm not an expert in what is authentic Ninjutsu. That said, I haven't seen any of it that impressed me much. I've touched hands with guys that trace directly to Steven Hayes and Masaaki Hatsumi for starters, are they legit? Why don't you link me to whom you believe to be authentic and the best example of skill? I'm not talking about sparring competitions, I'm talking about private sessions exchanging knowledge and testing skills.


 

Because that has no bearing on your lack of understanding of kata as a training method. You're basically trying to say that A = Z, when it's really not the case.




GaryR said:


> It is beside the point. Thus far I only have basic material on video. I haven't seen you move, do you have any video at all? You keep refusing to offer it, so I find it laughable you think you have such skill and yet refuse to demonstrate. I very much doubt you have ever touched hands with someone my level in my arts. Have you ever touched hands with Sam Chin, Luo de Xiu, Erle Montaigue, Wai Lun Choi, or anyone of the like? With the internal arts especially, feeling is believing, thus you could have no idea what your looking at. Perhaps we could make a deal to reimburse one another for plane tickets pending a match? I have friends in OZ, and there is a chance I'll be there in the next year or two, its one of my favorite places to visit. The US isn't a horrible place to visit either.


 

I also hope that isn't a challenge, Gary... If you do find yourself out my way, and want to contact me to visit, that's one thing... but I have no reason to meet you for a "match". And, honestly, you should be happy about that. But, more to the point, you're still equating the wrong things with each other, mainly as you're just applying your own personal values, without any knowledge or consideration of what kata training is actually for, or about.




GaryR said:


> Sure, but all too often Karate folks go from memorizing one to the next, it becomes rank fodder, and quantity, not quality. Since you seemingly do something vastly different than the majority, the critique is not your reality. Take your panties out of a bunch then!


 

Drop the insults, Gary, we're trying to remain civil here (personal challenges and all, it seems), remember... But, again, that's not a fault of kata as a training method. It's, if anything, a fault of the teacher/dojo in question... and, really, it's then removed from the argument I'm making. If your article was actually about that (which is what you seem to think it was, although the actual article itself doesn't reflect that), I'd have little argument, and would be lamenting the poor teaching. But, again, that's not a fault of kata itself... and to think it is is to not understand it at all.




GaryR said:


> They are called MARTIAL arts. If they are not about combat, what are they about, please enlighten me. Of course that is not their only benefit, but it is the reason for their existence as far as I am concerned, particularly my arts, I'm not a ninja historian, but I&#8217;m fairly sure combat/war/mercenary like reasons where the purposes for it.


 

See Himura's answer. And yes, your history is sadly lacking.




GaryR said:


> I'm not insisting one context is correct, you are. I'm simply saying what the majority call kata and am critiquing that. You are still arguing a straw man here.
> 
> &#8220;Depending on the intended reason&#8221;, yup, and in my critique I thought I made it clear that I was referencing to it in the context of combative use.


 

You're insisting the context is self defence. It's not. And you still haven't been able to identify what makes something kata, other than "a series of pre-set movements" and "what other people choose to call a kata", neither of which is really correct. Again, without understanding (or even properly defining) what kata is, you are in no position to critique anything.




GaryR said:


> You don't know what you're looking at. I've not seen a ninjutsu instructor in the world in person or on video (and I've seen plenty of video) I'd bet on against myself, or those whom I consider higher level Neijia guys. It's simply an inferior system. You still don't have a clip up, that speaks volumes, your a keyboard warrior insisting on superiority. Laughable.


 

Seriously, put down the Kool Aid, Gary... you're coming across as delusional. And I've put up 10 clips. The fact that they don't feature me is irrelevant, and if you understood what you'd been told, you'd see why. 




GaryR said:


> Like I said, then you aren't at a high enough level to see that a pre-arranged set of movements in not a beginners tool, and that other tools supersede kata later on. As far as I'm concerned many Karate systems end where Neijia arts being ,combative skill-wise, and that has been the observation of many karate instructors I have trained, the quote is not my own. Of course, if you define kata exactly how you like it then the point may not stand, but the latter one does.


 

Er, want to read that back? Are you saying that kata is NOT a beginners tool, or was that a typo? As for the rest, again, put down the Kool Aid.




GaryR said:


> One or two to focus on would certainly be better, as I said, quality over quantity. But that is not really the case at large now is it? Often when you step in the door the first thing you do is &#8220;kata&#8221;, hence my critique stands, back to the same circle...




The question there becomes "why is kata the first thing done in class?" There's a very good reason, and it's not that it's a beginners exercise (as, one more time, it isn't).




GaryR said:


> Well, we can agree to disagree, I think perhaps what you consider &#8220;done properly&#8221; means applies to 1%, again, not the articles audience.


 

I still think you're thinking of the wrong form of kata when talking with me, Gary...




GaryR said:


> There you go! Was it really that hard to spell something out? Why don't you define what you consider &#8220;tactical expressions&#8221;. Better yet, demonstrate as well.


 

It was already spelled out to you, Gary. I thought you were claiming that you were far more educated than I (or, at least, trying to imply it... ha!), did you really need things that blatant? As far as "tactical expressions", are you kidding that you'd need that explained??? But, if you want a demonstration... I already gave you 10 clips, which contain huge numbers of examples (6 clips worth, in fact...).




GaryR said:


> Ok, well, again, then leave your empty critiques at the door. Why don't you link me to such article you feel mirrors your views then?


 

See the Karl Friday quote Rich posted.




GaryR said:


> _Timos wrote--&#8220;But aren't the Chinese forms sort of the basis of karate kata? Or at the very least the Okinawan kata are heavily influenced by Chinese forms, i.e. long sequences of moves performed solo &#8220;_
> 
> _Chris wrote--&#8220;Yes, they are. And there are huge numbers of similarities...&#8221;_
> 
> Hmmm, both the origin, and a &#8220;huge&#8221; number of similarities? Yeah, I'm sure the perspective is completely off as you say, lol. Talk about special pleading.


 

No, no "special pleading"... just that your entire list of comments, your article, your arguments, and so on show that your understanding is superficial and lacking. Personally, I doubt TimoS suffers from the same issues.




GaryR said:


> Comprehension--&#8221;the act or action of grasping with the intellect&#8221;. In logic=&#8221;the totality of intentions, that is, properties or qualities that an object possesses.&#8221; Being aware of a term and comprehending it once known are different. I only speak a bit of Mandarin, not Japanese, nor are Japanese arts what I now practice, so I don't care to know / remember all of the terminology.


 

I really don't know how to express just how ironic this statement of yours is... firstly, you're responding to my pointing out a lack of comprehension of yours regarding my comments by giving me a definition of "comprehension"... and then go on to, again, completely fail to comprehend what you've been told. Couple this with you saying that you don't practice Japanese arts (anymore), or speak any Japanese, and therefore have no care to know or remember what the terminology is just makes me wonder how on earth you can justify attacking a Japanese form of training you are showing no comprehension of, and are saying you have no interest in knowing the genuine meaning of!




GaryR said:


> I don't think it a better or more congruent fashion, sorry. I also never said I was the only one that used those solutions. If you don't like the wiki definition, provide your own.


 

Again, you seem to have missed the comprehension of what I was saying....




GaryR said:


> Well, most people are not practicing that way, nor using my solutions, or the similar ones, so yeah, I do.




Are you genuinely that arrogant?




GaryR said:


> _I said--&#8221;Reading and comprehending are two different things. Curious-- what is your academic background, and your occupation, mate? &#8220;_
> 
> It is absolutely relevant. Your formal education level is likely material to your ability to comprehend these discussions and arguments. You have constantly missed what is being said, and you continue to fail to provide any appreciable detail.




And the irony abounds...




GaryR said:


> Despite typing a whole paragraph in response, you still did not answer the simple questions, what is your education level and occupation?


 

You're damn right I didn't answer the question, as it's bluntly irrelevant. My occupation is nothing to do with my martial training, nor is my education level. My martial education level, on the other hand, is relevant. And, from everything I've seen of you (your you-tube clips, your articles, your posts, and so on), it's rather beyond yours. Just sayin'....




GaryR said:


> Ok, sorry, it appears there were 9 lines, a few of which were saying what kata is not. You don't need a read on exactly what I think to simply define what you think kata is, it's aims, etc. If every author required an understanding of what the readers knew on the subject before writing, there would be no textbooks or the like. If people can learn physics and medicine etc, via text, your explanations on the purpose of kata etc, is surely doable. Nice attempt at an excuse though, pathetic.


 

Authors do have an understanding of their audience, though. That's what allows them to define and direct their writings. You're not doing well... I mean, what's your education and occupation? Not that it's relevant... unless you're an author, or a University Professor lecturing on Hoplology.... 




GaryR said:


> Martial = &#8220;Of relating to, or suggestive of war.&#8221; , &#8220;characteristic of or befitting a warrior&#8221;. Do you forget it was you who brought up the context of war? Let me remind you...&#8221;_including during the most intense times of war the country saw.&#8221; _No, please spare me the knowledge you only have by way of reading history books or blogs.


 

Which is completely removed and different to the idea of Army Combatives, Gary. Are you really missing what you're being told that badly?




GaryR said:


> No, I don't, appeal to tradition is not the same thing as post hoc. Amusing you use the full phrase, not the normal abbreviation, yet completely miss the definition. This goes back to why I asked your education level. Clearly, you have overestimated your own intellect / knowledge. Post Hoc has to do with the issue of causation (it's a causal fallacy). It says that because A occurred, then B occurred. The appeal to tradition is merely saying that because A is old or traditional, A is better. These are different fallacies all-together. Your quote below is the latter, even assuming for the sake of argument it's not, the two fallacies are not the same. Nice try though, this is solid evidence of your lack of intellect, education, and reading comprehension. Just think, it you are wrong about this (and you are), what else in this thread are you wrong about?




Yes, I'm aware of the differences between them, Gary, but as you missed what was said (I have never said that the reason for continuing it is specifically because it's traditional, but for other reasons), I thought I'd expand your idea to another (that, honestly, was closer to what you might have been aiming at).




GaryR said:


> Wow, still avoiding the heart of the demo question... I constantly asked for just Kata and eliminated bunkai in the last post. *Incredible! You think because you lack it, you are in a better position to critique it! So the same must be true of kata? If someone lacks true kata in their system they are in a better position to see what they &#8220;should be focused on&#8221; instead? Do you see how that statement negates nearly every single point you have made? *My BS flag just blew through the roof and is sailing through the air, you sir, are ridiculous.




And, again, you've missed the point. As I've said (a few times now), we don't have Bunkai as we don't need it. We have the applications, and can see directly what the reasons/effects/applications of the movements in our kata are... which makes it easy to see what the focus of Bunkai is. Not having any real experience in kata doesn't mean you understand it.




GaryR said:


> I did accept their definition, did you see an article I wrote titled whats wrong with Bunkai? No, you didn't. Did you see me argue back and forth with anyone on the meaning of the term, no you didn't.


 

Right... but you don't care to know or understand Japanese terms...




GaryR said:


> It's about you explaining and demonstrating, that's the point Chris. I want to see exactly what result you have achieved, what type of training YOU consider kata exactly, and have you answer for yourself, and your own material. The people in those clips are not on here arguing. We can't ask them &#8220;why&#8221; and discuss it with them, I'm not going to assume your are qualified to answer for them. You did NOT link me to a video of yourself, which is what I asked for.




You can ask me "why" in those clips.




GaryR said:


> In conclusion, like your snide and incorrect use of basic fallacy arguments, you are wrong about my understanding on the subject here. You refuse to answer my call for demonstrative evidence and detailed explanations of your &#8220;kata&#8221; and any other training methodologies, and results thereof. When I answered your arrogant conjecture with a request for such evidence and explanation, I was met with countless evasions, and a video quiz&#8212;to which I gave detailed reasons for being inadequate and too over-broad for this discussion.




Now, I thought you were supposed to be playing nice? One more time, you've been given the answers, but lack the experience to understand them, as well as lacking the basic desire to follow through on the answers you're being given. Go back to the clips. They were not posted without very real, and pertinent reasons for this discussion.

I'm really not kidding here, that's where your answers will begin. If you don't start there, you won't get anywhere.




GaryR said:


> My simple definition of Kata? As I said, a pre-arranged sequence involving one or more persons. As soon as the sequence varies or is dynamic I would call it a drill or &#8220;free-form&#8221; practice. The purpose? Whatever the practitioner says it is. Whether that particular &#8220;kata&#8221; is the best suited path to achieving that stated purpose I assess on a case-by-case basis. It's that simple really. Agree or disagree, I have no need or desire to debate the meaning of the term further beyond the scope of that definition. Now, if you care to show your kata or drill, or whatever, describe its goal, and show how that goal was achieved, you will at least have a modicum of credibility. But as it seems, in your 4000+ post history you haven't managed this, so I won't expect it now. I'll just leave it at the fact you are demonstrably a keyboard warrior, more interested in going page-after-page without more than a dozen substantive lines.


 

Yeah... that's wrong. On everything. Your definition of kata is lacking, your take on the difference between it and a drill is off base, your take on the very question of the purpose of kata is out, as is your belief... and, as for your take on me? Nope.




GaryR said:


> Unless and until you are going to explain your view in detail and provide clips, please Chris, don't bother to waste much more of your time responding. Go fight another war with your keyboard.




Clips have been provided, explanations have been given. You haven't understood them, as you've refused to accept that a clip that doesn't feature me might be your answer. Bluntly, get over your issues, and entertain the idea that I really have given you what you want already.



GaryR said:


> Zero wasn't mentioning kata specifically, save your straw man. What fantasy are you living in? Unless you are referring to the rules of physics et al, of course there is such a thing as combat with no rules. We choose to have ROE in war, but that is a choice, not a necessity. I consider it no rules when someone is attempting to kill or injure you with no regard for their method, level of damage, or engaging in any formalities, like dueling, etc. Talk about war when you have been there.



And, again, you miss the point of, well, everything... the context of Zero's comments, the context of the answer, the context of mine, and the realities of your answer. 



GaryR said:


> HA! Again I'll repeat this section of the last post--
> 
> Oh, and I've done more than spectate in a Japanese school, I've picked up a few BB's, and had very in-depth sessions post CMA with countless Karate instructors, so immersed I am.



So, if anything, it means you attended sub-standard schools. Again, nothing to do with the issues of kata.

Gary, I'm going to say this once more. Go to the clips I provided. Answer my questions about them. Then, we can get you some more detail. But until then, you're not going to understand what you're being told.


----------



## RTKDCMB (May 27, 2013)

K-man said:


> Wow! Am I glad you cherry picked.  I can only imagine the length of post if you hadn't.



That's a lot of cherries.


----------



## TimoS (May 27, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Personally, I doubt TimoS suffers from the same issues.


Oh I don't know about that. After all, I'm still learning stuff, so  I _know _that my understanding is still lacking :uhyeah:


----------



## GaryR (May 27, 2013)

Oh boy, this is getting extremely redundant.  Chris, you have managed to not really answer any of my questions, and are simply repeating the you don't get it statements.   






Chris Parker said:


> Himura has dealt with a fair bit, so I'm just going to deal with a few of the other things that leapt out at me.


 

 Perhaps I'll get to his statements later, not really into reading the word jumble right now. 




Chris Parker said:


> You're right that this is getting a bit repetitive... but honestly, that's because you still keep making the same basic mistakes. Here's another one, where you seem convinced that the distinction is in the usage of the term (partially, but not entirely), instead thinking that, if we remove the terminology, we're left with the methodology, and would agree with you... uh, no. You have displayed constant misunderstanding of the methodology, which has led to your comments.


 

 I simply don't know what methodology you personally assign the term.  Whatever it is, I assure you I understand, and have seen it before.  Like I said, if I had a dollar for every-time someone insisted their definition and understanding of Kata was correct I'd be a rich man.  I have no reason to believe yours is correct, and I'm not going to continue to play 1000 questions in an attempt to find your definition, either you care to define what you think it is, or you don't.   






Chris Parker said:


> We'll come back to this. The idea that proper definitions are irrelevant to you when you're discussing other people's practices is, to me, gigantically arrogant, woefully irresponsible, and desperately lacking in ethics.


 

No, it's not unethical to use the term in the way a vast majority of schools do, and critique it as such.  On the contrary, I would find it unethical to define the term how I personally see it, and apply my critique to what others call the practice based on that.  I would find that unfair, you do not.  




Chris Parker said:


> Okay, if you have always applied such questions, the question is begged as to why you show so little understanding of such. So, to help you make your point, can you explain what the purpose of kata is? And, before you say "it depends on the kata", no it doesn't. Kata as a training methodology has a very distinct purpose.




Again, more insistence I have no understanding, and in the same paragraph you have to ask my understanding, absurd. I understand that many people have different ideas of the purpose of kata, ranging from it teaches everything in the system, to it just teaches and refines principles of movement/mechanics, and fighting concepts.  The question as to why you think I show little understanding of such is not begged.  Begging the question does not mean to ask or lead to, it means to avoid, many misuse the term, so don't feel too bad.  






Chris Parker said:


> Nope, all kata (martially speaking). Solo or paired.


 

 You don't practice all of the same tactile sensitivity drills that I do, so you cannot say.  But no, timing is not one of the main goals in some of them. Believe it or not, you don't know-it-all, and have not done it all.  





Chris Parker said:


> See, now here's the real problem with you saying that you're not caring about the definition... you've decided that, no matter what a particular system is doing, if they call it kata you can apply your critique... while at the same time deciding you can apply your own opinion of what their methods should be focused on???  The only way you can apply a single value/criteria to judge things on is if they are all the same thing... and not caring if they are, just what certain people decide to label them as, means that you can't actually do it. This is what I meant when I said this approach was ethically bad, as well as deeply flawed.


 

 Ummm, no.  You still don't get it.  I ask the why behind their training.  Then I judge what they should be focused on in order to better achieve that goal.  Again, I'm not going to apply my own label and why to what they are doing, so I can't judge their practice through that lens, I think that unfair. We can agree to disagree then, no need to beat the horse to death here. 



Chris Parker said:


> I'll put it this way... if I decided to start teaching something based in, let's say, a few months of BJJ, some Escrima, and some Army Combatives, but called it Taiji (because I didn't understand the name), would it be right to accept that I was actually teaching Taiji? And therefore you could apply a value of proper Taiji methodology to what I was showing, even though it would be obvious that what I was doing wasn't the same thing at all? That's what you're saying here.


 

 Taiji is a specific style.  Kata is a generic term that applies across the board to countless arts.  Forms (which I mentioned also), expands the same basic term to Chinese and other arts.  So if you wanted to mix all of the above and create your own form, great, call it that.  Or call it a kata for all I care.  I'm not stuck on labels, and as I said, part of the reason I re-named what I do, is to avoid the whole that's not pure taiji or internal type arguments.  





Chris Parker said:


> No, Gary, I was offering you an opportunity to expand the conversation....


 

 You have failed to take that opportunity yourself.  I have given you my definition, it is you who have not reciprocated. 




Chris Parker said:


> also hope that isn't a challenge, Gary... If you do find yourself out my way, and want to contact me to visit, that's one thing... but I have no reason to meet you for a "match". And, honestly, you should be happy about that....[_yada yada yada, you don't get it]_


 

 Lol, I should be happy about that? OK, Chris, I don't think so, keep at the typing, it's apparently the limit of your ability to demonstrate your knowledge. If your not up for a real match, I am confident we could exchange ideas and get across our relative skills without anyone getting hurt, I'll buy the first round after-wards.  You will find I'm much nicer in person than online, I get along with most people quite well, agree or disagree on things.   





Chris Parker said:


> Drop the insults, Gary, we're trying to remain civil here (personal challenges and all, it seems), remember... But, again, that's not a fault of kata as a training method. It's, if anything, a fault of the teacher/dojo in question... and, really, it's then removed from the argument I'm making. If your article was actually about that (which is what you seem to think it was, although the actual article itself doesn't reflect that), I'd have little argument, and would be lamenting the poor teaching. But, again, that's not a fault of kata itself... and to think it is is to not understand it at all.


 

Apologies, the panties in a bunch was more in jest than an insult. You believe that every kata in every system is perfect, and is the perfect vehicle for those goals, this is wrong.  Get off your high horse Chris.  The article reflects what is happening, not your fairy-tale idea of every kata being perfectly designed.  




Chris Parker said:


> See Himura's answer. And yes, your history is sadly lacking.


 

 My history in Ninjutsu is most certainly lacking. Look at that, we agree on something!





Chris Parker said:


> You're insisting the context is self defence. It's not. And you still haven't been able to identify what makes something kata, other than "a series of pre-set movements" and "what other people choose to call a kata", neither of which is really correct. Again, without understanding (or even properly defining) what kata is, you are in no position to critique anything.


 

 I am free to define which context I want to view the efficacy of a training methodology through, thank you very much Chris.  In this case I chose to discuss kata as it makes a difference in fighting.  There is really no valid counter argument to this.  



Chris Parker said:


> Seriously, put down the Kool Aid, Gary... you're coming across as delusional. And I've put up 10 clips. The fact that they don't feature me is irrelevant, and if you understood what you'd been told, you'd see why.


 

 Delusional, no, just experienced, surely I have traveled more than you, and walked into exponentially more schools and touched hands with more people. You're not really telling me much Chris, you have admitted that already.  Really, these you don't understand comments are getting old, I get, you don't think I get it, yeesh. 





Chris Parker said:


> Er, want to read that back? Are you saying that kata is NOT a beginners tool, or was that a typo? As for the rest, again, put down the Kool Aid.





Whoops, it was a typo.  No kool aid, just the reality of experience, your free to prove me wrong at my expense Chris.  





Chris Parker said:


> The question there becomes "why is kata the first thing done in class?" There's a very good reason, and it's not that it's a beginners exercise (as, one more time, it isn't).


 

 Sure, it is the why.  To me it is a beginners exercise.  Have you stopped to think that most of your art may be considered a beginners exercise to me Chris? Or that what most Karateka are doing I consider to be beginner level respectively?  As I said, it has been observed that my material starts where others ends.  But you would have no reference point for that, there are not exactly that many people who can demo it, and you certainly haven't listed meeting or training with any of them. In fact, you avoided that question all-together. 





Chris Parker said:


> I still think you're thinking of the wrong form of kata when talking with me, Gary...


 

 As I said before, I've seen every form.  I'm not picturing you doing anything in particular, you haven't really described it now have you?





Chris Parker said:


> It was already spelled out to you, Gary. I thought you were claiming that you were far more educated than I (or, at least, trying to imply it... ha!), did you really need things that blatant? As far as "tactical expressions", are you kidding that you'd need that explained??? But, if you want a demonstration... I already gave you 10 clips, which contain huge numbers of examples (6 clips worth, in fact...).


 

 You admitted to botching the statement Chris.  As for tactical expressions, I don't NEED it explained, I want to know what YOU think it means.  For all I know, you are clueless.  The people in the clips are not here to discuss, you are.  




Chris Parker said:


> I really don't know how to express just how ironic this statement of yours is...


 

 I didn't write an article using that term Chris.  Ergo, it cannot show a lack of understanding.  Get a clue and read more carefully.  Wow.  




Chris Parker said:


> Are you genuinely that arrogant?


 

 Yes. But I prefer the term confident, and only to the point in which it is demonstrably warranted.  I used to be much more humble, but as the years go by, the more I just have to tell most people basically, no, you suck, let me show you why it sucks, and how to do better.  I try and do this more so in person than online, because online it can become an exercise in futility.  People such as yourself refuse to take advantage of technology and exchange ideas via video, which is an infinitely better medium for these topics. 




Chris Parker said:


> And the irony abounds...


 

 The irony is your call for detail on something you wish to define, yet fail to do.  




Chris Parker said:


> You're damn right I didn't answer the question, as it's bluntly irrelevant. My occupation is nothing to do with my martial training, nor is my education level. My martial education level, on the other hand, is relevant. And, from everything I've seen of you (your you-tube clips, your articles, your posts, and so on), it's rather beyond yours. Just sayin'....


 

 Still dodging the question and getting testy!  I think your education level and occupation has much to do with your ability to understand these discussions and convey your ideas properly.  Doing is one thing, analyzing, and communicating is another.  Moreover, I have no idea of your capacity to understand the biomechanics, physics, and neurophysiology of what is involved in combat and martial arts training.  You may very well be able to mimic what you have been taught, and repeat what you have been told, as you think every kata is perfect--but I've seen nothing to indicate your understanding goes beyond that.  Just sayin'




Chris Parker said:


> Authors do have an understanding of their audience, though. That's what allows them to define and direct their writings.


 

 Authors do not require a diatribe from every reader in order to write instructional text.  Students are often a blank slate, and gain plenty from textbooks.  This goes back to your educational background.  This concept seems to elude you, but it's very likely an excuse to not provide much substance in fear you may not be the one picking apart and critiquing.






Chris Parker said:


> You're not doing well... I mean, what's your education and occupation? Not that it's relevant... unless you're an author, or a University Professor lecturing on Hoplology....


 


 Sure, I'll answer the question I posed.  I have an A.S. in Avionics, a B.S. in Information Systems Technologies, and I also have a Doctorate of Jurisprudence--I was in the top of my class.  I also have an extensive Professional Military Education; Airman Leadership School, Officer Training School, SERE (AKA Spook) school, Flight instructor school, Interrogation training, Biological and chemical warfare certs, Weapons expert certs, CRM training, and the list goes on, but you get the idea...


 My informal education also goes beyond that:  my ex-fiance' was an MD, and for years I helped her study. I also co-taught with a neurophysiologist ,who taught me a lot, and finally, I had a roommate who had a PhD in physics, whom I also helped study. As for my occupation, I am an Attorney.   


 Your turn, what is your education level and occupation?  






Chris Parker said:


> Yes, I'm aware of the differences between them, Gary, but as you missed what was said (I have never said that the reason for continuing it is specifically because it's traditional, but for other reasons), I thought I'd expand your idea to another (that, honestly, was closer to what you might have been aiming at).


 

 Nice try Chris. You can't even admit when you are blatantly wrong!  You said do you seriously think that Im employing a post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning here?.  This was not trying to expand my idea, you were attacking my assertion that you were using an appeal to tradition fallacy.  No, it wasn't closer, and if you think it was you should explain, but you can't, because you were wrong, lol. Keep back-tracking though, this is getting amusing! 





Chris Parker said:


> And, again, you've missed the point. As I've said (a few times now), we don't have Bunkai as we don't need it. We have the applications, and can see directly what the reasons/effects/applications of the movements in our kata are... which makes it easy to see what the focus of Bunkai is. Not having any real experience in kata doesn't mean you understand it.


 

 If I've missed the point, it is because you have poor writing, and cannot explain it.  I quoted you mostly.  For crying out loud, I've also repeatedly related that I understand you don't have Bunkai! It seems you missed the question mark at the end of my sentence--of course not having Kata in your system doesn't mean you understand it! I was applying your quote and reasoning re bunkai to kata to point out the irony.  Get it yet? 




Chris Parker said:


> You can ask me "why" in those clips.


 

 I've repeatedly asked you to detail your why behind what you consider Kata.  Go ahead, pick a clip and explain why.  




Chris Parker said:


> Now, I thought you were supposed to be playing nice? One more time, you've been given the answers, but lack the experience to understand them, as well as lacking the basic desire to follow through on the answers you're being given. Go back to the clips. They were not posted without very real, and pertinent reasons for this discussion.
> 
> I'm really not kidding here, that's where your answers will begin. If you don't start there, you won't get anywhere.


 

 I didn't think this was all that insulting, sorry,  just being factual: _In conclusion, like your snide and incorrect use of basic fallacy arguments, you are wrong about my understanding on the subject here. You refuse to answer my call for demonstrative evidence and detailed explanations of your kata and any other training methodologies, and results thereof. When I answered your arrogant conjecture with a request for such evidence and explanation, I was met with countless evasions, and a video quizto which I gave detailed reasons for being inadequate and too over-broad for this discussion._ 


 I have plenty of experience to understand the efficacy and benefits of the training depicted in those clips.  I don't need answers on them.   


You still don't seem to get my position re; the video's, let me repeat what I've said on it, and you can stop asking-


---------It's about you explaining and demonstrating, that's the point Chris. I want to see exactly what result you have achieved, what type of training YOU consider kata exactly, and have you answer for yourself, and your own material. The people in those clips are not on here arguing. We can't ask them why and discuss it with them, I'm not going to assume your are qualified to answer for them. You did NOT link me to a video of yourself, which is what I asked for.  


I'll reiterate--"I don't have the time to survey your 4000+ posts--but if it even exists, perhaps you could link me to a video(s) where you demonstrate what you consider real Kata and Bunkai? If not, how about you create one? Every cell phone has a decent enough video camera these days."

You have time to mine for clips and post lengthy and vacuous critiques, yet you can't manage to post a video of yourself and any detail on what you consider to be real kata, the purpose of it, and real bunkai. Pathetic.


Yes son, pathetic--epically pathetic. Im not claiming anything, its a fact--you have not provided a clip of yourself doing any kata, or demonstrating the intended result. You have over 4000 posts that likely display the same level of arrogance and certitude that you are correct, yet you couldnt link me to a single clip of your primary training vehicle [in which you perform]  and a detailed explanation of such? 

Apparently you didnt understand my point the first time, so Ill repeatI'm not going to comb through a bunch of clips and tell you why or why not I think they in whole or in part qualify as "Kata". I could really care less what they specifically call the training methods. I am not about to quibble over a definition--if they call it Kata, I'm going to critique it using that definition and practice, not superimpose my own first 


Lets try this again. Answer what you like, its a free internet after all, but if you only want to answer two, #1 and #3 would be nice, and if you only want to answer onedo #3 for a good starting point of discussion. If youre not going to provide #3 dont even bother to respond, we will just have to agree to disagree, and I will assume you are just full of hot air and a pathetic keyboard warrioryour choice: 

1) Provide a detailed explanation on what you believe the correct practice of kata entails and it's purpose (and what others are misunderstanding and why).

2) Why kata is flawless and the best way of achieving the aforementioned goals.

3) Provide video of yourself performing the categories of Kata, and video of you utilizing such skills in a simulated attack situation (even if not full power). State briefly the aim(s) of each kata before doing it. _
---------------------------------------_



Chris Parker said:


> Yeah... that's wrong. On everything. Your definition of kata is lacking, your take on the difference between it and a drill is off base, your take on the very question of the purpose of kata is out, as is your belief... and, as for your take on me? Nope.


 

 Ok, so what is your definition then?  How is it off base?  Go ahead, I'm waiting. I'm curious, how many schools do you think would agree with my definition?




Chris Parker said:


> Clips have been provided, explanations have been given. You haven't understood them, as you've refused to accept that a clip that doesn't feature me might be your answer. Bluntly, get over your issues, and entertain the idea that I really have given you what you want already.


 

 Clips of people who are not here to answer for them, and not the clips I've requested.  As I said, I understand what I need to from those clips, you have no clue about that, as I have said nothing on the matter.  You have admitted you really haven't provided an explanation, which is it Chris, go ahead and quote yourself with this explanation and complete answer...Have you ever stopped to think you haven't already said anything new to me? You have not provided any new insight or knowledge here.  




Chris Parker said:


> And, again, you miss the point of, well, everything... the context of Zero's comments, the context of the answer, the context of mine, and the realities of your answer.


 

 Ah, here we go again, your answer to everything, more conclusory conjecture, nice.




Chris Parker said:


> Gary, I'm going to say this once more. Go to the clips I provided. Answer my questions about them. Then, we can get you some more detail. But until then, you're not going to understand what you're being told.


 

 Chris, I'm only going to go through this once more.  First, see the above quotes re videos.  Now again Chris, it's not up to me to define the goals / expected results of YOUR kata practice, only you can do that.   


 Chris, nearly your entire post is a big nuh-uh, you don't get it.  I admit I don't fully get what YOUR kata practice results are intended to be, exactly what you do, and why, that is for you to decide, not me.  With an explanation and demonstration I can however discuss and debate how and why those methodologies are, or are not the best way to achieve the stated goals.  


 If you want to discuss a clip, do so, tell me how it relates to your practice, why you think they are doing what they are doing, and why or why not it is useful.  As the clip will be of someone else not here to answer, I will still not be able to know if you are correct as to the why or much else from their perspective.  I've given my definition on the matter, right or wrong, according to you, that's that.

 If you want the discussion to move on, you will have to do the defining.  Like I said, you are quite the arrogant soul, especially given your 4000+ posts and refusal to provide any video of yourself despite how correct you think you are, and how much better than others you believe yourself to be.  It's amazing really.  Again, I challenge you to provide video of YOURSELF, otherwise you can say nope all you like, but the evidence demonstrates you are only a keyboard warrior afraid to show himself on film.   


 Best,


 G


----------



## jks9199 (May 27, 2013)

*Admin Note:

Thread locked, pending review.

jks9199
Asst. Administrator
*


----------

