# Does one's skill flow from the kata?



## AlwaysTraining (Jan 7, 2006)

I asked an old shotokan sensei about the usefulness of kata.  She said it is from the kata that your fighting techniques should come.  She added that if you remain true to the tradition and focus/study the kata, your karate will be far more advanced than if you merely focus on combos and sparing.  She said focusing on combos and the like will make you a slave to those techniques.  What are everyone's thoughts on this?


----------



## Danny T (Jan 8, 2006)

AlwaysTraining said:
			
		

> I asked an old shotokan sensei about the usefulness of kata. She said it is from the kata that your fighting techniques should come. She added that if you remain true to the tradition and focus/study the kata, your karate will be far more advanced than if you merely focus on combos and sparing. She said focusing on combos and the like will make you a slave to those techniques. What are everyone's thoughts on this?


 
Just because someone is old it doesnt make them correct.
Just because someone is advanced it doesnt make them correct.
Just because someone is an instructor it doesnt make them correct.

I tend to associate forms as a Sears Carpenter Tool Catalog. I can peruse the catalog every day. I can know where every tool is and how to get to that part of the catalog, But that doesnt make me someone who can use the tools in the manner they are designed for. I can order the tools, have them in my tool box, and know where each one is and what it is for. I can open the box every day and touch and act like I am using the tools. I can plug in the saw and turn it on as well as the drills. I can hold the hammer in my hand and whip it around in the air like Im driving nails but until I actually use them in the manner they are designed for I will never be a carpenter. Just because I have the catalog doesnt mean I can build a house.

Kata (forms) are the catalogs of movements, positions, and transitions. That is all. It is not fighting. It is not the use of the catalog which will make you effective. Nor is it the drills. They will help, certainly. What will make it work is your working in the environment you want to function. Working kata will make one very good at kata not fighting. Working on drills and combinations along will only make one good at drills. You have got to spar. Spar to learn how to manipulate timing, distance, rhythm, and cadence against someone who is aggressively resisting you, attacking, and counter attacking. Only then will you find out what is useful to you and when it is useful.


Now I believe sparring must be controlled and at first what one is wanting to train must be isolated. I want to work on defending and counter attacking off a reverse roundhouse kick. My training partner will first start by kicking at random times only the reverse roundhouse. As I become proficient in defending and/or countering my partner will start throwing other kicks and punches at a speed I can handle to set up the reverse roundhouse. I learn to find his timing, to start to manipulate distance, and my timing in-order to prevent his attack or to be in a position to counter-attack. This should be done will all aspects of punches, elbows, knees, kicks, and weapons, it you use them. Then start some free sparring and do it against as many different persons you are able. Also do it against multiple partners.

Kata will never prepare you to actually use the movements and positions at real time against a fully resisting opponent who continues to press the attack.

Danny Terrell


----------



## Henderson (Jan 8, 2006)

I can see already that this is going to turn into a pro/anti-kata debate.  These never end well, because usually both sides are too short sighted to learn from each other.  Those who think kata is everything are fools.  Those who claim kata is nothing, are even bigger fools.  I will sit back and enjoy the fireworks.  Pass the popcorn please.

Respects,

Frank


----------



## green meanie (Jan 8, 2006)

opcorn:


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 8, 2006)

i think i am going to completely disagree with Danny T on kata's usefulness. This is usually a viewpoint by someone who is not really familiar with the uses of kata. (no offense, Danny)
i am also going to note that sparring is a contest and not real fighting.
techniques teach principle....kata teach principle and form.
If you study an art that contains kata.....those forms are the keys to knowing _and_ understanding the art.
well rounded martial practitioners do not ignore any aspect of their training.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 8, 2006)

Learning forms is crucial to fighting. It ingrains moves and techniques into muscle memory. You may not use each move or technique exactly in the sequence performed in the form, but you will find movements and techniques coming out in isolated pieces as needed. Forms must be done over and over again and with the understanding of each application in every part of the form. If you just do forms with no understanding of the application behind each move then it won't help you much.


----------



## Gemini (Jan 8, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> i think i am going to completely disagree with Danny T on kata's usefulness. This is usually a viewpoint by someone who is not really familiar with the uses of kata. (no offense, Danny)
> i am also going to note that sparring is a contest and not real fighting.
> techniques teach principle....kata teach principle and form.
> If you study an art that contains kata.....those forms are the keys to knowing _and_ understanding the art.
> well rounded martial practitioners do not ignore any aspect of their training.


I've tried three or four times to add something to this because I don't like posting "I agree"....only to erase it. It's direct, to the point and reflects someone who understands the purpose of the kata. So...

I agree


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 8, 2006)

:asian: thanks


----------



## AlwaysTraining (Jan 8, 2006)

I agree with Black Cat and Sil Lum.  Now, I don't deny that sparing is useful, but only to a point.  Like Black Cat said, it's a contest... not a fight.  It certainly does aid in the development of one's timing and distance judgement, but I believe it to be limited in it's ability to aid even those, because it's a controlled fight.  I must admit, I would have to favor kata over all else.  The essence of a style is in it's forms.  Like what was said above, understand the forms and you will capture what makes the style what it is.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 8, 2006)

I agree that kata is the heart of Karate. It is essential to understanding the art. However, much of what I have seen that is called "kata" now-a-days seems to be modern dance routines with a martial art flair. The old basic (some might say boring) kata are where the art is at, not the modern gymnastic spectacles seen at many tournements these days.


----------



## Henderson (Jan 8, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> I agree that kata is the heart of Karate. It is essential to understanding the art. However, much of what I have seen that is called "kata" now-a-days seems to be modern dance routines with a martial art flair. The old basic (some might say boring) kata are where the art is at, not the modern gymnastic spectacles seen at many tournements these days.


 
Exactly!  Some made-up routine to the theme from The Lion King is NOT kata!  Thank you.

Frank


----------



## Danny T (Jan 8, 2006)

Skill comes from doing the movements in real time against someone really resisting. I understand the usefulness of forms. I didnt say forms are un-useful. I use them in my classes and teach several different arts which use them. However, I dont feel my doing forms or anyone else doing them will make one skillful in a fight.
I can learn all the form needed in order to swim. I can practice day after day breathing and making all the movements in the air I can have great form and position. However until I get into the water, I am not swimming.

I understand your disagreement with me, it is ok. Forms are an important part of training. Yes, I agree. Drills are very important also. Some one stated kata ingrains movement and technique into muscle memory. I agree whole heartedly with this. It does it so well that it hinders many practitioners. The moves are so ingrained that when the opponent does something different or in the wrong way the kata practitioner does the same move they have working over and over exactly the way the kata did. Problem is, it is now exactly the wrong move. Many athletes work form, golf, tennis, shot-put throwers, discus throwers, the list is long. Take a golf player. He/she can work their stance, their backswing, their fore-ward swing, the follow through over and over with great form. They can be smooth and have the proper weight transfer but until they actually address the ball and hit it with the club they are not playing golf. A baseball batter can work his batting form for hours on end day after day but until he get into the batters box against a pitcher throwing the ball in a manner to prevent him for getting a good hit. He is not a batter. Will working the form help once they have the timing down for their swing assuring the ball is hit properly yes. But the skill they have of swinging the club or bat will not be the same skill or ability another has if the other has actually been hitting the ball! Football players work their forms for blocking and tackling. The spend time on the blocking and tackling sleds but then they spend more time actually practicing blocking and tackling against a real person who is trying to block or not get tackled. Now Why would they do that if the form is more important. Airline Pilots practice flying in a simulator, I have had practice in a simulator but I promise you Do Not Want To Fly With Me! I am not a pilot.

Kata/Forms do have their place in training but I place far more importance on actually using the movements in the environment one will actually have to function in. Kata does not address timing, distance and rhythm. It doesnt address the pressure the opponent places on the practitioner. It doesnt address you getting hit or kicked and having to continue. It doesnt address the actual act of being attacked by multiply opponents at the same time. It does address, form, position, stance, structure, movement, transitions, and introduces many concepts one can possibly use against another.




> Kata teaches principles.


 Principles are the rules which govern the movements of the system and the proper use of the principles allows the practitioner the ability to create techniques as needed. Ok give me an example of kata teaching principle vs kata using principle for its movements.



> concerning sparring. It certainly does aid in the development of one's timing and distance judgement, but I believe it to be limited in it's ability to aid even those, because it's a controlled fight. I must admit, I would have to favor kata over all else.


 
So kata isnt controlled and you would take it over learning to be able to control or manipulate timing and distance? Kata is far more controlled than any sparring. Why the kata practitioner does the same movements each time he does a particular kata, right? Sparring is controlled somewhat or should be. However, at the higher levels of sparring one doesnt know what will be thrown or when. A roundhouse kick may be high or low and the practiced punch from kata coming from the left hand may not be available therefore cant be utilized at any one particular moment. That wonderful punch, punch, turn, block, kick movement one has practiced over and over in kata suddenly never materializes against a live opponent.

Again I agree Kata has a place and usefulness however, I do not feel it is the most important unless the practitioner is an art or forms practitioner. 

Danny Terrell


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 8, 2006)

here is the short reply to your post.
the way you describe the usefulness of a kata is by practicing that which is obvious.
this to me signifies a novices take on kata.
this in no way means i think that you are a novice. there are many people that have been practicing martial arts for many years longer than i have, that have still not looked at the elements that lie beneath the surface.
understanding kata includes the big picture and being able to read between the lines.

http://www.kenpotalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=646


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jan 8, 2006)

As to what the lady instructor said I belive that she had most likely reached a stage in her training whe she truly felt the flow of the movment within the techniques and most likely knew she could flow form what she ws doing into something else whith out thinking about it.
There comes a time in the doing of a form (for some people) where time and space seem to mean nothing and they ( as the saying goes) become one with the form.  Not saying this happens to everyone or that it happnes to one person all the time but it is a moment when the body, mind,spirt all seem to join with in the movement of the form.
Think she may also have been hinting that there is more to some of the old katas than first is seen on taught


----------



## Wes Tasker (Jan 8, 2006)

The way I teach, forms make up about one third of the training. One third are drills, and one third is sparring. Forms give you the principles, structures, mechanics, etc. of the system. With regards to what Mr. Terrell said-



> Principles are the rules which govern the movements of the system and the proper use of the principles allows the practitioner the ability to create techniques as needed. Ok give me an example of kata teaching principle vs kata using principle for its movements.


 
I think this question is non sequitor as forms have to teach principles etc. as they manifest in a technique, which is an example of a greater principle, mechanic etc. All forms, techniques, etc. teach principles and mechanics and structures - but they have to do it through examples. The mistake is not seeing through the "example" to the underlying teachings.

The forms, techniques, etc. give you the tools. Drills that vary in predicitabilty and risk give you the venue to use these tools and gain confidence in them through various types of scenarios. Then sparring gives you the next step of using the tools in a more "free" environment. I find that if people don't drill, they will resort to what works for them in sparring and rarely try something new. People who just drill will often fall apart in sparring. And people who just spar and don't drill and don't have forms to draw from or some type of index towards their system - will often times not have the "tool kit" to deepen their applications. And people who just do forms will never get the chance to start actualizing what they know from the forms. Forms, techniques, etc. have a wealth of things to teach, but only if followed through with drills and some type of sparring to start functionalizing the inherent principles etc. that they contain.

-wes tasker


----------



## Danjo (Jan 8, 2006)

Wes Tasker said:
			
		

> The way I teach, forms make up about one third of the training. One third are drills, and one third is sparring. Forms give you the principles, structures, mechanics, etc. of the system.
> 
> The forms, techniques, etc. give you the tools. Drills that vary in predicitabilty and risk give you the venue to use these tools and gain confidence in them through various types of scenarios. Then sparring gives you the next step of using the tools in a more "free" environment. I find that if people don't drill, they will resort to what works for them in sparring and rarely try something new. People who just drill will often fall apart in sparring. And people who just spar and don't drill and don't have forms to draw from or some type of index towards their system - will often times not have the "tool kit" to deepen their applications. And people who just do forms will never get the chance to start actualizing what they know from the forms. Forms, techniques, etc. have a wealth of things to teach, but only if followed through with drills and some type of sparring to start functionalizing the inherent principles etc. that they contain.
> 
> -wes tasker


 
I agree with this completely. Forms are what preserves the art, drills give you timing and enhance your reflexes, and sparring helps you put it all together. Very well put.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 8, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> here is the short reply to your post.
> the way you describe the usefulness of a kata is by practicing that which is obvious.
> this to me signifies a novices take on kata.
> this in no way means i think that you are a novice. there are many people that have been practicing martial arts for many years longer than i have, that have still not looked at the elements that lie beneath the surface.
> understanding kata includes the big picture and being able to read between the lines.


 

I would say you are using Kata esoterically. I am using the kata as a list or catalog. We all know or should know intrinsic of kata all movement, posture, and transition has multiple connotations, each being dependent upon one's relationship with the opponent, spatially as well as kinetically. Within these connotations are the simple as well as the often so called secret techniques_.(I don't believe in secret techniques, they are all there hidden in plain view.)_ The empty hand as well as many of the weapon aspects also. However, simply doing Kata one will never see the implied possibilities. Associated drills must be utilized also. Im certain this is done. However, drills are not kata, or at least in my opinion. In one of the systems I teach the first form appears to be only a hand and structure form. It is the lowest level form for the beginner yet at the highest level in the system the very same form is the most advanced. Yet it is only a catalog or listing of the positions implying much more. The movements of any form are only that movement. What is possible within the movement is the treasure. I understand this. I would even be so bold as to say I could watch most any kata and give some detailed applications of the movements. They may or may not be what any one systems kata may be attempting to display but within the movement I can give a possibility. I say possibility because the techniques are not absolute but are based upon the circumstances. This is within any kata. Again that is the treasure of the kata. If the practitioner is taught properly they will be able to see and understand the implication quickly. Once that is done we drill, drill, and spar, returning to the form only as a reminder or reference of possibilities. There are Forms, Drills, and Applications and more often than not the applications don't look like the forms or the drills. Understanding the applications and being able to perform them in real time against a resisting opponent is not the same thing. Kata, in my opinion will never train a person to function with a high level of performance in a combat situation. Having an understanding of principles, you know how to apply them for the creation of technique. Great. That is what your training should help you with. Can you do it at real time under the pressure and stress of physical combat? Maybe I have only been associated with novice practitioners. I find the ability to function in combat comes from experience. Other than actually going out and fighting or stepping into a sport fight arena, the best thing to get expeience is to spar.

Danny Terrell


----------



## Danny T (Jan 8, 2006)

Hi Wes, Hope all is well with you.



			
				Wes Tasker said:
			
		

> With regards to what Mr. Terrell said-
> 
> I think this question is non sequitor as forms have to teach principles etc. as they manifest in a technique, which is an example of a greater principle, mechanic etc. All forms, techniques, etc. teach principles and mechanics and structures - but they have to do it through examples. The mistake is not seeing through the "example" to the underlying teachings.


I can be a bit anal at times. So please take this with a grain of salt. I understand what you are saying, however, I don't feel forms can teach. An instructor or teacher can impart knowledge through the use of forms, and an individual with some knowledge, insight, and an open mindness can use forms to help gain a higher level of understanding but (here is my analness) forms themselves cannot teach. I don't want to get into a discussion about the symantics. I do understand. I just don't want to. LOL!



> The forms, techniques, etc. give you the tools. Drills that vary in predicitabilty and risk give you the venue to use these tools and gain confidence in them through various types of scenarios. Then sparring gives you the next step of using the tools in a more "free" environment. I find that if people don't drill, they will resort to what works for them in sparring and rarely try something new. People who just drill will often fall apart in sparring. And people who just spar and don't drill and don't have forms to draw from or some type of index towards their system - will often times not have the "tool kit" to deepen their applications. And people who just do forms will never get the chance to start actualizing what they know from the forms. Forms, techniques, etc. have a wealth of things to teach, but only if followed through with drills and some type of sparring to start functionalizing the inherent principles etc. that they contain.


 
I agree. So does your skill flow from the form? I believe that was the question. In my opinion, No. Does form help? Yes. I feel martial skill comes from doing the associated drills and sparring. Not from the form. That is unless one is a forms practitioner. Then doing the drills will only help with the form.

Danny Terrell


----------



## MJS (Jan 8, 2006)

AlwaysTraining said:
			
		

> I asked an old shotokan sensei about the usefulness of kata. She said it is from the kata that your fighting techniques should come. She added that if you remain true to the tradition and focus/study the kata, your karate will be far more advanced than if you merely focus on combos and sparing. She said focusing on combos and the like will make you a slave to those techniques. What are everyone's thoughts on this?


 
Kata, like everything, has its place.  It is however, one piece of the puzzle.  To say that kata is all that needs to be done in order to be able to fight, is IMO, incorrect.  Sparring, along with the other aspects of the arts, need to be drilled as well.  

Mike


----------



## Danjo (Jan 8, 2006)

Danny T said:
			
		

> I agree. So does your skill flow from the form? I believe that was the question. In my opinion, No. Does form help? Yes. I feel martial skill comes from doing the associated drills and sparring. Not from the form. That is unless one is a forms practitioner. Then doing the drills will only help with the form.


 
I think that they do flow from the forms *in part. *They also flow from drills and sparring.


----------



## Wes Tasker (Jan 8, 2006)

Danny-

Everything is good here, likewise - I hope all is well with you.  Seeing as you said you don't want to get into a discussion regarding the semantics of our approaches, I won't reply to your points.  I guess it's safe to say that we have differing opinions on the ultimate "role" of forms in training.  And our own peculiar "speech acts" to express ourselves.  Take care.

-wes tasker


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 8, 2006)

Danny T said:
			
		

> *1.**I would say you are using Kata esoterically*.
> *2.I am using the kata as a list or catalog.*
> *3.We all know or should know intrinsic of kata all movement, posture, and transition has multiple connotations, each being dependent upon one's relationship with the opponent, spatially as well as kinetically.* Within these connotations are the simple as well as the often so called secret techniques_.(I don't believe in secret techniques, they are all there hidden in plain view.)_ The empty hand as well as many of the weapon aspects also. However, simply doing Kata one will never see the implied possibilities. Associated drills must be utilized also. Im certain this is done. However, drills are not kata, or at least in my opinion.
> *4.In one of the systems I teach the first form appears to be only a hand and structure form. It is the lowest level form for the beginner yet at the highest level in the system the very same form is the most advanced.*
> ...


 
1. i wouldnt call the way i do it "esoteric". Kata has many colours and it is important to explore all aspects of it. it teaches the things that are needed for creating good habits, under a knowledgable teacher of course. Looking at kata and being able to come up with application is the tip of the iceberg. 
2. kata or forms can be a list. but one could just as easily break the kata down to their specific techniques and do away with the forms altogether.
for instance, if i am a karate practitioner, i could just as easily break down pinan shodan into gedan barai, oi-zuki, shuto, age uke and uraken tsuki. there is the start of my list for individual techniques. if i were to practice them as such.....i might develop some really good power and form with each individually, but my ability to transition and combine would suffer immensely.
3. when one first starts to learn forms it is important to forget about imagining an opponent or learning the "hidden" aspects(IMO that is). this leads to forgetting proper form, and that is what a kata is really about. A person needs to learn how to move by themselves before they can really apply it to a situation that involves another person. it would be kind of like me teaching someone how to write words but leaving out the part about sentence structure and then telling them to write a book (out would like something come it this).
4. that is the funny thing about kata.......the better you get, the less you find out you know about even the simplest form.
5. it may be just movement.....but movement is the heart of martial arts.
6. if someone tells me they understand the application but then they cant put it into action.....im seeing someone who is telling me they dont understand the application.
7. well.....you are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 9, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> As to what the lady instructor said I belive that she had most likely reached a stage in her training whe she truly felt the flow of the movment within the techniques and most likely knew she could flow form what she ws doing into something else whith out thinking about it.
> There comes a time in the doing of a form (for some people) where time and space seem to mean nothing and they ( as the saying goes) become one with the form. Not saying this happens to everyone or that it happnes to one person all the time but it is a moment when the body, mind,spirt all seem to join with in the movement of the form.
> Think she may also have been hinting that there is more to some of the old katas than first is seen on taught


 
That was my take on the situation. Just because she emphasized the importance of kata does NOT mean that she is unaware of MMA and the UFC - simply that she has aquired a level of depth and experience that allow her deeper insights than the average 19 year old who dreams of fighting in the next UFC. Kata, good kata, at least, is full of lessons for a student. Does this mean that it is a complete substitute for getting on the mat with a resisting opponent - of course not! The two are not mutually exclusive, either.

Why does it have to be one way or the other (to not kata or to kata)? How about a balance between the two, forms and sparring?


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Jan 9, 2006)

In all the years I've played trombone, I've never encountered an 8 note scale in a piece of music; however, having practiced countless scales, I was well prepared whenever I got a new chart.

Kata is the same kind of thing.


----------



## Henderson (Jan 9, 2006)

God, I love this place!  The analogies are priceless!  Whether I agree with them or not, somebody always comes up with a new way to compare what we're discussing.

Respects,

Frank


----------



## MJS (Jan 9, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> That was my take on the situation. Just because she emphasized the importance of kata does NOT mean that she is unaware of MMA and the UFC - simply that she has aquired a level of depth and experience that allow her deeper insights than the average 19 year old who dreams of fighting in the next UFC. Kata, good kata, at least, is full of lessons for a student. Does this mean that it is a complete substitute for getting on the mat with a resisting opponent - of course not! The two are not mutually exclusive, either.
> 
> Why does it have to be one way or the other (to not kata or to kata)? How about a balance between the two, forms and sparring?


 
Good point Jon.  I suppose its all how one reads that first post.  When I first read it, I took it as she was saying that you only needed to focus on kata and that will provide all the secrets.  However, she could have meant that in addition to the other things, also focus on the kata.

Mike


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 9, 2006)

> It does it so well that it hinders many practitioners. The moves are so ingrained that when the opponent does something different or in the wrong way the kata practitioner does the same move they have working over and over exactly the way the kata did. Problem is, it is now exactly the wrong move.



I completely disagree with this. Again, it goes back to the understanding of forms.




> In all the years I've played trombone, I've never encountered an 8 note scale in a piece of music; *however, having practiced countless scales, I was well prepared whenever I got a new chart.*
> 
> Kata is the same kind of thing.



_This _is what it's all about (Bold mine.)


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jan 10, 2006)

a kata dose not teach  (true people teach)  but one can learn from a karta just as on learns from a combination or one step   I think the lady said that people can become slaves of a technique if they do not do forms.  I belive she implied that if you pactice movement/tech/one step  and only do it the same way every time you may not be able to varry it when the time comes
I think most of agree that kata is only one part of any art and that the whole art is composed of many different parts to make a whole.

Now I know that in todays world  techniques  ( no matter what you call them) are taught as a quick fix  so a student can learn self defence in a hurry.  It takes years of training and study to find more than what is shown on the surface of some foms. Techniques are also a way for the modern instructor to pad what he is teaching so it looks like there is more to a system then sparring and forms and todays students always want to think they are learning something new  and want to be spoon fed techniques not have to look for them .


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 10, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Good point Jon. I suppose its all how one reads that first post. When I first read it, I took it as she was saying that you only needed to focus on kata and that will provide all the secrets. However, she could have meant that in addition to the other things, also focus on the kata.
> 
> Mike


 
You're right, it could have gone either way depending upon the context. I read from it (perhaps due to my own viewpoint) that she was just one more Karate Sensei tired of being told that Katas are no good and that the UFC and BJJ is everything.

However, there still are some out there who _do_ think that Kata is _everything_ and not just the powerful training tool it can be. Probably we'd have to have been there to know which way she stood.


----------



## AlwaysTraining (Jan 10, 2006)

Allow me to clarify.  Based on what I know of this woman, I believe she thinks that all aspects of training are equally important, to include kata.  However, a deep and profound understanding of the kata and all of the movements contained within will propel the practitioner to a much higher level of understanding and in turn make him/her a greater fighter.


----------



## jujutsu_indonesia (Jan 12, 2006)

Well. Imagine this. Back then in Okinawa there were no DVD players, no VHS videos and many karate students were illiterate peasants.

Amongst ancient Asian people, especially amongst the illiterates, it is well known that song, poetry and dance are the usual form of communications to pass common wisdom to the next generations.

Karate kata is basically a form of dance, and it is also a way to teach the entire system and its traditions to the next generations. (somehow song and poetry are less effective as a medium to pass Karate knowledge    )

You can kick, punch, block and fight effectively without Kata, no doubt about it, but it won't be Karate


----------



## Zero (Apr 22, 2007)

BlackCatBonz said:


> here is the short reply to your post.
> understanding kata includes the big picture and being able to read between the lines.
> 
> The big picture is always who wins the fight - be it in the ring or on the street - really when it comes to martial arts (arts of war/fighting) that's all there is to it.
> ...


----------



## exile (Apr 22, 2007)

Zero said:


> Spending most - or even half of every class on kata is not going to get you the same fighting ability level as spending the time actually applying moves under stress and finding out what it actually means to hit someone in a particular way or to be hit.



Zero, I'd rather not repeat my points from the earlier kataless karate thread; I've pointed out in http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35565&page=7&highlight=kataless why this is an essentially false distinction you're making. AlwaysTraining, you have to realize that kata have nothing to do with spirituality/philosophyy/mysticism/choreography or any other red herring of that sort. They are compact summaries of fighting skills `written' in body-movement at a time when people, for familiar reasons, liked to avoid committing MA techs to writing. Skill _does_ flow from kata, but only from kata analyzed into the most realistic practical bunkai and trained for oyo under uber-realistic conditions. Not sparring, not one-steps (though one-steps are useful as `slow-mo' versions of what you need top be able to do under high speed conditions) but realistic training conditions of the kind that Iain Abernethy described in his chapter on bunkai-based training in his book _Bukai-Jutsu: the Practical Applications of Karate Kata_.

Check out Bill Burgar's _Five Years, One Kata_ to see what Burgar, a sixth dan in Isshin-ryu karata discovered after spending five years working out the bunkai of a single kata, Gojushiho, and learning how the techs encoded in that kata apply to the most common initiating acts of violence in street conflicts; or Rick Clark's _75 Down Blocks_ for insight on how to read individual kata moves, as their inventors intended them, before they were repackaged as relatively innocent blocks and punches. What you'll see is that trying to learn effective karate practice for street use (regardless of the karate style, Japanese, Okinawan, Korean (TKD and TSD being legitimately described, as in S. Henry Cho's great textbook on TKD, as Korean karate) or whatever) _without_ kata is similar to trying to learn a language you've never heard before by just standing there and trying to make sense of people talking to you in that language. Using the kata as the basis of fighting techs is like using sophisticated 2nd language training techniques _in addition_ to full immersion in the language (the analogy being to Abernethy-style realistic training). There's no guarantee, on the first approach, that you'll _ever_ get it, because you have no clue about the rules of word combination that yield sentences, and their meaning, in the language you're trying to learn. On the second approach, you get skeleton keys to those rule that let you bootstrap your understanding of what these at-first meaningless bursts of sound are so that they become intelligible&#8212;_if_ you also participate in conversation in an immersion setting. The two approaches not only complement each other: they form a completely unitary approach to language learning. And the situation is exactly the same with the kata-bunkai-training relationship.

Please don't shortchange yourself by adopting the know-nothing position that kata are just a ritualized dance unconnected to actual combat. The guys who created modern kata&#8212;Bushi Matsumura and Anko Itosu in particular&#8212;were completely no-nonsense guys who fought dangerous streetfights for much of their lives and were, by profession, the chief bodyguards to the last king of Okinawa; their kata were their manuals for success in those fights, `written' for their students and the training of other fighters in their group at Shuri Castle. Philosophy, spirituality and so on were the last things on their mind; Matsumura's linear karate&#8212;and in those days, as Abernethy and Burgar explain carefully, the kata weren't simply part of the jutsu art, they were regarded _as_ the jutsu art&#8212;was a brutally effective innovation that displaced the chuan-fa-based MAs prevalent in Okinawa at the time and gave the king's bodyguards and LEOs a new and scarily effective fighting system, which they used pitilessly and convincingly.

Somewhere in Karate Valhalla, the shades of Matsumura, Itosu, Motobu and other great fighters are listening to your query and urging you to study the approach to kata they pioneered and and train what you learn in their own hard style of training.... don't ignore the lessons they're trying to teach you... :wink1:


----------



## exile (Apr 22, 2007)

As a PS to my previous post #33 in this thread, AT, take a look at this terrific clip on kata bunkai and training posted by Brian van Cise&#8212;it illustrates perfectly _why_ kata, in particular _understanding_ the apps encoded in them, are a crucial part of MA training. Listen carefully to the voiceover in the background; the explanations of how to relate kata _motions_ to CQ self-defense _moves_ are absolutely on target. 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48040


----------



## chinto (Apr 22, 2007)

Danjo said:


> I agree that kata is the heart of Karate. It is essential to understanding the art. However, much of what I have seen that is called "kata" now-a-days seems to be modern dance routines with a martial art flair. The old basic (some might say boring) kata are where the art is at, not the modern gymnastic spectacles seen at many tournements these days.


 
I have to Agree! the "modern kata" you see some times on TV as part of "XMA" and such with gymnastics and other added are not practical for combat techniques in my humble Opinion.  the old Traditional kata that have been unchanged and unmodified are where its at!!  they are not flashy, they are called boring by some, but so very rich in meaning if you will just look beyond the serfice. Remember, practice the kata of the system constiantly and as perfictly as you can and if needed in an altercation or even in sparring you will find that that technique, movement from a kata will "just happen"! mushun..( no mind) and it is very very cool when it does!


----------



## chinto (Apr 22, 2007)

Danny T said:


> I would say you are using Kata esoterically. I am using the kata as a list or catalog. We all know or should know intrinsic of kata all movement, posture, and transition has multiple connotations, each being dependent upon one's relationship with the opponent, spatially as well as kinetically. Within these connotations are the simple as well as the often so called secret techniques_.(I don't believe in secret techniques, they are all there hidden in plain view.)_ The empty hand as well as many of the weapon aspects also. However, simply doing Kata one will never see the implied possibilities. Associated drills must be utilized also. Im certain this is done. However, drills are not kata, or at least in my opinion. In one of the systems I teach the first form appears to be only a hand and structure form. It is the lowest level form for the beginner yet at the highest level in the system the very same form is the most advanced. Yet it is only a catalog or listing of the positions implying much more. The movements of any form are only that movement. What is possible within the movement is the treasure. I understand this. I would even be so bold as to say I could watch most any kata and give some detailed applications of the movements. They may or may not be what any one systems kata may be attempting to display but within the movement I can give a possibility. I say possibility because the techniques are not absolute but are based upon the circumstances. This is within any kata. Again that is the treasure of the kata. If the practitioner is taught properly they will be able to see and understand the implication quickly. Once that is done we drill, drill, and spar, returning to the form only as a reminder or reference of possibilities. There are Forms, Drills, and Applications and more often than not the applications don't look like the forms or the drills. Understanding the applications and being able to perform them in real time against a resisting opponent is not the same thing. Kata, in my opinion will never train a person to function with a high level of performance in a combat situation. Having an understanding of principles, you know how to apply them for the creation of technique. Great. That is what your training should help you with. Can you do it at real time under the pressure and stress of physical combat? Maybe I have only been associated with novice practitioners. I find the ability to function in combat comes from experience. Other than actually going out and fighting or stepping into a sport fight arena, the best thing to get expeience is to spar.
> 
> Danny Terrell


 
sparring will help with distance and timeing, but if you work on bunkai and analizing the kata as well as doing them, you will find that there is a great deal hidden under the surfice of the kata. there should in most of the old traditional kata be at least 5 techniques for every movement in the kata. some are graples and some locks and some throws or brakes, and of course strikes of diferent types. look beyond just the most basic kihon interpitation of the movements and you will be suprised what is there.


----------



## Zero (Apr 23, 2007)

I wish I could find this stuff, I went researching Abanathy but couldn't get my hands on his book on kata-application no-nonsense style.

It's not that I don't have a space for kata, it's just not a priority.  And maybe that's from the club I primarily practiced at back home. Two of the seniors/sensie (one a 4th-dan 5 times national heavywieght champion and the other an unbelievebaly good mma fighter - who also trains the girl who won kata gold last year!) told me that they didn't need kata (although good at it) to win fights and I should not overly concern myself with it outside of grading requirements if my main focus is on fighting and full contact.


----------



## exile (Apr 23, 2007)

Zero said:


> I wish I could find this stuff, I went researching Abanathy but couldn't get my hands on his book on kata-application no-nonsense style.



Zero, there's stuff on-line you can geta ton of it. I'd be _glad_ to supply you with the URLsI have a stack of his papers and articles on my desk in front of me even as we type, all downloaded 100% free from his public access site. 



Zero said:


> IIt's not that I don't have a space for kata, it's just not a priority.  And maybe that's from the club I primarily practiced at back home. Two of the seniors/sensie (one a 4th-dan 5 times national heavywieght champion and the other an unbelievebaly good mma fighter - who also trains the girl who won kata gold last year!) told me that they didn't need kata (although good at it) to win fights and I should not overly concern myself with it outside of grading requirements if my main focus is on fighting and full contact.



Kata are brilliant if you want to use your karate not for the ring, but for a fight in a bar or parking lot. They were designed as instructional materials for people to use in typical violent assaults when weapons weren't available. Don't shortchange yourselfwhy not at least look at some of what IA has to say and see how they work?

I've got some other stuff to do now for a couple of hours, but later tonight I will send you as many URLs for Abernethy's stuff and anything else in my `library' that looks good. They're _very_ well written xtrmshock) and have good graphics. You be the judge.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 23, 2007)

An excellent series of linked posts there, *Exile*.  A nice and gentle way to put across the concept that kata are instruments of training that were put together by the chaps who invented the Arts in the first place.

It beffudles me that they have come to be thought of as unnecessary .  

To put an other slant on it, here's a question for those that use firearms, as well as practise MA, to answer.

Do you consider the rounds you shoot on the range, as opposed to 'tactical shooting', to be wasted rounds?

It's exactly the same relationship between kata and sparring.  One teaches you how to do it right, the other teaches you how to get an acceptable result when conditions don't allow you to do it perfectly. ... but you can't do the latter without the former.


----------



## exile (Apr 23, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> To put an other slant on it, here's a question for those that use firearms, as well as practise MA, to answer.
> 
> Do you consider the rounds you shoot on the range, as opposed to 'tactical shooting', to be wasted rounds?
> 
> It's exactly the same relationship between kata and sparring.  One teaches you how to do it right, the other teaches you how to get an acceptable result when conditions don't allow you to do it perfectly. ... but you can't do the latter without the former.



Great analogy, Mark! If people think carefully about it they'll see that the two cases are quite parallel.


----------



## exile (Apr 23, 2007)

Okay, so here are the links I promised Zero. Go to

www.iainabernethy.com

You will see, at the bottom of the page, a set of links you can access. Click on `articles' and you will be rewarded with a choice of _36_ really well-written, carefully researched and `lab tested' articles on many different aspects of combat-efficient karate methods. Particularly important are the articles on how to decode kata to see the actual hard-combat fighting strategies and tactics built into kata, and articles about realistic training to learn how to make these apps available for street use. In particular, make sure to download the `Basics of Bunkai' series&#8212;this is an actual e-book, in effect, containing the core of Abernethy's masterpiece (no exaggeration) _Bukai-Jutsu: the Practical Application of Karate Kata_. That books cost me around $30, I was glad to pay it, it was worth every penny and I hope that IA makes a million bucks selling it&#8212;but I don't see how he's ever gonna do that, because, as I say, the heart of his system for analysis of kata and implementation of the techs that emerge from his systematic method for analyzing is contained in these eight articles, _free_. There's no strings attached, nothing. I'm not sure of the economics of it&#8212;it makes no sense (sort of like a tire store giving you four free tires just for stopping by their shop and putting your name on their mailing list.... how can they do that??? :idunno

Next, be sure to download the `The Pinan/Heian Series as a Fighting System', another free e-book&#8212;an in-depth application of his bunkai method to Itosu's brilliant kata set. More of the same: lucid writing, wonderful insightful analysis, with very effective, no-nonsense applications that wouldn't have occurred to you but which, once you see analyzed, make you wonder how you could have possibly missed them. 

There are two free e-books which may be essentially downloading these two separate article series in one go; not sure. But they're there, if you want them.

And there's more, because IA is actually part of a far-flung network of hard-core UK MAists, which includes people like the almost mythical Geoff Thompson, maybe the world's greatest expert on all-out street fighting; Peter Consterdine, and other great karateka (as well as practitioners of other MAs from a realistic combat angle)&#8212;and some of those people have written outstanding articles as well that are available, for free, at the site. The article by Mark Tankosich setting the record straight on `no first attack', the article by Steve Chriscole debunking the `fantasy that Karate is the means to inner peace and self-knowledge' (Chriscole is a MAist, MA historian, psychotherapist, and editor of a magazine _Kata Unlimited_ which is no longer published), and Jamie Clubb's three-part series on introducing children to a realistic approach to karate which is appropriate for their age and development, are all terrific reads, but there are many others. 

This is all great stuff, it costs nothing, there are no strings attached... as I say, I'm still kind of baffled at the economics of it...


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 24, 2007)

exile said:


> the article by Steve Chriscole debunking the `fantasy that Karate is the means to inner peace and self-knowledge' (Chriscole is a MAist, MA historian, psychotherapist, and editor of a magazine _Kata Unlimited_ which is no longer published)


 
... and, in a splendid 'small world' moment, one of my fellow iaidoka .


----------



## Jdokan (Apr 24, 2007)

I believe skill is developed when any material is ingrained into a person...Though I am not personally aware of situations I'll bet there have been plenty of people that have chosen both sides of the fence and have become proficient....Whether you're a follower of Bruce Lee or any of the traditional Instructors.  Building muscle memory is the key...  I believe anything that helps you to improve is rational....


----------



## exile (Apr 24, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> ... and, in a splendid 'small world' moment, one of my fellow iaidoka .



Whoa, it _is_ a small world... I just knew him as a karateka. Outstanding... 

Do you happen to have any idea why the serial, _Kata Unlimited_, stopped publishing? Sounds like the sort of thing that in the UK, anyway, people would have subscribed to in droves. _I'd_ have done, if I'd known about it...

I think part of the problem with the way people picture the role of kata is that they just don't have a sense of what they originally were, and still can be. That whole approachthe Abernethy/Burgar/Clark/Anslow/O'Neil/ad infinitem school of thoughtneeds to be better publicized, and I think that's happening. 

It's interesting to examine how people with very hard experiencebouncers, doormen (essentially the same thing), LEOs and security opsview kata. I don't think people in the U.S. are that familiar with Geoff Thompson, but on your side of the pond, I know, he's almost a mythical figure in brutal-combat (not just realistic, but _real_ combat) circles. This is what he has to say about kata in his very aptly-titled book, _The Pavement Arena:_

_It is not that the content of the karate syllabus is lacking, more that the syllabus is not fully utilised. A closer look at kata will divulge not only the manuvres we have all come to know and love, but also grappling movements, throws, hook and uppercut punches, eye gouges, grabs, knee attacks, ankle stamps, joint strikes, head-butting and even ground fighting. Have a look at your own dojo. How much of the information has been discovered, utilized and taught therein? When I had my own karate club all these techniques and more were covered. Why? *Because they encompass every eventuality in all scenarios:* a necessity if one is to be at all prepared for an attack_.

(my emphasis). This passage is cited in Abernethy's article (one of the very best there, though they're all excellent) `Kata: why bother?' available in that lot I gave a link to. Thompson, `credited' (if that's the right wordI actually think it is :EG with victory in something like 200+ violent altercations arising from his work as a doorman in nightclubs in Coventry, also holds five World Karate Championship titles from 19821986. So he knows the whole story, from the artificial constraints of ring competition to... well, the pavement arena, a much scarier place. This gives what he says in that quote from him enormous credibility, IMO...


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 24, 2007)

Hi *Exile*

Steve's due over at our 'dojo' on Saturday so I'll ask him about "Kata Unlimited" (which is 'longeese' for I don't know what it stopped ).

He has a few articles tucked away on his website so I'll stick a link up (his sites still evolving so be kindly in your thoughts if you visit (particularly if you find any of the photographs with me in them ) ).

http://www.shuhari.co.uk/


----------



## seasoned (Apr 26, 2007)

It took me many years to truly understand the katas and what they were trying to teach me. Sure I could learn the moves of a kata and advance to my next level and someone would show me some of the bunkai but as I got older I needed more. Karate is truly for everyone young and old. When I first learned kata and tried to use the moves in sparring they were useless and that was frustrating. It was much easer to watch the Bruce Lee of old movies and learn all the fighting techniques but there was no depth for me. Now that I am old and cant spar any more I have turned to kata and have found a treasure that I had missed the first time around. As John Rosebury would always say kata is like a book, open it and thumb through the pages.


----------



## exile (Apr 26, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Hi *Exile*
> 
> Steve's due over at our 'dojo' on Saturday so I'll ask him about "Kata Unlimited" (which is 'longeese' for I don't know what it stopped ).
> 
> ...



Meant to get back to you on this thread, Mark, but got tangled up in, first, my son's 10th birthday yesterday and then... oh, hell, you don't really want to know... nothing interesting, just tedious boring stuff to do... Anyway, you have SC coming to your school? Just like that? Lucky you! I'm increasingly coming to see the UK as Karate Heaven....

And thanks for the link! I'll go check it out. I feel a pang of regret for any publication called _Kata Unlimited_ which I can no longer obtain...




seasoned said:


> It took me many years to truly understand the katas and what they were trying to teach me. Sure I could learn the moves of a kata and advance to my next level and someone would show me some of the bunkai but as I got older I needed more. Karate is truly for everyone young and old. When I first learned kata and tried to use the moves in sparring they were useless and that was frustrating. It was much easer to watch the Bruce Lee of old movies and learn all the fighting techniques but there was no depth for me. Now that I am old and cant spar any more I have turned to kata and have found a treasure that I had missed the first time around. As John Rosebury would always say kata is like a book, open it and thumb through the pages.



Seasoned, I feel exactly the same way about kata/hyungs. It's good for the likes of us that kata seem to be making a comeback, now that people realize that they aren't decorative dance steps, but an encyclopædia of fighting techniques, if only you learn how to decode themwhich an increasing number of shewd, dedicated karateka are willing to teach us to do.


----------



## hrlmonkey (Apr 26, 2007)

going by the posts here, is it not fair to assume that its the practitioner who determines the usefuleness of kata?  some argue that they are better prepared to defend themselves, by knowing kata's techniques why's and whens.  i would counter argue that in defending myself outside a nightclub,  kata didnt teach me how to block and choke my assailant.  we can discuss it for the next 100 years, but the answers and opinions will never change.  modern practitioners will accuse you of being dinosaurs and stale, traditionalists will accuse the others of having no grounding and a lack of respect.


----------



## exile (Apr 26, 2007)

hrlmonkey said:


> going by the posts here, is it not fair to assume that its the practitioner who determines the usefuleness of kata?  some argue that they are better prepared to defend themselves, by knowing kata's techniques why's and whens.  i would counter argue that in defending myself outside a nightclub,  kata didnt teach me how to block and choke my assailant.



The fact is, that information is implicit in the kata. Katas are coded messages; they contain the information you can use to do many thingsincluding block and choke, lock and throw, and so on. But _you_, the practitioner, either get that information out of the kata, or you don't. The information is there; if you decide to ignore it, well, that's your choice. You, and your instructor, are the ones responsible for actually doing the teaching; the information available in the kata continues to be there. No one is forcing you to pay attention to it; that's your choice entirely.



> we can discuss it for the next 100 years, but the answers and opinions will never change.  modern practitioners will accuse you of being dinosaurs and stale, traditionalists will accuse the others of having no grounding and a lack of respect.



The fact is, the kata can tell you how to do something, and if you learn to read them, they will. No one is forcing you to learn what they have to teach, as I say. And no one is forcing you to train the damaging oyo that arise from realistic kata bunkai in a combat-effective way. You either decide to train that way, with very close simulation of a brutal streetfight, as described for example in Iain Abernethy's _Bunkai-jutsu: the Practical Application of Karate Kata_, or you decide not to. If you do, you'll develop certain very effective SD skills as a result of realistically training those CQ techs. But again, the kata can't force you to do that, nor are they nagging you to. If you don't want to, once again, that's your choice.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Apr 26, 2007)

exile said:


> The fact is, the kata can tell you how to do something, and if you learn to read them, they will. No one is forcing you to learn what they have to teach, as I say. And no one is forcing you to train the damaging oyo that arise from realistic kata bunkai in a combat-effective way. You either decide to train that way, with very close simulation of a brutal streetfight, as described for example in Iain Abernethy's _Bunkai-jutsu: the Practical Application of Karate Kata_, or you decide not to. If you do, you'll develop certain very effective SD skills as a result of realistically training those CQ techs. But again, the kata can't force you to do that, nor are they nagging you to. If you don't want to, once again, that's your choice.


 
This is an interesting point you raise.  The question was asked, "Does one's skill flow from the kata?"  There are two answers to this question which result from how you initially approach the kata/forms.  If you simply go through the forms/katas everyday, you will be very skilled at doing the forms/katas.  But if you take the time to examine what you are doing when going through the forms/katas then you will have, not only skill in the performance of the form, but also skill in effective techniques for self defence.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of MA practitioners around who fall into the first category but think they are in the second.  These people are the ones who are clouding the issue about kata and skill in technique.


----------



## exile (Apr 26, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> This is an interesting point you raise.  The question was asked, "Does one's skill flow from the kata?"  There are two answers to this question which result from how you initially approach the kata/forms.  If you simply go through the forms/katas everyday, you will be very skilled at doing the forms/katas.  But if you take the time to examine what you are doing when going through the forms/katas then you will have, not only skill in the performance of the form, but also skill in effective techniques for self defence.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are a lot of MA practitioners around who fall into the first category but think they are in the second.  These people are the ones who are clouding the issue about kata and skill in technique.



Yes, this is an absolutely crucial distinction! Look at what Bill Burgar has to say about this in his landmark book, _Five Years, One Kata:_

_The emphasis today is on the perfomrance of kata rather than its practice. To most practitioners today the performance of and the practice of ata are the same thing. What is really meant by "practicing a kata" is "practicing the performance of a kata". In contrast, a deeper practice of a kata involves:

 the full breakdown of the kata into its constituent applications;
 the individual practice of those applications, both alone using powerful           visualization techniques, and with a partner in training drills;
 puttin strings of applications into tegumi or flow-drills;
 and also practicing the individual principles that pervade all of the    techniques.

... if you have bee used to practising only the performance of kata for many years (as you may well have done if you have reached nidan or above in traditional style) then you are going to find it hard to adjust to changing your practice. You will need to slow down and break up the kata so that you don't just run through it from start to finish. You must practice each movement in isolation... *Remember, practice the content and not the performance.*_

(pp. 29, 309; my emphasis).  So you see, you're in excellent company, ST!


----------



## Steel Tiger (Apr 27, 2007)

exile said:


> Yes, this is an absolutely crucial distinction! Look at what Bill Burgar has to say about this in his landmark book, _Five Years, One Kata:_
> 
> _The emphasis today is on the perfomrance of kata rather than its practice. To most practitioners today the performance of and the practice of ata are the same thing. What is really meant by "practicing a kata" is "practicing the performance of a kata". In contrast, a deeper practice of a kata involves:_
> 
> ...


 
I like this quote.  It pretty much covers everything very succinctly.  Must try to get a copy of his book I think.


----------



## exile (Apr 27, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> I like this quote.  It pretty much covers everything very succinctly.  Must try to get a copy of his book I think.



It's a very good book. Not what I'd call an `easy read'; what he's doing really demands that you follow along with his program of analyzing the kata he spent five years studying exclusivelyGojushihoand testing out his bunkai for it and applying his method of evaluating the various bunkai he gives. But I think you'll probably find it very congenial to your own perspective on things: your view of performance/analysis and his are clearly congruent. 

They have it on Amazon.comI think I got it from them...


----------



## tellner (Apr 27, 2007)

Hmm, well, hmm. I've been back and forth on this one before. Every few years skill, knowledge and understanding switch places in the three-legged race and it changes again. At the moment, here's how I see it...

"Before Zen chop wood, carry water. After Zen chop wood, carry water."
Yeah, it's a Zen proverb. No, I'm not trying to impress anyone with anything woo-woo or mystifying. It's a simple straightforward fact.

If you've got a good teacher there won't be a ton of kata. One system I'm a little familiar with has 108 forms. And they aren't short like Kendo kata. They're good sized. There just aren't enough hours in your lifetime to get 108 forms worth of understanding and be able to use it. Either that or there's an awful lot of redundancy, and you're duplicating a lot of effort.

In the beginning kata is a bunch of movements. It means nothing. It's not useful for anything. You can have faith that it will be someday. If you're lucky that may even be true. It takes a long time to learn how to do the movements correctly much less string them together. Until you've done that the forms aren't really useful for anything except burning the gross movements into your brain. Maybe you can do a sequence and hit someone with it, but at that point the odds are no better than chance.

If (again, the big if) the kata are going to be useful they have to be, well, useful. They need to pattern good movement and encourage correct body mechanics, good clean lines and decent structure. If they don't you'll just ingrain bad habits. And often they don't. 

After a while your body mechanics and quality of movement get properly burned in. If there's been too much curriculum this point can be delayed needlessly. In any case, kata becomes useful in a different way. This is when application starts to be important. You have it, now you need to learn to do something useful with it. So you learn "the" bunkai for the forms. It's indicative of the sad state of affairs that most bunkai are pretty lame. Many are over-complicated or rely on unrealistic attacks and very staged situations.

Even worse, many teachers say "Oh, kata is for the Art. It's Tradition. If you practice it long enough you will mysteriously become a great fighter and an Enlightened Master." In my humble experience this is usually a sign of a teacher who doesn't know an awful lot and is trying to BS his way out of admitting that he doesn't know. He's basically saying that he doesn't know what it's for either, but if you have faith a miracle will occur.

So what does a better teacher do? He uses the movements from the kata when he teaches technique and sparring and self defense. Exercises will include and extend the root movements. Or you'll do things that use the same lines as the form. 

This is the time when kata is useful for pulling stuff out. A good teacher will get you to use movements from the kata in different ways. It's no longer just moving around arms and legs. It's the basis for your techniques. There's lots and lots of stuff in there. It's not just a movement. It's an armlock. It's a block. It's a strike. It's a pressure point technique. It's a floor wax. It's a dessert topping. 

Further on down the road you've got more technique than you can possibly use. You've started to put it all together, internalize the system and develop some understanding. At that point the kata, as Mel Brooks might have said in _Spaceballs_, switches from blow to suck. The form becomes a sort of kinesthetic memory palace where you store what you know. Instead of remembering every single thing you relate a number of things to, say, a move from Seisan or the kick/punch combo in Bassai. You put what you learn and develop into the form. 

Much later, and few ever get there, you've got really good intuitive and conscious understanding. The moves stop "meaning" anything. They're just movement. And you understand movement, so you can use them any damned way you please and make them work. 

A lot of people spout stuff about "formless form" and the like. Not one in a thousand of those is doing anything but shooting off his mouth. To make it work you have to have gone through the above time, effort and good teaching to get there. Certainly you can teach it to yourself, but it usually takes a long time, and both teacher and student have to be the right sort of person 

Does your skill flow from your form? Well, yes and no. You have to have good form to move well. If and only if and it's a huge if, the form is good and you have the right sort of teacher it can be a vital part of your development. Stuff will get extracted from them, and you will learn to use them to classify and remember all sorts of things that you come across or develop. If any one of them doesn't apply or if the way you do things in the form is divorced from the kata it will be worthless. "The way you do things" can't just mean memorizing a bunch of pre-set applications. It has to get used in many aspects of the training.

Looking back over the rant it roughly follows the progression I mentioned in this thread. What can you say? Guru Plinck has had a bit of influence on my development and outlook.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 27, 2007)

If kata is like a book that needs to be opened as some will agree on then practical application would be the movie made from that book. I relate a paragraph in the book "The Essence of Shaolin White Crane, The Foundation of White Crane Kung Fu and The Root of Okinawan Karate".
Page 6 _*(For example, it is well known in China that in order to compete and survive in a battle against other martial styles, each martial style must contain four basic categories of fighting techniques. They are: hand striking, kicking, wrestling, and qin na (seizing and controlling techniques). When these techniques were exported to Japan, they splintered over time to become many styles. For example, punching and kicking became Karate, wrestling became Judo, and qin na became Jujitsu. Actually, the essence and secret of Chinese martial arts developed in Buddhist and Daoist monasteries was not completely revealed to Chinese lay society until the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912A.D.) These secrets have been revealed to western countries only in the last three decades.)*_
    Kata is not the end all I will agree, it is just a book, And books make for arm chair karate-Ka. I submit as many of you have, we need to go to the "movie stage". All above is submited with total respect for everyone.


----------



## hrlmonkey (Apr 27, 2007)

tellner said:


> A lot of people spout stuff about "formless form" and the like. Not one in a thousand of those is doing anything but shooting off his mouth. To make it work you have to have gone through the above time, effort and good teaching to get there. Certainly you can teach it to yourself, but it usually takes a long time, and both teacher and student have to be the right sort of person
> 
> .



this is so disrespectful of martial artists who are non traditionalist,  its just so small minded.  i see traditionalists on here who feel that if it has no kata, its worthless, its not karate.  

we are not all sports karate.  we do not all see competition as the pinnacle of our traning. we are looking at new ways of training.  we still respect the values that were passed down to us. we go through time and effort to better ourselves as martial artists.  we still bow when entering and exiting a dojo. we probably do everything you do, minus the strict regime of kata.  and then you disrespect us for it.  
well heres old news, your preaching to your own.  they will all agree with you, you know this.  just because we dont all want kata, or see your point, doesnt mean that we all dislike kata or dont see its virtues.  
argue against us, disown us, even vilefy us.... we are karate, we are staying and we will still be here when our systems have re-modernised.  its a fact of life, grow or die.


----------



## twendkata71 (Apr 27, 2007)

I am sorry that you feel practicing kata is being stagnate and has no real value in street defense. But, that is your option and I am in the view that if your style of karate works for you then it has value. One point though, shadow boxing is still a form of kata in a manner of speaking.  Peace to you and good luck in your journey.


----------



## hrlmonkey (Apr 27, 2007)

twendkata71 said:


> I am sorry that you feel practicing kata is being stagnate and has no real value in street defense. But, that is your option and I am in the view that if your style of karate works for you then it has value. One point though, shadow boxing is still a form of kata in a manner of speaking.  Peace to you and good luck in your journey.



thank you for the point on shadowboxing.  or freeform kata as some modernists label it. much appreciated

i know many modernists that have studied kata based systems, and indeed loved them.  in my teens i made purple in shotokan,  my reason for switching, was that the instructor moved away.  i come from a small town in the middle of the uk, and twenty years ago, there was a lot less on offer than there is today. 

personally i feel that in the right hands, kata is a powerful tool.  i just dont feel its the be all and end all of any system.


----------



## exile (Apr 27, 2007)

hrlmonkey said:


> this is so disrespectful of martial artists who are non traditionalist,  its just so small minded.  i see traditionalists on here who feel that if it has no kata, its worthless, its not karate.



HM, I don't think that Tellner is saying any of this. He's not talking about `traditional' vs. `non-traditional'/`modern'/whatever. You're responding to his quote, so I'm trying to see your remarks in the context of his reply that you're responding to... and I don't see much connection. What he's saying is, if I can boil it down probably way too much, is that kata have a particular use and a particular purpose that enable you to learn certain things more effectively by studying kata&#8212;especially the realistic application of the movements they contain (and as he says, a lot of the applications provided in textbooks and so on fail on the realism front); people who ignore the lessons of kata very often lose the combat-effective benefit of the information that kata contain. People who dismiss kata as a guide to actual practice, in other words, are often doing so because they haven't actively tried to pursue mastery of a street-effective form of karate, believing instead that isolated techs without a strategic connection (the connection being the main benefit of kata) will see you through a real fight.



hrlmonkey said:


> twe are not all sports karate.  we do not all see competition as the pinnacle of our traning. we are looking at new ways of training.  we still respect the values that were passed down to us. we go through time and effort to better ourselves as martial artists.  we still bow when entering and exiting a dojo.



Umm... kata has nothing to do with etiquette, HM. I'm not sure where this is coming from. Kata make it clear how to move to damage your attacker's throat or break his arm. That was their original purpose. What does dojo etiquette have to do with guidance in damaging your assailant badly enough that he will want to leave the fight, assuming he's still got two working knees? 



hrlmonkey said:


> we probably do everything you do, minus the strict regime of kata.



I'm losing you. `Strict regime'? What do you mean? 

The first few moves of Pinan Shodan, say, teach you how to deflect a punch with one arm while moving your other arm into place to establish a fulcrum for an arm lock that will hyperextend your attacker's shoulder, allowing you to throw him to the ground and finish him off there with a hard kick to the face, or ribs, or maybe the groin. `Strict discipline?' I don't see it! You're talking as though some kind of ritual were involved. But kata has nothing to do with ritual. 



hrlmonkey said:


> and then you disrespect us for it.
> well heres old news, your preaching to your own.  they will all agree with you, you know this.  just because we dont all want kata, or see your point, doesnt mean that we all dislike kata or dont see its virtues.



Since the prime virtue of kata is to teach you how to damage your opponent to whatever degree seems necessary&#8212;assuming you know how to _read_ the kata, which since the time of Itosu have been deliberately disguised (as he himself told us) to conceal the application of the movements involved&#8212;I'd have thought that if you did see this virtue of kata, that you'd incorporate studying the effective uses of kata, and training those uses via maximal realism, into your training routines. The only reason for training kata applications is to make you a better fighter, so far as I can see. So I'm confused: if you see that this is a virtue of kata, then why do you not want to take advantage of that information in your own training? But if you don't, that's fine too, so far as I'm concerned. I'm concerned with my own skill development, not yours. 

I think you misunderstand Tellner and others. No one is preaching to you or criticizing you for not incorporating kata application into your training. Quite honestly, it makes no difference to me what you choose to do or don't do; that's your business, and if you don't want to learn how to `read' kata to benefit from the hard techs they embody, it certainly doesn't make _my_ life, or Tellner's, or anyone else's any harder. 



hrlmonkey said:


> argue against us, disown us, even vilefy us.... we are karate, we are staying and we will still be here when our systems have re-modernised.  its a fact of life, grow or die.



I, uh... really think there's a major misunderstanding here. This last passage seems a bit _overwrought_ to me, a lot of posturing that I honestly don't see the point of. I honestly don't _care_ one way or the other what you choose to do or not do; I won't `argue against you' (if you choose to overlook an important source of combat information, that is, once again, your perfect right), just as I won't `argue against you' if you don't get a yearly physical checkup, or decide not to pay taxes on your income, or anything else you do that doesn't hurt someone else. `Disown you'? Well, you're not my heir or Tellner's, so _that's_ a bit excessive... and why should I or Todd vilify you? Look, HM: suppose you wanted to learn how to solve elementary differential equations. It's a toughish subject, but plenty of people can do it. I have a dozen books on my shelf that tell me, in different ways, how to do it. They contain classifcations of different DEs by level of difficulty; they supply methods and hints for each level, they give me worked examples... all in all, if I were interested in learning this particular skill, the first thing I'd do is crack a few of these books and get going. But if I didn't, would that hurt or inconvenience anyone but me?  Kata are like textbooks for effective close-quarter combat. If you think you can learn effective karate without them, that's no more skin off my nose than someone who wants to learn how to solve DEs without benefit of textbook. By all means, be my guest! Why on earth should I vilify you for failing to utilize an available resource? Neither I, nor Todd, have any stake in your success or otherwise...


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 27, 2007)

exile said:


> Meant to get back to you on this thread, Mark, but got tangled up in, first, my son's 10th birthday yesterday and then... oh, hell, you don't really want to know... nothing interesting, just tedious boring stuff to do... Anyway, you have SC coming to your school? Just like that? Lucky you! I'm increasingly coming to see the UK as Karate Heaven....
> 
> And thanks for the link! I'll go check it out. I feel a pang of regret for any publication called _Kata Unlimited_ which I can no longer obtain...


 
I hope your son enjoyed himself, you only get that first decade of wonder, when everything is new, once after all :tup:.

Steve (nidan MJER) comes over to us every other week usually to work on his iai with Sensei Lovatt (whose also 6th Dan Karate).  

I _try_ not to let Sensei, Steve, Jim and Kate (karateka one and all) to get sidetracked and usually my being the only one running through iai forms does the trick .






exile said:


> Seasoned, I feel exactly the same way about kata/hyungs. It's good for the likes of us that kata seem to be making a comeback, now that people realize that they aren't decorative dance steps, but an encyclopædia of fighting techniques, if only you learn how to decode them&#8212;which an increasing number of shewd, dedicated karateka are willing to teach us to do.


 
A most excellent way of expressing it :tup:


----------



## hrlmonkey (Apr 27, 2007)

with reflection, i can see how my words look acidic. Tellner may have unintentionally taken the brunt, of something that was an reaction based on the whole thread. i apologise whole-heartedly for this.  i hope that anybody reading this, accepts my humblest apologies as i was a little out of order


----------



## exile (Apr 27, 2007)

hrlmonkey said:


> with reflection, i can see how my words look acidic. Tellner may have unintentionally taken the brunt, of something that was an reaction based on the whole thread. i apologise whole-heartedly for this.  i hope that anybody reading this, accepts my humblest apologies as i was a little out of order



HM, I can't speak for Tellner, but I don't think you really have anything to apologize for. I think you may have overreacted to what you thought of as implied criticism, but quite honestly, I don't think anyone was targetting you. I personally believe that kata are a very useful tool for `threading together' separate techs so that they make sense in the strategic context of a real fight, but I certainly don't find it offensive or threatening if someone else disagrees with my view and instead goes in their own direction. Just as long as the kata are there for _me_ (and anyone else who's of the same mind) to use as the basis for effective response to physical threats, I'm happy...


----------



## tellner (Apr 27, 2007)

hrlmonkey said:


> this is so disrespectful of martial artists who are non traditionalist,  its just so small minded.  i see traditionalists on here who feel that if it has no kata, its worthless, its not karate.
> 
> we are not all sports karate.  we do not all see competition as the pinnacle of our traning. we are looking at new ways of training.  we still respect the values that were passed down to us. we go through time and effort to better ourselves as martial artists.  we still bow when entering and exiting a dojo. we probably do everything you do, minus the strict regime of kata.  and then you disrespect us for it.
> well heres old news, your preaching to your own.  they will all agree with you, you know this.  just because we dont all want kata, or see your point, doesnt mean that we all dislike kata or dont see its virtues.
> argue against us, disown us, even vilefy us.... we are karate, we are staying and we will still be here when our systems have re-modernised.  its a fact of life, grow or die.



That actually didn't have anything to do with what I was writing about. I may not have been clear, so here's the same thing presented a little differently. Please accept my apologies if it seemed to be aimed at you:

A lot of people talk about their ability to go beyond form and just spontaneously do what's best. Practicing pre-arranged movements, they say, detracts from their spontaneity. Besides, they've read _The Tao of Jeet Kune Do_ and have transcended "The Classical Mess". 

Most of them are fooling themselves. 

Pre-arranged movement patterns don't have to be katas that start and end with a bow. Wrestlers have them. Boxers have them. Fencers have them. IPSC pistol shooters have them. Guro Inosanto teaches them. So do the Gracies. It's how we're wired to learn physical skills. 

First you learn individual motions. Then you learn how to put them together. They mean nothing.

Then you learn to use them, internalize them and know their limits and uses. 

Eventually, if you're really really good, the  structure has served its purpose. It's a part of you that you can use or not as you see fit rather than a representation of preset technique. 

The point is, that you can't skip the stages in between. One way or another you have to learn to do the movements of your system correctly, then do them in combination, then learn how to use them, make them your own. No matter what the pre-arranged motions are called they're there, and you have to go through the hard work to achieve the goal. When Bruce Lee was a big name a lot of people forgot that he was already a champion competitive dancer who had been through a system already.


----------



## hrlmonkey (Apr 27, 2007)

no no, i am at fault here.  i had a poorly timed attack of martyrdom, a chip on my shoulder if you will.

if i didnt make it clear, i actually originate from kata based systems, i happen to be in awe of a certain amount of them.  i just happened to find my zone with a kataless system.  

who knows though.... i'm no longer in the uk, i no longer teach (other than my wife) and there are many schools in the area i reside.  theres every chance that the next art i look at, may be kata based?


----------



## tellner (Apr 27, 2007)

After you, my dear Alphonse 

Seriously, I also communicated poorly. The problem with kata is the same as for so many other aspects of martial arts. It's seldom taught with understanding in an appropriate integrated way. This leads some people to slavishly go through motions which have nothing to do with how they actually move and fight. It leads others to believe that the hard work of developing understanding and skill is worthless.


----------



## Zero (Apr 28, 2007)

Hey Exile - thanks a bunch for this Abernathy stuff - have made my way through the Bunkai material and onto the next lot - cheers for the link and 'directions' re accessing it. I appreciate your help!

Is a good read and actually nothing new as is just as a lot of the defense training moves and practice we did at my old dojo.  If this is what the idea of kata is all about - and not some miasmic ballet routine on a mat to pipe music - then I agree it has an important role in making one better able to defend oneself.  The problem is many clubs don't break the kata or the moves down and apply them to real-life scenarios - but hey, enough said there.
Zero


----------



## tellner (Apr 28, 2007)

If it's, as you nicely put it, "a miasmic ballet" it will be worse than useless. As I've said before, teaching "the" application or applications from the kata is one step. One must keep in mind that it's not the only step. To get what you really need you have to have a teacher who can get you to use them in many different ways instead of an "If he does 'A' I do 'B'" fashion. Then they'll be the tools that your conditioned instincts will reach for.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Apr 29, 2007)

AlwaysTraining said:


> I asked an old shotokan sensei about the usefulness of kata.  She said it is from the kata that your fighting techniques should come.  She added that if you remain true to the tradition and focus/study the kata, your karate will be far more advanced than if you merely focus on combos and sparing.  She said focusing on combos and the like will make you a slave to those techniques.  What are everyone's thoughts on this?



Kata has a place in MA. It should not be the only tool (thanks for the Sears catalog comparison btw) in your tool chest, because the pre-choreographed techniques are rarely stressed to be used with a partner(s). Practicing the kata as if it translated directly to a FIGHT...note I said "fight" and not "sparring" is a really great way to kill your reaction time.

Now having said that, kata's place is to refine your techniques making them smoother, and flow from one to another while applying them in various ways while moving around in various directions. The only downside is that classecal fighting forms were developed for rough uneven terrain (in most cases) and in today's world of cement and pavement, the footwork is anatomically speaking very poor. A group of my training partners and I (three who come from a medical background, one is a body alignment/massage therapist, another is a physical therapist, and the third is a nurse practitioner) dissected the 27 forms found in the traditional system we studeied and found that only 11 of the 27 are valid when put into the context of correct anatomical movement. The others are nice to watch and see, but if relied upon too heavily will ingrain improper movement methodology and cause structural problems later.

I love practicing my forms to be able to help smooth transitions between techniques and to explore the "how can I apply this in a different way" phase of training. But as a sole means of learning to move, bad idea.


----------



## exile (Apr 29, 2007)

Zero said:


> Hey Exile - thanks a bunch for this Abernathy stuff - have made my way through the Bunkai material and onto the next lot - cheers for the link and 'directions' re accessing it. I appreciate your help!
> 
> Is a good read and actually nothing new as is just as a lot of the defense training moves and practice we did at my old dojo.  If this is what the idea of kata is all about - and not some miasmic ballet routine on a mat to pipe music - then I agree it has an important role in making one better able to defend oneself.  The problem is many clubs don't break the kata or the moves down and apply them to real-life scenarios - but hey, enough said there.
> Zero



You nailed it, Zero (like Tellner, I love the `miasmic ballet' turn of phraseperfect!) Yes, the problem is exactly what you sayvery few schools teach kata from this point of view. If you already know a lot of this stuff because of your prior training experience, you're a lucky guyyou trained at a place that took the combat use of karate very seriously. 

What would make me happy would be to live long enough to see a time when people neither dismissed kata nor venerated it, but treated it simply as a kind of roadmap through realistic applications of (combinations of) karate techs. Kata shouldn't be mystified; part of the reason why some people diss kata is because other people treat it as almost a kind of sacred ritual, and the first group can't figure out what the hell the second group are smoking. :wink1: Seeing kata just as an aid to understandingand trainingtactics that work (in combination) in real fighting is what seems to me to be the happy mean between these two excessive positions.

And I'm glad you found the stuff at IA's website to be of interest, even if it wasn't totally new to you.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Apr 30, 2007)

Just reading through the last few posts again has brought another realisation to me.  If kata has had the meanings of the techniques hidden with the intention of keeping the knowledge secret, and schools are teaching kata a particular way because of tradition, then many schools, perhaps entire styles, will never know the truth inherent in their kata.  This seems even worse to me than the "miasmic ballet".  

This is performance with out knowledge, and potentially no hope of ever finding or acquiring that knowledge.  In this case it is the traditions of the school or style that are hampering any development.  if one is going to say, "this is the way it is because it is the way it has always been", then there is no chance to analyse the kata to find its secrets because that would be trying to change the kata, and that would be against tradition.  Its very sad really.


----------



## exile (Apr 30, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> Just reading through the last few posts again has brought another realisation to me.  If kata has had the meanings of the techniques hidden with the intention of keeping the knowledge secret, and schools are teaching kata a particular way because of tradition, then many schools, perhaps entire styles, will never know the truth inherent in their kata.  This seems even worse to me than the "miasmic ballet".
> 
> This is performance with out knowledge, and potentially no hope of ever finding or acquiring that knowledge.  In this case it is the traditions of the school or style that are hampering any development.  if one is going to say, "this is the way it is because it is the way it has always been", then there is no chance to analyse the kata to find its secrets because that would be trying to change the kata, and that would be against tradition.  Its very sad really.



In the scenario you're raising, ST, `tradition' is the alibi given for ignorance. The fact is, a lot of people who teach karate-based arts probably have very little understanding of what the realistic applications are available for these movement-sequences. The teachers themselves were never taught the proper use of certain movements. So how can they figure them out?

Well, actually they _can_, if they take the trouble to try to work out the consistent encoding of tactical _moves_ in sometimes-perplexing sequences of _movements_. Abernethy gives a set of principles for decoding kata in _Bunkai-jutsu_, and so do Kane & Wilder in _The Way of Kata_; Simon O'Neil, in his _Combat-TKD_ newsletters, gives yet a third set of interpretation principles. The knowledge hasn't been entirely lost, and more to the point, we can undertake the research effort ourselves to determine just what kinds of things these kata are telling us about responding to certain specific attacks (grabs, roundhouse punches, attempted head-butts and groin strikes). All it takes is a bit of will, a reasonable level of intelligence, and an independent perspective.

And that, of course, is why it happens so rarely...


----------



## cstanley (Apr 30, 2007)

Kata is not about fighting; it is about mushin and zanshin.


----------



## tellner (Apr 30, 2007)

cstanley said:


> Kata is not about fighting; it is about mushin and zanshin.



Mushin and zanshin are attributes which can be developed through many meditative practices including kata. If that were all kata were about it would have been tossed in favor of Qi Gong or zazen centuries ago. 

It's patterned movement. I think we've already hashed that out and what it implies. Other than blind assertion what do you have to bring to the table on this?


----------



## exile (Apr 30, 2007)

cstanley said:


> Kata is not about fighting; it is about mushin and zanshin.



Say what? 

Kata isn't about fighting? Then why did Bushi Matsumura invent the Chinto kata specifically to record the fighting style of a Chinese sailor and expert fighter who actually fought him to a draw in an encounter of over some missing chickens that Matsumura, as chief sheriff of Shuri, had gone to investigate? Why did both Anko Itosu and Gichin Funakoshi emphasize that kata, though disguised as simple kick-block-punch sequences, had to be applied intelligently to actual combat, because the techs to win in combat were all contained in them? Why do some of the greatest karateka in the world write books showing how instructions on how to break your opponent's arm or neck, crush his trachea, blind him, and get to him to the ground where a finishing hard kick to the groin can be aministered, are contained in the kata once these are translatedas Itosu, who disguised them, told us to translate theminto combat moves? 

I have to say, I find statements such as the one quoted here very difficult to understand. Given that the inventors of kata tell us explicitly that they are roadmaps to applying tactics, guided by general combat principles, to damage your assailant badly enough that he ceases to pose a danger to you, what possible warrant could there be for the statment that `Kata is not about fighting'? Can you please supply the missing steps in the argument?




tellner said:


> Mushin and zanshin are attributes which can be developed through many meditative practices including kata. If that were all kata were about it would have been tossed in favor of Qi Gong or zazen centuries ago.
> 
> It's patterned movement. I think we've already hashed that out and what it implies. Other than blind assertion what do you have to bring to the table on this?



Yes indeedy. 

Tellner, do you sometimes get the feeling that we've been here before, so to speak... many, many times....?


----------



## Steel Tiger (Apr 30, 2007)

It's interesting isn't it?  To see how many people are of the opinion that kata/forms are not about fighting, and I suppose they can be used in that fashion without any problems.  Now I come from a CMA background where the forms are properly termed Tan.  They are considered spirit *fighting* forms.  In the internal arts meditation and qigong are incorporated into the forms but the fundamental movements and interpretations are combative.

I can see how a change in perception can occur.  In all the forms in my style of bagua, there are techniques in which the foot is raised to about the height of the knee.  Many have interpreted this as an evade against a low kick.  Not a bad interpretation.  The actuality of it is that these foot raises are signals that a low kick is to be performed in conjunction with whatever else is being done in all but a couple of instances.  Both interpretations are viable within the context of the form but only one conforms to the original meaning.  

The interpretation of the form changes and in time becomes the norm.  I am fortunate in that the style of bagua I learn and teach is not that old, but imagine something that is over 1000 years old.  It is likely that the interpretation of the form has mutated several times.


----------



## tellner (May 1, 2007)

exile said:


> Say what?
> 
> ...
> 
> I have to say, I find statements such as the one quoted here very difficult to understand. Given that the inventors of kata tell us explicitly that they are roadmaps to applying tactics, guided by general combat principles, to damage your assailant badly enough that he ceases to pose a danger to you, what possible warrant could there be for the statment that `Kata is not about fighting'? Can you please supply the missing steps in the argument?



It's like that famous cartoon with the two mathematicians at the blackboard. Somewhere near the middle there's a step labelled "And then a miracle occurs." One is saying to the other "I think you should be more explicit here." :shrug:




> Tellner, do you sometimes get the feeling that we've been here before, so to speak... many, many times....?



Like the stars in the sky, the sands on the beach and the spam in a hotmail account.


----------



## cstanley (May 4, 2007)

exile said:


> Say what?
> 
> Kata isn't about fighting? Then why did Bushi Matsumura invent the Chinto kata specifically to record the fighting style of a Chinese sailor and expert fighter who actually fought him to a draw in an encounter of over some missing chickens that Matsumura, as chief sheriff of Shuri, had gone to investigate? Why did both Anko Itosu and Gichin Funakoshi emphasize that kata, though disguised as simple kick-block-punch sequences, had to be applied intelligently to actual combat, because the techs to win in combat were all contained in them? Why do some of the greatest karateka in the world write books showing how instructions on how to break your opponent's arm or neck, crush his trachea, blind him, and get to him to the ground where a finishing hard kick to the groin can be aministered, are contained in the kata once these are translatedas Itosu, who disguised them, told us to translate theminto combat moves?
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps I should have added that kata is not PRIMARILY about fighting for those who are literalists. Mushin and zanshin have everything to do with fighting...much more than any "catalog of techniques." The techniques in kata are only the surface, the omote. Applying kata "intelligently" to actual combat means getting beneath the surface to the mindset that years of diligent kata practice, in addition to actual fighting and partner training, is supposed to develop. You don't drive your "roadmap," but you can't get to an unknown destination without it. You do not do close order drill in combat, but you can't prepare people for combat without it.
Kata is like a koan...sometimes nothing is as it seems.


----------



## exile (May 4, 2007)

cstanley said:


> Perhaps I should have added that kata is not PRIMARILY about fighting for those who are literalists. Mushin and zanshin have everything to do with fighting...much more than any "catalog of techniques." The techniques in kata are only the surface, the omote. Applying kata "intelligently" to actual combat means getting beneath the surface to the mindset that years of diligent kata practice, in addition to actual fighting and partner training, is supposed to develop. You don't drive your "roadmap," but you can't get to an unknown destination without it. You do not do close order drill in combat, but you can't prepare people for combat without it.
> Kata is like a koan...sometimes nothing is as it seems.



I'm still having a lot of trouble following your reasoning here. Kata were certainly primarily about fighting for Matsumura, Itosu, Motobu, Egami and the other founders of linear, combat-ready karate. Exactly what does it mean to say `the techniques in kata are only the surface, the omote'? The techniques in kata&#8212;_properly understood_, analyzed via realistic translations of the kind Itosu explicitly told us to seek out&#8212;are exactly what the fight is about. They inform you of how to respond to the habitual acts of violence that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, initiate a violent attack, and how to terminate that attack.

Let me give you an example, and you tell me exactly what is `on the surface' about the techs. There is an elementary form, which comes from Shotokan and was copied literally into TKD as Kicho Il-Jang. It begins in ready position, and involves a 90º turn to the left into a left front stance, with a left down block and a right fist retraction. Tori steps forward into a right front stance with a middle lunge punch retracting the left fist. Then tori pivots 180º into a _right_ down block/front stance, with left fist  retracted, and steps forward into a left front stance/middle lunge punch, retracting the right fist. Finally, tori pivots 90º to the left, into a left down block/front stance. 

OK&#8212;this is a _specific_ sequence of moves. You can assume they were thrown together willy-nilly, the weakest possible hypothesis, or you can assume they were put together in that sequence for a particular reason&#8212;that they contain information which is different from any other given sequence of moves, which is a much stronger hypothesis. Let's stick with the stronger hypothesis, OK? So then, why this _specific_ sequence? What is the point of it? Neither Itosu nor Matsumura had much time for anything but business&#8212;they were royal bodyguards forbiddent to have weapons, they were the King of Okinawa's chief LEOs. What _use_ would this particular sequence, or similar sequences, have been to them?

Well, if you understand the message that Itosu told us more than a century ago (and that was echoed in writings by Funakoshi, Motobu, Egami and just about every one of the karate pioneers) that the schoolchild labels `block' and `punch' were _not_ the actual content of the movements depicted, and if you follow the well-worked-out translations rules that people like Iain Abernethy, Lawrence Kane & Chris Wilder, Simon O'Neil and others have provided on the basis of serious research and experimentation under `live', realistic conditions&#8212;then the following corresponds to a very useful, practical application:

The assailant (A) grabs the defender (D)'s shirt, or arm/wrist/etc, standing close-up and face to face with D. D countergrabs A's gripping wrist with his right hand, turns 90º so his left side faces A's centerline, turning A's wrist to establish a lock and pulling it hard toward his own left side (`retraction') while slamming his left forearm into A's extended elbow  (`chambering' to coming down `block') to establish an armlock, which D then moves his own bodyweight into (the initial `front stance') to drive A's upper body, with locks at wrist and elbow, way down so that A's head is expose. D quickly brings the locking forearm all the way up past his own right ear (maybe smashing an elbow into A's lowered head on the way) and then slams his closed right fist down into A's carotid sinus, or face, or collarbone (the `down block' itself, lol). The striking left hand grips A's ear, or right shoulder, or whatever gripping surface seems best at the moment as part of a muchimi move to anchor A while D steps forward with a middle punch to A's still lowered, trapped head, then by another muchimi move grips A's ear immediately with the punching hand and pivots 180º to throw A towards the floor&#8212;the 180º turn typically explained away as just a `symmetry' move to do the form mirror-image on the other side, and the `down block' now a crucial component of the throw&#8212;and steps forward to punch A's head  at the temple, or possibly the throat with the left fist. Another 90º pivot, to D's left, corresponds to a final throw, and again, the `down block' a strike to A's neck. By now, A is probably wishing he'd stayed home.

I've used this particular bunkai for the first five-move subsequence of the form under fairly rough training conditions, and it is almost bombproof. It works with instinctive reactions, it's robust&#8212;there's plenty of room for error, because only large motor skills are involved, and it depends in no way on a compliant uke. It's a simple, `classic' sequence illustrating the huge discrepancy between the Itosu-style packaging of the kata/hyung as per my first description and the actual combat use of the sequences in a typical situation&#8212;according to Patrick McCarthy and others who've compile extensive studies of the habitual actions which attackers use in initiating assaults, the grab/punch sequence is extremely frequent and effective if no counteraction is taken. The kata gives you a principle-based approach to the problem posed by the imminent attack: go for A's weak point, pull him into close range, project your own bodyweight (the various `front stance') to force his head into striking range without him having any choice in the matter, and attack the weakest points on his head: throat, temple, face around the eyes, etc.

This is only one a number of techs that are available from these elementary kata; and the more advanced forms contain many more `atomic SD sequences'&#8212;subsequences of movements which translate into principle-driven tactical applications that take you from A's first pre-attacking moves to him lying on the ground, no longer a threat. That's what kata are about. In place of this kind of useful, specific information, your comments about mushin and zanshin have virtually no information at all, because they do not distinguish this particular sequence of movements, which replect a particular tactical application of general SD principles, from any other. Your comment about kata being all about mushin and zanshin is a generalization which fails to make it clear why we have _these_ movements and not some others. Itosu had specific things in mind for you to do as a result of learning the Pinan kata, or Naihanchi; Matsumura recorded the Chinto kata because he wanted a record of what the guy, Chinto, had been able to do so effectively. He didn't write down that particular sequence to teach you mushin/zanshin or anything else like that; he wrote it down because it was something he himself needed to learn to enhance his own combat effectiveness. You give only generalities, but generalities cannot explain particularities. I think, myself, that someone like Matsumura or Chotuko Kyand or Motobu would have chuckled, quietly, up their sleeve, at the thought that kata were anything but a record of effective, battle-tested combat techniques. They weren't, in those days, part of a martial art; as Abernethy and Burgar in their books amply document, they were regarded as martial arts _in themselves_. Mushin/zanshin... all of that is just mystification.


----------



## kidswarrior (May 4, 2007)

exile said:


> Abernethy gives a set of principles for decoding kata in _Bunkai-jutsu_, and so do Kane & Wilder in _The Way of Kata_; Simon O'Neil, in his _Combat-TKD_ newsletters, gives yet a third set of interpretation principles. The knowledge hasn't been entirely lost,


To me, resources such as these make a great starting line.


> ...and *more to the point, we can undertake the research effort ourselves to determine just what kinds of things these kata are telling us* about responding to certain specific attacks (grabs, roundhouse punches, attempted head-butts and groin strikes).


I'm beginning to think this is the punch the whole idea provides. It doesn't even matter to me all that much what the 'masters' might have 'encoded' (originally seen as the applications). Yes, those are important, but not necessarily exhaustive. The applications, I'm coming to believe, are limited only by my ability to keep seeing and seeking new ways the kata/segments/moves within kata might be used.



> All it takes is a bit of will, a reasonable level of intelligence, and an independent perspective.
> 
> And that, of course, is why it happens so rarely...


But, that is also what makes it so fun! :ultracool


----------



## kidswarrior (May 4, 2007)

exile said:


> Let me give you an example, and you tell me exactly what is `on the surface' about the techs. There is an elementary form, which comes from Shotokan and was copied literally into TKD as Kicho Il-Jang. It begins in ready position, and involves a 90º turn to the left into a left front stance, with a left down block and a right fist retraction. Tori steps forward into a right front stance with a middle lunge punch retracting the left fist. Then tori pivots 180º into a _right_ down block/front stance, with left fist  retracted, and steps forward into a left front stance/middle lunge punch, retracting the right fist. Finally, tori pivots 90º to the left, into a left down block/front stance.



Many, many good points here which deserve their own recognition and comment. But since as *Exile *and *Tellner *have said, we've been down this road a few times already, just wanted to say: *Exile*, the sequence you describe sounds _very _similar to the opening of Pinan 3 in Shaolin Kempo; and it's pretty much agreed that the Pinan series is taken from Shotokan. So, you chose a very good example with generalizable applicability across at least several major arts/styles, thus giving your argument that much more credence. :ultracool Case closed?


----------



## exile (May 4, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Many, many good points here which deserve their own recognition and comment. But since as *Exile *and *Tellner *have said, we've been down this road a few times already, just wanted to say: *Exile*, the sequence you describe sounds _very _similar to the opening of Pinan 3 in Shaolin Kempo; and it's pretty much agreed that the Pinan series is taken from Shotokan. So, you chose a very good example with generalizable applicability across at least several major arts/styles, thus giving your argument that much more credence. :ultracool Case closed?



Hi, kdswrrr, thanks for the support and the additional info. This is indeed a classic (I'm almost tempted to say `timeless', but that's verging into melodrama, eh?) sequence of movements that probably have several alterative, plausible and effective interpretations as combat _moves_. The one I gave is one that I worked out when I was first experimenting with the Abernethy/O'Neil movement-to-move `translation' rules; but I'm sure there are some potent apps implied in those movement I've simply never seen. 

You're dead rightwe have been down this road _many_ times. And one reason, I think, is that people make a kind of fundamental error in confusing the combat _content_ of kata with the combat _training_ of kata applications. Yes, you can certainly attain that `no-mind mind' state, but not on the basis of the combat roadmap that the kata reveal to you. That roadmap is a very specific guide to actions; the kata are telling you, for any given attack launched against you, here is one of several stories which have a happy ending for you. But practicing the combat moves and reactions that those stories consist ofactually _doing_ them under realistic conditions, making on-the-fly modifications (as people like Itosu, Motobu and Funakoshi constantly urged their students to do) in the face of errors, or unexpected developments, so that the overall tactical plan holds together_that's_ where mushin no shin comes in, and it's not restricted to martial arts. When I was a skier and ski racer, this happened to me on a fewvery fewoccasions, and the only way to describe it is something like, being in a state of grace, where, as the computer techs used to say, there are no problems, only solutions. Everything is transparent and you don't need to think, any more than you need to think about walking or breathing. If you train the combat plans that the kata are offering in real time, with a noncompliant opponent who's trying to simulate as much as possible a hostile, violent and maybe pathological assailant, and you do it often enough, then you may eventually be able to condition yourself to that level of immediate, reflexive response so that when it happens for real, you genuinely react without having to think. But that's not something that's ever gonna happen simply by practicing the _performance_ of kata; it's the payoff from practicing the _application_ of the kata techs, as revealed by bunkai, under pretty stressful conditions. Realistic training is great, but it's not necessarily much fun for anyone, especially uke.

An analogy that comes to mind is musical performance. The kata are like the score that tells the soloist what notes to play, but that effortless flow of virtuosity that you see in the greatest of the great (I'm thinking now of a performance that Midori gave in Columbus last autumn; there are no words for what she did, except maybe `perfection') doesn't come from the note-sequence that the score tells the soloist to play, but rather from decades of practicing twelve or more hours a day and endless effort to understand what the composer was up to in changing the dyamics here or repeating the tonal there... that state of perfect synthesis of performer and the work performed comes from endless work in actually producing real music in real time. But what the composer had in mind was not that `state of grace' for the performer, but rather a particular musical structure that embodied something that the composer wanted to say in the vocabulary of harmony and melody. Itosu may have applauded you being in such a state when you successfully defended yourself in that parking lot a couple of weeks ago, but your being in that state is not why he designed the kata that particular way. He designed the kata so that you would know what to do, what specific actions to carry out, _in order_ to defend yourself  successfully. _BIG_ difference!


----------



## cstanley (May 5, 2007)

exile said:


> I'm still having a lot of trouble following your reasoning here. Kata were certainly primarily about fighting for Matsumura, Itosu, Motobu, Egami and the other founders of linear, combat-ready karate. Exactly what does it mean to say `the techniques in kata are only the surface, the omote'? The techniques in kata_properly understood_, analyzed via realistic translations of the kind Itosu explicitly told us to seek outare exactly what the fight is about. They inform you of how to respond to the habitual acts of violence that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, initiate a violent attack, and how to terminate that attack.
> 
> Let me give you an example, and you tell me exactly what is `on the surface' about the techs. There is an elementary form, which comes from Shotokan and was copied literally into TKD as Kicho Il-Jang. It begins in ready position, and involves a 90º turn to the left into a left front stance, with a left down block and a right fist retraction. Tori steps forward into a right front stance with a middle lunge punch retracting the left fist. Then tori pivots 180º into a _right_ down block/front stance, with left fist retracted, and steps forward into a left front stance/middle lunge punch, retracting the right fist. Finally, tori pivots 90º to the left, into a left down block/front stance.
> 
> ...


 
No, mushin and zanshin are not mystification to anyone who has been practicing kata long enough to understand what it is about. You are still focusing on the concrete. Your explanation of Taikyoku Shodan is one of several similar scenarios, most of which will get you punched in the head a few times before you are done.
You site Abernathy and McCarthy, both of whom are not really taken too seriously by many of us who have been in Okinawan karate a long time. Quit trying to "figure the kata out" and practice them for a few more years. Allow bunkai to be a secondary focus for a while. Every monkey butt in town is on a bunkai craze trying to outdo his neighbor with a new application. It is getting like a circus. The kata are of value aside from concrete applications. If that is all you focus on, or if you focus on applications too early in learning the kata, you miss a lot. 
You seem to know the minds of Kyan, Motobu, and Matsumura very well. When did you meet with them and discuss these things? What is an "atomic" self defense sequence? How about those "principle driven tactical applications...sounds like Kuchi Kata to me.


----------



## exile (May 6, 2007)

cstanley said:


> You seem to know the minds of Kyan, Motobu, and Matsumura very well. When did you meet with them and discuss these things?



When did I meet with them? When I read their writing about kata, about the point of kata and keeping childhood and adult application separate. Here's an interesting fact about the Okinawan pioneers: they actually wrote down their thoughts in books, essays and letters! 



> What is an "atomic" self defense sequence?



A stand-along sequence that takes you from an attacker's initial move to the end of the sequence with him on the ground. I actually did mention this in my posts to you. Interestingly, I was just at a Combat Hapkido seminar with Gm. John Pelligrini who illustrated some basic techs of CH that overlap remarkably with the bunkai I described in the post you quoted for that elementary kata/hyung sequence, and wind up terminating with the incapacitation of the attacker along just the lines I sketched. And to the best of my knowledge, Gm. Pellegrini does not have a reputation for getting hit on the head very often. 



> How about those "principle driven tactical applications...sounds like Kuchi Kata to me.



Ah, but you see, it's not, CS. It simply refers to combat moves which are guided by sound general principles of self defense. Don't get hit, for example. Close the distance with the assailant. Use his attack to open him up while closing yourself. Basic, sound principles of self defense that show up in Karate, TKD, Combat Hapkido... 

Abernethy's bunkai will get you hit in the head? Maybe you could explain exactly how that will happen given the application I cited. I _know_ it's fun to make snide comments about monkey butts and so on instead of providing content; it _does_ keep you from having to say anything, and it allows you to go on talking&#8212;a bit vaguely&#8212;about how you shouldn't look for anything concrete in kata about how a fight should be conducted, without having to address the fact that a fight is about as concrete as you can get. If that's the best you can do, you might as well do it, eh?

No, CS, the fact is that on the basis of what you've _said_, you seem to be pretty deep in mystification. You think the bunkai of guys like Abernethy, who trains `alive' with the best of them, (including guys like Geoff Thompson, another one who doesn't get hit on the head all that often and is a particularly enthusiastic proponent of Abernethy's view of kata), who has a extensive body of published analyses and DVDs illustrating every aspect of kata applications, from close-in H2H to grappling techs  are inferior? Well, convince us. There's his work; show the holes in it. You and various unnamed others are of the opinion that he's got it wrong? Well, what's the basis of your opinion&#8212;the _specific_ basis? Provide a better analysis of the simple kata fragment I brought up. Explain what's wrong with the one I offered. Say something with some substance, like explaining why the katas contain certain subsequences of movements but not others. So far your comments have been somewhat light on _any_ of that. Mostly, what you've said reminds me a bit of a comment that Abernethy makes in _Bunkai-Jutsu_:

_When a movement is attributed a physical or spiritual significance, as opposed to a combative one, it is a sure sign that the person espousing that significance has no idea of what that movement is actually for! But rather than be honest and admit that they do not understand the movement's purpose, they prefer to bluff their way around it.... Every single movement within kata is for use in combat. We should never try to attribute other meanings simply because we do not understand how a movement is to be applied._

(pp. 32-33). Excellent advice, I'd say.


----------



## cstanley (May 6, 2007)

exile said:


> When did I meet with them? When I read their writing about kata, about the point of kata and keeping childhood and adult application separate. Here's an interesting fact about the Okinawan pioneers: they actually wrote down their thoughts in books, essays and letters!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
No one is attributing "spiritual" significance" to kata applications, and no one is denying that all, or most, kata sequences have practical applications. I think you are deliberately missing my point. Again, my point is that focusing only on the practical applications and trying to "reverse engineer" kata in order to find currently popular techniques causes people to miss much of what kata is about.
Taikyoku Shodan is about oi zuki and everything that goes with it...stepping, hip thrust, leg drive, the hara, hiki te, etc. The initial gedan barai (not gedan uke) becomes less and less important as time and training progress. I often tell my students, repeating what Kuniba and Utsuri said many times, at senior levels, "the barai or uke sometimes just go away." 
If a senior wants to "find" a jujutsu application in Taikyoku Shodan, well, fine. But, it was not intended that way for beginners. Karate is primarily about atemi. Most jujutsu applications will not work without some kind of kuzushi applied simultaneously. In karate, atemi is most often the kuzushi.
The goal of karate is to grow to the point at which every technique flows from mushin. This is not some abstract "spiritual" concept. One of the purposes of kata training (serious long term kata training) is to develop mushin. You find it in kenjutsu and other arts as well. Rather than try to find as many "techniques" or applications in kata as possible, just do the kata and let the applications become secondary for a while. They will still be there later on. "Perfection is not when there is no longer anything to add; it is when there is no longer anything to take away."


----------



## exile (May 6, 2007)

cstanley said:


> No one is attributing "spiritual" significance" to kata applications, and no one is denying that all, or most, kata sequences have practical applications. I think you are deliberately missing my point.



No, I'm not deliberately missing your point. Let's take a look, why don't we, at exactly what you said in you first post in this exchange, in the context of a previous discusion documenting the combat applicability of kata moves in general.



			
				cstanley said:
			
		

> Kata is not about fighting; it is about mushin and zanshin.



You recall writing this, I take it? And now we have you saying



			
				cstanley said:
			
		

> ...no one is denying that all, or most, kata sequences have practical applications.



I'm not making up either of statements: you wrote both of them. In the first you deny that kata are about fighting; in the second you assert that they do have, um, _something_ to do with fighting (what else would `practical applications' be except applications to combat??) and complain that I'm deliberately missing your point. But what's happened is, you've changed your story, haven't you, and are in effect denying your first statment, which was what I was responding to. So no, CS, I've not missed your point at all. 

Let's stick with your first statement, rather than your unacknowledged 180º turn in the second statement I've quoted. Kata isn't about fighting, eh? Well, in that case, kata moves are not relevant to fighting, _but to something else_. And that was what Abernethy was talking aboutpeople who make statements asserting that kata are about things other than combat effectiveness. It doesn't matter whether they're saying that kata are _about_ phyiscal conditioning, or spiritual growth, or mental tranquility, or the distribution of craters on the surface of the moon: his explicit point is that denying that the primary purpose of kata are to guides to combat. And so your first statement falls neatly under the class of cases he's talking about in the quote I gave.




cstanley said:


> Again, my point is that focusing only on the practical applications and trying to "reverse engineer" kata in order to find currently popular techniques causes people to miss much of what kata is about.



The optimal techniques for conducting a fight successfully are `currently popular techniques'? Not on planet Earth, CS. I have a dozen books on karate and taekwondo (whose hyungs are just mixmastered version of Shotokan kata, with the `atomic' combat subsequences preserved intact but mixed up with respect to the kata)  sitting in front of me, written in the last ten years, that give `sparring-based' bunkai that look as though they were written by a reporter specializing in martial sports ring competitions. What's the percentage of karateka, do you figure, who know that a retracted fist in kata typically grips the attacker's hand or wrist. Don't take Abernethy's word for it? Then check out Kand & Wilder's _The Way of Kata_, or Bill Burgar's _Five Years, One Kata_ or Simon O'Neil's _Combat TKD[/QUOTE] newsletters, or Stuart Anslow's new book on the Ch'ang Hon tuls, or just about anything by Rick Clark, or Javier Martinez (yes, I know, CS, these guys are in your words `monkey's butts') for analysis, illustration and argumentationsomething you've yet to provide for any of the pronouncements you've madethat the bunkai they present are among the most optimal. These bunkai are well-defended in this work, but poplular? What are you talking about? 



cstanley said:



			Taikyoku Shodan is about oi zuki and everything that goes with it...stepping, hip thrust, leg drive, the hara, hiki te, etc.
		
Click to expand...


Ah yes, another pronouncement. `Kata are not about X... Taikyoku Shodan is about Y'. All these statements delivered ex cathedra, and unlike the extensive and carefully argued work that's the target of your casually nasty cracks, you offer nothing to support them. But let's see what your statement here actually says: Taikyoku Shodan is about [lunge punches] and everything that goes with [them]......[retraction], etc.' You're taking the set of movements that the kata present and telling us that the kata are about those movements? I.e., that the kata is about its parts? Similar to saying that the Ruy Lopez chess opening is `about' the moves P-K4/P-K4, Kt-KB3/Kt-KB3, etc; or that Einstein's famous equation about the energy content of mass is `about' the letters E, m, and c and the number 2? That, in effect, the kata is about... the kata? THIS is your alternative to the detailed exploration by the (admittedly `monkey butt') authors I've cited earlier on how the movements in kata correspond to an integrated effect response to the gestures that typically initiate a violent physical attack??




cstanley said:



			The initial gedan barai (not gedan uke) becomes less and less important as time and training progress. I often tell my students, repeating what Kuniba and Utsuri said many times, at senior levels, "the barai or uke sometimes just go away."
		
Click to expand...


OK, I'm going to leave it to other readers of your post to find some content to this vagueness. I can't see any, and since you seem unwilling to provide anythis is no better than what you first posted about mushin and zanshinit seems to me to add zero information to the discussion.



cstanley said:



			If a senior wants to "find" a jujutsu application in Taikyoku Shodan, well, fine. But, it was not intended that way for beginners. Karate is primarily about atemi.
		
Click to expand...


Another ex cathedra pronouncement without support. Maybe you should take up the matter with Gichin Funakoshi, who wrote (in Karate-Do Kyoban), `in karate, hitting, thrusting and kicking are not the only methods; throwing techniques and pressure against joints are also included', and in the same volume he provides a number of throwing techs and specifically tells the reader that these should be studied by reference to the basic kata. There's more, CS: in Rentan Goshin Karate Jutsu he explicitly discusses the role of hitike as a controlling movement established by twisting the wrist in to unbalance the opponent. and bring them helplessly into range of the defender's fist or knifehand attack. Shigeru Egami, in The Heart of Karate-Do, chimes in as well with the observation that `there are also throwing techniques in karate... throwing techniques were practiced in my day and I recommend that you reconsider them.'  So what are they doing in the system, if Karate is `primarily about atemi'? Suppose indeed that strikes are typically the finishing moves in a katate-based defense against an assaulthow on earth does this preclude the scenario I depicted in my little bit of form analysis which takes locks and traps to be crucial set-ups for the finishing strikes? If they don't play this role, than what were Funakoshi and Egami going on about? What I'm saying is that your comment `Karate is primarily about atemi' is a red herringwhat you're calling `jiu-jutsu' techs were indeed integral parts of Okinawan karate and its Japanese variant, and are part of karate's Korean variants (TKD/TSD), as controlling moves to provide high-value targets for atemi, and so are crucial parts of the complete systembut are still rarely taught in dojos and dojangs. And since you practice Okinawan karate, CS, I assume you're aware that the Minamoto bujitsu that the Satsuma overlords contributed to Okinawan thinking on combat philosophy included an approach to combat movement intended to be applicable to either weapon combat or empty-hand combatand that this approach was incorporated into the tuite that Matsumura combined with chuan fa techniques and a few ideas of his own to produce modern linear karate. 





cstanley said:



			Most jujutsu applications will not work without some kind of kuzushi applied simultaneously. In karate, atemi is most often the kuzushi.
		
Click to expand...


Ah, so striking is the usual way that balance is broken, is that what you're saying? Well, see the previous references for comments from the founders of modern karate apparently to the effect that breaking balance is a crucial preparation for striking. The two are perfectly compatible; it's you who seem to be insisting that you can only have one or the other. This is simply Kane & Wilder's third principle of kata application: strike to disrupt, disrupt to strike. And nothing in my little bunkai script, or the more extensive bunkai that Abernthey gives for the Pinans, say, or Burgar for Gojushiho, are incompatible with that principle in the least.





			The goal of karate is to grow to the point at which every technique flows from mushin. This is not some abstract "spiritual" concept. One of the purposes of kata training (serious long term kata training) is to develop mushin. You find it in kenjutsu and other arts as well. Rather than try to find as many "techniques" or applications in kata as possible, just do the kata and let the applications become secondary for a while. They will still be there later on. "Perfection is not when there is no longer anything to add; it is when there is no longer anything to take away."
		
Click to expand...


And this is suppose to be informative, and substitute for an explanation of why the particular moves we find in the kata are there, and not some other? This is why, according to Nagamine and others, Matsumura wrote down the moves of the Chinto kata when recording just what it was that Chinto seemed to be doing that had been so effective in defending himself when confronted by Matsumura? In my last couple of posts I complained that you were trying to explain particularitiesthe kata are not just any old sequences of moves, but only certain sequenceon the basis of vague generalities, a major type of reasoning error that explains nothing. And here you're still doing exactly the same thing. Well, you can go on repeating it, but that isn't going to improve it..._


----------



## cstanley (May 6, 2007)

exile said:


> No, I'm not deliberately missing your point. Let's take a look, why don't we, at exactly what you said in you first post in this exchange, in the context of a previous discusion documenting the combat applicability of kata moves in general.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_ newsletters, or Stuart Anslow's new book on the Ch'ang Hon tuls, or just about anything by Rick Clark, or Javier Martinez (yes, I know, CS, these guys are in your words `monkey's butts') for analysis, illustration and argumentationsomething you've yet to provide for any of the pronouncements you've madethat the bunkai they present are among the most optimal. These bunkai are well-defended in this work, but poplular? What are you talking about? 



Ah yes, another pronouncement. `Kata are not about X... Taikyoku Shodan is about Y'. All these statements delivered ex cathedra, and unlike the extensive and carefully argued work that's the target of your casually nasty cracks, you offer nothing to support them. But let's see what your statement here actually says: Taikyoku Shodan is about [lunge punches] and everything that goes with [them]......[retraction], etc.' You're taking the set of movements that the kata present and telling us that the kata are about those movements? I.e., that the kata is about its parts? Similar to saying that the Ruy Lopez chess opening is `about' the moves P-K4/P-K4, Kt-KB3/Kt-KB3, etc; or that Einstein's famous equation about the energy content of mass is `about' the letters E, m, and c and the number 2? That, in effect, the kata is about... the kata? THIS is your alternative to the detailed exploration by the (admittedly `monkey butt') authors I've cited earlier on how the movements in kata correspond to an integrated effect response to the gestures that typically initiate a violent physical attack??




OK, I'm going to leave it to other readers of your post to find some content to this vagueness. I can't see any, and since you seem unwilling to provide anythis is no better than what you first posted about mushin and zanshinit seems to me to add zero information to the discussion.



Another ex cathedra pronouncement without support. Maybe you should take up the matter with Gichin Funakoshi, who wrote (in Karate-Do Kyoban), `in karate, hitting, thrusting and kicking are not the only methods; throwing techniques and pressure against joints are also included', and in the same volume he provides a number of throwing techs and specifically tells the reader that these should be studied by reference to the basic kata. There's more, CS: in Rentan Goshin Karate Jutsu he explicitly discusses the role of hitike as a controlling movement established by twisting the wrist in to unbalance the opponent. and bring them helplessly into range of the defender's fist or knifehand attack. Shigeru Egami, in The Heart of Karate-Do, chimes in as well with the observation that `there are also throwing techniques in karate... throwing techniques were practiced in my day and I recommend that you reconsider them.' So what are they doing in the system, if Karate is `primarily about atemi'? Suppose indeed that strikes are typically the finishing moves in a katate-based defense against an assaulthow on earth does this preclude the scenario I depicted in my little bit of form analysis which takes locks and traps to be crucial set-ups for the finishing strikes? If they don't play this role, than what were Funakoshi and Egami going on about? What I'm saying is that your comment `Karate is primarily about atemi' is a red herringwhat you're calling `jiu-jutsu' techs were indeed integral parts of Okinawan karate and its Japanese variant, and are part of karate's Korean variants (TKD/TSD), as controlling moves to provide high-value targets for atemi, and so are crucial parts of the complete systembut are still rarely taught in dojos and dojangs. And since you practice Okinawan karate, CS, I assume you're aware that the Minamoto bujitsu that the Satsuma overlords contributed to Okinawan thinking on combat philosophy included an approach to combat movement intended to be applicable to either weapon combat or empty-hand combatand that this approach was incorporated into the tuite that Matsumura combined with chuan fa techniques and a few ideas of his own to produce modern linear karate. 





Ah, so striking is the usual way that balance is broken, is that what you're saying? Well, see the previous references for comments from the founders of modern karate apparently to the effect that breaking balance is a crucial preparation for striking. The two are perfectly compatible; it's you who seem to be insisting that you can only have one or the other. This is simply Kane & Wilder's third principle of kata application: strike to disrupt, disrupt to strike. And nothing in my little bunkai script, or the more extensive bunkai that Abernthey gives for the Pinans, say, or Burgar for Gojushiho, are incompatible with that principle in the least.




And this is suppose to be informative, and substitute for an explanation of why the particular moves we find in the kata are there, and not some other? This is why, according to Nagamine and others, Matsumura wrote down the moves of the Chinto kata when recording just what it was that Chinto seemed to be doing that had been so effective in defending himself when confronted by Matsumura? In my last couple of posts I complained that you were trying to explain particularitiesthe kata are not just any old sequences of moves, but only certain sequenceon the basis of vague generalities, a major type of reasoning error that explains nothing. And here you're still doing exactly the same thing. Well, you can go on repeating it, but that isn't going to improve it...[/quote]

You talk like someone who hasn't had much experience in karate. I also notice that your background is TKD and maybe Shotokan, both of which are, at best, poor derivatives of Okinawan karate. Your knowledge of karate and its traditions seems to be based primarily on things you have read (and not the best sources, either) rather than upon any significant number of years training. Plus, you really seem to like to argue and hear yourself talk.

You are missing a lot, but that can't be helped. One day you may stumble over the truth of what I am saying. I fully expect you to pick yourself up and keep right on going, however. Good luck._


----------



## exile (May 6, 2007)

cstanley said:


> You talk like someone who hasn't had much experience in karate. I also notice that your background is TKD and maybe Shotokan, both of which are, at best, poor derivatives of Okinawan karate. Your knowledge of karate and its traditions seems to be based primarily on things you have read (and not the best sources, either) rather than upon any significant number of years training. Plus, you really seem to like to argue and hear yourself talk.



I don't know if you are aware of it, CS, but this comment is exactly of a piece with all of your previous posts. It doesn't actually contain one bit of information. I've made a number of specific statements, given my sources and support, explained in detail why I think what I do. Your response consists, in effect of name-calling. I've pointed out among other things exactly where you've contradicted yourself, thrown out red herrings in place of arguments, made vague and contentless statement in response to actual arguments, and trash-talked people who I'm willing to bet any amount of money have spent a lot longer, and thought much harder, about the content of karate kata than you have (based on what you yourself say about them). And all you can do is observe&#8212;irrelevantly&#8212;that my background is in the Shotokan-based arts. I had to chuckle at this; you clearly don't realize how cooperative you're being in helping me make my case,  by making so clear just how unfamiliar you are with the basic literature in this area&#8212;for as it happens, Kane & Wilder, among the leading exponents of the approach I'm supporting, are both practitioners and instructors of Okinawan Goju-Ryu, and their kata examples and interpretations come on Goju-Ryu. Javier Martinez, one of the leading lights in this area, with special expertise on the joint manipulation component of karate, is a distinguished Okinawan karate expert, with a solid knowledge of its history, who's devoted a good deal of his work to joint manipulations and trapping/locking techs in the Okinawan styles. Shotokan only, eh?  (The great irony, of course, is that it's the standard bunkai for _Shotokan_, and the diluted Japanese styles generally, which omit the trapping/locking/controlling components and insist on kick-punch-block, pure and exclusive atemi, completely in accord with your assertion that karate is `primarily' atemi... but that's sort of par for the course here). 



cstanley said:


> You are missing a lot, but that can't be helped. One day you may stumble over the truth of what I am saying. I fully expect you to pick yourself up and keep right on going, however. Good luck.



I know, CS; it's hard when you've stepped in it and have no substantive counters&#8212;not much else to do, I suppose, except issue vague condemnations exactly like what you've just said. I think readers can figure it out for themselves: I offer detailed support from authorities who've studied the problem far more than you; therefore I like to hear myself talk. You switch stories in the middle and make claims that are contradicted by basic literature in a martial art in which you're godan; therefore  _I'm_ missing a lot. You make assertions about karate which are explicitly contradicted by the work of the founding masters of karate; therefore my knowledge is primarily based on things I've read in books, and not the best sources at that (e.g., Funakoshi, Egami). You actually say nothing of substance&#8212;not even to respond to any of my numerous requests for some specific critiques of the work you trash-talk&#8212;therefore `one day [ I ] may stumble over the truth of what [you're] saying'. Basically, you've provided a clinic on how _not_ to argue about anything. 

Well.... I guess it can't be helped, eh? :wink1:


----------



## cstanley (May 6, 2007)

exile said:


> I don't know if you are aware of it, CS, but this comment is exactly of a piece with all of your previous posts. It doesn't actually contain one bit of information. I've made a number of specific statements, given my sources and support, explained in detail why I think what I do. Your response consists, in effect of name-calling. I've pointed out among other things exactly where you've contradicted yourself, thrown out red herrings in place of arguments, made vague and contentless statement in response to actual arguments, and trash-talked people who I'm willing to bet any amount of money have spent a lot longer, and thought much harder, about the content of karate kata than you have (based on what you yourself say about them). And all you can do is observeirrelevantlythat my background is in the Shotokan-based arts. I had to chuckle at this; you clearly don't realize how cooperative you're being in helping me make my case, by making so clear just how unfamiliar you are with the basic literature in this areafor as it happens, Kane & Wilder, among the leading exponents of the approach I'm supporting, are both practitioners and instructors of Okinawan Goju-Ryu, and their kata examples and interpretations come on Goju-Ryu. Javier Martinez, one of the leading lights in this area, with special expertise on the joint manipulation component of karate, is a distinguished Okinawan karate expert, with a solid knowledge of its history, who's devoted a good deal of his work to joint manipulations and trapping/locking techs in the Okinawan styles. Shotokan only, eh?  (The great irony, of course, is that it's the standard bunkai for _Shotokan_, and the diluted Japanese styles generally, which omit the trapping/locking/controlling components and insist on kick-punch-block, pure and exclusive atemi, completely in accord with your assertion that karate is `primarily' atemi... but that's sort of par for the course here).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You are the only one "arguing" here. I attempted to make a point about some aspects of kata that go beyond technique. You are the one who ran in with all the wind and verbiage. I never "switched stories." To assert that there is far more to kata than fighting applications, then to acknowledge that the moves do, indeed, have fighting applications is not a contradiction. Funakoshi and Egami I do not consider "good sources" for Okinawan karate. By the way, Itosu and Matsumura were not bodyguards for the King. Itosu was a school teacher, and Matsumura served in the court as an envoy to China. You must have read this in Bruce Clayton's book...another dubious offering. 

I stand by my statements regarding oi zuki and the concepts that underlie the kata applications. Once again, you are focusing way too much on technique and things you have read. You need to practice the kata yourself for a long time in order to put the techniques and the reading in the proper context. I've been in karate for 31 years under some pretty knowledgeable Okinawan instructors and their shihan. The things I am saying are not just things I made up or read in books. They come from training in kata AND its applications for many years.


----------



## exile (May 6, 2007)

cstanley said:


> You are the only one "arguing" here. I attempted to make a point about some aspects of kata that go beyond technique. You are the one who ran in with all the wind and verbiage. I never "switched stories." To assert that there is far more to kata than fighting applications, then to acknowledge that the moves do, indeed, have fighting applications is not a contradiction.



`Wind and verbiage'... true to form, CS! 

I don't see why this should be necessary, but apparently it is. So we'll go back and reread (again) just what you said, in your own words, OK?



			
				cstanley said:
			
		

> Kata is not about fighting; it is about mushin and zanshin.



This is the passsage about which you want us to take your words to mean that `there is far more to kata than fighting applications.' (quoting your _current_ post'.) But that's not what you say, CS. Stop dissembling. You, I and anyone else who can read can see that you aren't saying that kata is about more than fighting. You are saying that it'sto quote you, again_not about fighting._ Period. There it is, your own words. I'm sure you would prefer to have written something else now, but you didn't, so it might be better to stop pretending that you did, eh?



			
				cstanley said:
			
		

> ...no one is denying that all, or most, kata sequences have practical applications.



And this is where you change your story. Now you are indeed saying that kata is at least in part about fighting. You never get around to saying specifically what it is beyond that. And you still aren't. Right now, it looks to me as though you're simply trying to deny saying something any native speaker of English can see quite clearly that you did say. You really think that people can't tell? 




			
				cstanley said:
			
		

> Funakoshi and Egami I do not consider "good sources" for Okinawan karate.



Ah, no. After all, Funakoshi wouldn't have learn Okinawan karate from Itosuwhere would one get that idea?? But the problem is, CS, that even if that were true, _you_ introduced the Okinawan issue as a total red herring. I gave a detailed bunkai for a fragment of a well-travelled elementary kata; you brought in the Okinawan issue, which so far as I can see has nothing to do with what I was saying at all; and you've carefully avoided the fact that Javier Martinez, who's probably explored Okinawan kata bunkai in at least as much detail as anyone else, gives interpretations for kata in numerous publications which make full use of the the range of tuite techniques, including wristlocks, armbars, joint manipulations and all the rest. And again, all you can do is offer unsupported trash-talk about Funakoshi and Egami.  



			
				cstanley said:
			
		

> By the way, Itosu and Matsumura were not bodyguards for the King. Itosu was a school teacher, and Matsumura served in the court as an envoy to China. You must have read this in Bruce Clayton's book...another dubious offering.



No, actually, the information comes from Mark Bishop, the leading historian of Okinawan karate, from the Shotokai website, the Wikipedia website, and about a dozen other publsihed and Internet sites.

At http://www.shotokai.com/ingles/bios/matsumura.html :

_Born in the city of Shuri (there is a bit of uncertainty on the exact year)  on the island of Okinawa, early in his life he was sent to train to the Master Sakugawa school. He furthermore was taught directly by Master Kushanku. There is also enough information to believe that he also was taught by a Chinese Master called Iwah and on the other hand some master of the Jigen sword school of the Satsuma clan, most surely a Master called Yashuhiro Ijuin.

*He worked as a bodyguard for three different kings.* He lived in China around the year 1830, when he returned he forms his school and starts teaching a modified Chinese form he calls Passai.

Among his most important students we can count Yasutsune Itosu and Yasutsune Azato. From time to time he would teach Gichin Funakoshi directly but his greatest influence was surely indirectly through Azato and Itosu._


At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokon_Matsumura :

[/I]Sokon Matsumura (?? ?? Matsumura S?kon?, 1809 - 1899) was one
of the well-known original karateka of Okinawa.
He studied Chuan Fa (Kempo in Japanese) in China as well as other martial arts and brought what he learned back to Okinawa, where he taught a select few students and became a well known master. After Japan assumed full control of Okinawa 40 years later however, *Matsumura Sensei moved to Tokyo and taught and developed karate for the rest of his life.
Matsumura was recruited into the service of the Sho family (Royal family of Okinawa) and eventually became the chief martial arts instructor and bodyguard for the Okinawan King. *[/I]

From Mark Bishop's state of the art _Okinawan Karate: Teachers, Styles and Secret Techniques _ (1999, Tuttle):

_Sokon Matusumura was born into a well-known shizoku family at Yamagawa village, Shuri.... *whilst working as a bodyguard for the last three successive  Ryukyuan kings, Sho Ko, Sho Iku and Sho Tai, * Matsumura twice visited Fuchou and Satsuma as an envoy on affairs of state._

(p. 53.) Just to help you see what I'm referring to, I've bolded the relevant passages. I could go on, but you seem to have an aversion to posts that challenge your unsupported assertions with detailed evidence. So instead, CS, maybe you'll tell us what your authority for saying that Matusumura was _not_ a bodyguard to the Kings of Okinawa, including the last one. Bishop also makes it clear that Itosu, who had trained under Matsumura from the time he was a youngster and was considered Matsumura's most accomplished pupil ever, worked for Matsumura while the latter was the chief of the King's security at Shuri Castle. So give us a source, CS. What is your factual basis for saying that Matsumura was _not_ a bodyguard for the Kings of Okinawa?? You state it as fact. What's the source of that `fact,' CS?




			
				cstanley said:
			
		

> I stand by my statements regarding oi zuki and the concepts that underlie the kata applications.



Um... try reading my post again. What you are `standing by' is that the kata are `about' the movements in the kata, which is either a tautology, or has the status of the analogies I offered before.



			
				cstanley said:
			
		

> Once again, you are focusing way too much on technique and things you have read. You need to practice the kata yourself for a long time in order to put the techniques and the reading in the proper context. I've been in karate for 31 years under some pretty knowledgeable Okinawan instructors and their shihan. The things I am saying are not just things I made up or read in books. They come from training in kata AND its applications for many years.



Let me translate: I've trained in kata for a long time, so I know better than any of the people who've presented their knowledge publically. I don't have to defend my position or even state what that position, in its details, consists of. `Things I've read?' Well, that's part of it. I've also trained hyungs, mixmastered kata as I say, under fairly realistic conditions with noncompliant oppos. What I found dovetails very nicely with what Abernethy, Burgar, Clark, Kane & Wilder, O'Neil, Anslow, McCarthy and many others have detailed explicitly in their books, and which many of them have trained under _brutally_ realistic conditions. You give no reason to be skeptical of their results, or my own training, other than that you say so. And the problem is, CS, thatas our last five or six exchanges showby now you've said so many vague, contradictory, equivocating,  and out and out factually wrong thingswhat I've mentioned in this post and the last three or four, with documentationthat I really see little or no credibility at all in your unsupported pronouncements. And I got a feeling I'm not the only one.


----------



## cstanley (May 6, 2007)

exile said:


> `Wind and verbiage'... true to form, CS!
> 
> I don't see why this should be necessary, but apparently it is. So we'll go back and reread (again) just what you said, in your own words, OK?
> 
> ...


 
My information comes from Nagamine's book, "Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters." It is not clear that Matsumura was a bodyguard. We do know that he was an envoy to China. Itosu was not. You like to cite references to books. I've read a lot of books, too. They are not much help with what I was originally talking about. You have been so busy setting up straw men that you still miss my point.

You like to cite Egami...he wrote a book subtitled, "Beyond Technique." C.W. Nicol wrote a book about karate and kata called, "Moving Zen." Deshimaru wrote a book entitled, "Zen and the way of Martial Arts." These all indicate that there are aspects of kata that go beyond the applications you seem so concerned with. All agree that it takes decades to master kata. This, in itself, implies that there is much more to kata than the mere fighting applications. Certainly, you need to understand and be able to execute the bunkai. Most of my students are able to do that pretty well by sandan. Then, there is the rest of their karate life. 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "mixmastered" kata. Sounds a bit like cut and paste. Do you make up your own? What is a "red belt with a black tip?"

TKD hyungs have no relation to Okinawan kata. For years, TKD students did not even know any applications for their hyungs other than the obvious. Lately, they have been trying to put back in what they never had through borrowing and reverse engineering. The Shotokan Heian, by their very nature, show a total lack of understanding of bunkai as embodied in the Okinawan Pinan from which they were lifted and changed. This is widely understood throughout the Okinawan karate community. It doesn't sound to me like you have much of a background for pronouncing about kata or karate. I'm sure that won't stop you, but you are focusing on the wrong things. I'm sure you have a lot of time and energy invested in this forum. You really should get out some. www.karate-budo.com

Also, leave the books on the shelf and practice kata for a while. Focus less on the applications, then come back to them after several years. You may be surprised at what you see then.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 6, 2007)

Mr. *Stanley*, I wonder if it would be an impertinence to ask for a little more detail on your experience in martial arts?  Your profile is a touch lacking in this regard so it makes it hard to add any gravitas to your words.  I further wonder if you have checked *Exile*'s profile before 'engaging' in verbal combat?  

Also, a simple check of the 'header' that goes above each post would show that, here at least, it would be advisiable to be less belligerent. After all, it's not the most polite method in the world of making an argument to insult the person you're talking too, especially when that person is an established member of the 'club' you've joined.  This is particularly true for a 'new kid on the block'.  

At present, the approach you are taking does any credability your points may have no good at all.  This is to the extent that you may as well not be making an argument in the first place - the lack of responses for your stance means that everyone else either has no interest or does not consider that what you are saying has merit and that *Exile* is doing a pretty good job of representing the point of view that they do hold.

Advise on the Net is, as ever, worth exactly what you paid for it, so feel free to disregard my words.  I, it goes without saying, think that you would be better received if you changed your tack but, in the end, it's your choice.


----------



## cstanley (May 6, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Mr. *Stanley*, I wonder if it would be an impertinence to ask for a little more detail on your experience in martial arts? Your profile is a touch lacking in this regard so it makes it hard to add any gravitas to your words. I further wonder if you have checked *Exile*'s profile before 'engaging' in verbal combat?
> 
> Also, a simple check of the 'header' that goes above each post would show that, here at least, it would be advisiable to be less belligerent. After all, it's not the most polite method in the world of making an argument to insult the person you're talking too, especially when that person is an established member of the 'club' you've joined. This is particularly true for a 'new kid on the block'.
> 
> ...


 
Funny, I didn't think I was the one being rude. yes, I checked Exile's profile. That is why I asked what is a red belt with a black tip. It also led to my surmise that he lacks experience in karate and kata.

I have been in karate since 1975. I began Shorin ryu under Koto Higoshi in '75 while in HS and continued in college with him. Higoshi was a student of Chibana. I began training in Motobu ha Shito ryu under Richard Baillargeon in '82, then in Seishin Kai under Shogo Kuniba while living in Virginia in the '80's. When I moved back to Georgia I opened a small dojo in Macon, but continued to attend camps and seminars under Kuniba or his shihan. I met Morio Higaonna in '85 and began training with him and his students in order to better understand the Naha kata of Shito ryu. But, my karate is Shito ryu. I have also been training in Omori/Eishin ryu iaido for 10 years. Okinawan kobudo is an integral part of Shito ryu, so I have been studying weapons as long as I have been doing karate. So, there is the pedigree.

I am really not concerned with whether anyone responds to what I am saying or not. The point was stated concisely enough...kata is about mushin and zanshin. It is also about bunkai, but that is only the surface. That seems simple enough. If Exile, or anyone else, can't get with that, fine. It is a fairly straightforward assertion. Hardly requiring the mountains of lugubrious horse **** that Exile spewed about it.


----------



## tellner (May 6, 2007)

CS, you're just digging yourself in deeper here. The other guys, exile in particular, have used facts, history, experience, reproducible results and logic. You have added nothing besides bald assertions and a few vague insults. And we are supposed to believe that over the former for exactly what reason? 

This is a problem I see with a lot martial artists, particularly teachers, who venture beyond the walls of their dojo. They're used to being The Authority. What they say goes. They transmit knowledge and wisdom to the students who sop it up like pyjama-clad sponges. The give and take between peers is a tad alien to them. So they tend to make pronouncements and take offense when they are received critically. 

One of the advantages that cloistered academics like exile have is that they're used to this sort of thing. Ideas get exposed to intense criticism and are created, revised, thrown away and revived. It's all part of getting to the truth of a matter.


----------



## exile (May 6, 2007)

Just one more thing, CS, since you ask. When you refer to my reference to `mixmastered' hyungs and then ask me if I've made up my own, you seem be asking if I've made up the TKD hyungs that I'm referring to. Bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say? Again, though, you're showing your own, um, lack of familiarity with the material, as when you say that there's no relationship between Okinawan kata and TKD hyungs (no idea why you keep insisting on the _Okinawan-ness_ of the kata in terms of bunkai, though, but whatever turns you on, I suppose!) Chunks of Itosu's Pinans are all over the place in the Palgwes, for example; but the sequences are mixed up with pieces of other kata as well. So yes, cutting and pasting&#8212;by the Kwan founders who constructed the TKD hyung sets during the postwar era. 

Red belt with black tip is 2nd gup. It means I have one more belt before my dan test. 

And one other thing: I do practice hyungs, quite a bit. But I also experiment with the movements in settings which approach combat conditions, and I systematically check out what karateka with expertise in that kind of experimentation make of kata sequences which are identical to sequences in hyungs I'm familiar with. So far, as Tellner pointedly observes, you haven't supplied one fact, one piece of evidence, one result, to suggest that they aren't right and you are. I'd say the burden of proof is pretty much entirely on you, at this point...



cstanley said:


> Funny, I didn't think I was the one being rude. yes, I checked Exile's profile...Hardly requiring the mountains of lugubrious horse **** that Exile spewed about it.



Well, CS, in addition to self-contradiction, failure to acknowledge self-contradiction, setting yourself up as an oracle who gets even simple facts wrong (Bushi Matsumura was not a bodyguard for the Kings of Okinawa, say&#8212;I have a dozen sources plus who agree he was, you do not have a source who says he wasn't, therefore you state as fact that he wasn't&#8212;baaad move!) and inability to carry out a simple debate about your own assertions, we can now add failure to use English words correctly. My Webster's Encyclopedic dictionary defines _lugubrious_ as mournful or dismal. And given that I'm debating someone who cuts his own throat in an argument as enthusiastically as you appear to've done, I'm hardly likely to be mourful, eh? :wink1: (Oh, and for the record, whatever obscenity was replaced by the profanity filter as the line of asterisks in what I've quoted from you will be considered rude by people who expect civil debate. `Spewing', too, is considered rude when referring to statements, queries and documentation by someone you're arguing with that contradict what you're saying, and that you have no other answer for. Just thought you'd like to know! )

I appreciate Tellner's and Sukerkin's comments&#8212;very much indeed!&#8212;but my feeling is, serious argument to a defensible conclusion just isn't your thing. Am I right? Unpleasant adjectives, nouns and verbs&#8212;well, that's a different story, eh? I know, it's very frustrating when you keep telling everyone you're right, and they should listen to you because you're right, and they keep bringing up these pesky facts and quibbles about you not making much sense. Unfortunately, that's how MT works. You say something that seems self-evident to you, and people ask you to justify it. You say things which are factually untrue, and they actually cite documentation to _show_ you  (and everyone else reading the thread) that they're untrue. 

Not really what you expected, eh?  But, as you say,



cstanley said:


> I am really not concerned with whether anyone responds to what I am saying or not.



The final resort when you're just getting shelled from all sides: _I really don't care what other people think or say or don't say._ Well, I understand&#8212;it _is_ an awkward spot to be in. Might as well take that line and stick to it. I don't think there's much else you can do, at this point...


----------



## Sukerkin (May 6, 2007)

That's a fair old pedigree, *CS*; if my maths is right, that's 32 years under instruction there.  I started in '77, so we have a similar 'vintage' if rather different paths {and I certainly can't claim a _godan_, only a measly pair of shodans :blush:}.

Given that background, I can only think that *Tellner* has a glimmering of the cirumstance that has lead us here.  With all that experience, as both student and teacher, it is hard sometimes to formulate an argument to back up a point you make that you hold to be self-evidently true (for the simple reason that you've held it to be true for a long time without it being contested).  

I've done a little teaching (a mere fragment of your years) and I have encountered the same problem myself i.e. you tell a student a certain 'fact' and they say "Why?" or "I've been taught that ... " or even "I don't agree with that".  It is very hard to step back from the 'hard-wired' defensive response when that happens and the 'format' of the Net means that statements that are meant as counter-arguments or firm ripostes can come across as *much* less civil than the author intended {accusing a Professor of 'straw man' arguments is just outright asking for trouble of the "I slap you in the face, sirrah, and challenge you to the field of logic!" kind :lol:}.

I don't believe it's too late for you to recover a little dignity and salvage a position from which to build a discourse and it's surely worth a try if this subject has meaning for you?

To extend a hand, as a student of MJER, I would say that your, edited, statment that kata is about mushin, zanshin and bunkai has a strong element of truth in it.  It is from the practise of the bunkai of kata that the first two come about, wouldn't you say?  Especially in an almost entirely kata based art such as iaido.  

To say that bunkai is just the surface is somewhat dismissive, like saying the printed page is not the information.  To my way of thinking, you can't have one without the other i.e. understanding of what a kata is intended to teach flows from the bunkai just as the information flows from the page


----------



## seasoned (May 6, 2007)

The main question was does one's skill flow from the kata. My answer is, well of course it does. Every person I have ever talked with that did not see any value in kata is someone that studied it for years and then made that conclusion. But in there study of kata, before they saw no value, was the fact that if they practiced hard enough they learned the core principles of there art. And also the core principles of fighting itself and in some cases didnt even know it. I came up through the ranks of GoJu in the early to mid 60s and as some of you old timers know there was not a whole lot of information around. There were12 kata with one way to do them and that is what you did. There were a lot of people that came back from Okinawa and opened dojos and taught what they knew and my Sensei was one of them. But what did the Okinawas teach them? In Okinawa the workouts were very hard and what you learned was taught very strict. When you would ask questions the answer was always just train Some dojos in Okinawa would spar but it was not the norm. Most of the older dojo just did kata and drills. Bunkai was kept very basic, but everything was very strict. In the eyes of a lot of the old masters sparring was a waste of time and kata was more important. In kata someone always died but in sparring you lived to see another day. In my early years in the USA we did a lot of sparring, I mean hard core, not bragging just telling you the way it was. Thursday was blood night and we sparred match after match and no matter who got hurt nobody quit. The rest of the week was kata and drills and to be honest with you they were like night and day. What we did in kata we didnt do in sparring because it didnt work. Now to my point, what we had in kata was a treasure of techniques that if we knew them at the time we would not have been able to use then anyway, just to darn dangerous. You see in Okinawa Goju as with other traditional arts you have a complete system from stand up to ground with joint locks and take downs. Did I enjoy sparring then hell yes do I enjoy kata now hell yes. Do I believe you need both as teaching tools yes, but not one over the other. Please remember in every kata someone dies, is every sparring match you live to fight another day. Kataless karate, whats the point.


----------



## Carol (May 6, 2007)

*Moderator Note:

Attention All Users

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.


Thank you,

- Carol Kaur -
- MT Moderator -
*


----------



## Hand Sword (May 6, 2007)

Sorry for a late response (especially if it's been said already). 

In terms of the question I would say Yes, skills flow from Kata execution. In general terms, You're practicing all of your basics while doing them, putting all of the elements together, rather than standing around in a horse stance, or moving in a choppy fashion while sparring. Practicing to apply your basics is what it's all about. The more you do it, the more comfortable and better you'll execute the basics. That's the real key in the overall picture. If it's a real self defense situation, there's already plenty of awkwardness, without any foundation to stand on. Being used to flowing from Kata practice, in the end doesn't hurt you. It's another tool to use. Think of it as shadow boxing. It works for boxers.


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 7, 2007)

If you practice anything long enough you become proficient at it. Karta is no different than doing piano drills, or practicing double play drills in baseball, it is a practice drill that gives one the foundation and knowledge of movement combined with the muscle memory to execute without much or no thought.  If one dose an exercise long enough the movements will eventually start to flow because you are familiar with the technique.


----------



## exile (May 7, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> Sorry for a late response (especially if it's been said already).
> 
> In terms of the question I would say Yes, skills flow from Kata execution. In general terms, You're practicing all of your basics while doing them, putting all of the elements together, rather than standing around in a horse stance, or moving in a choppy fashion while sparring. Practicing to apply your basics is what it's all about. The more you do it, the more comfortable and better you'll execute the basics. That's the real key in the overall picture. If it's a real self defense situation, there's already plenty of awkwardness, without any foundation to stand on. Being used to flowing from Kata practice, in the end doesn't hurt you. It's another tool to use. Think of it as shadow boxing. It works for boxers.



This is very apt, HS&#8212;_very_ apt, especially in the historical setting where the kata were invented. In the original Okinawan setting where Matsumura, Itosu, Azato and other karate pioneers got their skills, the only way _any_ techniques were transmitted was _by the kata themselves_. The kihon line drills through which virtually everyone in the West who learned MAs in the current era was taught&#8212;the bread and butter of dojo/dojang/studio teaching methods everywhere&#8212;were unknown. From all available accounts, including his own autobiography, Funakoshi's training for the first decade with Itosu consisted solely of practicing the Naihanchi kata set and working out their bunkai (even though Motobu didn't think much of Funakoshi's analysis and suspected that Itosu had withheld the most effective applications from him; but then again, Motobu seems to have loathed GF personally); where else would he have learned his techs from _except_ Naihanchi?&#8212;that's all he had to work with! And as Abernethy notes, Motobu wrote in _Okinawa Kenpo Karate-jutsu_ that `the Naihanchi, Passai, Chinto and Rohai *styles* are not left in China today and only remain in Okinawa as active *martial arts*'. The bolded material makes it pretty clear that these kata were not regarded as `parts' of a martial art, add-ons so to speak, but were thought of as complete stand-alone fighting systems on their own. In a way, `karate' corresonds to a general description (in much the same way that the generic term _kung fu_ covers an enormous variety of specific CMAs regarded by their practitioners as quite different from each other.) And as Burgar points out in his book, `the fact is that before circa 1880 it was the norm for karateka to know a small number of kata. We also know that each master of karate was capable of defending himself. Therefore his one, two or three kata contained all of the knowledge that he would have needed to achieve that goal. _This means that each kata (or small group of kata) was a `style' in its own right_.' (p. 29). Motobu also mentions in the same 1926 book that `a master usually only had one kata in his style'. All this changed radically when karate was brought to Japan, taught to mass classes as part of a kind of calisthenics and discipline exercise to university students destined for military service, and broken up into individual, isolated techniques unconnected to the application sequences that they were originally constructed to communicate to the learner. That approach was the prototype for the current instructional model. But it's probably possible to reapproach, to some extent anyway, the earlier Okinawan teaching format. 

So it seems to be the case that the kata we learn today, which are essentially just variants of the original Okinawan kata, contain the whole content of the fighting system. As Burgar argues at length in his book, they can be used as the entire core curriculum of a martial art&#8212;arts which were indended by their creators to be, first and foremost, effective fighting systems. So a full syllabus&#8212;including the use of throws, trapping and locking techs, nicely illustrated for example in Javier Martinez's book _Okinawan Karate_, which provides a number of photos of Funakoshi, Motobu, Chitose, Konishi and other great practitioners performing these techs both on their own and also in tandem with strikes&#8212;is already present in the kata.

One of the problems I see in current TKD is the backfeed from Olympic practice into training; a lot of time is spent drilling high, complex kicks, often with spins,  that literally do not exist in any of the hyungs. People with heavy street-fighting/security work experience, such as Peyton Quinn, Loren Christensen, Geoff Thompson and Lawrence Kane, are unanimous in rejecting high complex kicks as practical street defense; as Gm. Pelligrini commented at one point in the seminar he gave this past weekend, when you're fighting at close quarters, which is where fights actually _start_, you simply cannot execute these kinds of kicks&#8212;you have no room! High kicks themselves are great for balance training; I do them (well, as high as as I can manage!) several hours a week. But the kicks that the hyungs themselves depict are typically middle or low kicks, and in realistic bunkai, of the kind that Stuart Anslow and especially Simon O'Neil offer, are unbalancing techniques, inflicting lower body limb damage, setting up the finishing strikes which are almost always hand/forearm/elbow techs. Competitors in poomsae competitions have been steadily increasing their height under the impression that higher is better, which doesn't always sit well with knowledgeable judges, according to my instructor. To the extent that training is going to be practical for street defense, it will look much more like kata/hyung-based techniques than sport-based, and one way to implement this would be to follow Abernethy's and Burgar's ideas about curriculum and make kata/hyung much more the basis of technical instruction than they currently seem to be.



tshadowchaser said:


> If you practice anything long enough you become proficient at it. Karta is no different than doing piano drills, or practicing double play drills in baseball, it is a practice drill that gives one the foundation and knowledge of movement combined with the muscle memory to execute without much or no thought.  If one dose an exercise long enough the movements will eventually start to flow because you are familiar with the technique.



Absolutely. One problem with practicing forms with this intent is worrying too much about how `pretty' the form looks when you do it. That I think interferes with training for effective application. It's like skiers who worry about keeping their skis locked together as though they were a snowboard, to create a `pretty' visual effect, when in fact stepping moves to correct your line and position yourself high in the gate are one of the three or four most important components of modern racing technique. Burgar and Abernethy both advise practicing kata as though you were applying the techs of each subsequence against an actual attacker engaged in as lifelike an assault as you can visualize, continuously until they become more like conditioned reflexes than the dancelike movements they start out as.


----------



## cstanley (May 7, 2007)

exile said:


> This is very apt, HS_very_ apt, especially in the historical setting where the kata were invented. In the original Okinawan setting where Matsumura, Itosu, Azato and other karate pioneers got their skills, the only way _any_ techniques were transmitted was _by the kata themselves_. The kihon line drills through which virtually everyone in the West who learned MAs in the current era was taughtthe bread and butter of dojo/dojang/studio teaching methods everywherewere unknown. From all available accounts, including his own autobiography, Funakoshi's training for the first decade with Itosu consisted solely of practicing the Naihanchi kata set and working out their bunkai (even though Motobu didn't think much of Funakoshi's analysis and suspected that Itosu had withheld the most effective applications from him; but then again, Motobu seems to have loathed GF personally); where else would he have learned his techs from _except_ Naihanchi?that's all he had to work with! And as Abernethy notes, Motobu wrote in _Okinawa Kenpo Karate-jutsu_ that `the Naihanchi, Passai, Chinto and Rohai *styles* are not left in China today and only remain in Okinawa as active *martial arts*'. The bolded material makes it pretty clear that these kata were not regarded as `parts' of a martial art, add-ons so to speak, but were thought of as complete stand-alone fighting systems on their own. In a way, `karate' corresonds to a general description (in much the same way that the generic term _kung fu_ covers an enormous variety of specific CMAs regarded by their practitioners as quite different from each other.) And as Burgar points out in his book, `the fact is that before circa 1880 it was the norm for karateka to know a small number of kata. We also know that each master of karate was capable of defending himself. Therefore his one, two or three kata contained all of the knowledge that he would have needed to achieve that goal. _This means that each kata (or small group of kata) was a `style' in its own right_.' (p. 29). Motobu also mentions in the same 1926 book that `a master usually only had one kata in his style'. All this changed radically when karate was brought to Japan, taught to mass classes as part of a kind of calisthenics and discipline exercise to university students destined for military service, and broken up into individual, isolated techniques unconnected to the application sequences that they were originally constructed to communicate to the learner. That approach was the prototype for the current instructional model. But it's probably possible to reapproach, to some extent anyway, the earlier Okinawan teaching format.
> 
> So it seems to be the case that the kata we learn today, which are essentially just variants of the original Okinawan kata, contain the whole content of the fighting system. As Burgar argues at length in his book, they can be used as the entire core curriculum of a martial artarts which were indended by their creators to be, first and foremost, effective fighting systems. So a full syllabusincluding the use of throws, trapping and locking techs, nicely illustrated for example in Javier Martinez's book _Okinawan Karate_, which provides a number of photos of Funakoshi, Motobu, Chitose, Konishi and other great practitioners performing these techs both on their own and also in tandem with strikesis already present in the kata.
> 
> ...


 

Kata does not have to look "pretty," but it should have a certain gracefulness and elegance, or dignity, about it. Proper stance, smooth movement, and crisp focus, etc. Kuniba said that kata should be "text book." The applications do not always look "like" the kata. In kata, you strive for perfection...stances, punches and kicks, transitions, breathing, focus...all should be as "text book" as possible. Form follows function. There is a reason for why we pay so much attention to fine points. It has a lot to do with the mushin and zanshin you don't like to hear about. 
There are actually very few bunkai that are done exactly as the sequence in the kata. Hand positions change, there are certain "understood" moves that are not shown in the kata, and some moves, in application, are surprisingly unlike what appears obvious in the kata. This is why it is important to practice yakusoku or hokei kumite with partners. It opens doors to what is actually going on in the kata.
Kata is done with slow/fast sequences, hard/soft sequences, and breathing changes that give the kata life and rhythm. It is important to visualize an opponent, but what you do in the kata will not always be the same as what you do in application. Think of it as a koan.


----------



## exile (May 7, 2007)

cstanley said:


> Form follows function. There is a reason for why we pay so much attention to fine points. It has a lot to do with the mushin and zanshin you don't like to hear about.
> There are actually very few bunkai that are done exactly as the sequence in the kata. Hand positions change, there are certain "understood" moves that are not shown in the kata, and some moves, in application, are surprisingly unlike what appears obvious in the kata.



I agree completely, CS, and in fact Iain Abernethy&#8212;whom _you_ don't like to hear about&#8212;is also in complete agreement with you on this. He gives many examples in his book, _Bunkai-Jutsu_, that reinforce exactly the point you're making here. Are you sure you and he are as far apart as you think?



cstanley said:


> This is why it is important to practice yakusoku or hokei kumite with partners. It opens doors to what is actually going on in the kata.



Again&#8212;both IA and Kane & Wilder, in their book on kata interpretation, emphasize these two points: practice the kata to achieve as close to perfect form as you can, but also train the kata with a partner&#8212;the less compliant and cooperative the better!&#8212;to see how the apps differ from the ideal form that the kata present. Again, there isn't as much difference between your view and theirs as you may have thought...



cstanley said:


> Kata is done with slow/fast sequences, hard/soft sequences, and breathing changes that give the kata life and rhythm. It is important to visualize an opponent, but what you do in the kata will not always be the same as what you do in application. Think of it as a koan.



I think on all these points we can agree to agree!


----------



## cstanley (May 7, 2007)

exile said:


> I agree completely, CS, and in fact Iain Abernethywhom _you_ don't like to hear aboutis also in complete agreement with you on this. He gives many examples in his book, _Bunkai-Jutsu_, that reinforce exactly the point you're making here. Are you sure you and he are as far apart as you think?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Good...now listen closely... all this is about mushin and zanshin. Trust me on this. It also has to do with shibumi, which is often translated as "restrained elegance" but which Higoshi Sensei called "effortless perfection." You can only achieve shibumi in kata when it comes from mushin. The "mind of no mind" allows for more complete zanshin. If your mind is empty (or calm), it reflects all that is around it. This makes for more complete awareness (zanshin) and allows you to respond quickly and without thought or hesitation. When I began training in iaido with a live blade, it confirmed much of what I had been taught about kata.

So, when I say that kata is about mushin and zanshin, I am not just being esoteric. You can win any fight with good timing and a gyakuzuki; the rest is spirit. Timing is a part of the concept of mushin. To strike without thought...to allow the opponent's movements or intentions to "draw" the technique. Kata is designed to develop those things. Kata is, indeed, all you said about technique and application. I am just saying that it goes way beyond that...if you want it to.

That is why my instructors used to say that applications are important, then they become secondary for a long time, then they become important again way down the road. I don't fight or do kata now anything like I did at shodan or nidan. I don't even see the same things in the kata. It is amazing how many things drop away over time and with continued training. So, perhaps we are looking at two sides of the same coin, or at the path from different places on the mountain.


----------



## exile (May 7, 2007)

cstanley said:


> Good...now listen closely... all this is about mushin and zanshin. Trust me on this. It also has to do with shibumi, which is often translated as "restrained elegance" but which Higoshi Sensei called "effortless perfection." You can only achieve shibumi in kata when it comes from mushin. The "mind of no mind" allows for more complete zanshin. If your mind is empty (or calm), it reflects all that is around it. This makes for more complete awareness (zanshin) and allows you to respond quickly and without thought or hesitation. When I began training in iaido with a live blade, it confirmed much of what I had been taught about kata.
> 
> So, when I say that kata is about mushin and zanshin, I am not just being esoteric. You can win any fight with good timing and a gyakuzuki; the rest is spirit. Timing is a part of the concept of mushin. To strike without thought...to allow the opponent's movements or intentions to "draw" the technique. Kata is designed to develop those things. Kata is, indeed, all you said about technique and application. I am just saying that it goes way beyond that...if you want it to.
> 
> That is why my instructors used to say that applications are important, then they become secondary for a long time, then they become important again way down the road. I don't fight or do kata now anything like I did at shodan or nidan. I don't even see the same things in the kata. It is amazing how many things drop away over time and with continued training. So, perhaps we are looking at two sides of the same coin, or at the path from different places on the mountain.



I'm very sympathetic to what you're saying here, and I'll tell you this, CS, no one would be happier than me for you to be right. Friends?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 7, 2007)

cstanley said:


> So, perhaps we are looking at two sides of the same coin, or at the path from different places on the mountain.


 
A most valid insight and, I think, quite often the conclusion reached whenever we have emotive discourse on aspects of martial arts i.e. we can have fairly firey exchanges and then realise we're actually talking about the same thing with a different emphasis.

As I said earlier, this is really frighteningly easy to achive when 'conversing' on the Net, as what you type to the screen may read one way for you and a different way for everyone else.  When this unintentional 'content' of your words is reflected back ... the fun (need a smiley for 'inverse meaning' here) begins .


----------



## cstanley (May 7, 2007)

exile said:


> I'm very sympathetic to what you're saying here, and I'll tell you this, CS, no one would be happier than me for you to be right. Friends?


 
Certainly. I don't think it is "right or wrong" here. We are just looking at different layers of things. I come from a strictly traditional Shito ryu background with very traditional teachers. I've never really had any interest in branching out from that, so I tend to see things through those particular "rose colored glasses." There are a lot of ways to learn to fight; karate is certainly not the quickest way, but it does offer other things on deeper levels. I guess if I just wanted to learn to fight and nothing else, I would choose some kind of boxing/grappling training combined. Maybe boxing and judo (the old judo).


----------



## exile (May 7, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> we can have fairly firey exchanges and then realise we're actually talking about the same thing with a different emphasis... this is really frighteningly easy to achive when 'conversing' on the Net.



Well said, Mark. I think most of us have been caught in this trap at one time or another. Most of it wouldn't happen in a real conversation in a cozy pub over a pint or two. The internet giveth, but it also taketh away...



cstanley said:


> Certainly. I don't think it is "right or wrong" here. We are just looking at different layers of things. I come from a strictly traditional Shito ryu background with very traditional teachers. I've never really had any interest in branching out from that, so I tend to see things through those particular "rose colored glasses." There are a lot of ways to learn to fight; karate is certainly not the quickest way, but it does offer other things on deeper levels. I guess if I just wanted to learn to fight and nothing else, I would choose some kind of boxing/grappling training combined. Maybe boxing and judo (the old judo).



I think the multilayered nature of kata is part of where much of the argument and strife over their `true nature' comes from. And I should remember that, because I've been involved in other arguments that turned out to be based on that same multiple, complex nature of the beast. It's one of the reasons I think why we keep coming back to the kata and debating them and putting them under the microscope: there is something inherently mysterious and fascinating about something that has, as you say, so many layers to it...


----------



## kingkong89 (May 8, 2007)

absolutly katas are important, without them we would not be able to perfect our tech, therefor we would not have good solid ones. that is the whole ideal of kata is to advance these skills for kumite.


----------



## chinto (May 14, 2007)

seasoned said:


> If kata is like a book that needs to be opened as some will agree on then practical application would be the movie made from that book. I relate a paragraph in the book "The Essence of Shaolin White Crane, The Foundation of White Crane Kung Fu and The Root of Okinawan Karate".
> Page 6 _*(For example, it is well known in China that in order to compete and survive in a battle against other martial styles, each martial style must contain four basic categories of fighting techniques. They are: hand striking, kicking, wrestling, and qin na (seizing and controlling techniques). When these techniques were exported to Japan, they splintered over time to become many styles. For example, punching and kicking became Karate, wrestling became Judo, and qin na became Jujitsu. Actually, the essence and secret of Chinese martial arts developed in Buddhist and Daoist monasteries was not completely revealed to Chinese lay society until the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912A.D.) These secrets have been revealed to western countries only in the last three decades.)*_
> Kata is not the end all I will agree, it is just a book, And books make for arm chair karate-Ka. I submit as many of you have, we need to go to the "movie stage". All above is submited with total respect for everyone.


I must disagree here. striking is indeed a part of karate. but at least the older styles of Okinawan Karate cover the techniques you mentioned of striking ( including kicks and elbows etc.) it also contains grapling and sezing and controling, joint locks and throws and of course brakes and the knowledge of basic anatimy and what they knew of physioligy as well. I do not beleave that any of the older styles that survived over 300 years or so were or are incompleat when tought properly, after all they were and are used as a means of survival and not for sport.  the kata of a system when analized carefully for the bunkai will show you these things, but only if you look under the surfice.


----------



## Danjo (May 14, 2007)

chinto said:


> I must disagree here. striking is indeed a part of karate. but at least the older styles of Okinawan Karate cover the techniques you mentioned of striking ( including kicks and elbows etc.) it also contains grapling and sezing and controling, joint locks and throws and of course brakes and the knowledge of basic anatimy and what they knew of physioligy as well. I do not beleave that any of the older styles that survived over 300 years or so were or are incompleat when tought properly, after all they were and are used as a means of survival and not for sport. the kata of a system when analized carefully for the bunkai will show you these things, but only if you look under the surfice.


 
 I agree with you. One only has to look at Motobu's books to see that he incorporated far more than mere kicking and punching. Seasoned's quote is also wrong in what Judo is or how it came to be. It was derived directly from Jiu Jitsu, not Chinese wrestling. Jiu Jitsu (and it's descendant Judo) both had Atemi Waza as well as the grappling and throwing techniques where punches and kicks were used. The paragraph is just bad history. Also, only some Okinawan Karate came from White Crane. Oh well.


----------



## seasoned (May 14, 2007)

chinto said:


> I must disagree here. striking is indeed a part of karate. but at least the older styles of Okinawan Karate cover the techniques you mentioned of striking ( including kicks and elbows etc.) it also contains grapling and sezing and controling, joint locks and throws and of course brakes and the knowledge of basic anatimy and what they knew of physioligy as well. I do not beleave that any of the older styles that survived over 300 years or so were or are incompleat when tought properly, after all they were and are used as a means of survival and not for sport. the kata of a system when analized carefully for the bunkai will show you these things, but only if you look under the surfice.


 

I am not sure what you are disagreeing on here. The book I refer to is "The Essence of Shaolin White Crane, The Foundation of White Crane Kung Fu and The Root of Okinawan Karate". From China to Okinawa the system stayed complete while blending with Okinawa Te. When introduced into the Japanese school system for younger children it is documented to have been tapered down so it was excepted as a curriculum for the younger students. I think I am referring to Okinawa goju as being a complete system with what you mention above found in these old traditional kata. If I have missed the point or a point in this discussion then I apologize.


----------



## cstanley (May 14, 2007)

The roots and influences of Chinese martial arts in relation to Okinawan karate are often vague. We know there was much Chinese influence and that many Okinawans went to China and trained. The White Crane influence is spoken of with regard to certain kata, but it is difficult to trace all the history. The Okinawans did not write a lot of stuff down, and oral tradition is often unreliable. There are a lot of Westerners writing books now, trying to be historians. They are best taken with a grain of salt. Nagamine, in his book on the Okinawan masters, is fairly cautious in his statements. As much as we would like a detailed history, complete with footnotes, there just isn't one. Two of my instructors have been Japanese/Okinawan and they were very hesitant to make categorical statements about history. I usually just accept the fact of Chinese influence and practice the kata.


----------



## seasoned (May 14, 2007)

cstanley said:


> The roots and influences of Chinese martial arts in relation to Okinawan karate are often vague. We know there was much Chinese influence and that many Okinawans went to China and trained. The White Crane influence is spoken of with regard to certain kata, but it is difficult to trace all the history. The Okinawans did not write a lot of stuff down, and oral tradition is often unreliable. There are a lot of Westerners writing books now, trying to be historians. They are best taken with a grain of salt. Nagamine, in his book on the Okinawan masters, is fairly cautious in his statements. As much as we would like a detailed history, complete with footnotes, there just isn't one. Two of my instructors have been Japanese/Okinawan and they were very hesitant to make categorical statements about history. I usually just accept the fact of Chinese influence and practice the kata.


 
Where do you feel Sanchin Kata originated from, and do you feel that it is the cornerstone of Okinawa GoJu?


----------



## cstanley (May 14, 2007)

seasoned said:


> Where do you feel Sanchin Kata originated from, and do you feel that it is the cornerstone of Okinawa GoJu?


 
As I understand it, Sanchin is, indeed, from the White Crane lineage. Yes, everyone I know in Goju will say that it is the cornerstone of Goju. Morio Higaonna once explained the importance of Sanchin at a seminar I attended in Orlando.


----------



## tellner (May 14, 2007)

It [Sanchin] is definitely the keystone of Uechi Ryu.


----------



## seasoned (May 15, 2007)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *chinto* 

 
_I must disagree here. striking is indeed a part of karate. but at least the older styles of Okinawan Karate cover the techniques you mentioned of striking ( including kicks and elbows etc.) it also contains grapling and sezing and controling, joint locks and throws and of course brakes and the knowledge of basic anatimy and what they knew of physioligy as well. I do not beleave that any of the older styles that survived over 300 years or so were or are incompleat when tought properly, after all they were and are used as a means of survival and not for sport. the kata of a system when analized carefully for the bunkai will show you these things, but only if you look under the surfice._

I will agree that older traditional systems like Okinawan GoJu remained complete and as you said you need only to look at the kata, but my reference was toward the styles that influenced and fostered the sport aspect. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *seasoned* 

 
_Where do you feel Sanchin Kata originated from, and do you feel that it is the cornerstone of Okinawa GoJu?_

(cstanley mentioned)
As I understand it, Sanchin is, indeed, from the White Crane lineage. Yes, everyone I know in Goju will say that it is the cornerstone of Goju. Morio Higaonna once explained the importance of Sanchin at a seminar I attended in Orlando.

Mr cstanley if we could dialog a bit please. This will help to see if we are on the same page. Would you agree that Okinawan Te was an external art and that the greatest influence from Chinese martial arts was the internal aspects and thus the name change to GoJu (hard/soft). If you agree on the above then what GoJu kata was introduced to start this change.


----------



## cstanley (May 15, 2007)

seasoned said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chinto*
> 
> 
> ...


 
Okinawa Te, or Te, was the generic name for Okinawan martial arts before they were called karate.  It is difficult to answer the question about external/internal categorically. Chinese influence is there in all the Okinawan ryu. The short answer is that, yes, the Shuri styles tended to be more external, but that isn't very helpful. Miyagi introduced Tensho and Saifa early on after going to China with Gokenki. He did not name his art "Goju" until the early 30's after a group of his students went to a large "exposition" in Japan. When they came back, they told him that all the martial arts in Japan had names. So, he decided on Goju as the most descriptive of what he did.

My experience of Goju is that, indeed, their focus is different early on. There is more emphasis on breath control, and they use terms like "rooting," "rising," "sinking," and "spitting" more than the Shuri/Tomari ryu. But, at senior levels in the Shuri based styles, internal concepts are also embodied in the kata. In my ryu, Shito ryu, for instance, both Naha and Shuri/Tomari kata are practiced. Mabuni even first considered calling it "Hanko ryu," or half-hard style. But, we still do not do the kata like the Goju folks. The breathing is different and the use of tension is different. I just think the emphasis on the internal comes earlier in Goju/Uechi ryu than it does in the Shuri based styles.

Hard/soft, internal/external get thrown around a lot. I think they are probably over-used. Some of these things are very hard to untangle as far as origins are concerned. Long years of regular training in any traditional ryu will produce "internal" karate. That is what it is all about.

So, Seasoned, if we are not on the same page, we are at least in the same chapter.


----------



## kidswarrior (May 15, 2007)

cstanley said:


> Hard/soft, internal/external get thrown around a lot. I think they are probably over-used. Some of these things are very hard to untangle as far as origins are concerned. *Long years of regular training in any traditional ryu will produce "internal" karate. That is what it is all about.*



While my 'style' is not traditional, nor pure in the sense of having a long established history--nor even purely karate--it would certainly be considered external by those who find the category useful. Yet, as *cstanley *has said, at roughly 12 years of practice I suddenly began to notice some added benefits that seemed to just show up. Long story short, after much study and reflection these seem to me to be what are often described as 'internal' aspects of the MA.

So, yeah, the above quote validates something that I have experienced and believed to be true for several years now.


----------



## seasoned (May 16, 2007)

We are indeed in the same chapter, pages are just the different ways we were taught ( styles, instructors, methods). *Cstanley wrote* The Okinawans did not write a lot of stuff down, and oral tradition is often unreliable. I understand this fully because of the way the Okinawans would teach us on subsequent visits to Okinawa over the years. They worked on the principal of caught rather then taught. The saying by them was always just train. They would always show you something rather then explain it because of the language barrier. It was always like we had to come back to our dojo and piece together the puzzle parts we each got. What I have found is, it is easier to teach techniques (external) then it is to teach the principles of internal concepts which is probably why they said just train. Which brings me to the Chinese martial arts in relation to Okinawan karate. The white Crane influence on Okinawan GoJu is based more on these internal principles rather then techniques. This is what I feel Kanryo Higashionna and Chojun Miyagi brought back with them. Indeed they didnt go to China to learn how to fight or to learn new techniques but what they did bring back changed the face of Okinawa Te. As I look back on my training over the years I can see this internal influence from the beginning but I did not realize it at the time. As early as Sanchin you were learning "rooting, rising, sinking, swallowing and spitting" but to be honest with you, at the time, we just didnt know it. It wasnt until the puzzle pieces started to come together that we discovered what we had. And that is a blending of hard/soft, Go and Ju. The old masters felt that in order to practice long into old age and still be able to defend ourself we needed to lighten up a bit. In my younger years it was Go,Go but in my older years I better understand this thing we call GoJu.
*Cstanley wrote:
*Hard/soft, internal/external get thrown around a lot. I think they are probably over-used. Some of these things are very hard to untangle as far as origins are concerned. Long years of regular training in any traditional ryu will produce "internal" karate. That is what it is all about. 
. Thank you, and very well put Mr. cstanley .

Kidswarrior also validates this very nicely.


----------



## chinto (May 16, 2007)

seasoned said:


> Where do you feel Sanchin Kata originated from, and do you feel that it is the cornerstone of Okinawa GoJu?


 
I know that it is a kata of chinese origan, what system I dont know of sure but I beleave it came from one of the fukiun crain systems.  I am not a goju student or practioner myself, but it is my understanding that it is one of the earler kata tought as at least one of the foundation kata for the style. ( again, I am not a goju man so cant say for certian but that is what I was once told by some one who had some goju training.)


----------



## seasoned (May 17, 2007)

chinto said:


> I know that it is a kata of chinese origan, what system I dont know of sure but I beleave it came from one of the fukiun crain systems. I am not a goju student or practioner myself, but it is my understanding that it is one of the earler kata tought as at least one of the foundation kata for the style. ( again, I am not a goju man so cant say for certian but that is what I was once told by some one who had some goju training.)


 
Thank you Chinto for your input.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 31, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> Learning forms is crucial to fighting. It ingrains moves and techniques into muscle memory. You may not use each move or technique exactly in the sequence performed in the form, but you will find movements and techniques coming out in isolated pieces as needed. Forms must be done over and over again and with the understanding of each application in every part of the form. If you just do forms with no understanding of the application behind each move then it won't help you much.


_Very incisive, Jade Tigress!_ Every time I do one of my forms with intentionality (including every time I teach them), it seems another possible application/principle pops up. Most of these fall under the category of mid- to short-range fighting, e.g., an elbow strike can also be seen as a headlock and take down, ala shuai jiao; an up block becomes a strike to the throat. How would those moves not be combat worthy?

And please bear in mind, I HATED forms for years. As an old boxer, and with very superficial instruction in forms' actual fighting usefulness, it took a long time for me to come to this view.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 31, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> _Very incisive, Jade Tigress!_ Every time I do one of my forms with intentionality (including every time I teach them), it seems another possible application/principle pops up. Most of these fall under the category of mid- to short-range fighting, e.g., an elbow strike can also be seen as a headlock and take down, ala shuai jiao; an up block becomes a strike to the throat. How would those moves not be combat worthy?


 

Very good observation.  

We have a move that pops up a lot in our White Crane forms.  I have always viewed it as a devastating strike, which it is.  But I was having a discussion with my sifu not long ago and suddenly it became clear to me that this same movement could be applied as a nasty joint lock and destruction.  Amazing how the same movement can have such polar opposite applications.

I think often movements in kata are deliberately "vague", because this leaves the door open to many more interpretations.  If the movement is too precise and specified then it gets pigeon-holed into one interpretation.  But if the movement is vague enough to suggest several applications then you can get much more mileage out of less material.  This also means that the movement itself may not be useful exactly as it appears in the form.  Instead, you need to understand that it requires a slight modification to be actually used.  But with the right adjustment, it could be used many different ways.  As long as you know this, you can make that connection.

I think keeping the movement somewhat vague also keeps the application hidden from observers.  If you aren't taught how to analyze the movement, then you are just mimicking without understanding.  This ensures your enemies cannot steal your material by spying on you.  They don't understand how to interpret what you are doing.  But if you understand it, then you know how a "vague" and suggestive movement from a kata might require a slight modification to make it useful.  But as you are practicing the form, you keep these various interpretations in mind and you know you could be doing several different techniques with just this one movement.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 31, 2007)

Quite right, *FC* and well done to *Kds* for bringing out *JT*'s point - I'd missed that one somehow (which is ironic as it is almost concept for concept how I used to explain (in the days when I did empty-hand stuff) why kata was important).

I've recently started being trained in the final forms of MJER and they are not only much more flowing and multi-techniqued than the earlier forms but also have in them many more 'decision points' - positions from which your action is not limited to just the one move.  

Each kata has a proscribed series of techniques in them that defines the boundaries of the kata but if properly taught it is made clear that what you would do under a given circumstance depends entirely on what your *opponent* is doing.

That is why _visualisation_ is so deeply important to kata training because if you just learn the moves of the kata without getting 'inside' it then you have really not learned much at all.  I remain convinced that the reason why we have so many kata-haters in the MA world is that they have not been led through the envelope of the physical moves into the mindset that underpins them.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 31, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> ...suddenly it became clear to me that this same movement could be applied as a nasty joint lock and destruction.  Amazing how the same movement can have such polar opposite applications.
> 
> I think often movements in kata are deliberately "vague", because this leaves the door open to many more interpretations.  If the movement is too precise and specified then it gets pigeon-holed into one interpretation.  But if the movement is vague enough to suggest several applications then you can get much more mileage out of less material.  This also means that the movement itself may not be useful exactly as it appears in the form.  Instead, you need to understand that it requires a slight modification to be actually used.  But with the right adjustment, it could be used many different ways.  As long as you know this, you can make that connection.


Excellent point! 

A 'textbook' that is deliberately left vague in spots, or maybe even ambiguous, so that the 'reader' can render his or her own interpretation--or perhaps better, see the possibility of many interpretations.



			
				Sukerkin said:
			
		

> The final forms of MJER ... are not only much more flowing and multi-techniqued than the earlier forms but also have in them many more 'decision points' - positions from which your action is not limited to just the one move.
> 
> Each kata has a proscribed series of techniques in them that defines the boundaries of the kata but if properly taught it is made clear that what you would do under a given circumstance depends entirely on what your *opponent* is doing.
> 
> That is why _visualisation_ is so deeply important to kata training because if you just learn the moves of the kata without getting 'inside' it then you have really not learned much at all.


'Decision points' and 'visualization'...Along with FC's point of 'deliberate vagueness', think I've just increased my understanding exponentially. Thanks, Gents.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 31, 2007)

You're more than welcome, my friend :rei:.  I'm always glad when it seems that I've made coherent sense for a change .


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jul 31, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I think often movements in kata are deliberately "vague", because this leaves the door open to many more interpretations. If the movement is too precise and specified then it gets pigeon-holed into one interpretation. But if the movement is vague enough to suggest several applications then you can get much more mileage out of less material. This also means that the movement itself may not be useful exactly as it appears in the form. Instead, you need to understand that it requires a slight modification to be actually used. But with the right adjustment, it could be used many different ways. As long as you know this, you can make that connection.


 
I cannot agree more with this position.  My teacher requires high ranked students to basically 'pick apart' the forms to find different variations of the techniques.  As you say it, in all likelihood, requires a re-interpretation of the movement into and out of the technique.




Sukerkin said:


> Each kata has a proscribed series of techniques in them that defines the boundaries of the kata but if properly taught it is made clear that what you would do under a given circumstance depends entirely on what your *opponent* is doing.
> 
> That is why _visualisation_ is so deeply important to kata training because if you just learn the moves of the kata without getting 'inside' it then you have really not learned much at all. I remain convinced that the reason why we have so many kata-haters in the MA world is that they have not been led through the envelope of the physical moves into the mindset that underpins them.


 
I have always stressed the importance of 'seeing' the technique as it is performed within a form.  Without this visualisation I have found students lose focus in the techniques.  That is to say (and I suspect others have seen this) the technique does not flow completely through the arm or leg so that the hand or foot just sort of dangles on the end.

Lack of understanding is most definitely the greatest reason for people hating forms.  And I agree it is because they have not been shown the depth associated with the actions they are performing.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 31, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> I have always stressed the importance of 'seeing' the technique as it is performed within a form. Without this visualisation I have found students lose focus in the techniques. That is to say (and I suspect others have seen this) the technique does not flow completely through the arm or leg so that the hand or foot just sort of dangles on the end.


 
Yeah, complete agreement.

I was teaching some beginners a basic Tai Chi sword pattern.  The form flows from a thrust immediately to a horizontal cut to the left, without repositioning or withdrawing to set up.  The students were sort of stumbling over this, finding the transition awkward.  So I told them: "look, this stuff used to be for real, these were real fighting techniques.  So think about it this way, you gotta ask yourself what the movement is for.  If you thrust at my face, what if I evade to the side and your thrust goes past my head?  You immediately transition into the horizontal cut and you cut my throat."  And I demonstrated what I meant.  I could actually see the lightbulbs go on in their heads, once they had a visual on what the movement could be used for.

I do this with many of the movements in the form.  This thrust backwards is if an enemy is chasing you and you stab him thru the foot.  This flick back is a hacking cut to the femoral artery or the groin.  This high stab downward is stabbing over an enemy's shield or other blocking tool.  This weird circular movement is a deflection of an enemy's weapon, you redirect and ride his weapon past your body leaving his guard open, then come back and thrust him thru the gut.  Stuff like that.  Give them something to identify the movement with, and suddenly it makes a lot of sense and their performance of the form improves because it takes on a real meaning.  Later they can begin working on other interpretations, but at least in the beginning they have something concrete to grasp and put some sense into the exercise.  

But yeah, that visual while you practice the form is very very important.  It makes the difference between performing a live form vs a dead exercise.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jul 31, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, complete agreement.
> 
> I was teaching some beginners a basic Tai Chi sword pattern. The form flows from a thrust immediately to a horizontal cut to the left, without repositioning or withdrawing to set up. The students were sort of stumbling over this, finding the transition awkward. *So I told them: "look, this stuff used to be for real, these were real fighting techniques. So think about it this way, you gotta ask yourself what the movement is for.* If you thrust at my face, what if I evade to the side and your thrust goes past my head? You immediately transition into the horizontal cut and you cut my throat." And I demonstrated what I meant. I could actually see the lightbulbs go on in their heads, once they had a visual on what the movement could be used for.
> 
> ...


 
I have emphasised two similar points which I think go to the heart of skill in kata and forms.  If you don't have a sense of what the movement is for you will never be able to use it properly and you may as well be doing ballet, or modern Wushu.


----------



## exile (Jul 31, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> I have always stressed the importance of 'seeing' the technique as it is performed within a form.  Without this visualisation I have found students lose focus in the techniques.  That is to say (and I suspect others have seen this) the technique does not flow completely through the arm or leg so that the hand or foot just sort of dangles on the end.
> 
> Lack of understanding is most definitely the greatest reason for people hating forms.  And I agree it is because they have not been shown the depth associated with the actions they are performing.



Everyone has been making really excellent points about the nature of the content, concealed like a treasure within a locked chest, that is waiting to be revealed in the explication of kata movements in terms of most economical, most effective responses to standard attack scenarios.  And once that content, the set of most effective combat applications, has been discovered, it becomes both possible and necessary, as Steel_Tiger undescores, to practice the kata as a linked sequence of self-defense scenarios, and to visualize the kata movements as the execution of combat moves, with the kata comprising maybe four to six such scenarios, one outlining a response to a grab from in front, another a response to a grab from behind, still another a response to roundhouse punch to the jaw. Bill Burgar's excellent book, _Five Years, One Kata_ has a whole chapter devoted to visualization of kata application and how to develop increasingly vivid and realistic mental imaging of the attack and defense components of the scenario. But there's just one problem...

... exactly what is the key to the lock in that treasure chest? The Japanese term, _kaisai no genri_, denotes the theory of kata decoding&#8212;the method for going from a kata's movement description to a set of combatively sound interpretations of those movements as fighting moves. *But how do we get there?* There is some excellent literature now on bunkai interpretation, on what the kaisai no genri actually is: Abernethy's now-classic work, the even-more-classic detailed studies of individual kihon techs and their combat applications by Rick Clarke (_75 Down Blocks_, and he's not kidding!&#8212;basically, one down block and 75 different combat applications for this simple, most basic kihon movement); and there's comparable work now coming out on TKD (from, most interestingly, the UK again...something about the Kingdom by the Sea that encourages people to think hard and realistically about combat unpleasantness... could it be having to worry about the next damn' wave of invaders from across the Channel? Or the nastiness of having to be the avant-guard of Industrial Revolution urbanization, with the hellish social conditions and violence that brought about? Alas, we shall probably never know... where was I? ...??) But there are two serious problems we seekers after the Great Answer to the Kata Problem have: 


(i) the classic karate katas, the source of virtually all of the forms in the karate-based arts (including those of the Korean peninsula) are fighting forms recorded in the Okinawan kata more than a century ago, in a context when _certain techniques and methods of response to an attack were taken for granted and didn't have to be built into the kata explicitly._ I suspect those of us in the CMAs have a particularly vivid sense of just how much certain moves, or tactical interpolations, were taken for granted (e.g., a punch is roughly deflected by a slap, not actually present in the hsing, so that although thrown perpendicular to the attacker, it winds up moving _across_ the attacker's body and so can be trapped by the `rear' hand, while the forward hand/arm moves in to execute the finishing destructive strike to the throat, neck, temple or face.) Since these techs (recalled on an idiosyncratic basis by now-ancient MA pioneers in interviews and so on) were simply part of the culture of the fighting arts of the time, we aren't necessarily ever going to see them overtly in kata. But if they're there, we need to be able to read the kata in light of them. That's why people talk about `hidden moves' in kata bunkai: the number of techs a kata corresponds to is greater than the number of movements in the kata itself.  But how do we know what these hidden moves are, or whether or not we're just making up stuff because this `lost' culture of assumed techniques can always be called on to justify our attempts to make sense of seemingly bizarre move (`yes, taken literally it's hard to see a combat application for this move Y, but if we can just agree that a certain other move X was interpolated at this point, then the existence of X preceding Y makes Y completely sensible', blah blah blah)? The problem is, you can always do that&#8212;you can always assume a hidden move that makes sense of a seemingly nonsensical kata movement. In othe words, you can assume that _every movement in a kata has combat significance_, just as Iain Abernethy, Kris Wilder & Lawrence Kane and many others&#8212;whom I _revere_&#8212;have said. But suppose you (and they) are wrong? And this brings up point (ii):

(ii) What happens when you see a move that seems to make no sense, in terms of the kind of transaction we expect in physically violent combat? One possibility is that there are hidden moves, along the lines described in (i), reflecting a common language and understanding of combat that will remain unintelligle to us until economically realistic time travel comes into existence. But what if some of the moves we see in the kata we learned reflect either misinterpretations by someone up the line in our instructors' lineages, or, even more pernicious, a deliberated distortion of the intended technique brought about by the desire of the karate/CMA pioneers to conceal their techs, even unto the point of, in effect, lying about what you were supposed to be doing at this particular point? So, for example, I've seen 360º turns in kata and hyungs that made no sense to me. Are they supposed to correspond to throws&#8212;but then, how plausible is a throw which require you to turn completely around? Are they stylized moves introduced by someone along the line for æsthetic reasons? How could we be sure? And so on...​
There's actually a third problem:

(iii) keeping it simple, and assuming that there are no hidden moves and that the kata hasn't undergone revision for, um, `artistic' purposes, what are the limits we should adhere to in `parsing' a form? If we see a sequence of moves, call it X, on the left side followed by a 180º turn and a mirror image of X, call it X', on the right side, should we assume that the point of X' in the kata is simply to train the same moves, whatever they are, on the other side of the body? That makes sense, but it's also quite possible that X' is actually a continuation of X, with the 180º turn corresponding to a _throw_&#8212;that X and X' don't represent two different lateralizations of the same combat scenario, but rather that X-X' is a single, longish combat sequence. That sort of problem... what are the guidelines for parsing a given kata into its combat subsequences?​
I think of (i)/(ii) as the *latitude* problem (how much freedom do we have in reimaging the form of the kata itself&#8212;in effect, subtracting or adding moves, based on, respectively, interpreting the former as involving combat-irrelevant modification, and the latter as requiring the interpolation of `hidden' moves that were well understood to be necessary at an earlier time) and (iii) as the *parsing* problem (how do we know which moves to `compact' together to form a single complete fighting sequence, i.e., taking from initial attack to effective disabling of the attacker?) 

We need some answers to these questions if we're to have real confidence in our analyses of the combat intepretation of kata....


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 31, 2007)

As ever, my friend, you posit a thought process that goes to the core of things.

For some arts, answering these questions is harder than for others and a lot of that comes from lineage ("I know, I know!" I cry as I duck hurled rotten fruit ) and the experience of your sensei.

For me, for example, in my JSA, I am only two steps removed from someone who actually has used their katana in warfare.  Thus, they taught my sensei who teaches me.  

He is very much aware of how techniques can become corrupted over time and takes pains to explain that varying the parameters of a kata are acceptable between this point and that point but where you are aiming for is *this* point i.e. he is trying to instill in us the snapshot of the kata in context.

I have seen for myself, in just the past five years, how martial arts organisations can change things by decree from how they once were (or how misinterpretation of aging sensei's physical limitations can cause their proteges to misinterpret what a kata's form should be).  I've had to learn a couple of 'versions' of a kata because of this.  

Fortunately, as I've mentioned before, sensei's philosophy on teaching is that we learn things *his* way but if we are under the tuition of others who want it another way then do it their way - but do not lose sight of what you have already been taught.  It's a bit Borg-like I suppose as it subsumes that you add their variations to your technique tool-box .  In the end it's your skill with the sword that counts.

Given the above, I'm very glad that I practice a koryu art, one in which the information has largely been preserved intact.  For others, with less certain 'ancestry', I can only extend my sympathy in the task of striving to get 'inside' the kata - it's so much harder without a living tradition to try and interpret the why's and wherefores .


----------



## chinto (Jul 31, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> I cannot agree more with this position. My teacher requires high ranked students to basically 'pick apart' the forms to find different variations of the techniques. As you say it, in all likelihood, requires a re-interpretation of the movement into and out of the technique.
> 
> that is what is called bunkai, and a good instructor should teach it and have the upper kyu ranks begain to do just that.
> 
> ...


 

I have to agree in general it is the lack of understanding of what kata is there to show you and teach you that is the basis of their dislike and even hatered of kata.


----------



## exile (Aug 1, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> For some arts, answering these questions is harder than for others and a lot of that comes from lineage ("I know, I know!" I cry as I duck hurled rotten fruit ) and the experience of your sensei.



No, S., I don't think you're going to get too many objections to that point! The fact is, for karate, say, a lineage whereby your instructor studied with a senior student of a currently living _Okinawan_ master (whose own lineage is rooted firmly in the indigenous Okinawan karate elite) is probably as good a guarantee as we're going to get that the bunkai you've learned, and the method of analysis, is _sound_. Not that other interpretations might not work, but you, by virtue of your lineage, are probably going to be  better fixed to understand the sound applications of, say, the Pinan katas than most KMA people are, so far as the `cognate' Pyung-Ahn hyungs are concerned... simply because there's good reason to believe that the Kwan founders were not given the deepest bunkai interpretations, a point that Jay Penfil and Rob Rivers have made in great detail in various threads in the Tang Soo Do forum. As a KMAist, I'm painfully aware of the disconnection between our hyungs, on the one hand, and their Okinawan source  (which in many cases give rise to the KMA forms via a kind of mixmastering of elements from different katas, or even kata sets). After all, reverse engineering (of the kind that kata interpreation after the fact consists of) is all the better when the blueprints are free of error.... I have to say that I greatly envy our colleagues in Okinawan karate, who probably have less to worry about so far as both the lattitude problem and the parsing problem are concerned, since they have a pretty direct line to the `horse's mouth'.



Sukerkin said:


> For me, for example, in my JSA, I am only two steps removed from someone who actually has used their katana in warfare.  Thus, they taught my sensei who teaches me.



Right, that's the sort of thing I'm thinking of in connection with the KMAs as diluted versions of JMAs, which, so far as karate is concerned, is a diluted version of OMAs... at each step, certain knowledge, the priceless oral transmission, is attenuated and probably many critical cases extinguished completely, and you're left with reverse engineering guidelines which you have to apply to kata that themselves have quite possibly been seriously distorted in transmission. 



Sukerkin said:


> He is very much aware of how techniques can become corrupted over time and takes pains to explain that varying the parameters of a kata are acceptable between this point and that point but where you are aiming for is *this* point i.e. he is trying to instill in us the snapshot of the kata in context.
> 
> I have seen for myself, in just the past five years, how martial arts organisations can change things by decree from how they once were (or how misinterpretation of aging sensei's physical limitations can cause their proteges to misinterpret what a kata's form should be).  I've had to learn a couple of 'versions' of a kata because of this.



Now imagine that instead of a particular ryu calling the shots, you have a huge supranational agency which is nominally a Korean organization but which in fact is the Olympic regulatory agency for TKD worldwide, basing its decisions about what is competitively valid on both nationalist and international sports-politics considerations, and where the technical/curricuar oversight group and the sport-competitive group share building space and are, in the end, both answerable to the same group of MA apparatchiks in the RoK government, and you have some idea of the problem facing people in TKD, say, who've seen the Pyung-Ahns (corresponding to the O/J Pinans) replaced by the Palgwes, themselves in turn replaced by the Taegeuks, with no consultation whatsoever with the TKD `grassroots' across the world, and you can get a sense of how lucky you are!




Sukerkin said:


> Fortunately, as I've mentioned before, sensei's philosophy on teaching is that we learn things *his* way but if we are under the tuition of others who want it another way then do it their way - but do not lose sight of what you have already been taught.  It's a bit Borg-like I suppose as it subsumes that you add their variations to your technique tool-box .  In the end it's your skill with the sword that counts.
> 
> *Given the above, I'm very glad that I practice a koryu art, one in which the information has largely been preserved intact.*  For others, with less certain 'ancestry', I can only extend my sympathy in the task of striving to get 'inside' the kata - it's so much harder without a living tradition to try and interpret the why's and wherefores .



As you can see, there's very little in what you're saying that I disagree with. The bolded part says it all. 

The problem that karateka face in general is this reverse engineering task, which becomes more acute as you proceed from Okinawa to Japan to Korea. There's some reason to believe that the original Okinawan form of kata practice involved a partner&#8212;a uke/tori pairing with the kata therefore `compiled out' into the drills of the subsequences that each kata comprises, correspnding to a different scenario based on a different form of attack (this is repeatedly emphasized in Gennosuke Higaki's _Hidden Karate: the True Bunkai for the Heian Katas and Naihanchi_. Higaki is a senior student of Shozan Kubota, himself a senior student of both Kenwa Mabuni and Gichin Funakoshi, who are the ultimate source of much of the information in Higaki's book. It appears that the kind of live `oyo' training under intense SD assumptions that people like Abernethy have established as the final stage of the `bunkai-jutsu'  karate curriculum was the norm in early karate training, where (strictly) verbal instruction would make it explicit to uke and tori just what interpretation should be given to the relevant subportion of the kata. But the big question for those of us not fortunate to have a direct link to correct combat applications (as in the kind of JSA you study) or even an indirect link (as is more likely the case for strictly Okinawan forms of karate) is, what is the best way for us to proceed in interpreting our forms, so that we reinstate necessary material that was dropped or altered in the historical transmission, _without_ in effect alterning the kata into something seems to make sense, just because we've missed the proper bunkai for it....

I personally would really be interested in the input of Mssrs. Penfil and Rivers, and of Upnorthkyosa as well... all of them have knowledge both of the KMAs (especially the relatively `conservative' Tang Soo Do, which has altered from the original kwan form much less than the Olympic style of TKD represented by the WTF/KKW TKD directorate) and of Okinawan karate kata and their bunkai. But I think it's true for the karate-based MAs in general that we badly need a  both a good understanding of  the Okinawan kata _and_ a detailed knowledge of the history that led from these kata to the currently practiced forms in both the JMAs and TMAs that are the descendents of these original Okinawan forms....


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 1, 2007)

exile said:


> Now imagine that instead of a particular ryu calling the shots, you have a huge supranational agency which is nominally a Korean organization but which in fact is the Olympic regulatory agency for TKD worldwide, basing its decisions about what is competitively valid on both nationalist and international sports-politics considerations, and where the technical/curricuar oversight group and the sport-competitive group share building space and are, in the end, both answerable to the same group of MA apparatchiks in the RoK government, and you have some idea of the problem facing people in TKD, say, *who've seen the Pyung-Ahns (corresponding to the O/J Pinans) replaced by the Palgwes, themselves in turn replaced by the Taegeuks, with no consultation whatsoever with the TKD `grassroots' across the world,* and you can get a sense of how lucky you are!


 
youch!


----------



## Steel Tiger (Aug 1, 2007)

I have been thinking about this for a little while now. It is the concept of reverse engineering katas and forms to find their essence. Let me make a slight detour, it will make sense, I promise.

My field of study is Mesoamerican cultures, those of Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, etc. When the Spanish arrived in that part of the world they brought with them priests of the Jesuit sect. These priests took one look at the native texts and decided they were inspired by Satan and had the vast majority burned (the estimate is 75%). The Spanish then set about changing the essential nature of the culture to something they understood and, thus, could control.

Five hundred years later people like myself come along to look at the native culture and cannot find it. We have to reconstruct it from what little we know. So, we have primary or secondary evidence for the Aztecs, but what do we do about the Toltecs, Teotihuacanos and Olmecs? Well, we create a model from the Aztec culture and project it back into prehistory.

It creates a problem. For the last sixty years we have followed this process and the result is an understanding of the older cultures but tempered by the knowledge that they were probably not as similar to the Aztecs as our models suggest. This is a big problem with reverse engineering.

So when looking at forms and kata that we have today and wanting to know the original essence or even shape of them we have to be wary of the parameters that we choose to use for the exploration. *Exile* has put forward two broad parameters - latitude and parsing which are a strong point to start from, but what we are seeking to discover is the in-between, the oral transmissions, the assumed knowledge, and we have to be careful as to how we seek it or our interpretations will the Aztecs and not the Teotihuacanos.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 1, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> So when looking at forms and kata that we have today and wanting to know the original essence or even shape of them we have to be wary of the parameters that we choose to use for the exploration. *Exile* has put forward two broad parameters - latitude and parsing which are a strong point to start from, but what we are seeking to discover is the in-between, the oral transmissions, the assumed knowledge, and we have to be careful as to how we seek it or our interpretations will the Aztecs and not the Teotihuacanos.


 
Interesting point.  I will suggest that if it is impossible to know what the original essense or shape of them was, is it not valid to develop a new understanding, so long as it is effective?  You may still devise effective and useful techniques from the kata, even if they are not exactly like the original methods that earlier generations had in mind.  In short, maybe in their own way the Aztecs are just as good as the Teotihuacanos...

Interesting to find an Aussie who is interested North and Central American archaeology.  I suppose I'm stereotyping, but I just would not have expected that...


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 1, 2007)

exile said:


> ...who've seen the Pyung-Ahns (corresponding to the O/J Pinans) replaced by the Palgwes, themselves in turn replaced by the Taegeuks...


 

I had sort of heard of this, actually.  I don't know much about what actually happened, but how did the new forms get disbursed among the teachers?  How did they learn them, in a timely fashion to begin teaching them?  It always takes me at least a few years before I feel I understand a form well enough to even consider that I might teach it to someone else.

I had also heard that these newer series of forms were much simplified, with little depth, and they were sort of thrown together with little consideration.  Rather, my impression was that they really were simply "TKD dances", done more for the sake of having their own series of forms and less for any real learning that they would provide the student.  They got listed in the curriculum, but in reality you could do without them and not be missing much.

Is this an accurate assessment?  I'd appreciate any clarification from the TKD folks.  Thx!


----------



## Steel Tiger (Aug 1, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Interesting point. I will suggest that if it is impossible to know what the original essense or shape of them was, is it not valid to develop a new understanding, so long as it is effective? You may still devise effective and useful techniques from the kata, even if they are not exactly like the original methods that earlier generations had in mind. In short, maybe in their own way the Aztecs are just as good as the Teotihuacanos...
> 
> Interesting to find an Aussie who is interested North and Central American archaeology. I suppose I'm stereotyping, but I just would not have expected that...


 
I agree it is perfectly valid to develop a new understanding if the original is lost. This may have to be the position we have to take with regard to the older kata. You can only interpret what you have, the rest is extrapolation.

One thing is for certain the old masters are not the only people who can or could develop effective techniques. It is the nature of assumed knowledge and implicit understanding that has us chasing back to the originator of the kata. Consequently, those studying Okinawan arts have an easier time than those studying the older aspects of Karate and TKD, because they have a more direct line to the origin. 


As to your stereotyping of Aussies, well most do work in Australian archaeology, but from the first time I saw Teotihuacano architecture 20 years ago I was hooked. And it has spread. I have an interest in the native cultures of North America and their origins. a particular interest in the paleo-indian period (Clovis points and all that).


----------



## exile (Aug 1, 2007)

Damn, I wish I could stay with this thread, it's getting more and more interesting all the time... unusual, for an internet discussion! But we're heading out tomorrow at first light or so for Buffalo for the Meet and Greet...  if only we could all be there in person, to continue the discussion over our favorite tipple... one day, maybe... meanwhile, I'll be back on Sunday and will try to catch up and pick up some of these great points and comparisons you chaps are making. Have a great weakend, and let the conversation roll on!


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 2, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> As to your stereotyping of Aussies, well most do work in Australian archaeology, but from the first time I saw Teotihuacano architecture 20 years ago I was hooked. And it has spread. I have an interest in the native cultures of North America and their origins. a particular interest in the paleo-indian period (Clovis points and all that).


 
Very cool.  I don't have any training in this stuff, but I've also found myself intrigued by these topics.  I've felt the same way about Australian Aboriginal groups as well.  I haven't had any opportunity to study these topics in any meaningful way, tho.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Aug 2, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Very cool. I don't have any training in this stuff, but I've also found myself intrigued by these topics. I've felt the same way about Australian Aboriginal groups as well. I haven't had any opportunity to study these topics in any meaningful way, tho.


 
Well there is plenty of literature on the subject, most of it quite good.  Same sorts of problems in Australia and America - When did the first people arrive?  Lots of debate in both regions.  And if you like languages you'll love the Aborigines, 500 different languages.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 2, 2007)

*ST*, for a second time, the first one being in the subject area of your core research, you make me recoil at the gaps in my knowledge - 500 Aboriginal tongues :wow:!  That counts as my 'learn something you didn't know' fact of the day I reckon :tup:.

I _so_ wish that I could get some of the membership of MT around a table in the pub and just have an in-depth set-the-world-to-rights kind of skull-session.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Aug 2, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> *ST*, for a second time, the first one being in the subject area of your core research, you make me recoil at the gaps in my knowledge - 500 Aboriginal tongues :wow:! That counts as my 'learn something you didn't know' fact of the day I reckon :tup:.
> 
> I _so_ wish that I could get some of the membership of MT around a table in the pub and just have an in-depth set-the-world-to-rights kind of skull-session.


 
I try not to think too hard about all I have learned merely to know how much I don't.


----------



## chinto (Aug 5, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> I agree it is perfectly valid to develop a new understanding if the original is lost. This may have to be the position we have to take with regard to the older kata. You can only interpret what you have, the rest is extrapolation.
> 
> One thing is for certain the old masters are not the only people who can or could develop effective techniques. It is the nature of assumed knowledge and implicit understanding that has us chasing back to the originator of the kata. Consequently, those studying Okinawan arts have an easier time than those studying the older aspects of Karate and TKD, because they have a more direct line to the origin.
> 
> ...


 

the thing you have to remember about kata is that if its a valid interpitation of the bunkai .. it is not a situation of  "lost meaning"
after all if it is a valid bunkai to the kata it is part of the original meaning of the kata.  for the old kata I have been tought that there are a minumum of five or more (I say again 5 or more)  valid bunkai for every movement in the kata.


----------

