# kata?



## senseiblackbelt

whats the point of  learning katas? like what is it going to teach and is there any way itll help us in a way to fight?
0_0


----------



## Chris Parker

That's a big question, with many facets to it's answer there… and, honestly, even if we were to explain it all in detail, you'd probably still not quite get it. That's not a slight on you, merely the reality of such questions… you are currently incredibly young (13), and are very new to martial arts and karate in particular… combine that with the fact that study such as kata are a long term pursuit, with more and more becoming apparent to you as you go, rather than simply being something that can be explained in a few words. In other words, the more you train, the more focus you put into it, the more you will see and be able to understand.

That said, there's a lot more to kata than many see or appreciate… in a real sense, it's primary purpose is in teaching you the art you're studying. Kata are a canonised (set in place) method of ensuring that the same lessons are available to all students of the system, with an emphasis on aspects that art consider important (particular aspects of timing, distancing, angling, tactical expressions, and more). Will it help you to "fight"? Maybe. Depends on the kata and it's particular lessons… as well as your study of it and your instructor. But not everything is as simple as what it appears to be intended to be… kata being quite a definite example of that. If you think martial arts are just about learning to fight, then you'll only ever see such a simplistic concept (and see it as lacking, due to missing the majority of what the training method [kata] is really trying to show)… so my advice is to simply train… listen to your instructors… and recognise that, if you want to learn karate, kata is how the art is taught (at least in part). This is because kata is seen as the best, most reliable method to achieve that. And that doesn't necessarily mean anything about learning to "fight"…


----------



## Bill Mattocks

senseiblackbelt said:


> whats the point of  learning katas?



What's the point of learning the alphabet?



> like what is it going to teach



Generally speaking, kata (or forms, or whatever name similar things go by in different arts) encapsulate the system itself in a series of movements.

Ideally, it combines kihon (basic exercises) with stances, transitions, breathing, balance, and power generation.  At the surface level, it provides at least one example based on a proposed 'real life' example of using each encapsulated technique.  When explored mindfully with expert instruction, it opens the mind to a myriad of examples, which provide building blocks to a lifetime's worth of exploration.



> and is there any way itll help us in a way to fight?
> 0_0



Yes.


----------



## TaiChiTJ

At about 2:30 he says, ".....That template, *the solo re-enactment of that practice*, then.....".

And he shows the part of Naihanchi kata that the self defense sequence comes from. 

Which is part of what Chris Parker was saying above.

If this example is outside of your instructors current teaching approach, that doesn't mean your practice is without value. Continue to practice, just understand your kata can be a treasure trove of self defense knowledge. Combined with the basics you are learning, you will be on the right track.


----------



## JR 137

You call yourself "sensei black belt," yet you don't understand why kata is done?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JR 137 said:


> You call yourself "sensei black belt," yet you don't understand why kata is done?


His profile says he's 13 years old, so I suspect the user name is aspirational.


----------



## Azulx

At first I was taught that Kata (Hyungs in my style) were just choreographed fights. After doing research and talking to many other martial artists I learned that they are so much more. Forms teach balance, attack sequences, mechanics, movement, distance, and so much more. Even the most basic forms have so much meaning within them , you just have to do them over and over gain and think about what your doing in the most detail .


----------



## Touch Of Death

Kata will give you something to do when your favorite song comes on the radio.


----------



## JR 137

Tony Dismukes said:


> His profile says he's 13 years old, so I suspect the user name is aspirational.



I know.  It was a poor attempt at humor.


----------



## donald1

Kata often has a wide variety of techniques and stances. You can improve technique, stance, and balance.


----------



## Hanzou

Fortunately if you don't like kata, there's plenty of martial arts out there that don't practice it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

senseiblackbelt said:


> whats the point of  learning katas? like what is it going to teach and is there any way itll help us in a way to fight?
> 0_0



Used right (by both student and instructor), kata have a number of purposes. They help build memory for some specific sequences; often these are sequences that will be used frequently and revisited when learning combinations, etc. They also incorporate many different body positions, which your instructor may use to help you when you have problems later. For instance, she might say, "You're losing your balance there because you're stepping off your own balance line. Use the transition step from the second part of your first kata." 

Depending upon the style, they may also give you a chance to practice the foundational principles of a technique in its purest form - without resistance and in a completely repeatable format. We do this in our art, and it creates a laboratory for later exploration. It's not unusual to hear a couple of brown belts talking about how to change a form slightly to change some aspect of the technique, which later translates to application in sparring/randori/defensive use.


----------



## JP3

On Kata, by JP3.

Do Kata, do.
It is good for you.
It makes you strong,
And your stance long.
while you are miming,
It helps your timing.

Ha!  That's all the poetry you get from me.  But, seriously folks...

Kata practice is like peeling an onion.  Layers on layers of understanding as you do the kata over and over and over again, perfecting the individual techniques, and the movements which are the connections between the techniques themselves.

I'd boil it down like this, train your body physically to strengthen it, make it more flexible and resilient. That's physical conditioning.

Kata is muscle-memory practice, absolutely required in order to truly master a technique.

And, by "Kata" I am using it in (what I understand to be) the actual Japanese form of the word, which encompasses simply working on a simple reverse punch while standing, focusing on how the power flows up from the hips/center through the torso and ends up at the knuckles (for you punchers, I put knuckling people away about 30 years ago, I almost exclusively use open hand now, but it's because I can't stand getting bruised knuckles - can't type with them).... from that punch practice all alone in a mirror, working on it -- that's Kata.  Also, kata is something like Kodokan Judo's Nage-no Kata (Forms of Throwing), which is generally what is required as part of the Shodan (1st degree) black demo.  The entire series of throws, that is also Kata, same reason, same description in principle.

TRAIN your body to fight in a gym, outside running, swimming, climbing, lifting things.

TEACH your body to fight by doing Kata.

Simple. Not Easy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Form/Kata is used for teaching and learning. It's not used for "training". To be able to repeat Shakespeare's play "Romeo and Juliet" from the 1st word to the last word still won't make you a play writer. In order to be a play writer, you have to "write". No matter how many times that you have repeated, "To be and not to be", that sentence is still not yours.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Form/Kata is used for teaching and learning. It's not used for "training". To be able to repeat Shakespeare's play "Romeo and Juliet" from the 1st word to the last word still won't make you a play writer. In order to be a play writer, you have to "write". No matter how many times that you have repeated, "To be and not to be", that sentence is still not yours.


Actually, some kata do contain training drills in them. Repetition helps build muscle memory. The difference between doing kata and practical use of technique is not the difference between memorizing and writing. It's the difference between memorizing and improvisational acting, and all of the good improvisationalists I know improved their acting through memorized roles.


----------



## Prostar

senseiblackbelt said:


> whats the point of  learning katas? like what is it going to teach and is there any way itll help us in a way to fight?
> 0_0



OK SBB, so while you are sorting out what it is that forms are doing for you, here is something you can do with forms.

You do all the forms you know from most basic to advanced.  Doesn't matter if all you know is four forms.  As you perform the forms one after the other, pay attention to the details.  If you make the slightest mistake, a wrong punch, turn, or even a hesitation, go back and start from the beginning.  As you do the forms over and over you will see changes in your stances, balance and so forth.  But ignore those for now.  If you should get through all of your forms PERFECTLY you should be sucking wind by now because it turns into a great workout.

All the answers noted above are great, but not very useful if you are not ready to receive them yet.  If nothing else, bookmark this page and try the drill.

We can answer questions all day but training is a two way street.  Your instructor can create an atmosphere conducive to training, and lay that information down before you.  It is then entirely up to you to pick it up and learn it...or don't.

So what can you do?  Question, practice, perform.


----------



## lklawson

Not to be a jerk, but, once again we see, going by the answers in this thread (and countless others very like it), that there is no one thing or set of things which practitioners agree on as the "purpose" of kata.

I'm not saying that kata is without value, only that if someone tells you "kata is about X and anyone who says different doesn't know what they're talking about" you can be assured that that person has never been exposed to the wider world of practitioners.  And you can be certain that, eventually, you will meet with someone who says exactly that.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Paul_D

senseiblackbelt said:


> whats the point of  learning katas? like what is it going to teach and is there any way itll help us in a way to fight?
> 0_0



Kata isn't designed for fighting; it's designed for self defence.  So asking if there is any way for kata to help you in a fight, is like asking if there is anyway table tennis lessons can help you learn to fly a plane.  The answer is of course, no, because that isn't what it is teaching you.

_"The techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter, in an arena or on the battlefield.  They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behavior. ” – Choki Motobu_

This is case of Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy, where Deep Thought can't work out the answer to life the universe and everything because he doesn’t understand the question.  First you need to understand the difference between fighting and self defence (the free podcast at the bottom of this link will help with that)

The Martial Map (Free Audio Book) | Iain Abernethy

then you need to understand how kata is designed to be applied (Which is easier said than doe and unfortunately the vast majority of Karate Instructors don’t understand kata or how to correctly apply it).  Only then will you be able to ask the right question, and only then will you be able to get the right answers.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Blindside

Paul_D said:


> _"The techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter, in an arena or on the battlefield.  They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behavior. ” – Choki Motobu_



Any chance you have a source for that quote?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Paul_D said:


> _"The techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter, in an arena or on the battlefield.  They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behavior. ” – Choki Motobu_


Not all forms are equal. Some forms have better design than the other. The following combos exist in the form.

1. A left side kick followed by a right back spin fist to the head. This combo is used when your opponent uses his left arm to block your left side kick to your right, you then borrow his force, spin to your right, and throw right back fist on his head.
2. A left side kick followed by a right palm chop to the neck. This combo is used when your opponent uses his right arm to block your left side kick to your left, you then borrow his force, spin to your left, and throw right palm strike on his neck.

IMO, if your opponent has the ability to block your fast powerful skip in side kick, he is not a beginner and can be qualified as _"professional fighter"._


----------



## Kenpoguy123

For the same reasons boxers shaddow box, fitness, reflexes and basics


----------



## Hanzou

Paul_D said:


> _"The techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter, in an arena or on the battlefield.  They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behavior. ” – Choki Motobu_



Sounds like a convenient cop-out.


----------



## Blindside

Hanzou said:


> Sounds like a convenient cop-out.



I actually don't think it is a cop out, it is accepting a limitation on what you are teaching.  It is the combatives approach to the problem, teach simple gross motor motions that work against common untrained attacks.  That is a totally legit approach.  What it doesn't explain is how the curriculum managed to so completely F up the transmission of something that is relatively simple.  Learning basic techniques against an untrained attacker is not a lifetime of study, training to take on skilled fighters is.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> Fortunately if you don't like kata, there's plenty of martial arts out there that don't practice it.


Hanzou and I have something to agree on.


----------



## Flying Crane

Paul_D said:


> Kata isn't designed for fighting; it's designed for self defence.  So asking if there is any way for kata to help you in a fight, is like asking if there is anyway table tennis lessons can help you learn to fly a plane.  The answer is of course, no, because that isn't what it is teaching you.
> 
> _"The techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter, in an arena or on the battlefield.  They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behavior. ” – Choki Motobu_
> 
> This is case of Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy, where Deep Thought can't work out the answer to life the universe and everything because he doesn’t understand the question.  First you need to understand the difference between fighting and self defence (the free podcast at the bottom of this link will help with that)
> 
> The Martial Map (Free Audio Book) | Iain Abernethy
> 
> then you need to understand how kata is designed to be applied (Which is easier said than doe and unfortunately the vast majority of Karate Instructors don’t understand kata or how to correctly apply it).  Only then will you be able to ask the right question, and only then will you be able to get the right answers.


Interesting quote, if Motobu said that.  From the standpoint of Chinese systems, some of which heavily influenced the Okinawan methods, I would disagree with it.  Forms are one tool in the tool box, one of many, that can help you develop your fighting and self defense capabilities on all levels.  Different systems may place a different emphasis on them, different forms may be constructed with different specific goals in mind, so there is no single, one-size-fits-all answer to this.  But I know the place that the forms in my system hold in the training methodology, and it makes sense, and they do contribute to the development of those skills.  I would expect the same to be true with other systems.  

Sometimes I just gotta shrug, about these debates.


----------



## AlexGoode

senseiblackbelt said:


> whats the point of  learning katas? like what is it going to teach and is there any way itll help us in a way to fight?
> 0_0



Kata could be any set sequence of movements, so I'm not surprised at the variation of answers, and all could be right. I guess it's the intention of the movements within the Kata. One thing I could add is katas that use really low stances and full extension on the blocks and strikes can build alot of core things like feeling more rooted in your footwork (even while in a higher stance) and developing speed, snap, understanding the mechanics, etc that could be used in a shorter, tighter, space, more akin to an actual situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> Kata isn't designed for fighting; it's designed for self defence.  So asking if there is any way for kata to help you in a fight, is like asking if there is anyway table tennis lessons can help you learn to fly a plane.  The answer is of course, no, because that isn't what it is teaching you.
> 
> _"The techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter, in an arena or on the battlefield.  They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behavior. ” – Choki Motobu_
> 
> This is case of Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy, where Deep Thought can't work out the answer to life the universe and everything because he doesn’t understand the question.  First you need to understand the difference between fighting and self defence (the free podcast at the bottom of this link will help with that)
> 
> The Martial Map (Free Audio Book) | Iain Abernethy
> 
> then you need to understand how kata is designed to be applied (Which is easier said than doe and unfortunately the vast majority of Karate Instructors don’t understand kata or how to correctly apply it).  Only then will you be able to ask the right question, and only then will you be able to get the right answers.


[/QUOTE]
You continue to insist that only your definition of "fight" can be the accurate one. In spite of the fact that many others here use the word to refer to any physical altercation (which would include self-defense situations where non-physical options didn't suffice). You know this, yet you continue to obstinately create a false dichotomy between the two words. Why not simply choose to understand how people are using the word, rather than shoving your chosen definition at people?


----------



## senseiblackbelt

JR 137 said:


> You call yourself "sensei black belt," yet you don't understand why kata is done?


im **** with usernames. couldnt think of anything


----------



## lyn

I was taught that kata is taught to instill a form of discipline, to let you visualize attacks and your responses, to teach position and timing. It can also be thought of as a moving meditation. When you get into it, you don't think about it, you just do, and you flow with the movements. This allows the mind to relax.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

You cannot learn a new language without first learning the alphabet and the basic words, you practice these basic words over and over again until you can say them without thinking. Similarly, you cannot learn a Martial Art without first learning the basic moves and combinations. This is why we have forms (or kata), to give you an understanding of how the basic techniques fit together and give you a way of practicing those techniques and basic combinations until you can do them without thinking.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Midnight-shadow said:


> You cannot learn a new language without first learning the alphabet and the basic words, you practice these basic words over and over again until you can say them without thinking. Similarly, you cannot learn a Martial Art without first learning the basic moves and combinations. This is why we have forms (or kata), to give you an understanding of how the basic techniques fit together and give you a way of practicing those techniques and basic combinations until you can do them without thinking.


That is one method for learning a new language (and, as you noted, a martial art). Immersion is the other method - and the way we learn our native languages. Martial arts can be learned without kata (or other repetitive exercises designed for learning a movement), though it's pretty obvious that some sort of repetitive practice of a single movement or series of movements is part of nearly all physical training for a reason.

Just making a point that those who don't like kata, and those who train without it, are not doing anything wrong, though I find myself mostly in the kata camp on this one.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lyn said:


> I was taught that kata is taught to instill a form of discipline, to let you visualize attacks and your responses, to teach position and timing. It can also be thought of as a moving meditation. When you get into it, you don't think about it, you just do, and you flow with the movements. This allows the mind to relax.


I wish all students were taught to use kata while visualizing an attack. I know that some are taught the kata (at least initially) as rote movement, without understanding the attacks they are supposed to work against. I think this is visible in some kata demonstrations.


----------



## lklawson

gpseymour said:


> I wish all students were taught to use kata while visualizing an attack.


That would require the instructor to agree with your conception of the role & purpose of kata.  It should be obvious by now, in this thread alone, that broad agreement, never mind universal agreement, on the role & purpose of kata is, um...,  "remarkably unlikely."  I hate to say "never," but... well... never.

It would also require the instructor to agree with you on what exactly the purpose of each movement is.  Good luck with that.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Midnight-shadow

lklawson said:


> That would require the instructor to agree with your conception of the role & purpose of kata.  It should be obvious by now, in this thread alone, that broad agreement, never mind universal agreement, on the role & purpose of kata is, um...,  "remarkably unlikely."  I hate to say "never," but... well... never.
> 
> It would also require the instructor to agree with you on what exactly the purpose of each movement is.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I would like to think any self respecting instructor would explain the principles behind each technique when they teach it, otherwise what is the point in learning the technique? The katas are no different in this regard. I don't know about you but when I'm practicing a technique, I like to know what I'm supposed to be striking or defending against.


----------



## lklawson

Midnight-shadow said:


> I would like to think any self respecting instructor would explain the principles behind each technique when they teach it, otherwise what is the point in learning the technique? The katas are no different in this regard. I don't know about you but when I'm practicing a technique, I like to know what I'm supposed to be striking or defending against.


OK.  Here's an example. What's the "X Block" for?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Flying Crane

lklawson said:


> OK.  Here's an example. What's the "X Block" for?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Oh, I know this one!!  BLOCKING EXes!!


----------



## Touch Of Death

lklawson said:


> OK.  Here's an example. What's the "X Block" for?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


If that is an app for a phone, I want it.


----------



## Touch Of Death

lklawson said:


> OK.  Here's an example. What's the "X Block" for?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Not a real thing, at the higher levels. it is more of a block block. One hand always leads.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

lklawson said:


> OK.  Here's an example. What's the "X Block" for?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Depends what you mean by a "X block". They aren't in the system I practice so I don't know. Not that it has much bearing on this discussion. My point is that every move you do should have a purpose, and you should be aware of that purpose when performing your katas. In addition to this, your instructor should tell you what each technique can be used for, so that you can apply it in a fight more effectively. That is how I see it anyway.


----------



## Th0mas

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not all forms are equal. Some forms have better design than the other. The following combos exist in the form.
> 
> 1. A left side kick followed by a right back spin fist to the head. This combo is used when your opponent uses his left arm to block your left side kick to your right, you then borrow his force, spin to your right, and throw right back fist on his head.
> 2. A left side kick followed by a right palm chop to the neck. This combo is used when your opponent uses his right arm to block your left side kick to your left, you then borrow his force, spin to your left, and throw right palm strike on his neck.
> 
> IMO, if your opponent has the ability to block your fast powerful skip in side kick, he is not a beginner and can be qualified as _"professional fighter"._


 I am not sure to which form you refer, but your interpretation of the applications are not ones I would associate with self protection. Neither of your examples are likely scenarios in a self defence situation.

The whole point of Motobu's is that the kata are designed to teach applications and strategies for dealing with civilian violence not duelling or martial competition. Let's be clear just because the violence is not being done by a professional doesn't make it any less dangerious... In fact I would argue it is more so! a physical assault outside the "safe" environment of a dojo or ring brings a whole range of different risks and dangers, not least because it is something you will not be used to.


----------



## Th0mas

X-block: really depends on the context. There are "X-blocks" performed at both head height and at groin height. It can be interpreted as a flinch response that leads onto a control... Or as a shoulder pin followed by a punch to the back of the head or as a choke.. As I said it depends on the context.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Kung Fu Wang said:


> 2. A left side kick followed by a right palm chop to the neck. This combo is used when your opponent uses his right arm to block your left side kick to your left, you then borrow his force, spin to your left, and throw right palm strike on his neck.





Th0mas said:


> I am not sure to which form you refer, ...


It's in the form "little 5 hands".








Th0mas said:


> The whole point of Motobu's is that the kata are designed to teach applications and strategies for dealing with civilian violence not duelling or martial competition.


Here is another example of the praying mantis 8 moves combo.

1. right arm contact your opponent's right arm.
2. left hand contact his right elbow.
3. right palm strike on his face.
4. left arm block his block.
5. right palm strike on his face.
6. right hand pull down his block.
7. left hand take over.
8. right hand strike on his face.

It's easy to see that when the form creator created this form, he did not assume that he would use it to deal with non-MA person. The 8 moves combo include

- attack through the right side door. if fail
- attack through the left side door, if fail
- attack through the front door.

In other words, when you make your 1st move, you try to predict 8 moves ahead.


----------



## lyn

gpseymour said:


> I wish all students were taught to use kata while visualizing an attack. I know that some are taught the kata (at least initially) as rote movement, without understanding the attacks they are supposed to work against. I think this is visible in some kata demonstrations.


We were taught the moves initially. When we had an idea of how to put them together, we were told what the attacks were, the better to visualize them.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

lyn said:


> We were taught the moves initially. When we had an idea of how to put them together, we were told what the attacks were, the better to visualize them.


Surely it makes more sense to do it the other way around, to learn what the individual techniques are supposed to achieve first, before putting them into combos with other techniques?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Midnight-shadow said:


> Depends what you mean by a "X block". They aren't in the system I practice so I don't know. Not that it has much bearing on this discussion. My point is that every move you do should have a purpose, and you should be aware of that purpose when performing your katas. In addition to this, your instructor should tell you what each technique can be used for, so that you can apply it in a fight more effectively. That is how I see it anyway.


The point he is making is that many people have different views of the purpose of the x block. Which one do you teach your student, are you doing a disservice to them if you only know 5 of the 6 ways it could be taught, and would it be too much information for (primarily newer) students to have to memorize all of the different uses?


----------



## Midnight-shadow

kempodisciple said:


> The point he is making is that many people have different views of the purpose of the x block. Which one do you teach your student, are you doing a disservice to them if you only know 5 of the 6 ways it could be taught, and would it be too much information for (primarily newer) students to have to memorize all of the different uses?



I see the point he's making, and while you can easily overload a new student with information when it comes to the techniques, they should still have a purpose that the student is aware of. This allows them to better visualise the technique when used against an opponent. Different styles have their own ways of doing the different techniques, but no matter what the style is, you should always have an idea of what you are trying to hit or block with each technique. For example, in the style I practice we do lower palm strikes aimed at the floating ribs, and from there can grab the flesh of our opponent and grip and tear. You can't do this effectively if your fingers are pointing up, which is what I had been doing before I started training with my current instructor. Once he explained what we use the technique for, it was instantly clear to me that I had been doing it wrong previously, and so corrected it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Midnight-shadow said:


> to learn what the individual techniques are supposed to achieve first, before putting them into combos with other techniques?


Agree! The proper training sequence should be:

1. single technique.
2. counters to that technique.
3. counters to those counters (combo).
4. ...

That single technique is like the tree trunk of a tree. Your opponent's counters will force your technique to change into different technique. The branch will come out of that trunk. The tree then grow from there.


----------



## lyn

Midnight-shadow said:


> Surely it makes more sense to do it the other way around, to learn what the individual techniques are supposed to achieve first, before putting them into combos with other techniques?


We were taught katas as well as individual techniques. When we were taught the katas, we were taught the moves 1st and then what the attack was we were defending against so we could visualize it as we were refining the kata. When taught individual techniques, we were also told what the attack was at the time.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Midnight-shadow said:


> Surely it makes more sense to do it the other way around, to learn what the individual techniques are supposed to achieve first, before putting them into combos with other techniques?



Only if you're silly enough to think that any single technique or movement only has one use.
Or that the purpose of forms is only to teach techniques.

Both of those viewpoints are far too simplistic.

Every movement has more than one application. 
Forms are used to teach balance, movement, power generation, breathing, etc etc etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lklawson said:


> That would require the instructor to agree with your conception of the role & purpose of kata.  It should be obvious by now, in this thread alone, that broad agreement, never mind universal agreement, on the role & purpose of kata is, um...,  "remarkably unlikely."  I hate to say "never," but... well... never.
> 
> It would also require the instructor to agree with you on what exactly the purpose of each movement is.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Oh, he needn't agree with me on the purpose of the movement. I'd be happy if he simply taught any purpose. Movement without purpose seems counter-productive in martial arts training, unless you are simply training for body development or a meditative state (which are both, IMO, fully acceptable and positive purposes for MA study).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Midnight-shadow said:


> Surely it makes more sense to do it the other way around, to learn what the individual techniques are supposed to achieve first, before putting them into combos with other techniques?


There are two basic approaches (not a black-and-white division, but ends of a continuum):
- teach individual techniques, then combine them
- teach series of movements, then teach applications to them/techniques from them

Both can be effective. Both can be ineffective.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lyn said:


> We were taught the moves initially. When we had an idea of how to put them together, we were told what the attacks were, the better to visualize them.


I could see this with some very basic movements, but I would find it counter-productive to teach entire sequences without teaching some intent. There are small adjustments and tweaks that a student will quickly make when they know something is a block (versus a strike), for instance, and I'd rather they learn those early rather than developing a habit that doesn't match the need.

That said, there are probably others who've had success doing the opposite.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> Oh, he needn't agree with me on the purpose of the movement. I'd be happy if he simply taught any purpose. Movement without purpose seems counter-productive in martial arts training, unless you are simply training for body development or a meditative state (which are both, IMO, fully acceptable and positive purposes for MA study).


What about muscle memory purposes, while they are using other methods to learn similar techniques to what is taught in kata, then later learn how the kata relates? This is how both Cerio and Villari kenpo teach kata (along with using it both as a workout and/or cooldown, and as a way to calm or raise the heart, depending on the form in question).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kempodisciple said:


> What about muscle memory purposes, while they are using other methods to learn similar techniques to what is taught in kata, then later learn how the kata relates? This is how both Cerio and Villari kenpo teach kata (along with using it both as a workout and/or cooldown, and as a way to calm or raise the heart, depending on the form in question).


This is why I referred to the different muscle involvement. If I'm training someone's muscle memory, it doesn't help them if I let them practice improper intent, as that usually involves different muscles (or at least different usage of the muscles) than the desired intent. Now, it's not actually necessary that they know the intent in order to do the right movements, but it's often easier to get them do use the right muscles if they are thinking of the right kind of force. There are some exercises that train the right movements and muscle involvements through a different intent, and those are just as useful. Here's the example I use: if I have a student who did Tae-bo for 10 years, I may have a hard time training them to good kicks, because they've learned a similar motion, but with all the wrong muscle involvement (many of the kicks in Tae-bo are too focused on speed and retraction, so no power in them, and no balance when hitting a target). On the other hand, if I have a student whose prior instructor had them standing for a few hours kicking in front of a mirror WITH PROPER INTENT AND FORM (correct muscles, proper balance for the strike, etc.), I can probably get them to kicking with some power fairly quickly.

Mind you, in some cases it may be easier to get someone to move right if they DON'T know the intent. We've all had students (or worked with them) whose "natural" movements were unusual, and who had to learn an entirely new habit in order to do some of the "easy" techniques. I have a student right now who has trouble with rolls. I have him (an adult) imitating an orangutan (including the noises), and his rolls are much better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kempodisciple said:


> The point he is making is that many people have different views of the purpose of the x block. Which one do you teach your student, are you doing a disservice to them if you only know 5 of the 6 ways it could be taught, and would it be too much information for (primarily newer) students to have to memorize all of the different uses?


I think it's usually best to start them with one. Once they have some competency there, you can add more. This is true of all techniques, and can either be over a period of a few classes, or over a period of a few years.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> This is why I referred to the different muscle involvement. If I'm training someone's muscle memory, it doesn't help them if I let them practice improper intent, as that usually involves different muscles (or at least different usage of the muscles) than the desired intent. Now, it's not actually necessary that they know the intent in order to do the right movements, but it's often easier to get them do use the right muscles if they are thinking of the right kind of force. There are some exercises that train the right movements and muscle involvements through a different intent, and those are just as useful. Here's the example I use: if I have a student who did Tae-bo for 10 years, I may have a hard time training them to good kicks, because they've learned a similar motion, but with all the wrong muscle involvement (many of the kicks in Tae-bo are too focused on speed and retraction, so no power in them, and no balance when hitting a target). On the other hand, if I have a student whose prior instructor had them standing for a few hours kicking in front of a mirror WITH PROPER INTENT AND FORM (correct muscles, proper balance for the strike, etc.), I can probably get them to kicking with some power fairly quickly.
> 
> Mind you, in some cases it may be easier to get someone to move right if they DON'T know the intent. We've all had students (or worked with them) whose "natural" movements were unusual, and who had to learn an entirely new habit in order to do some of the "easy" techniques. I have a student right now who has trouble with rolls. I have him (an adult) imitating an orangutan (including the noises), and his rolls are much better.


So to clarify (for Villari more then Cerio): We learn the intent first, outside the kata (the first form is generally not started for the first couple of months). You learn the basics through those, and then learn the form. The primary way to learn intent is through combinations which are essentially broken up parts of kata that are learned. After a couple ranks, you learn the first pinon, which is used to teach body mechanics, meditative purposes, and muscle memory of the body mechanics. However, bunkai is not taught during this time, as the focus of bunkai is on the combinations for a very long time. After you learn the form and are doing it to a competent level (whatever the instructor says that is), then he starts teaching the bunkai and intent of the minute moves. This is true for both of the villari based schools I have trained (although both broke off from villari), so i am fairly certain it is how the style as a whole is supposed to teach them.


----------



## lklawson

Midnight-shadow said:


> Depends what you mean by a "X block". They aren't in the system I practice so I don't know.


This thing:
















> Not that it has much bearing on this discussion.


Sure it does.



> My point is that every move you do should have a purpose, and you should be aware of that purpose when performing your katas. In addition to this, your instructor should tell you what each technique can be used for, so that you can apply it in a fight more effectively. That is how I see it anyway.


My point is that this particular example shows up in several styles of Karate and there is a LOT of disagreement over what its "purpose" is.  How can you perform your kata to a purpose if no one can agree on what that purpose is?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Th0mas said:


> X-block: really depends on the context. There are "X-blocks" performed at both head height and at groin height. It can be interpreted as a flinch response that leads onto a control... Or as a shoulder pin followed by a punch to the back of the head or as a choke.. As I said it depends on the context.


Well, those are certainly possibilities, but no one can seem to agree.  I've heard it suggested to be everything from a knife-block to a collar-choke.

It's hard to perform kata to a purpose when even agreement on what a simple two-handed movement is can't get general agreement.  

Not that it bothers me, personally, mind you.  It's just something that I've been watching for a long time.  No one can seem to agree on what exactly the purpose of kata really is or what it does.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Th0mas

lklawson said:


> Well, those are certainly possibilities, but no one can seem to agree.  I've heard it suggested to be everything from a knife-block to a collar-choke.
> 
> It's hard to perform kata to a purpose when even agreement on what a simple two-handed movement is can't get general agreement.
> 
> Not that it bothers me, personally, mind you.  It's just something that I've been watching for a long time.  No one can seem to agree on what exactly the purpose of kata really is or what it does.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


To be honest it doesn't matter if other people disagree with your own personal interpretation, just as long as the application you are visualising works for you in the context in which you apply it. 

Secondly, it is not the specifics of the technique that are important, as in only using this exact technique for this exact situation, more the tactical implication that makes the application viable. For example, in pinan Yondan the situation I practice for in partner work (or visualise in solo kata) is the maintaining of downward pressure on a shoulder lock ( to keep my opponent bent over) so that I can step forward with my full body weight and execute a finishing punch to the back of the neck. The X-block technique could be replaced with a double grip on their upper arm and drop of your body weight followed by an elbow strike, but the principle remains the same.

Clearly there are some nonsense interpretations. For example in pinan Godan  using a downward "X-block followed by an upward "X-block" to block a front kick and then block a straight punch (anybody trying this against someone who is attacking you with full intent will swiftly realise how impractical that interpretation is).

A clear set of principles are required to validate or qualify a viable interpretation of the bunkai. Some basic ones that remove common mistakes are:

The application must work at close range
The application should assume that the  opponent is using HAPV not karate techniques
And the kata embusen is in reference to how you move relative to your opponent not to the direction of attack.
Then you must test it with varying degrees of compliance with a partner.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

lklawson said:


> Well, those are certainly possibilities, but no one can seem to agree.  I've heard it suggested to be everything from a knife-block to a collar-choke.
> 
> It's hard to perform kata to a purpose when even agreement on what a simple two-handed movement is can't get general agreement.
> 
> Not that it bothers me, personally, mind you.  It's just something that I've been watching for a long time.  No one can seem to agree on what exactly the purpose of kata really is or what it does.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Can we at least agree with the fact that when performing a kata (just like when performing basic techniques) there should be intent and purpose behind it? Just going through the motions or doing the kata just because your instructor told you to seems like a waste of time to me. For example, take a look at this clip (skip to 5:29 in the video):






Besides the terrible technique displayed, what most of the people doing the form lack is intent. Their moves have no purpose and they are just going through the motions. What purpose does their forms have but to make them look like fools? The purpose of the kata will vary depending on who is doing it, but there should always be a purpose, otherwise why bother with it?


----------



## lklawson

Midnight-shadow said:


> Can we at least agree with the fact that when performing a kata (just like when performing basic techniques) there should be intent and purpose behind it?


*I* think there should, but again, there's no consensus.  And, to be quite honest, some of my ideas about the purpose or intent of some classic Karate movements are widely disputed by long time practitioners and subject matter experts.  In particular, my position on the true intent and purpose of the three classic, standard, "blocks" (Chudan-uke, Gedan-uke, Jodan-uke).



> Just going through the motions or doing the kata just because your instructor told you to seems like a waste of time to me. For example, take a look at this clip (skip to 5:29 in the video):


*I* think it seems like a waste of time to do it that way but I have little doubt that there are some instructors who tell their students to just do it and it will eventually dawn on them what the purpose and meaning are.  I'm sure you must have heard something like that before, right?

That's one of the things that I find so intriguing, yet so frustrating, every time another "purpose of kata" thread comes up.  There simply is no consensus on what Kata is, does, or what its purpose is.  Honestly, the Ford vs Chevy, or even the .45ACP vs 9mm Luger arguments make more sense.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Dirty Dog said:


> Only if you're silly enough to think that any single technique or movement only has one use.
> Or that the purpose of forms is only to teach techniques.
> 
> Both of those viewpoints are far too simplistic.
> 
> Every movement has more than one application.
> Forms are used to teach balance, movement, power generation, breathing, etc etc etc.


The only issue I have with this is that often when I see multiple proposed applications for a given movement in a form, those applications require different power generation, timing, etc from each other in order to be effective.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tony Dismukes said:


> The only issue I have with this is that often when I see multiple proposed applications for a given movement in a form, those applications require different power generation, timing, etc from each other in order to be effective.



Obviously, different applications will require slight modifications - a rising forearm used as a block will require slightly different angles than one used as an attack. And you can certainly debate how far from the original, stylized example used in forms you can go and still consider it a variant. 
But the specific techniques and applications derived from forms is secondary to the very principles you mentioned; power generation, timing, etc. If you've understood them well enough to apply them for an application that is fairly far removed from the original, then the training has worked.


----------



## Steve

kata is exactly what you really want it to be.  if you work at it hard enough, it can be anything.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

lklawson said:


> *I* think there should, but again, there's no consensus.  And, to be quite honest, some of my ideas about the purpose or intent of some classic Karate movements are widely disputed by long time practitioners and subject matter experts.  In particular, my position on the true intent and purpose of the three classic, standard, "blocks" (Chudan-uke, Gedan-uke, Jodan-uke).
> 
> *I* think it seems like a waste of time to do it that way but I have little doubt that there are some instructors who tell their students to just do it and it will eventually dawn on them what the purpose and meaning are.  I'm sure you must have heard something like that before, right?
> 
> That's one of the things that I find so intriguing, yet so frustrating, every time another "purpose of kata" thread comes up.  There simply is no consensus on what Kata is, does, or what its purpose is.  Honestly, the Ford vs Chevy, or even the .45ACP vs 9mm Luger arguments make more sense.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Ah yes, the good old "practice this seemingly pointless skill for hours and hours and one day you will discover the secret technique behind it...."

Don't get me wrong, getting your student to discover things on their own like this can be an effective way of teaching and gauging the student's aptitude and progress, but I fear that a lot of instructors only use it to hide the fact that they don't know the answer themselves.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Midnight-shadow said:


> Ah yes, the good old "practice this seemingly pointless skill for hours and hours and one day you will discover the secret technique behind it...."



If you think the way you're being trained is pointless, I'd strongly encourage you to leave the school immediately and find some other system that trains the way you think best.



Midnight-shadow said:


> Don't get me wrong, getting your student to discover things on their own like this can be an effective way of teaching and gauging the student's aptitude and progress, but I fear that a lot of instructors only use it to hide the fact that they don't know the answer themselves.



Maybe that is because, contrary to what inexperienced people often think, there is no "the" answer.
We had a student testing for 2nd Geup tonight. As part of his test, I asked him to show me 3 ways a "low block" could be used offensively. And stipulated that he had to come up with applications he had *not* been shown in class. A student able to do that is a student who is developing an understanding of the principles behind the movement. A student who has to be told "this is what it's for" lacks that understanding.


----------



## Th0mas

lklawson said:


> *I* think there should, but again, there's no consensus.  And, to be quite honest, some of my ideas about the purpose or intent of some classic Karate movements are widely disputed by long time practitioners and subject matter experts.  In particular, my position on the true intent and purpose of the three classic, standard, "blocks" (Chudan-uke, Gedan-uke, Jodan-uke).


Hi Kirk,
Would you care to elaborate on your view about the true intent of the three classic blocks ? I think it might be an interesting point of discussion.

Cheers
Tom


----------



## Th0mas

Steve said:


> kata is exactly what you really want it to be.  if you work at it hard enough, it can be anything.


Hi Steve
Are you sure about that? I agree that it is subjective.. Value being in the eye of the beholder... However I don't think most Martial artists who have invested a significant proportion of there training time on forms would be very happy if it transpired that it was nothing but bad interpretive dance?


----------



## Midnight-shadow

Dirty Dog said:


> If you think the way you're being trained is pointless, I'd strongly encourage you to leave the school immediately and find some other system that trains the way you think best.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that is because, contrary to what inexperienced people often think, there is no "the" answer.
> We had a student testing for 2nd Geup tonight. As part of his test, I asked him to show me 3 ways a "low block" could be used offensively. And stipulated that he had to come up with applications he had *not* been shown in class. A student able to do that is a student who is developing an understanding of the principles behind the movement. A student who has to be told "this is what it's for" lacks that understanding.



Like I said, it can be an effective teaching technique as you have illustrated in your example. However it can also be used to hide the lack of knowledge in the instructor.


----------



## madihakhan

I got about kata here that people are even forcing to practice kata but just tell me one thing if a guy is 26 years old and he wants to learn martial arts and all that , is it possible for him to learn everything ?


----------



## Midnight-shadow

madihakhan said:


> I got about kata here that people are even forcing to practice kata but just tell me one thing if a guy is 26 years old and he wants to learn martial arts and all that , is it possible for him to learn everything ?



Nobody can ever learn everything, but there's nothing to stop that 26 year old from becoming proficient at that Martial Art. Will they become a Master? Depends what you mean by a Master, but again, they are young enough to be able to do it in my opinion.


----------



## lklawson

Th0mas said:


> Hi Kirk,
> Would you care to elaborate on your view about the true intent of the three classic blocks ? I think it might be an interesting point of discussion.
> 
> Cheers
> Tom


OK, but please understand that this is a widely disputed position with many subject matter experts here on MT and elsewhere holding different opinions.  I will say, however, that after I came to my conclusion (detailed below) that I did some further research and also found that my new belief was echoed by a few others who are subject matter experts.  While my position is in the distinct minority, I am not entirely alone.

Let's take the middle block for descriptive reasons, but the general statements and principles can be applied to all three.  The middle block is typically taught as two distinct movements.  First, chamber the hand/fist to the opposing hip (often with a turning or loading to that hip).  I.E. sweep your right fist to your left hip, turning slightly to the left.  Then explosively return to the forward facing position while sweeping the hand/fist out with the arm vertical (ish) with the hand/fist roughly somewhere below eye level.  Most are apparently taught that the first movement is a "chambering" movement and the second is an outsweeping movement designed to block or parry an incoming punch, often destructively.  The idea of a parry in this manner appears to have some merit but the two-part movement as a whole doesn't make sense as has been typically described.  Further, it seems to always fail when pressure tested with the goal of making it perform as a two-part motion of chamber-then-parry/block.  It's too slow, and no one ever seems to be able to actually chamber then bock.  If they try it, they almost get to the chamber then they get punched in the face.

I contend that this is backwards.  The first movement, what is commonly taught as the chambering movement is actually the block.  The movement of sweeping the hand to the oposide side of the body and twisting the body is the act of parrying and using body movement for two purposes, the first of which is body movement to evade the incoming blow.  The second movement, which seems to usually be taught as the block, is actually a ripost (a counter-attack after a defensive movement).  It is a straight up backfist or hammer fist attack to the now parried and exposed opponent and the act of chambering during the parry adds additional power to the back/hammer fist ripost.

I came to this revelation after reading Dempsey's "Championship Fighting" in which he describes a method of fighting where the fighter keeps his guard up but leaves the fists a bit wide apart in order invite an attack down the middle (between the fists) which allows the defender to 'swat' the punch away with the palm of his hand and then immediately ripost with a backfist to the face.  It's a clean, elegant, and shockingly fast two-movement set and looks almost identical, though with less "exaggerated" movements, to a classic karate high block or middle block.  A low block would be the same but back/hammer-fisting low to the kidneys, short-ribs, even the groin, etc.

While I believed that this was a awesome revelation, because during years of discussions, training, and trolling the net with other martial artists, I'd never seen the suggestion before, I came to find out that it wasn't exactly a new interpretation.  However, it does seem to be an, um..., "minority opinion" so to speak.

In the context of this thread, I'm not really trying to argue for or against my interpretation of traditional karate low/middle/high-blocks, but rather to illustrate that there is not really a consensus on the "true meaning and intent" of even such basic movements, never-mind something so much more sophisticated and complex as kata.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve

Th0mas said:


> Hi Steve
> Are you sure about that? I agree that it is subjective.. Value being in the eye of the beholder... However I don't think most Martial artists who have invested a significant proportion of there training time on forms would be very happy if it transpired that it was nothing but bad interpretive dance?


people look for value in different things.   listen to the diversity of opinion even among proponents of kata.

does the kata help make you a more effective fighter? Jury's out. But I don't think it makes you a less effective fighter, and if you're getting some esoteric benefit, real or perceived, where's the harm?


----------



## Midnight-shadow

Steve said:


> people look for value in different things.   listen to the diversity of opinion even among proponents of kata.
> 
> does the kata help make you a more effective fighter? Jury's out. But I don't think it makes you a less effective fighter, and if you're getting some esoteric benefit, real or perceived, where's the harm?



Some people would argue that spending too much time on katas makes you a worse fighter, which is true in a way. In training you need to find a balance between drills, katas, sparring and body conditioning. Too much body conditioning and not enough technique work and you will lack the skill required to win a fight. On the other hand, too much technique work and not enough body conditioning means your strikes and blocks have no power behind them. That said, one thing I found recently on youtube was a video where the person recording it basically said katas are worthless, and that the difference between a "McDojo" and a proper school is that a "McDojo" builds their entire training around the katas, whereas a proper school builds their entire training around self-defense. You can decide which philosophy you agree with on that one, although personally I believe that when it comes to Traditional Martial Arts, self-defense is only a very small part of it. There are plenty of specialist self-defense schools if that's all you want to learn, but if I go to a Traditional Martial Arts school, I want to do a lot more than just self-defense techniques.


----------



## Th0mas

lklawson said:


> OK, but please understand that this is a widely disputed position with many subject matter experts here on MT and elsewhere holding different opinions.  I will say, however, that after I came to my conclusion (detailed below) that I did some further research and also found that my new belief was echoed by a few others who are subject matter experts.  While my position is in the distinct minority, I am not entirely alone.
> 
> Let's take the middle block for descriptive reasons, but the general statements and principles can be applied to all three.  The middle block is typically taught as two distinct movements.  First, chamber the hand/fist to the opposing hip (often with a turning or loading to that hip).  I.E. sweep your right fist to your left hip, turning slightly to the left.  Then explosively return to the forward facing position while sweeping the hand/fist out with the arm vertical (ish) with the hand/fist roughly somewhere below eye level.  Most are apparently taught that the first movement is a "chambering" movement and the second is an outsweeping movement designed to block or parry an incoming punch, often destructively.  The idea of a parry in this manner appears to have some merit but the two-part movement as a whole doesn't make sense as has been typically described.  Further, it seems to always fail when pressure tested with the goal of making it perform as a two-part motion of chamber-then-parry/block.  It's too slow, and no one ever seems to be able to actually chamber then bock.  If they try it, they almost get to the chamber then they get punched in the face.
> 
> I contend that this is backwards.  The first movement, what is commonly taught as the chambering movement is actually the block.  The movement of sweeping the hand to the oposide side of the body and twisting the body is the act of parrying and using body movement for two purposes, the first of which is body movement to evade the incoming blow.  The second movement, which seems to usually be taught as the block, is actually a ripost (a counter-attack after a defensive movement).  It is a straight up backfist or hammer fist attack to the now parried and exposed opponent and the act of chambering during the parry adds additional power to the back/hammer fist ripost.
> 
> I came to this revelation after reading Dempsey's "Championship Fighting" in which he describes a method of fighting where the fighter keeps his guard up but leaves the fists a bit wide apart in order invite an attack down the middle (between the fists) which allows the defender to 'swat' the punch away with the palm of his hand and then immediately ripost with a backfist to the face.  It's a clean, elegant, and shockingly fast two-movement set and looks almost identical, though with less "exaggerated" movements, to a classic karate high block or middle block.  A low block would be the same but back/hammer-fisting low to the kidneys, short-ribs, even the groin, etc.
> 
> While I believed that this was a awesome revelation, because during years of discussions, training, and trolling the net with other martial artists, I'd never seen the suggestion before, I came to find out that it wasn't exactly a new interpretation.  However, it does seem to be an, um..., "minority opinion" so to speak.
> 
> In the context of this thread, I'm not really trying to argue for or against my interpretation of traditional karate low/middle/high-blocks, but rather to illustrate that there is not really a consensus on the "true meaning and intent" of even such basic movements, never-mind something so much more sophisticated and complex as kata.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Hi Kirk 
I think your interpretation is much more common than you realise. In fact that is precisely how we interpret those blocking actions.. In principle. We often refer to it as primary and secondary. Primary being the lead hand block and secondary being the following hand block. 

By that I mean, there a degrees of nuance depending on how you wish to apply the technique. A favourite principle of mine is to recognise that the human parasympathetic flinch response, something that is ingrained and has evolved for as long as humans have walked on two legs, is something we should work with when "blocking" rather than try and unlearn.

By this I mean, in close quarters both hands should be deployed to block/parry grasp and disrupt. This lends itself to the primary / secondary technique and the resulting crossing of arms that results. Arguably traditional  blocking at close range is not effective (fine at sparring range). Both hands with body/weight shifting resulting in the disruption to prevent your opponent being able to repeat the attack in a flurry of blows is much more pragmatic.


----------



## lklawson

Th0mas said:


> Hi Kirk
> I think your interpretation is much more common than you realise. In fact that is precisely how we interpret those blocking actions.. In principle. We often refer to it as primary and secondary. Primary being the lead hand block and secondary being the following hand block.


I think you're right that this interpretation is becoming much more common than when I learned in the 80's.  From what I can tell, however, it is still not the most common interpretation though I believe you're right that it's gained a lot of traction.

I'm just glad that you're doing it right.    <ducking>



> A favourite principle of mine is to recognise that the human parasympathetic flinch response


I wish more people would recognize this.  But, I can't dictate to everyone so they all have the right to their interpretation.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Th0mas

Steve said:


> people look for value in different things.   listen to the diversity of opinion even among proponents of kata.
> 
> does the kata help make you a more effective fighter? Jury's out. But I don't think it makes you a less effective fighter, and if you're getting some esoteric benefit, real or perceived, where's the harm?


 If Kata is part of holistic training regime where the objective is to create skills that are applicable to civilian violence, then of course it will make you a more effective fighter. I say that with cast-iron certainty! 

That is of course assuming you use the kata as they were designed - a library of combatative strategies, principles and applications - that you explore, test and practice as part of All the other training methods you need to do to be effective when dealing with physical assaults outside of the Dojo or ring.

Kata is not the only thing that can provide a curriculum for self defence, but it is pretty good as a physical way of recording the lessons and providing a structure or framework to ensure you focus on the correct elements to achieve those training goals.

Crap solo Kata practice, like sloppy bag work, non existence partner drills, long range point sparring, over reliance on "air techniques" etc will not make you effective. Using the right tool for the job is a principle that has to be applied to kata practice. Else it is XMA or dancing in angry pyjamas


----------



## Th0mas

lklawson said:


> I think you're right that this interpretation is becoming much more common than when I learned in the 80's.  From what I can tell, however, it is still not the most common interpretation though I believe you're right that it's gained a lot of traction.
> 
> I'm just glad that you're doing it right.    <ducking>
> 
> I wish more people would recognize this.  But, I can't dictate to everyone so they all have the right to their interpretation.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Hi Kirk,
Certainly in the 80's in the UK "traditional" shotokan karate, in my experience, was of the 3 K's variety - Kata, Kihon and kumite...When people were either kata guys or fighters... And the KUGB squad was a tough bunch of guys, so no critisism there from me in that regard.

It wasn't till about 16 years ago that slowly things started to change - I remember going to a course where the instructor was focussing on breaking down the kata into effective drills for close quarter combatives. That was the first time to me that anybody had addressed the question of "what is the point of Kata". A real eye opener for me at the time. Serendipitous as I was getting very bored with the same old stuff and had that awful feeling of "is that it?"

You are right, that things now are changing, the kind of arguments I was making in 2001 are generally accepted, certainly in the limited sphere of the like minded individuals I associate with.


----------



## Steve

Midnight-shadow said:


> Some people would argue that spending too much time on katas makes you a worse fighter, which is true in a way. In training you need to find a balance between drills, katas, sparring and body conditioning. Too much body conditioning and not enough technique work and you will lack the skill required to win a fight. On the other hand, too much technique work and not enough body conditioning means your strikes and blocks have no power behind them. That said, one thing I found recently on youtube was a video where the person recording it basically said katas are worthless, and that the difference between a "McDojo" and a proper school is that a "McDojo" builds their entire training around the katas, whereas a proper school builds their entire training around self-defense. You can decide which philosophy you agree with on that one, although personally I believe that when it comes to Traditional Martial Arts, self-defense is only a very small part of it. There are plenty of specialist self-defense schools if that's all you want to learn, but if I go to a Traditional Martial Arts school, I want to do a lot more than just self-defense techniques.


Who are these people arguing that too much timing on katas makes you a worse fighter?  What exactly is too much (as opposed to "a lot" or "some" or "maybe a tad excessive")?

And in the same vein, how well documented is this direct correlation between technique, body conditioning and striking/blocking power?  That's a new one on me. 

My point is simply that if you do Kata and you find it valuable, for ANY reason, knock yourself out.  If you think it helps your allergies, fine.  I view it as a benign activity, which will certainly not make something worse.  And really, "worse" is also subjective and entirely dependent upon what your goals are.  Will it make you a better fighter?  Maybe or maybe not.  But will it make you a worse fighter?  No.  If your goal is to fight in a cage, you will likely want to train for that activity.  Will kata help you succeed in MMA?  Maybe not, but it won't make you fail either.  Your lack of training for MMA will be the reason you fail, not your training in Kata.



Th0mas said:


> If Kata is part of holistic training regime where the objective is to create skills that are applicable to civilian violence, then of course it will make you a more effective fighter. I say that with cast-iron certainty!
> 
> That is of course assuming you use the kata as they were designed - a library of combatative strategies, principles and applications - that you explore, test and practice as part of All the other training methods you need to do to be effective when dealing with physical assaults outside of the Dojo or ring.
> 
> Kata is not the only thing that can provide a curriculum for self defence, but it is pretty good as a physical way of recording the lessons and providing a structure or framework to ensure you focus on the correct elements to achieve those training goals.
> 
> Crap solo Kata practice, like sloppy bag work, non existence partner drills, long range point sparring, over reliance on "air techniques" etc will not make you effective. Using the right tool for the job is a principle that has to be applied to kata practice. Else it is XMA or dancing in angry pyjamas


Same as above.  You guys seem to be really hung up on your goals and desired or expected outcomes, and you are using a lot of subjective language as a result.  What if XMA is the goal?  What if speed is valued over precision, or precision is valued over power? 

Once again, if you like it, do it.  Bill Mattocks is a recent evangelist for kata, and purports to gain some really deep meaning from his training of kata.  Good for him, I say.  Will it make him a better fighter, or help him better defend himself?  Who knows?  But, he's getting something out of it, and he seems like a pretty reasonable guy.  So, what the hell.  Go for it. 

And in the end, the chances anyone of us will ever need to use any of this crap we're training for actual self defense are functionally non-existence, barring some unusual exposure to crime or engaging in high risk behaviors.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

Steve said:


> Who are these people arguing that too much timing on katas makes you a worse fighter?  What exactly is too much (as opposed to "a lot" or "some" or "maybe a tad excessive")?
> 
> And in the same vein, how well documented is this direct correlation between technique, body conditioning and striking/blocking power?  That's a new one on me.
> 
> My point is simply that if you do Kata and you find it valuable, for ANY reason, knock yourself out.  If you think it helps your allergies, fine.  I view it as a benign activity, which will certainly not make something worse.  And really, "worse" is also subjective and entirely dependent upon what your goals are.  Will it make you a better fighter?  Maybe or maybe not.  But will it make you a worse fighter?  No.  If your goal is to fight in a cage, you will likely want to train for that activity.  Will kata help you succeed in MMA?  Maybe not, but it won't make you fail either.  Your lack of training for MMA will be the reason you fail, not your training in Kata.



No offence but I feel like you are arguing now just for the sake of it. "How well documented is this direct correlation between technique, body conditioning and striking/blocking power?" Is that a serious question? A stronger person can put more force into their strike, making it harder to block while also allowing them to inflict greater damage with less effort. Similarly, a person who has trained their body can withstand more hits for longer if needed. That's why people do Iron Palm and Iron shirt training. That's why ring fighters do weights and resistance training. You also get the benefit of increasing your stamina, so can fight for longer without getting fatigued. But, it has to be in moderation. Anything in excess can harm you in the long run. A fighter who only does kata and no sparring isn't going to have the natural reflexes and the adaptability to fight against different opponents (they will typically just do the same moves and combos over and over hoping they will work). On the other hand, a fighter who only does sparring and no kata may not have developed the muscle-memory to be able to keep their techniques effective while under pressure throughout a fight.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> Who are these people arguing that too much timing on katas makes you a worse fighter?


If you spend 2 hours training daily, your training result will depend on how you will allocate your training time. The proper fighting skill development involves with:

1. partner drill to develop.
2. sparring/wrestling to test.
3. weight equipment training to enhance.
4. solo drill (or form) to polish.

IMO, 3, 4 may be equal important, but 1, 2 are more important than 3, 4. If you spend too much time in 4, you will spend less time in 1, 2, 3. You have to be able to "develop" your fighting skill first before you can "polish" it.


----------



## Th0mas

Steve said:


> My point is simply that if you do Kata and you find it valuable, for ANY reason, knock yourself out.  If you think it helps your allergies, fine.  I view it as a benign activity, which will certainly not make something worse.  And really, "worse" is also subjective and entirely dependent upon what your goals are.  Will it make you a better fighter?  Maybe or maybe not.  But will it make you a worse fighter?  No.  If your goal is to fight in a cage, you will likely want to train for that activity.  Will kata help you succeed in MMA?  Maybe not, but it won't make you fail either.  Your lack of training for MMA will be the reason you fail, not your training in Kata.
> 
> Same as above.  You guys seem to be really hung up on your goals and desired or expected outcomes, and you are using a lot of subjective language as a result.  What if XMA is the goal?  What if speed is valued over precision, or precision is valued over power?


Hi Steve
You seem to be contradicting yourself in the same post? 
Anyway, I refer you back to my previous comment. 

If your goal it to learn a pretty martial dance then fine, XMA forms may well be something your interested in. But don't pretend they make you an effective fighter.. If you are one, that is inspite of your eligant dancing, not because of it.

And of course it's subjective! It is all about context and personal goals and they are subjective by definition. The point that is being over laboured is that in the past and in a lot of cases nowadays people assume that if they dilligently train in their martial art of choice they will be equally effective no matter the context and that is blatantly not true.

The kata form on its own does not have any intrinsic magical properties, but combined with the right instruction and other very necessary training activities will make you more effective at what it was designed to do.. Which in the majority of older karate kata's is to provide a range of fighting strategies and tactics for improving the outcome of a civilian self protection situation.


----------



## Steve

Th0mas said:


> Hi Steve
> You seem to be contradicting yourself in the same post?
> Anyway, I refer you back to my previous comment.
> 
> If your goal it to learn a pretty martial dance then fine, XMA forms may well be something your interested in. But don't pretend they make you an effective fighter.. If you are one, that is inspite of your eligant dancing, not because of it.
> 
> And of course it's subjective! It is all about context and personal goals and they are subjective by definition. The point that is being over laboured is that in the past and in a lot of cases nowadays people assume that if they dilligently train in their martial art of choice they will be equally effective no matter the context and that is blatantly not true.
> 
> The kata form on its own does not have any intrinsic magical properties, but combined with the right instruction and other very necessary training activities will make you more effective at what it was designed to do.. Which in the majority of older karate kata's is to provide a range of fighting strategies and tactics for improving the outcome of a civilian self protection situation.


do I?  Huh.  Why parts do you think are contradictory?


----------



## Th0mas

Steve said:


> do I?  Huh.  Why parts do you think are contradictory?


Hi Steve
Ok I now think you're trolling, but I'll bite anyway.

On the one hand you're saying if you enjoy doing kata and forms and just the enjoyment of doing it is your goal.. Then go for it. Then on the other hand you say Kirk and myself are being too concerned with clearly articulating personal training goals?

Your position is all about personal goals..  I don't see the problem about being very clear about why you do something to ensure you invest your time effectively to achieve whatever it is you want to.

the reason there are so many threads on this forum and many others with titles like "why kata" or "Kata?" is because people in general don't understand the benefit of Kata or why they spend a significant proportion of their limited training time doing it.

It seems to me that the training benefits of kata  are not as obvious compared with, say, hitting a heavy bag. It can only be for the benefit of new students to understand why they do the weird dancing stuff in the first place... If subsequently you also get pleasure from the very action of performing forms well.. Then that is an emergent benefit.. Else why not take up Morris dancing?


----------



## Steve

Th0mas said:


> Hi Steve
> Ok I now think you're trolling, but I'll bite anyway.
> 
> On the one hand you're saying if you enjoy doing kata and forms and just the enjoyment of doing it is your goal.. Then go for it. Then on the other hand you say Kirk and myself are being too concerned with clearly articulating personal training goals?
> 
> Your position is all about personal goals..  I don't see the problem about being very clear about why you do something to ensure you invest your time effectively to achieve whatever it is you want to.
> 
> the reason there are so many threads on this forum and many others with titles like "why kata" or "Kata?" is because people in general don't understand the benefit of Kata or why they spend a significant proportion of their limited training time doing it.
> 
> It seems to me that the training benefits of kata  are not as obvious compared with, say, hitting a heavy bag. It can only be for the benefit of new students to understand why they do the weird dancing stuff in the first place... If subsequently you also get pleasure from the very action of performing forms well.. Then that is an emergent benefit.. Else why not take up Morris dancing?


not trolling, but am posting from a phone so forgive me if I don't post novellas.

I don't think I ever specified personal enjoyment ad the only motivation for kata. My point is that this is, unless you are training for a specific, testable application, this is all speculative anyway. But even where application is testable, such as Mma, if you do kata and think it works, then go for it.  as I said earlier, it may not overtly help, but I don't think it will hurt.  

so when we get into the murky waters of "fighting" skill ir self defense, I think it's all smoke and mirrors.   There's no possible way to support any assertions one way or the other. you could literally defend any assertion because the terms are poorly defined, stats are used or ignored opportunistically, and any scientific research is quickly dismissed. So what the heck. if it does no harm, and you think it helps, who am I to say otherwise? I just know whether or not it appeals to me.   

moving on, you are now accusing me of trolling yet you are consistently using language to describe philosophies of training which you arbitrarily deem unworthy in derogatory terms. You may not mean it, but that is the impression I get. 

if you think my position is contradictory, I believe it's because you're inferring points I'm nit making.  I'm not saying that kata will help make you a better fighter. Rather, I'm saying it might and since we can't know for sure, have at it. If you believe otherwise, great. Just understand that your position is subjective.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

My position is similar to Steve's. I think there's plenty of evidence that forms are neither necessary nor sufficient by themselves for developing fighting ability. That leaves open the question of whether they are _helpful_ as one aspect of training for fighting skills.  There are plenty of guys out there who are better fighters than I am who feel that forms have been useful in helping them develop their abilities. I don't know if they're right, but it would be pretty arrogant of me to tell them they're wrong.

I'm in an interesting place right now in that for the first time in 35 years I am studying an art (Wing Tsun) which includes the practice of solo forms. As far as I can tell, the forms in WT are not really application based. Rather they are like a series of isolation exercises for developing certain structures and ideas which are central to the art. Are the forms the most efficient way of practicing those structures and ideas? I don't know. I'm keeping an open mind and practicing as well as I can. I'll report back in a year or three as to how things are working out. The class only meets once per week, so at least the solo forms give me something to practice in-between lessons.


----------



## Flying Crane

Tony Dismukes said:


> My position is similar to Steve's. I think there's plenty of evidence that forms are neither necessary nor sufficient by themselves for developing fighting ability. That leaves open the question of whether they are _helpful_ as one aspect of training for fighting skills.  There are plenty of guys out there who are better fighters than I am who feel that forms have been useful in helping them develop their abilities. I don't know if they're right, but it would be pretty arrogant of me to tell them they're wrong.
> 
> I'm in an interesting place right now in that for the first time in 35 years I am studying an art (Wing Tsun) which includes the practice of solo forms. As far as I can tell, the forms in WT are not really application based. Rather they are like a series of isolation exercises for developing certain structures and ideas which are central to the art. Are the forms the most efficient way of practicing those structures and ideas? I don't know. I'm keeping an open mind and practicing as well as I can. I'll report back in a year or three as to how things are working out. The class only meets once per week, so at least the solo forms give me something to practice in-between lessons.


This is a reasonable position to take.  And I agree on your view of the wing chun forms.  Your description matches my experience with wing chun.

Interestingly, that experience may be what helps me view my White Crane forms in a similar way, even though they probably appear much more like application to a lot of people.


----------



## Steve

Okay, just want to add a couple of additional thoughts.  





Th0mas said:


> Hi Steve
> If your goal it to learn a pretty martial dance then fine, XMA forms may well be something your interested in. But don't pretend they make you an effective fighter.. If you are one, that is inspite of your eligant dancing, not because of it.


Two issues with your opinions above.  First, you're implying that traditional kata isn't pretty and cannot be considered a dance.  I think if you want to train traditional kata and consider it to be a pretty dance, have at it.  You perceive value in the activity.  Go for it.

Second, you're implying that XMA forms, or I infer any form of kata training to which you do not personally subscribe, do not in any way benefit an "effective fighter."  I can think of a few direct benefits having to do with athleticism, fitness and coordination.  I'm sure there are others.

The point here is that you are voicing unsupported and unsupportable opinions using language that implies that they are irrefutable fact.  They are not.  They are opinions.  If YOU (as in Th0mas) see no value in XMA forms, you probably should avoid learning them.  If others see them as beneficial, what actual evidence do you have to the contrary beyond strong language?


> And of course it's subjective! It is all about context and personal goals and they are subjective by definition. The point that is being over laboured is that in the past and in a lot of cases nowadays people assume that if they dilligently train in their martial art of choice they will be equally effective no matter the context and that is blatantly not true.


I honestly don't know what you mean here.  I think I agree, but truly can't be quite sure.  Training for something you will actually end up doing often enough to gauge success is very helpful.

A guy who trains MMA will have a lot of feedback about how successfully he trains.  If he wins matches against skilled opponents, he's doing it right.  This is true because results are the only measure that matters.  The process isn't the measure.   If this successful MMA fighter trains traditional Karate, then we know that traditional Karate works in MMA.  If he trains White Crane, then we know that White Crane works in MMA.   If this guy trains kata, then kata works.  We can see it. 

When the discussion turns to things like "better fighter," or "self defense" you cannot measure the results.   So, we end up debating the process, which, IMO, isn't all that helpful.   



> The kata form on its own does not have any intrinsic magical properties, but combined with the right instruction and other very necessary training activities will make you more effective at what it was designed to do.. Which in the majority of older karate kata's is to provide a range of fighting strategies and tactics for improving the outcome of a civilian self protection situation.


That's certainly one legitimate perspective among many others.


----------



## lklawson

Steve said:


> Okay, just want to add a couple of additional thoughts.  Two issues with your opinions above.  First, you're implying that traditional kata isn't pretty and cannot be considered a dance.  I think if you want to train traditional kata and consider it to be a pretty dance, have at it.  You perceive value in the activity.  Go for it.
> 
> Second, you're implying that XMA forms, or I infer any form of kata training to which you do not personally subscribe, do not in any way benefit an "effective fighter."  I can think of a few direct benefits having to do with athleticism, fitness and coordination.  I'm sure there are others.


I like it when dancers come to train with me.  Besides raw athleticism, they already have a trained in sense of timing, balance, distance, rhythm, a "feel" for their own body, and a willingness to work hard.

I was working with a figure skater the other day.  Pretty little slip of a girl but she couldn't quite get a certain footwork step until I related it to something she's done in figure skating thousands of times.  Then, wham, she executes it with remarkable skill, really only needing some tweaks to body and hand position.

Send dancers and figure skaters to me all day, every day, and twice on Sunday!

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Flying Crane

lklawson said:


> I like it when dancers come to train with me.  Besides raw athleticism, they already have a trained in sense of timing, balance, distance, rhythm, a "feel" for their own body, and a willingness to work hard.
> 
> I was working with a figure skater the other day.  Pretty little slip of a girl but she couldn't quite get a certain footwork step until I related it to something she's done in figure skating thousands of times.  Then, wham, she executes it with remarkable skill, really only needing some tweaks to body and hand position.
> 
> Send dancers and figure skaters to me all day, every day, and twice on Sunday!
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


I find them to be a mixed blessing, actually.  Athleticism and body connection advantages, yes.  But how it all comes together  can be very different, and often problematic.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> forms have been useful in helping them *develop* their abilities.


You (general YOU) cannot use form to "develop" your skill. You can only use form to "polish" your skill.

A skill require

1. opportunity,
2. timing,
3. angle,
4. power,
5. balance.

You may be able to "polish" 4,5, but you cannot "polish" 1,2,3 simply because when there is no "opponent", there will be no 1,2,3.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> My position is similar to Steve's. I think there's plenty of evidence that forms are neither necessary nor sufficient by themselves for developing fighting ability. That leaves open the question of whether they are _helpful_ as one aspect of training for fighting skills. There are plenty of guys out there who are better fighters than I am who feel that forms have been useful in helping them develop their abilities. I don't know if they're right, but it would be pretty arrogant of me to tell them they're wrong.


It's not forms alone that makes you a better fighter.  It's how you train when doing the forms that matters. Forms / Kata must always be done with purpose of goal.  If my purpose of doing forms isn't on fighting then the forms aren't going to help me to fight because my focus wasn't on fighting.

If my focus of doing forms is only to show that I can be good at a form,then that's all I'll get out of doing the forms.  I think people forget that kata/form training isn't a silver bullet and that people have to have purpose of goal and intent when training.  I know people who are excellent with forms and horrible with fighting and the only reason is that from the beginning they were never training to be fighters and their focus on doing forms wasn't for the purpose of fighting.  I also know a couple of Sifus that could lay a person out and when they train form they are training with the intensity and focus of laying someone out.  Then they spar to put their training into application practice, which is what sparring really is, application practice.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You (general YOU) cannot use form to "develop" your skill. You can only use form to "polish" your skill.
> 
> A skill require
> 
> 1. opportunity,
> 2. timing,
> 3. angle,
> 4. power,
> 5. balance.
> 
> You may be able to "polish" 4,5, but you cannot "polish" 1,2,3 simply because when there is no "opponent", there will be no 1,2,3.


6. would be speed.


----------



## Th0mas

Wow, that will teach me not to check back regularly... 
To Steve.. Lots of points I need to make, but as you stated earlier - I am not doing them from my phone.. Fingers too large and patience too small

I'll have to wait to get home and sit down in front of the PC I'm afraid.


----------



## Steve

Th0mas said:


> Wow, that will teach me not to check back regularly...
> To Steve.. Lots of points I need to make, but as you stated earlier - I am not doing them from my phone.. Fingers too large and patience too small
> 
> I'll have to wait to get home and sit down in front of the PC I'm afraid.


okey doke.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lklawson said:


> How can you perform your kata to a purpose if no one can agree on what that purpose is?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



It doesn't have to be the same purpose for every person, certainly not within every school/style/art. In fact, since some kata are taught with multiple uses for the movements, there may be more than one purpose to choose from at a time, even for a single individual. But there should be _a_ purpose in mind, IMO.


----------



## Paul_D

Hanzou said:


> Sounds like a convenient cop-out.


Not when you understand what kata is for and how it should be used.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> Not when you understand what kata is for and how it should be used.


I don't think this was intended as humorous, but I really got a kick out of this.  We've literally gone back to page one of this thread, full circle, where lklawson said the following, which I completely agree with:


lklawson said:


> Not to be a jerk, but, once again we see, going by the answers in this thread (and countless others very like it), that there is no one thing or set of things which practitioners agree on as the "purpose" of kata.
> 
> I'm not saying that kata is without value, only that if someone tells you "kata is about X and anyone who says different doesn't know what they're talking about" you can be assured that that person has never been exposed to the wider world of practitioners.  And you can be certain that, eventually, you will meet with someone who says exactly that.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


It could be said that everyone understands kata or no one understands it, because the answers to the question vary considerably, even among people who are purported to know.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If you train partner drills then 

solo drills = partner drill without partner
form = solo drill 1 + solo drill 2 + ...


----------



## Hanzou

Paul_D said:


> Not when you understand what kata is for and how it should be used.



And yet we have styles that lack kata and those styles produce excellent martial artists.

The only way your argument works is if styles that utilize kata are inherently superior to styles that lack kata. However, that isn't the case, so clearly kata are an unnecessary aspect of MA training.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Hanzou said:


> And yet we have styles that lack kata and those styles produce excellent martial artists.
> 
> The only way your argument works is if styles that utilize kata are inherently superior to styles that lack kata. However, that isn't the case, so clearly kata are an unnecessary aspect of MA training.



The only thing that's clear is that different people learn best in different ways.


----------



## KenpoMaster805

Kata is an excercise in which we practice offensive defensive again an imaginary opponent. Kata is very Important in Martial Arts Because you can used it in self defense Like like mine is long form 3 its has technique from purple blue and green and brown


----------



## lifelongstudent1

The whole purpose of Kata (poomse), is to provide a structured way to practice the basic steps and master the fundamentals.  If you want a more detailed history as to why, I can provide how it came about.  Kata, is a major training aid that is over looked today, by many artist and styles.  As you advance, a quality instructor will be able to explain all the "hidden techniques" that you have been practicing but didn't know.  The main issue, is a huge number of people today have "lost in translation" do to lack of knowledge being past and some Kata's being changed for sport reasons.  I am going to give you a free tip, that will likely help with the understanding.  After, you understand and learn how to perform the kata, do it visualizing using the technique in an actual situation.  See the opponent all the way from the attack to the end of the Kata.  It is very beneficial watching others do the kata.  Do not just watch the belt level do the kata, but the higher belts, you will likely notice suttle differences.  A huge amount of movements in kata, have a self defense application, such as many of the "blocks" are not, they are an application of attacker manipulation.  Kata is extremely important, I have always rated it, next to doing actual defensive techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lifelongstudent1 said:


> The whole purpose of Kata (poomse), is to provide a structured way to practice the basic steps and master the fundamentals.  If you want a more detailed history as to why, I can provide how it came about.  Kata, is a major training aid that is over looked today, by many artist and styles.  As you advance, a quality instructor will be able to explain all the "hidden techniques" that you have been practicing but didn't know.  The main issue, is a huge number of people today have "lost in translation" do to lack of knowledge being past and some Kata's being changed for sport reasons.  I am going to give you a free tip, that will likely help with the understanding.  After, you understand and learn how to perform the kata, do it visualizing using the technique in an actual situation.  See the opponent all the way from the attack to the end of the Kata.  It is very beneficial watching others do the kata.  Do not just watch the belt level do the kata, but the higher belts, you will likely notice suttle differences.  A huge amount of movements in kata, have a self defense application, such as many of the "blocks" are not, they are an application of attacker manipulation.  Kata is extremely important, I have always rated it, next to doing actual defensive techniques.


Not all styles and arts have kata, and those that do don't always have long-form kata (in my terms, more than 3-4 steps), and not all kata have hidden techniques in them.

Kata is a tool, and where it exists it should be helpful if used properly.


----------



## lifelongstudent1

Though I agree that not all styles have "long form", but each time that a person performs a technique against a "phantom foe" this is actually a form of kata (akin to shadow boxing if you will).  That is the biggest benefit of the martial arts the practice of the perfecting the techniques.  For as we all know, the proper technique will appropriate timing is what it is all about.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Monday night, while doing light kumite (sparring) in the dojo, my opponent threw a thrust kick at me.  Without realizing I was doing it, I reacted by stepping back into a neko achi-dachi (cat stance), accepting his incoming leg under my right shoulder, braced and locked in by my right arm, and raised and extended my left elbow into his chest.

This is directly out of one of our kata, and it's intended (overtly) to be a defense against a bear hug from the rear.  The right arm I used to capture his leg and pull him into me was intended to be an elbow strike to the rear.  Instead, it off-balanced my opponent and brought him into me.  My stance was stable as I had my knees bent and dropping my center pulled him in towards my waiting left elbow strike to his chest.

You can see an example of this movement here, at 8:24






Following the elbow strike, I dropped the heel of my leading foot and transferred my weight forward, still holding his captured leg.  He had to hop backwards, at which point I stepped behind his remaining planted leg and tripped him.

I did not think "I am going to use a move from kata now," nor did I think "this move from one of my kata can be repurposed thusly."  I just did it, and only realized later what I had done.   Would I have done it naturally without having learned the move in kata?  No.

If you believe kata does not help with self-defense, you are correct.  YOUR self-defense.  It certainly informs mine.


----------



## lklawson

lifelongstudent1 said:


> The whole purpose of Kata (poomse), is to provide a structured way to practice the basic steps and master the fundamentals.  If you want a more detailed history as to why, I can provide how it came about.  Kata, is a major training aid that is over looked today, by many artist and styles.  As you advance, a quality instructor will be able to explain all the "hidden techniques" that you have been practicing but didn't know.  The main issue, is a huge number of people today have "lost in translation" do to lack of knowledge being past and some Kata's being changed for sport reasons.  I am going to give you a free tip, that will likely help with the understanding.  After, you understand and learn how to perform the kata, do it visualizing using the technique in an actual situation.  See the opponent all the way from the attack to the end of the Kata.  It is very beneficial watching others do the kata.  Do not just watch the belt level do the kata, but the higher belts, you will likely notice suttle differences.  A huge amount of movements in kata, have a self defense application, such as many of the "blocks" are not, they are an application of attacker manipulation.  Kata is extremely important, I have always rated it, next to doing actual defensive techniques.


kata?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lifelongstudent1 said:


> Though I agree that not all styles have "long form", but each time that a person performs a technique against a "phantom foe" this is actually a form of kata (akin to shadow boxing if you will).  That is the biggest benefit of the martial arts the practice of the perfecting the techniques.  For as we all know, the proper technique will appropriate timing is what it is all about.


I would argue that point. To me, it's only "kata" if there's a specific sequence that's supposed to happen. When I pantomime a technique against an imaginary opponent, I have full latitude in my responses. With kata, there's a "right" and "wrong" way to do it. That's sort of the point of most forms; the restriction forces us to do certain basic moves correctly, rather than avoiding them.


----------



## Tired_Yeti

senseiblackbelt said:


> whats the point of  learning katas? like what is it going to teach and is there any way itll help us in a way to fight?
> 0_0



Short answer? Yes. All karate is contained in the kata. Think of it like the alphabet. All the letters for all the words are there but you don't use them in the order presented. You use them in whatever order necessary to communicate your meaning.


"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Tired_Yeti

Paul_D said:


> Kata isn't designed for fighting; it's designed for self defence.  So asking if there is any way for kata to help you in a fight, is like asking if there is anyway table tennis lessons can help you learn to fly a plane.  The answer is of course, no, because that isn't what it is teaching you.
> 
> _"The techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter, in an arena or on the battlefield.  They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behavior. ” – Choki Motobu_
> 
> This is case of Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy, where Deep Thought can't work out the answer to life the universe and everything because he doesn’t understand the question.  First you need to understand the difference between fighting and self defence (the free podcast at the bottom of this link will help with that)
> 
> The Martial Map (Free Audio Book) | Iain Abernethy
> 
> then you need to understand how kata is designed to be applied (Which is easier said than done and unfortunately the vast majority of Karate Instructors don’t understand kata or how to correctly apply it).  Only then will you be able to ask the right question, and only then will you be able to get the right answers.


I would say that you've said it backward. Since self-defense includes things such as talking your way out of a fight and learning to read people and be aware of your surroundings--and kata doesn't teach that, kata teaches fighting (not sports competition). It doesn't teach the art of self defense which is psychological; it teaches the art of fighting which is physical.

Props for referencing Iain Abernethy, btw!


"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> Monday night, while doing light kumite (sparring) in the dojo, my opponent threw a thrust kick at me.  Without realizing I was doing it, I reacted by stepping back into a neko achi-dachi (cat stance), accepting his incoming leg under my right shoulder, braced and locked in by my right arm, and raised and extended my left elbow into his chest.
> 
> This is directly out of one of our kata, and it's intended (overtly) to be a defense against a bear hug from the rear.  The right arm I used to capture his leg and pull him into me was intended to be an elbow strike to the rear.  Instead, it off-balanced my opponent and brought him into me.  My stance was stable as I had my knees bent and dropping my center pulled him in towards my waiting left elbow strike to his chest.
> 
> You can see an example of this movement here, at 8:24
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following the elbow strike, I dropped the heel of my leading foot and transferred my weight forward, still holding his captured leg.  He had to hop backwards, at which point I stepped behind his remaining planted leg and tripped him.
> 
> I did not think "I am going to use a move from kata now," nor did I think "this move from one of my kata can be repurposed thusly."  I just did it, and only realized later what I had done.   Would I have done it naturally without having learned the move in kata?  No.
> 
> If you believe kata does not help with self-defense, you are correct.  YOUR self-defense.  It certainly informs mine.


Just last week, I read about a guy defending himself on "the street" from a thug executing a proper thrust kick.   Happens all the time, I bet.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

And that's my last post for awhile. See ya.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Just last week, I read about a guy defending himself on "the street" from a thug executing a proper thrust kick.   Happens all the time, I bet.


Just because it's unlikely in a street encounter, that doesn't invalidate the point. The OP asked if kata would help in "a fight", and competition is one form of fighting. Besides that, there are things a "thug" can do on "the street" that give similar body mechanics. In some cases, a missed kick of any sort will present some of the same body mechanics, and some thugs will try to kick, for whatever reason. As others have said in this very thread, the principles are more important than the specific attack/defense involved.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Just because it's unlikely in a street encounter, that doesn't invalidate the point. The OP asked if kata would help in "a fight", and competition is one form of fighting. Besides that, there are things a "thug" can do on "the street" that give similar body mechanics. In some cases, a missed kick of any sort will present some of the same body mechanics, and some thugs will try to kick, for whatever reason. As others have said in this very thread, the principles are more important than the specific attack/defense involved.


The point is simply that there is a bias that keeps coming up.  We hear over and over that sports are not self defense, but if you believe that is true, you must also accept that thrust kicks and "light sparring" in a karate dojo is not self defense for the very same reasons. 

And I wasn't responding to the op.  I was responding to bill's specious connection to self defense. Light sparring isn't self defense.  Or are you suggesting that it is?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> The point is simply that there is a bias that keeps coming up.  We hear over and over that sports are not self defense, but if you believe that is true, you must also accept that thrust kicks and "light sparring" in a karate dojo is not self defense for the very same reasons.
> 
> And I wasn't responding to the op.  I was responding to bill's specious connection to self defense. Light sparring isn't self defense.  Or are you suggesting that it is?


Sports are not self-defense (if you define self-defense as the act of avoiding personal harm through violence). Neither is sparring. I don't think there's any reasonable argument to the contrary. Both, however, can be part of the training to prepare for self-defense and involve some of the aspects you might run into in physical self-defense.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> The point is simply that there is a bias that keeps coming up.  We hear over and over that sports are not self defense, but if you believe that is true, you must also accept that thrust kicks and "light sparring" in a karate dojo is not self defense for the very same reasons.
> 
> And I wasn't responding to the op.  I was responding to bill's specious connection to self defense. Light sparring isn't self defense.  Or are you suggesting that it is?



I think this tends to get a little skewed...
Sports are not self-defense. That is true. Because they're sports, and when you're participating in them, you're doing so under a carefully predetermined set of conditions that are geared towards, first and foremost, keeping the competition as fair and safe as is reasonably possible.
Sparring, at any level of contact, is still sporting, in that it is also done under the same conditions, even if points are not being kept, a winner declared, or bling being handed out.

Now, you can take that and run with it and accuse me of saying that those who compete in sports cannot defend themselves. 

But you'd be wrong.

Nowhere did I say that skills derived from competition or sparring cannot be useful in a self defense situation. I've never said that, and I don't think many people would. Those who would, I suspect, tend to be pretty inexperienced or naive. 

I don't feel like drawing a Venn diagram, but I believe most people here can picture one. 
Here's the set "skills used in tournament" O
Here's the set "skills used in self defense" O

Now put them together. While there are some things that are certainly inappropriate for tournament use, and some things that are certainly inappropriate for self-defense, the overlap of sets will be very large.

Is there anybody who disagrees with that, really?


----------



## Steve

Very reasonable positions that I agree completely with.  Kata may help some people train.  It is one reinforcement tool among many.  Were everyone so reasonable in this area, we'd have a lot shorter threads on the subject. 

And, traditional martial arts training sans competition are no more applicable to self defense than competitive arts for all the same reasons.   Any argument related to a sport art applies to a larger degree to a traditional art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Very reasonable positions that I agree completely with.  Kata may help some people train.  It is one reinforcement tool among many.  Were everyone so reasonable in this area, we'd have a lot shorter threads on the subject.
> 
> And, traditional martial arts training sans competition are no more applicable to self defense than competitive arts for all the same reasons.   Any argument related to a sport art applies to a larger degree to a traditional art.


I'm curious about the "to a larger degree" when referring to a traditional art. While I'd agree that the principle applies - the practice of a TMA is not self-defense, but it's entirely possible for a TMA to focus only on skills that translate to defense, while this is not practical for competition. That doesn't make one better than the other (the stress testing against unknown opponents, inherent in sport/competition, is a good tool that can be missing from TMAs, for instance), but I don't see how a TMA is by definition less self-defense related than sport.


----------



## Steve

I think it comes down to testing and the transition from theory to application.    On a phine, so being brief.  But if the context for application is theoretical for everyone invilvdd, including the instructors,  end results are not guaranteed.  

In a traditional karate achool, the emphasis is on learning karate, not self defense.  The concern is that people like bill believe they're learning self defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I think it comes down to testing and the transition from theory to application.    On a phine, so being brief.  But if the context for application is theoretical for everyone invilvdd, including the instructors,  end results are not guaranteed.
> 
> In a traditional karate achool, the emphasis is on learning karate, not self defense.  The concern is that people like bill believe they're learning self defense.


That depends upon the school. I've seen traditional Karate schools that, in fact, taught with a self-defense focus. I've seen others (in the same style) that focused on competition, and others that focused on the traditions of the art. Each has its place.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> I think it comes down to testing and the transition from theory to application.    On a phine, so being brief.  But if the context for application is theoretical for everyone invilvdd, including the instructors,  end results are not guaranteed.
> 
> In a traditional karate achool, the emphasis is on learning karate, not self defense.  The concern is that people like bill believe they're learning self defense.



End results are never guaranteed. Full stop. There are just too many variables.

Personally, I see no reason to assume that what Bill is learning is any less applicable to self defense than what any of us are learning. Karate (in pretty much any of its various forms) is a valid system of self defense. Now, you may be able to point to a particular technique and reasonably say "I don't think that would do you any good because [blah blah blah]"  but even if your objections are correct, that still wouldn't invalidate the usefulness of the system.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That depends upon the school. I've seen traditional Karate schools that, in fact, taught with a self-defense focus. I've seen others (in the same style) that focused on competition, and others that focused on the traditions of the art.


learning one thing with a focu in another doesn't turn the first into the second.   In that vinn diagram, it can perhaps enakrge the area of overlap, but that's it. If you're learning karate, you are developing expertise in that, and not something else.   In the same way that when you learn aikido or bjj, you are learning that and not so wing else.  

Even the concept of bunkai is the process of learning kata and then divining application of that kata.   The kata is the exercise.   It's the skill being learned.   Any other benefits are ancillary to the physical skill.   It's like a solo drill in judo or bjj.  


Dirty Dog said:


> End results are never guaranteed. Full stop. There are just too many variables.
> 
> Personally, I see no reason to assume that what Bill is learning is any less applicable to self defense than what any of us are learning. Karate (in pretty much any of its various forms) is a valid system of self defense. Now, you may be able to point to a particular technique and reasonably say "I don't think that would do you any good because [blah blah blah]"  but even if your objections are correct, that still wouldn't invalidate the usefulness of the system.


to call a defending a thrust kick in light sparring "self defense" training is so far away from what the self defense "experts" around here chide others for, it's nuts.  But that standard seems only to apply to a few.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> to call a defending a thrust kick in light sparring "self defense" training is so far away from what the self defense "experts" around here chide others for, it's nuts.  But that standard seems only to apply to a few.



You're entitled to your opinion, but I personally find it helpful to train things at lighter levels. Now, I don't advocate *only* training at that lighter level. I think higher levels of contact can be another useful tool. But, we do have one 1st Dan who prefers to always spar with light-medium contact. She's had her nose broken a couple times (and surgically repaired) and now that she's in her 50's she just doesn't want the hard hits. I don't doubt that she can use what we practice effectively, though. Less effectively than if she trained higher contact? Maybe, since it can reasonably be argued that getting hit hard is one of the best ways to learn to deal with getting hit hard. But effectively just the same. If that's acceptable to her, then it's certainly fine with me. And when we spar, I use the level of contact she's comfortable with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> learning one thing with a focu in another doesn't turn the first into the second.   In that vinn diagram, it can perhaps enakrge the area of overlap, but that's it. If you're learning karate, you are developing expertise in that, and not something else.   In the same way that when you learn aikido or bjj, you are learning that and not so wing else.
> 
> Even the concept of bunkai is the process of learning kata and then divining application of that kata.   The kata is the exercise.   It's the skill being learned.   Any other benefits are ancillary to the physical skill.   It's like a solo drill in judo or bjj.
> to call a defending a thrust kick in light sparring "self defense" training is so far away from what the self defense "experts" around here chide others for, it's nuts.  But that standard seems only to apply to a few.


Are you asserting that "karate" cannot be "self-defense"? That's the only meaning I can get from your statement about learning one thing with a focus in another. I teach NGA, with a focus for self-defense. The physical skill set is NGA. The usage - the application it is taught for - is physical self-defense. The same can be done with Karate, Judo, Krav Maga, boxing, etc. There is no inherent conflict. One is the method, while the other is the application.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Are you asserting that "karate" cannot be "self-defense"? That's the only meaning I can get from your statement about learning one thing with a focus in another. I teach NGA, with a focus for self-defense. The physical skill set is NGA. The usage - the application it is taught for - is physical self-defense. The same can be done with Karate, Judo, Krav Maga, boxing, etc. There is no inherent conflict. One is the method, while the other is the application.


Well, sort of.   I'm asserting that karate is not self defense training.   I would never suggest that karate cannot be helpful in a self defense situation.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> You're entitled to your opinion, but I personally find it helpful to train things at lighter levels. Now, I don't advocate *only* training at that lighter level. I think higher levels of contact can be another useful tool. But, we do have one 1st Dan who prefers to always spar with light-medium contact. She's had her nose broken a couple times (and surgically repaired) and now that she's in her 50's she just doesn't want the hard hits. I don't doubt that she can use what we practice effectively, though. Less effectively than if she trained higher contact? Maybe, since it can reasonably be argued that getting hit hard is one of the best ways to learn to deal with getting hit hard. But effectively just the same. If that's acceptable to her, then it's certainly fine with me. And when we spar, I use the level of contact she's comfortable with.


I never suggested that training at lighter levels isn't helpful.   I' am saying that application of a technique in light sparring against a thrust kick is not self defense training, any more than training berimbolo is.


----------



## Tired_Yeti

JR 137 said:


> You call yourself "sensei black belt," yet you don't understand why kata is done?



I call myself Tired Yeti, but I'm not actually a yeti...and sometimes I'm not even tired.


"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Well, sort of.   I'm asserting that karate is not self defense training.   I would never suggest that karate cannot be helpful in a self defense situation.


Karate can be trained as a tool for self-defense. If you are arguing that karate, in and of itself, is not complete SD training, I'd agree. No physical training would be. Is that your point?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I never suggested that training at lighter levels isn't helpful.   I' am saying that application of a technique in light sparring against a thrust kick is not self defense training, any more than training berimbolo is.


It is, if we accept the assumption that something similar to a thrust kick can happen in a self-defense situation. Would it be as likely as a punch? No. But kicks do happen.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Karate can be trained as a tool for self-defense. If you are arguing that karate, in and of itself, is not complete SD training, I'd agree. No physical training would be. Is that your point?


Karate is trained to improve one's skill in karate in the same way that BJJ is trained to improve one's skill in BJJ.  That there is crossover for self defense is incidental.  People don't train karate or any other specific style of martial arts with a self defense emphasis.  I believe that to be crap. People train to improve in that style, and most hope or believe  their style overlaps with self defense to some degree. 


gpseymour said:


> It is, if we accept the assumption that something similar to a thrust kick can happen in a self-defense situation. Would it be as likely as a punch? No. But kicks do happen.


yeah.  Okay.  If you accept this, I really don't want to hear any more BS about anything else.  If a thrust kick is self defense, then I really don't want to hear anything about how BJJ isn't realistic.  If you're saying in ga thug thrust kicking is realistic self defense training, please for the love of Pete never suggest that ground fighting is unrealistic.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Karate is trained to improve one's skill in karate in the same way that BJJ is trained to improve one's skill in BJJ.  That there is crossover for self defense is incidental.  People don't train karate or any other specific style of martial arts with a self defense emphasis.  I believe that to be crap. People train to improve in that style, and most hope or believe  their style overlaps with self defense to some degree.
> yeah.  Okay.  If you accept this, I really don't want to hear any more BS about anything else.  If a thrust kick is self defense, then I really don't want to hear anything about how BJJ isn't realistic.  If you're saying in ga thug thrust kicking is realistic self defense training, please for the love of Pete never suggest that ground fighting is unrealistic.




Gotcha.

This is the Gerber parang machete. Bear grill designed this "specifically" for survival. 






It is by most accounts a piece of crap.

This is a tramontia machete it is not designed as a survival tool it is a garden tool. It just happens to do everything better.






When you look at a method to achieve a task. You need to remove preconceptions of that method and observe how it performs under testing.

There is no sport/self defence distinction. There is works for the task at hand or dosent. And it is important to be mindful of that.

Honestly even raising self defence as a concept is an incredibly limited way of addressing the issue. Because we haven't defined the type of self defence we want to address.

If we were to address the specifics we would gain a much clearer idea of what we are trying to achieve.


----------



## drop bear

So training a defence against a light kick. Will give you the capacity to defend a light kick.

It may not give you the capacity to defend a powerful kick. And vica versa.

Training against a powerful kick will give you defence against a powerful kick. Training that method lightly will also give you a method against a powerful kick. But at some stage that powerful kick needs to be thrown.

This is why if you ever talk to people who have received powerful kicks they will tell you to block with both hands.







Even though in light sparring it will leave you more open to other techniques.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> Karate is trained to improve one's skill in karate in the same way that BJJ is trained to improve one's skill in BJJ.  That there is crossover for self defense is incidental.  People don't train karate or any other specific style of martial arts with a self defense emphasis.  I believe that to be crap. People train to improve in that style, and most hope or believe  their style overlaps with self defense to some degree.



So before this response, I want to clarify: I do not think BJJ is unrealistic. It is not the end-all to self defense, but if someone does not know ground grappling, and they end up in that situation, they are screwed.

Now for the actual response: If a system considers itself a self-defense system, like the combatives systems or krav maga, would you consider that to have a self defense emphasis? What would be necessary for you to consider a system to be specifically good at self-defense, even if they are not good in sport fighting?


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> So before this response, I want to clarify: I do not think BJJ is unrealistic. It is not the end-all to self defense, but if someone does not know ground grappling, and they end up in that situation, they are screwed.
> 
> Now for the actual response: If a system considers itself a self-defense system, like the combatives systems or krav maga, would you consider that to have a self defense emphasis? What would be necessary for you to consider a system to be specifically good at self-defense, even if they are not good in sport fighting?



What situation are you wanting the krav to solve?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Karate is trained to improve one's skill in karate in the same way that BJJ is trained to improve one's skill in BJJ.  That there is crossover for self defense is incidental.  People don't train karate or any other specific style of martial arts with a self defense emphasis.  I believe that to be crap. People train to improve in that style, and most hope or believe  their style overlaps with self defense to some degree.



Actually, I've yet to have a single student join my program for the purpose of learning NGA. They join to learn some physical self-defense. So far, none have even known what NGA is before starting. So, yeah, people do study specific arts for the purpose of SD. I've never started any art for any other purpose. I've met people who started arts for many reasons, and easily half of them start martial arts primarily to learn physical self-defense. And that includes folks who got into wrestling, BJJ (I know an instructor in South Carolina who added Gracie JJ to his programs simply to beef up the groundwork for self-defense training), karate, Judo, Aikido, etc.

Now, do folks STAY in MA to get better in the art? Sure. While I still have a self-defense focus in my training, at this point my largest motivator is simply to get better at what I do. So my personal training is more focused on getting better at NGA at this point, but that doesn't change that for many years (and upon starting every art I ever studied) my primary focus was on self-defense.

I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that "people" don't train in any style specifically to develop self-defense skills. That's like saying people don't join a Zumba class to get fit - they do it so they can learn Zumba.



> yeah.  Okay.  If you accept this, I really don't want to hear any more BS about anything else.  If a thrust kick is self defense, then I really don't want to hear anything about how BJJ isn't realistic.  If you're saying in ga thug thrust kicking is realistic self defense training, please for the love of Pete never suggest that ground fighting is unrealistic.


I've never said ground fighting is unrealistic. I think it's a bad idea to get into it in a SD situation, but a good idea to know it so you can deal with it if you have to. Nothing "unrealistic" about it - it's just not the place you really want to be (on the ground) in self-defense.

As for "BS", I think your unsubstantiated claims about others' reasons for studying MA would fall in that category.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> What situation are you wanting the krav to solve?


Ideally any situation where they are attacked/assaulted/likely to be attacked, and wish to get away safely. That is what they claim to teach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kempodisciple said:


> Ideally any situation where they are attacked/assaulted/likely to be attacked, and wish to get away safely. That is what they claim to teach.


That's not a claim unique to Krav Maga, of course. It's the sort of claim nearly all self-defense-based martial arts will make.


----------



## Tired_Yeti

Here's the thing, there are a lot of dangerous mimes out there on the streets. If you don't know kata, how are you ever going to win a mime fight?


"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Paul_D

Tired_Yeti said:


> I would say that you've said it backward. Since self-defense includes things such as talking your way out of a fight and learning to read people and be aware of your surroundings--and kata doesn't teach that, kata teaches fighting (not sports competition). It doesn't teach the art of self defense which is psychological; it teaches the art of fighting which is physical.


Agreed.  Threat Awareness & Evaluaiton and Target Hardening etc come first.  

It was more to point out that when things do get physcial, the physcial side is not like fighting.  Kata teaches you the physical side, it doesn't teach fighting.


----------



## Tired_Yeti

Steve said:


> Karate is trained to improve one's skill in karate in the same way that BJJ is trained to improve one's skill in BJJ.  That there is crossover for self defense is incidental.  People don't train karate or any other specific style of martial arts with a self defense emphasis.  I believe that to be crap. People train to improve in that style, and most hope or believe  their style overlaps with self defense to some degree...


So you think ALL martial arts practice is done for sport? You've obviously never studied what the past masters, the founders, if karate have said.





"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> learning one thing with a focu in another doesn't turn the first into the second.   In that vinn diagram, it can perhaps enakrge the area of overlap, but that's it. If you're learning karate, you are developing expertise in that, and not something else.   In the same way that when you learn aikido or bjj, you are learning that and not so wing else.
> 
> Even the concept of bunkai is the process of learning kata and then divining application of that kata.   The kata is the exercise.   It's the skill being learned.   Any other benefits are ancillary to the physical skill.   It's like a solo drill in judo or bjj.
> to call a defending a thrust kick in light sparring "self defense" training is so far away from what the self defense "experts" around here chide others for, it's nuts.  But that standard seems only to apply to a few.





Steve said:


> Karate is trained to improve one's skill in karate in the same way that BJJ is trained to improve one's skill in BJJ.  That there is crossover for self defense is incidental.  People don't train karate or any other specific style of martial arts with a self defense emphasis.  I believe that to be crap. People train to improve in that style, and most hope or believe  their style overlaps with self defense to some degree.
> yeah.  Okay.  If you accept this, I really don't want to hear any more BS about anything else.  If a thrust kick is self defense, then I really don't want to hear anything about how BJJ isn't realistic.  If you're saying in ga thug thrust kicking is realistic self defense training, please for the love of Pete never suggest that ground fighting is unrealistic.



I've seen a lot of fights, broke up a lot as well (cop), can't remember seeing a thug throw a thrust kick. Seen plenty of "street kicks", though.

However, I've thrown a thrust kick in a mess I got into (didn't see it coming) I was wearing a really nice pair of boots, too. Hit him dead center between his hips. (he didn't see it coming, either) he went flying and fell really hard. He was with some folks and so was I. My friends got a kick out of it. His friends just wanted to go home.

On another occasion, several years later, I threw a thrust kick to keep somebody else away. But I pushed it (purposely.)

So....maybe a thrust kick isn't a common attack in self defense. But it can work really well as self defense if you're a skilled kicker. I was a skilled kicker.

As to "_Karate is trained to improve one's skill in karate in the same way that BJJ is trained to improve one's skill in BJJ. That there is crossover for self defense is incidental"_

Maybe so, but it wasn't in my case (BJJ) it was originally taught to us as self defense. Worked better than just about anything I can remember, too.

On a related note - friend just gave me a t-shirt that says "Closed Guard is the new Berimbolo." Even though it was an ugly brown, I loved it! Until I tried it on. It's way too small. And it's mens XL. Must be for midgets. I was bummed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> Agreed.  Threat Awareness & Evaluaiton and Target Hardening etc come first.
> 
> It was more to point out that when things do get physcial, the physcial side is not like fighting.  Kata teaches you the physical side, it doesn't teach fighting.


Define the difference between physical self-defense and fighting, please. I don't see the distinction as being something that universally excludes kata from either.


----------



## drop bear

Tired_Yeti said:


> So you think ALL martial arts practice is done for sport? You've obviously never studied what the past masters, the founders, if karate have said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Re-stomp the groin"
> Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk



Conceptually sport. Pre arranged competition between known participants under a rule set.

So a grading would be sport. Bunkai would be sport and so on.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> Ideally any situation where they are attacked/assaulted/likely to be attacked, and wish to get away safely. That is what they claim to teach.



Who attacks them to verify their claims?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Conceptually sport. Pre arranged competition between known participants under a rule set.
> 
> So a grading would be sport. Bunkai would be sport and so on.


I disagree. There's no competition or scoring competitors in bunkai, and often not in grading (excepting certain parts - sparring and testing against specific attacks). Your brief rule would make anything with agreement and rules a sport. The SAT is not a sport.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Who attacks them to verify their claims?


As has been discussed many times, the only full verification possible for self-defense is in a real attack. There are too few of those for anything we could call actual verification for self-defense purposes. Competition (or some similar sparring exercise) is the only reliable verification of skill-on-skill, but is not valid for self-defense verification.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> As has been discussed many times, the only full verification possible for self-defense is in a real attack. There are too few of those for anything we could call actual verification for self-defense purposes. Competition (or some similar sparring exercise) is the only reliable verification of skill-on-skill, but is not valid for self-defense verification.



So there is no self defence verification. Then why do people use it to market their product?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I disagree. There's no competition or scoring competitors in bunkai, and often not in grading (excepting certain parts - sparring and testing against specific attacks). Your brief rule would make anything with agreement and rules a sport. The SAT is not a sport.



What is the sat?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So there is no self defence verification. Then why do people use it to market their product?


We've had this discussion before. What verification would you have someone use? Those of us who teach for self-defense purposes use techniques that are well-constructed, many have actually been used in self-defense situations. There simply aren't enough self-defense situations to provide what I'd consider statistically valid verification. If you have no answer (and you've never provided any I can recall), then why keep arguing the point. We know the stuff works, as far as it has been tested both in-school and in the encounters it has been used in. That's the best anyone can manage without putting lives at risk.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What is the sat?


Sorry, it's a test commonly used to assess students' preparation for college. There are rules. There's a score.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> We've had this discussion before. What verification would you have someone use? Those of us who teach for self-defense purposes use techniques that are well-constructed, many have actually been used in self-defense situations. There simply aren't enough self-defense situations to provide what I'd consider statistically valid verification. If you have no answer (and you've never provided any I can recall), then why keep arguing the point. We know the stuff works, as far as it has been tested both in-school and in the encounters it has been used in. That's the best anyone can manage without putting lives at risk.



"We know the stuff works" is the best you have? 

And you wonder why I have an issue with that.

Look if you could show the in school testing is valid and the success in the real world it would certainly add to the credibility of your claims.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Sorry, it's a test commonly used to assess students' preparation for college. There are rules. There's a score.


Gotcha. 

It is a competition though. It is not "street"


----------



## drop bear

Self defence is a meaningless claim. As reflected here in marketing on food labels.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/six-meaningless-claims-on-food-labels/?_r=0


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> "We know the stuff works" is the best you have?
> 
> And you wonder why I have an issue with that.
> 
> Look if you could show the in school testing is valid and the success in the real world it would certainly add to the credibility of your claims.


I ask again, what would you consider valid testing of self-defense. We use techniques that have background in battlefield use, sport use, and/or have been actually used in self-defense. As I said, that's how "we know". I don't consider any of that _statistically_ valid verification, but it's the best that can be used. 

I repeat: do you have a better suggestion? If not, what is your actual complaint? Answer the question, or drop your line of attack and find a valid argument.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Self defence is a meaningless claim. As reflected here in marketing on food labels.
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/six-meaningless-claims-on-food-labels/?_r=0


"Self-defense" is not a claim. It's an outcome. We teach techniques that work on the human body. I've never claimed that what I do is scientifically validated with thousands of trials (yes, that's what it would take) in real attacks on the street. Just that it works, which has been proven out by what validation is available.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> It is a competition though. It is not "street"


Nor is anything in any dojo, gym, or school. Only the street can be "street".


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> "Self-defense" is not a claim. It's an outcome. We teach techniques that work on the human body. I've never claimed that what I do is scientifically validated with thousands of trials (yes, that's what it would take) in real attacks on the street. Just that it works, which has been proven out by what validation is available.



So proven out by insufficient validation. By your own standards?


And sorry. But anything along the lines of. "We train for self defence" is a claim.


----------



## Steve

It is possible to approach self defense in a scientifically sound way.   It's just like corporate training.   You identify a specific need, along with a set of measurable, specific outcomes/objectives, create a training plan designed to improve the measurables, and then actually follow through by evaluating the success of the program.  A group addressing sexual assault in college campuses put together a program that, in six weeks, had a measurable, positive affect.  Interestingly enough, the portion of training most often central to self defense training (physical self defense techniques) was a minor element of the program. 

Otherwise, it's all intuition and wishful thinking.   Gpseymour, you more than anyone should know this is true. 

So, if you're asking me what I would consider a valid test of self defense, I'd start by asking you to define some actual objectives or measurable goals of your training.   A valid test of your specific self defense training would depend entirely upon the answer.

Absent this, you are hoping for the best. Earlier, yiu asked how a sport art could prepare someone less for self defense than a non sport art which purports to emphasize self defense.  I think there is integrity in a system that tests what it teaches.   In a sport, one learns to perform skills in a context, and the test is consistent with the objectives.  in a style that does eschews sport, the test bears little resemblance to the purported goals of the training.   I have heard that a karate test is a grueling affair, which combines execution of kata, some sparring, perhaps some Oral or written component.  But as you say, you can't test self defense.  So, there is an inherent disconnect... A fundamental lack of structural integrity.

This isn't to say that the skills are useless.  Rather, it means that there is a perfect environment for confirmation bias.   Self defense is not defined, so it can literally mean anything.  Which also means that I can measure the success of my training any way I wish, and excuse the failures in the same way.

AndBill'scomment about kata and the thrust kick is a perfect example of self defense training that doesn't correlate to self defense.

I'll add just that you mention how you identify the techniques yiu choose to teach, which is great.  But that's only half the story.  You also have to ensure thateach individual can execute these techniques in some measurable context which is consistent with the desired outcome.   Or simply put, I know some techniques work because I see others execute them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So proven out by insufficient validation. By your own standards?
> 
> 
> And sorry. But anything along the lines of. "We train for self defence" is a claim.


I repeat: what is your alternative, recommended form of validation? Do you even have an answer, or are you going to continue avoiding the question?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I repeat: what is your alternative, recommended form of validation? Do you even have an answer, or are you going to continue avoiding the question?



There isn't one. Self defence is a meaningless claim. I don't have to come up with an alternative.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> It is possible to approach self defense in a scientifically sound way.   It's just like corporate training.   You identify a specific need, along with a set of measurable, specific outcomes/objectives, create a training plan designed to improve the measurables, and then actually follow through by evaluating the success of the program.  A group addressing sexual assault in college campuses put together a program that, in six weeks, had a measurable, positive affect.  Interestingly enough, the portion of training most often central to self defense training (physical self defense techniques) was a minor element of the program.
> 
> Otherwise, it's all intuition and wishful thinking.   Gpseymour, you more than anyone should know this is true.
> 
> So, if you're asking me what I would consider a valid test of self defense, I'd start by asking you to define some actual objectives or measurable goals of your training.   A valid test of your specific self defense training would depend entirely upon the answer.
> 
> Absent this, you are hoping for the best. Earlier, yiu asked how a sport art could prepare someone less for self defense than a non sport art which purports to emphasize self defense.  I think there is integrity in a system that tests what it teaches.   In a sport, one learns to perform skills in a context, and the test is consistent with the objectives.  in a style that does eschews sport, the test bears little resemblance to the purported goals of the training.   I have heard that a karate test is a grueling affair, which combines execution of kata, some sparring, perhaps some Oral or written component.  But as you say, you can't test self defense.  So, there is an inherent disconnect... A fundamental lack of structural integrity.
> 
> This isn't to say that the skills are useless.  Rather, it means that there is a perfect environment for confirmation bias.   Self defense is not defined, so it can literally mean anything.  Which also means that I can measure the success of my training any way I wish, and excuse the failures in the same way.
> 
> AndBill'scomment about kata and the thrust kick is a perfect example of self defense training that doesn't correlate to self defense.
> 
> I'll add just that you mention how you identify the techniques yiu choose to teach, which is great.  But that's only half the story.  You also have to ensure thateach individual can execute these techniques in some measurable context which is consistent with the desired outcome.   Or simply put, I know some techniques work because I see others execute them.


My point is  - and has always been - that no test inside the school is what I'd consider full verification of physical self-defense. The program you mentioned isn't physical self-defense (and can be executed on larger scale), so can be measured with real-world statistics. That's how it's done with corporate training (your comparison). Let's get something comparable to physical SD testing from the corporate world: policies regarding how to respond to bank robbery. There are some basic tenets that every bank follows. They seem to be effective at keeping people from getting hurt, limiting loss, and helping capture robbers. I say "seem to be", because there simply aren't many bank robberies to test them with. These are not ever going to be validated with the same kinds of statistics as the program you mentioned, nor the kinds of measurements that could be put around, for instance, training tellers to count money in a specific way to prevent cash errors.

The same issue exists with physical self-defense training. If I have 100 students, chances are almost none of them will be in a physical altercation in a given year. Let's say 10 get in a "situation", and 8 de-escalate it, and 2 have to do something physical. That's too small a sample for any validity from a statistical perspective. I could pull apart what happened in each one if I have video (people's memories are simply to plastic to use for this), but each attack is so unique, I can't really draw any conclusions other than whether a specific technique that was used did or did not work in that isolated situation. The variables are too many to be able to draw many conclusions from either failure or success (skill and size of the attacker, element of surprise, fear/anger, ground, limited space, people nearby or not, skill and size of the defender, etc.).

So, what do we do? We test in the school. I can't call it valid testing on the order one can do with training for competition, but it's the best anyone can really manage. We simulate attacks we, individually, wouldn't choose. We test against common (and some uncommon) attacks, with different levels of commitment and skill. We spar, to test against someone who knows what they're doing. But none of that can accurately replicate the situation of an actual attack in the street.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There isn't one. Self defence is a meaningless claim. I don't have to come up with an alternative.


I repeat that self-defense isn't a claim. It's a result. I train people to better defend themselves. I have ample anecdotal evidence to support my belief in what we do. I have trained alongside bouncers and cops who have used our techniques in their work. I've trained alongside folks who have had to use what we do in self-defense situations. I've had the chance to compare notes with people using similar principles and techniques from other arts, who have used them in the wild. 

You want to say it's meaningless to claim I can help someone learn to defend themselves simply because I can't do what I can for folks I've helped prepare for competition. With competition there's ample opportunity to validate in real-world scenarios, since the school is pretty close to the "real-world" situation for the competition. Then, we can assess the results after a competition. If we repeat that latter part a few times, we actually get enough input to make valid conclusions. 

No, we can't do that with training for self-defense. So we use the best evidence available. Would you prefer that I simply tell students it's useless to try to get better at defending themselves, and they should go home and watch TV?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So proven out by insufficient validation. By your own standards?
> 
> 
> And sorry. But anything along the lines of. "We train for self defence" is a claim.


Yes, that is a claim. But your earlier statement said self-defense was a claim. Yes, I do claim to train people to defend themselves. Unless you have some reasonable evidence that I'm not doing that - at least as good as what evidence I have to the contrary - then what's the real issue here? You seem to be trying to make a point, but you just keep going around the fact that I said there's no statistically valid verification for any physical self-defense program. This is not a problem with the programs - it's just the reality of the situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> In a sport, one learns to perform skills in a context, and the test is consistent with the objectives.  in a style that does eschews sport, the test bears little resemblance to the purported goals of the training.   I have heard that a karate test is a grueling affair, which combines execution of kata, some sparring, perhaps some Oral or written component.  But as you say, you can't test self defense.  So, there is an inherent disconnect... A fundamental lack of structural integrity.



Just to address this paragraph specifically:

I never said you can't test self-defense. I said you can't do a test that is a truly, statistically valid verification. Nothing anyone can do in a school is a fully valid test of self-defense. But we do test it (as I said in my other reply to this message). I'm just a stickler for that term: valid. I wish we had a way to do what sport can do, but it has something we don't: they can accurately recreate their "real world" any time they wish.

I take that back, I don't wish we could do that. I don't actually want anyone to get attacked, and a large number of real attacks is the only thing that would be scientifically valid for assessing efficacy of physical technique.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I repeat that self-defense isn't a claim. It's a result. I train people to better defend themselves. I have ample anecdotal evidence to support my belief in what we do. I have trained alongside bouncers and cops who have used our techniques in their work. I've trained alongside folks who have had to use what we do in self-defense situations. I've had the chance to compare notes with people using similar principles and techniques from other arts, who have used them in the wild.
> 
> You want to say it's meaningless to claim I can help someone learn to defend themselves simply because I can't do what I can for folks I've helped prepare for competition. With competition there's ample opportunity to validate in real-world scenarios, since the school is pretty close to the "real-world" situation for the competition. Then, we can assess the results after a competition. If we repeat that latter part a few times, we actually get enough input to make valid conclusions.
> 
> No, we can't do that with training for self-defense. So we use the best evidence available. Would you prefer that I simply tell students it's useless to try to get better at defending themselves, and they should go home and watch TV?



So. What you said here.
*
As has been discussed many times, the only full verification possible for self-defense is in a real attack. There are too few of those for anything we could call actual verification for self-defense purposes. Competition (or some similar sparring exercise) is the only reliable verification of skill-on-skill, but is not valid for self-defense verification.*

For a sport to be training for self defence. We would also need anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness in the wild. Which it has in spades by the way.

Effectively negating the difference between sport and self defence in the first place. Due to anecdotal evidence both methods are training for self defence.

At which point we may as well compare skill on skill.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yes, that is a claim. But your earlier statement said self-defense was a claim. Yes, I do claim to train people to defend themselves. Unless you have some reasonable evidence that I'm not doing that - at least as good as what evidence I have to the contrary - then what's the real issue here? You seem to be trying to make a point, but you just keep going around the fact that I said there's no statistically valid verification for any physical self-defense program. This is not a problem with the programs - it's just the reality of the situation.



You don't think training to a standard that can't be assessed isn't a problem?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So. What you said here.
> *
> As has been discussed many times, the only full verification possible for self-defense is in a real attack. There are too few of those for anything we could call actual verification for self-defense purposes. Competition (or some similar sparring exercise) is the only reliable verification of skill-on-skill, but is not valid for self-defense verification.*
> 
> For a sport to be training for self defence. We would also need anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness in the wild. Which it has in spades by the way.
> 
> Effectively negating the difference between sport and self defence in the first place. Due to anecdotal evidence both methods are training for self defence.
> 
> At which point we may as well compare skill on skill.



I've never said sport training isn't useful for developing self-defense skill. Any good physical training is. The more you work on attacks that are likely to occur in the wild, the more useful the training is. So, if we start with simple physical conditioning (strength, cardio, etc.), those are slightly useful for self-defense. Then we move far down the continuum to martial arts. Sport training doesn't train for street attacks, but it trains for attacks and is often (not always - some styles are too soft) quite good for self-defense preparation. One notch further down (just barely) is training that focuses specifically on developing responses for attacks in the street. Assuming equal levels of training, you'd expect the school teaching preparation for a specific thing to produce better results. So, if someone is planning to enter a TKD competition, they'd be best trained in a TKD school that trains for that specific type of competition. But they'd be ill-served by using an excellent Judo school for that training.

Using sport training to prep for self-defense has one disadvantage and two advantages. The disadvantage is that self-defense is not what you train for there, so there are things taught that are no applicable to the street (in MMA gyms only a few of these, in some sports there are more) and there are things not taught because they aren't useful in competition (like making all movements useful against a knife attack, because the defender often doesn't realize a knife is in play). The two advantages: tons of sparring (usually more than you see in self-defense schools) and a chance to work with people who train more intensely. The average self-defense student is going to commit 3-5 hours a week to their training. We focus on what is most effective to do with those few hours, without needing them to be as highly fit as I'd require if they were training for MMA competition.

So, if someone has a lot of hours and is young enough for the abuse and wants to get better at defending themselves, they're probably at least equally served getting into more competition, and perhaps best served by cross-training. If they have fewer hours or don't want the abuse, the more reasonable solution is a school that teaches with a focus on self-defense.

To my mind, the only real difference between sport training and self-defense training comes down to two things: what you're training for (focusing down to just what works for those situations: sport or street), and level of abuse (in the case of harder-contact sports like Judo, MMA, etc.). Now, there's another differentiating factor, but it's a difference in the student. I know nobody who trains for MMA, for instance, who doesn't train a significant number of hours and works on getting very fit. I know lots of students in self-defense schools who don't make that commitment (and that's just a different set of priorities). I don't think training for MMA competition is an effective approach for someone who's ready to commit 3 hours a week. They'll get faster results from a good self-defense-oriented program, because that's who it's designed for. Likewise, a younger, more athletic person who has lots of energy and time can leverage the intensity and focus of MMA training, and may be better served there, because that's who it's designed for.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You don't think training to a standard that can't be assessed isn't a problem?


I never said it couldn't be assessed. I said it can't be assessed in any statistically valid way. See my reference to training bank employees on how to handle a robbery. Just because the results can't be assessed in a statistically valid way, that doesn't mean you can't do what has (anecdotally) worked best.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I've never said sport training isn't useful for developing self-defense skill. Any good physical training is. The more you work on attacks that are likely to occur in the wild, the more useful the training is. So, if we start with simple physical conditioning (strength, cardio, etc.), those are slightly useful for self-defense. Then we move far down the continuum to martial arts. Sport training doesn't train for street attacks, but it trains for attacks and is often (not always - some styles are too soft) quite good for self-defense preparation. One notch further down (just barely) is training that focuses specifically on developing responses for attacks in the street. Assuming equal levels of training, you'd expect the school teaching preparation for a specific thing to produce better results. So, if someone is planning to enter a TKD competition, they'd be best trained in a TKD school that trains for that specific type of competition. But they'd be ill-served by using an excellent Judo school for that training.
> 
> Using sport training to prep for self-defense has one disadvantage and two advantages. The disadvantage is that self-defense is not what you train for there, so there are things taught that are no applicable to the street (in MMA gyms only a few of these, in some sports there are more) and there are things not taught because they aren't useful in competition (like making all movements useful against a knife attack, because the defender often doesn't realize a knife is in play). The two advantages: tons of sparring (usually more than you see in self-defense schools) and a chance to work with people who train more intensely. The average self-defense student is going to commit 3-5 hours a week to their training. We focus on what is most effective to do with those few hours, without needing them to be as highly fit as I'd require if they were training for MMA competition.
> 
> So, if someone has a lot of hours and is young enough for the abuse and wants to get better at defending themselves, they're probably at least equally served getting into more competition, and perhaps best served by cross-training. If they have fewer hours or don't want the abuse, the more reasonable solution is a school that teaches with a focus on self-defense.
> 
> To my mind, the only real difference between sport training and self-defense training comes down to two things: what you're training for (focusing down to just what works for those situations: sport or street), and level of abuse (in the case of harder-contact sports like Judo, MMA, etc.). Now, there's another differentiating factor, but it's a difference in the student. I know nobody who trains for MMA, for instance, who doesn't train a significant number of hours and works on getting very fit. I know lots of students in self-defense schools who don't make that commitment (and that's just a different set of priorities). I don't think training for MMA competition is an effective approach for someone who's ready to commit 3 hours a week. They'll get faster results from a good self-defense-oriented program, because that's who it's designed for. Likewise, a younger, more athletic person who has lots of energy and time can leverage the intensity and focus of MMA training, and may be better served there, because that's who it's designed for.




But wait.  Is there any difference in the anecdotal results?

I am not suggesting one or the other is good bad or indifferent at this point. Just you have defined a difference and then measured one method by anecdotes. If you are going to use a standard it should be consistent.

And no i wouldn't expect a school that teaches a specific thing to get better results. I would expect a school that gets better results to get better results. What you have created there is a narrative based logic.  And works because self defence competansy is unverifiable.

Now where you can make distinctions is things like knife defence. Because you can test that.  You give one guy a fake knife and the other guy either gets stabbed or dosent. 

If your system does not work there. Then you can address it there.

You don't turn around and say it would have been different with a real knife unless you are actually testing with a real knife and can show a difference.

(because then you are making an empty claim)

To validate an idea.  You have to show where it works.  It has to be practical somewhere first.  Before we get all crazy with hypotheticals and anecdotes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> But wait.  Is there any difference in the anecdotal results?
> 
> I am not suggesting one or the other is good bad or indifferent at this point. Just you have defined a difference and then measured one method by anecdotes. If you are going to use a standard it should be consistent.
> 
> And no i wouldn't expect a school that teaches a specific thing to get better results. I would expect a school that gets better results to get better results. What you have created there is a narrative based logic.  And works because self defence competansy is unverifiable.
> 
> Now where you can make distinctions is things like knife defence. Because you can test that.  You give one guy a fake knife and the other guy either gets stabbed or dosent.
> 
> If your system does not work there. Then you can address it there.
> 
> You don't turn around and say it would have been different with a real knife unless you are actually testing with a real knife and can show a difference.
> 
> (because then you are making an empty claim)
> 
> To validate an idea.  You have to show where it works.  It has to be practical somewhere first.  Before we get all crazy with hypotheticals and anecdotes.


Again, you seem to be ignoring that I never said there was no validation. I said there cannot be what I'd consider statistically valid validation. There simply isn't enough data for any results to be considered valid.

And, no, I did not create a narrative-based logic. I stated something that is universally logical: if you train for something, you should get better results in that thing than if you train in something else, assuming equally good training in both cases. There's nothing really arguable in that statement because of the "assumign equally good training in both cases". If I took your training, then took an equivalent training (same basic principles and approach) from another instructor who cut out the bits that weren't street-relevant and emphasized some bits that weren't ring-relevant, I should get better results in the street (and worse results in the ring). If not, the training isn't equivalent.

As I've said, we do validate where we can. And, yes, I can say quite emphatically that a real knife in a real attack is different than a fake knife in the dojo. This is true for anyone who has a normal emotional range, because the fake knife isn't very scary, but the real knife is. Is the physics different? No. But the psychology is, and that matters a lot in any physical situation, perhaps more so in self-defense situations.

Oh, and anecdotes ARE verification - you just have to take them for what they are worth, since they only represent a single example. To not use them would be to ignore the only evidence we can hope for that actually comes from a real-world occurrence.


----------



## KenpoMaster805

A kata is an excercise in whixh we practice offensive and defensive techniques with an imaginary Opponent 

Kata is very effective in real fight too speacially if you have good stances strikes and kicks and foot manuvers


----------



## UqaabKamikaze

I too thought Katas were useless in fight as they have some regular and defined movements which may not be useful in dynamic undefined fights. Then I  watched Rick Clark's videos on YouTube and MJW's never back down no surrender and read some books on katas. Now I think they are most important part of a Martial Art.

Sent from my Karbonn A2+ using Tapatalk


----------



## wingchun100

senseiblackbelt said:


> whats the point of  learning katas? like what is it going to teach and is there any way itll help us in a way to fight?
> 0_0


 

Kata/forms will help you learn how to fight because they teach you the proper form/body mechanics of the techniques that your art employs. They won't help prepare your reflexes because they consist of a predetermined set of techniques. To get the reflexes you need, you will need to spar. However, the importance of forms cannot be stressed enough.


----------



## JowGaWolf

wingchun100 said:


> They won't help prepare your reflexes because they consist of a predetermined set of techniques


Actually kata and forms do help improve reflexes.   There 2 main components that affects the speed of your reflex.
1. Natural reaction
2. Thinking

No matter how fast you can consciously do punch, it still won't be faster than a well tuned natural reaction. The closer you can get your technique to operate as a natural reaction the faster your reflex for delivering that technique will be.  The less thinking that you do with delivering your technique the faster your reflex will for delivering that technique.

I always tell student and people that they have to trust the form and the technique, that it will do what it's intended to do.  If you don't trust the technique, then you are slowing your reaction because now you are trying to alter the technique in an effort to force it to work as you think it should work.  By doing kata you are training muscle memory which goes a long way to reduce how much thinking you are doing to execute a technique.  This is why we practice Kata and forms for technique, power, and speed.  Kata also takes an unnatural movement and turns it into a natural movement.  I've been sparring with Jow  Ga so long that I don't remember how I used to fight before Jow Ga.  My Jow Ga techniques now feel like something I've always done in fighting.


----------



## wingchun100

JowGaWolf said:


> Actually kata and forms do help improve reflexes.   There 2 main components that affects the speed of your reflex.
> 1. Natural reaction
> 2. Thinking
> 
> No matter how fast you can consciously do punch, it still won't be faster than a well tuned natural reaction. The closer you can get your technique to operate as a natural reaction the faster your reflex for delivering that technique will be.  The less thinking that you do with delivering your technique the faster your reflex will for delivering that technique.
> 
> I always tell student and people that they have to trust the form and the technique, that it will do what it's intended to do.  If you don't trust the technique, then you are slowing your reaction because now you are trying to alter the technique in an effort to force it to work as you think it should work.  By doing kata you are training muscle memory which goes a long way to reduce how much thinking you are doing to execute a technique.  This is why we practice Kata and forms for technique, power, and speed.  Kata also takes an unnatural movement and turns it into a natural movement.  I've been sparring with Jow  Ga so long that I don't remember how I used to fight before Jow Ga.  My Jow Ga techniques now feel like something I've always done in fighting.


 

By "reflexes," I mean reacting to the way an opponent attacks, which is something you cannot know until you ARE being attacked.

I might have a habit of always attacking with a right hook as my opening move, but what if you fight someone else whose first move is a right side kick?

That is something you won't learn through forms alone.


----------



## JowGaWolf

wingchun100 said:


> By "reflexes," I mean reacting to the way an opponent attacks, which is something you cannot know until you ARE being attacked.
> 
> I might have a habit of always attacking with a right hook as my opening move, but what if you fight someone else whose first move is a right side kick?
> 
> That is something you won't learn through forms alone.


Then your low block from the kata should fire.  sparring teaches more about timing which is different than reflex.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Have you guys ever think about to create your own form/kata in the following way?

- Create 20 of 3 moves combo.
- Link those 20 combos in a logic sequence.

For example.

1. front kick, roundhouse kick, side kick,
2. jab, cross, hook,
3. hammer fist, groin kick, face punch,
4. hook, back fist, uppercut,
5. foot sweep, leading arm jam, neck choke,
6. hook, back kick, spin back fist,
7. hip throw, inner hook, outer hook,
8. leg twist, leg lift, leg block,
9. leg seize, twist and spring, outer bowing,
10. foot sweep, leg block, front cut,
11. ...

What's your opinion about this approach?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For example.
> 
> 1. front kick, roundhouse kick, side kick,
> 2. jab, cross, hook,
> 3. hammer fist, groin kick, face punch,
> 4. hook, back fist, uppercut,
> 5. foot sweep, leading arm jam, neck choke,
> 6. hook, back kick, spin back fist,
> 7. hip throw, inner hook, outer hook,
> 8. leg twist, leg lift, leg block,
> 9. leg seize, twist and spring, outer bowing,
> 10. foot sweep, leg block, front cut,


Some of this is similar to the drills that I do. But much of it can be found in the form that we train but not in the same combo order
Things found in the form = Everything except, roundhouse kick, spinning back fist, hip throw, (not sure what twist and spring is or outer bowing or frong cut)
Things that we drill = Things that aren't in our form.  Traditionally our form doesn't have a roundhouse kick, or a spinning back fist., we have a similar backfist but it's not spinning. It's more like a 180, front to rear.

I don't see anything wrong with this, but that just may be my system because our forms are traditionally made of fighting combos and single strikes.


For example.

1. front kick, roundhouse kick, side kick,  
2. jab, cross, hook, (I drill
3. hammer fist, groin kick, face punch,
4. hook, back fist, uppercut,
5. foot sweep, leading arm jam, neck choke,
6. hook, back kick, spin back fist,
7. hip throw, inner hook, outer hook,
8. leg twist, leg lift, leg block,
9. leg seize, twist and spring, outer bowing,
10. foot sweep, leg block, front cut,


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Traditionally our form doesn't have a roundhouse kick, or a spinning back fist., ...


After you have created your form and include it into your style, your style will have roundhouse kick and spinning back fist. Will that be nice?

I used to tell my friends who trains different MA systems, "What I know is mine. What you know will be mine too."


----------



## lklawson

9 pages and people *still* can't agree on exactly what kata are or what they're good for...


----------



## UqaabKamikaze

Kata, as I read and heard, holds secret knowledge of vital point which were not taught directly but in disguised manner.
To other people it was just a series of movement but to a knowing person it was a complete guide to striking vital points with chronological order.
It is like not teaching hit this point and then that but to teach movements which in themselves hold information to where to strike and how.

Sent from my Karbonn A2+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Midnight-shadow

lklawson said:


> 9 pages and people *still* can't agree on exactly what kata are or what they're good for...



The amount of pages shows how meaningful kata are, and depending on the style and individual movements, they can be used for training in many different ways. That is the beauty of it and the more you learn and practice them, the more meaningful they become.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Midnight-shadow said:


> The amount of pages shows how meaningful kata are, and depending on the style and individual movements, they can be used for training in many different ways. That is the beauty of it and the more you learn and practice them, the more meaningful they become.


Or how cantankerous we are as a group. It's a toss-up.


----------



## lklawson

Midnight-shadow said:


> The amount of pages shows how meaningful kata are, and depending on the style and individual movements, they can be used for training in many different ways. That is the beauty of it and the more you learn and practice them, the more meaningful they become.


Non sequitur.  The *only* conclusion which can be drawn is that there is no consensus on the purpose of kata.  You can posit, if you like, the position that it also indicates that kata is "important" but, given the fact that humans in general, and MT in particular, are contentious and like to argue, I think the burden of proof will be difficult to meet to show that the lack of consensus is because of the relative importance instead of simply a lack of agreement.  Your argument is doublely difficult due to the fact that there have been some posters in this thread who have argued that kata are, in fact, completely irrelevant and, therefore, completely unimportant.

Good luck.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

lklawson said:


> Non sequitur.  The *only* conclusion which can be drawn is that there is no consensus on the purpose of kata.  You can posit, if you like, the position that it also indicates that kata is "important" but, given the fact that humans in general, and MT in particular, are contentious and like to argue, I think the burden of proof will be difficult to meet to show that the lack of consensus is because of the relative importance instead of simply a lack of agreement.  Your argument is doublely difficult due to the fact that there have been some posters in this thread who have argued that kata are, in fact, completely irrelevant and, therefore, completely unimportant.
> 
> Good luck.



Maybe it's just us liking to disagree over and over, but in my opinion the purpose of kata varies depending on the style you practice, and each individual kata you practice. And since pretty much everyone here is of a different style or lineage, and everyone practices different kata, everyone has a different opinion on the purpose of kata.


----------



## lklawson

Midnight-shadow said:


> Maybe it's just us liking to disagree over and over, but in my opinion the purpose of kata varies depending on the style you practice, and each individual kata you practice.


Which may have been why I wrote, "9 pages and people *still* can't agree on exactly what kata are or what they're good for..."  A statement which, if you'll recall, you disagreed with.



> And since pretty much everyone here is of a different style or lineage, and everyone practices different kata, everyone has a different opinion on the purpose of kata.


Except for those people who do not practice kata at all and hold that it is a waste of time.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

lklawson said:


> Which may have been why I wrote, "9 pages and people *still* can't agree on exactly what kata are or what they're good for..."  A statement which, if you'll recall, you disagreed with.



Did I? I don't ever saying the words "I don't agree with you" or any connotation of those words. I am merely pointing out that every person here will have a slightly different interpretation of the purpose of kata because of the huge variety of styles represented on this forum. To me, this shows how important and multifaceted the forms are as they can be used in so many different ways to train. And quite frankly, we could go on like this for another 100 pages and nobody can be proven right or wrong, because the forms are understood and used in a different way by each person. 

This is one of the reasons why I love training the Martial Arts, because it gives each person the opportunity to find their own path and make the style they choose their own, to train and fight the way they want. It is a beautiful thing indeed.


----------



## lklawson

Midnight-shadow said:


> Did I? I don't ever saying the words "I don't agree with you" or any connotation of those words.


kata?



> I am merely pointing out that every person here will have a slightly different interpretation of the purpose of kata because of the huge variety of styles represented on this forum.


*Slightly* different?  Sheesh!  There are more differing opinions than there are Power Rangers!



> To me, this shows how important and multifaceted the forms are as they can be used in so many different ways to train.


Then make your case.  Be sure to account for those screwball MMA types who don't think kata have any value.



> And quite frankly, we could go on like this for another 100 pages and nobody can be proven right or wrong, because the forms are understood and used in a different way by each person.


"9 pages and people *still* can't agree on exactly what kata are or what they're good for..."


----------



## Midnight-shadow

lklawson said:


> kata?
> 
> *Slightly* different?  Sheesh!  There are more differing opinions than there are Power Rangers!
> 
> Then make your case.  Be sure to account for those screwball MMA types who don't think kata have any value.
> 
> "9 pages and people *still* can't agree on exactly what kata are or what they're good for..."



Well now you are sounding like a broken record, so forgive me if I refrain from following your lead by repeating myself. If you can't even be bothered to read my posts then don't bother replying to them.


----------



## lklawson

Midnight-shadow said:


> Well now you are sounding like a broken record, so forgive me if I refrain from following your lead by repeating myself. If you can't even be bothered to read my posts then don't bother replying to them.


There once was a congregation who hired a pulpit preacher.  His first Sunday he delivered an inspiring sermon to much nodding of heads and punctuated with frequent and hearty "Amen Preacher!" interjections.  The congregants shook his hand at the door and went away eager to hear next Sunday's sermon.  To their surprise, next Sunday the preacher delivered the exact same sermon.  While there were a few polite "Amen's" most congregants assumed that their new preacher had accidentally grabbed last week's sermon instead of the new sermon he had prepared for this week and went away eager to hear the sermon on the following Sunday.  When the following Sunday at last arrived, the congregants were shocked to hear exactly the same sermon delivered yet again.  Appalled, the church leadership took their new preacher aside and asked him to engage his creative juices and deliver a new sermon.  The preacher looked at them sternly and said, "When you learn this lesson, I'll move on to the next one."


----------



## Midnight-shadow

lklawson said:


> There once was a congregation who hired a pulpit preacher.  His first Sunday he delivered an inspiring sermon to much nodding of heads and punctuated with frequent and hearty "Amen Preacher!" interjections.  The congregants shook his hand at the door and went away eager to hear next Sunday's sermon.  To their surprise, next Sunday the preacher delivered the exact same sermon.  While there were a few polite "Amen's" most congregants assumed that their new preacher had accidentally grabbed last week's sermon instead of the new sermon he had prepared for this week and went away eager to hear the sermon on the following Sunday.  When the following Sunday at last arrived, the congregants were shocked to hear exactly the same sermon delivered yet again.  Appalled, the church leadership took their new preacher aside and asked him to engage his creative juices and deliver a new sermon.  The preacher looked at them sternly and said, "When you learn this lesson, I'll move on to the next one."



You are far too full of yourself, to imply that your words are the absolute and only truth, and that by repeating yourself over and over I will eventually kneel before you and praise your wisdom. If there is one thing this thread has taught me it's that there is not one path, or 2 or 100 paths, but an unlimited number to choose from. You have said that none of us can agree on the purpose of kata, and I believe the reason for that is because the purpose is different for each person. You ask for evidence of this and the proof is in this entire thread. Nearly every person has a different opinion on kata, and all are valid in their own way.


----------



## lklawson

Midnight-shadow said:


> You are far too full of yourself, to imply that your words are the absolute and only truth, and that by repeating yourself over and over I will eventually kneel before you and praise your wisdom.


"When you learn this lesson, I'll move on to the next one."



> If there is one thing this thread has taught me it's that there is not one path, or 2 or 100 paths, but an unlimited number to choose from. You have said that none of us can agree on the purpose of kata, and I believe the reason for that is because the purpose is different for each person. You ask for evidence of this and the proof is in this entire thread. Nearly every person has a different opinion on kata, and all are valid in their own way.


That's a canned platitude not what this thread "taught" you.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

lklawson said:


> "When you learn this lesson, I'll move on to the next one."
> 
> That's a canned platitude not what this thread "taught" you.



Are you this much of an ******* in real life or just online? Let me make one thing very clear to you since you seem rather dense in the head: I am not your student and I have nothing to learn from you. If you think I'll automatically start respecting a jumped up parrot like yourself then you have another thing coming. Being an "advisor" on here doesn't give you the right to down-talk and patronize everyone who expresses an opinion different to yours.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kata is a training tool.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Midnight-shadow said:


> Are you this much of an ******* in real life or just online? Let me make one thing very clear to you since you seem rather dense in the head: I am not your student and I have nothing to learn from you. If you think I'll automatically start respecting a jumped up parrot like yourself then you have another thing coming. Being an "advisor" on here doesn't give you the right to down-talk and patronize everyone who expresses an opinion different to yours.


Actually, Kirk started out in a fairly conversational tone. Your initial disagreement (and, yes, you did disagree with him - the actual words "I disagree" aren't necessary to establish that) was genial enough and his reply was a reasonable challenge to your stated view, including a few points supporting his own. You were the first to get upset in this exchange (apparently because Kirk quoted himself to make the point that you said something roughly equivalent to what he originally said).

You're getting very worked up - if the tone of your words here are any indicator - about someone standing by his point, then making a fairly humorous point about repetition. His tone was genial until yours wasn't. This is a discussion board. People here disagree, sometimes vehemently. Sometimes we even enjoy the argument.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Kata is a training tool.


I disagree.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Kata is a training tool.


Kata is a teaching/learning tool. It "records" information for your MA system.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Kata is a teaching/learning tool. It "records" information for the future generation.


I can't speak for your kata.  But mine does more than that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> I can't speak for your kata.  But mine does more than that.


If your kata records "front kick, straight punch", when you "train", you should not only train 'front kick, straight punch", you should also train:

- front kick, hook punch,
- front kick, uppercut,
- roundhouse kick, straight punch,
- roundhouse kick, hook punch,
- roundhouse kick, uppercut,
- side kick, ...
- ...
- hook kick, ...
- ...

Not only you can learn "front kick, straight punch" from your kata, you also learn the principle "how to use a kick to set up a punch". IMO, that's more important.

If there are M number of kicks, N number of punches, the maximum combination of kick, punch combo can be M x N. Some combination may not make sense. The teacher will not show his student all those detail. It will be up to the individual student to figure those out.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your kata records "front kick, straight punch", when you "train", you should not only train 'front kick, straight punch", you should also train:
> 
> - front kick, hook punch,
> - front kick, uppercut,
> - roundhouse kick, straight punch,
> - roundhouse kick, hook punch,
> - roundhouse kick, uppercut,
> - side kick, ...
> - ...
> - hook kick, ...
> - ...
> 
> Not only you can learn "front kick, straight punch" from your kata, you also learn the principle "how to use a kick to set up a punch". IMO, that's more important.
> 
> If there are M number of kicks, N number of punches, the maximum combination of kick, punch combo can be M x N. Some combination may not make sense. The teacher will not show to his student all those detail. It will up to the individual student to figure those out.


I don't really understand what you are telling me.

I will say this: my forms give examples of what is possible, but these examples are not sacred curriculum.  There is no requirement that a student be able to us all movements within a form in real fighting.  But those movements in the form give you ideas to chose from and develop your application, or give you insights to develop your own ideas and solutions.

Otherwise, the forms are a way of reinforcing the fundamental principles with a wide variety of movement and technique.

The real curriculum is stancework, and footwork and the various punches and kicks.  Forms are optional, but useful as a way to drill principles and techniques.  But forms are not a catalogue of the techniques of the system.

Your own mileage may vary.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> forms are not a catalogue of the techniques of the system.


Forms are not a catalogue of the techniques (vocabulary) of the system. It also contains a set of principles (grammar) of the system (such as to use a kick to set up a punch).

When you learn "This is a book", you should be able to construct sentences such as:

- This is a pen.
- This is not a book.
- That is a book.
- ...

The ability to remember "this is a book" may not be as important as the ability to "create" your own sentences by using the same grammar - subject, verb, article, object.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Forms are not a catalogue of the techniques (vocabulary) of the system. It also contains a set of principles (grammar) of the system (such as to use a kick to set up a punch).
> 
> When you learn "This is a book", you should be able to construct sentences such as:
> 
> - This is a pen.
> - This is not a book.
> - That is a book.
> - ...
> 
> The ability to remember "this is a book" may not be as important as the ability to "create" your own sentences by using the same grammar - subject, verb, article, object.


Yeah.  I'm not a fan of the language analogy to training, but I get what you are saying.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Or how cantankerous we are as a group. It's a toss-up.


Speaking of cantankerous...  Earlier in the thread, you stated that no one has ever joined your school to learn NGA.  That they all join to learn self defense.  How do you reconcile that you are teaching them something they aren't interested in learning?   That's like going to he pound to adopt a cat and being convinced that a dog will be just as good, because they're both pets.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Speaking of cantankerous...  Earlier in the thread, you stated that no one has ever joined your school to learn NGA.  That they all join to learn self defense.  How do you reconcile that you are teaching them something they aren't interested in learning?   That's like going to he pound to adopt a cat and being convinced that a dog will be just as good, because they're both pets.


This again? I do teach self-defense. You just don't like my definition.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> This again? I do teach self-defense. You just don't like my definition.


I thought you said you teach NGA.  weird.  Mostly just me being cantankerous.   Like 51% is just being ornery because your statement stood out and I missed it the first read through.

However,  49% thinks the distinction between the following two statements is significant and important:

1:  I will teach you self defense.
2:  I will teach you {style}, which will be very helpful if {context}.

For example, I will teach you BJJ, which will be very helpful if you are taken to the ground and want to return to your feet.  

The context will likely be much more than a simple statement, but the point is that specificity matters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I thought you said you teach NGA.  weird.  Mostly just me being cantankerous.   Like 51% is just being ornery because your statement stood out and I missed it the first read through.
> 
> However,  49% thinks the distinction between the following two statements is significant and important:
> 
> 1:  I will teach you self defense.
> 2:  I will teach you {style}, which will be very helpful if {context}.
> 
> For example, I will teach you BJJ, which will be very helpful if you are taken to the ground and want to return to your feet.
> 
> The context will likely be much more than a simple statement, but the point is that specificity matters.


Actually, the style is HOW I teach SD. If I had expertise in another style I considered applicable, I'd use it as the method of SD. Just because I teach a style doesn't mean I'm not teaching SD. The physical defense needs techniques and principles - that's what a style/art is. When you teach BJJ, if you teach it with a SD focus, then you are teaching SD, and BJJ is the tool. 

My point in the earlier comment was that nobody has ever walked into any school where I taught and said, "I've been looking for Nihon Goshin Aikido. Do you teach that?" Instead, they say things like, "I'd like to learn to defend myself against an attack. Do you teach that?"

I could honestly answer either question with, "Yes, I teach that." I just don't get the chance to answer the first one.


----------



## lklawson

Midnight-shadow said:


> Are you this much of an ******* in real life or just online?


Pretty much, yeah, I behave exactly the same; if you're a douche to me "in real life" then you get reciprocal treatment.  Why would you expect it to be any different?



> Let me make one thing very clear


Clarity doesn't seem to be your forte.



> to you since you seem rather dense in the head:


Well, we martial artists often make fun of people with a glass jaw.



> I am not your student and I have nothing to learn from you.


You're hurting my feelings.  Didn't you just imply that everyone can learn something from everyone else?



> If you think I'll automatically start respecting a jumped up parrot


Now I have this image in my mind.







This means war!



> like yourself then you have another thing coming.


I've got something coming?  Is it a prize?  I love prizes!  Did you find it in a box of crackerjacks like you found your platitude about "100 paths?"



> Being an "advisor" on here doesn't give you the right to down-talk and patronize everyone who expresses an opinion different to yours.


Nah.  Acting like a douche gets you talked down to.  Being an Advisor gets me a bed of money to sleep on.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

gpseymour said:


> Actually, Kirk started out in a fairly conversational tone. Your initial disagreement (and, yes, you did disagree with him - the actual words "I disagree" aren't necessary to establish that) was genial enough and his reply was a reasonable challenge to your stated view, including a few points supporting his own. You were the first to get upset in this exchange (apparently because Kirk quoted himself to make the point that you said something roughly equivalent to what he originally said).
> 
> You're getting very worked up - if the tone of your words here are any indicator - about someone standing by his point, then making a fairly humorous point about repetition. His tone was genial until yours wasn't. This is a discussion board. People here disagree, sometimes vehemently. Sometimes we even enjoy the argument.



Am I somehow typing in some foreign language here? Here's how the discussion between myself and Kirk has gone so far. He made a statement that so far in 9 pages, nobody can agree on what the purpose of kata is. I then replied saying that to me the amount of pages signifies how important kata is, and then followed up that statement by saying that the reason for so much disagreement is because the purpose of kata is different for each person depending on the style they practice and each individual kata they learn. How is that disagreeing with Kirk's statement? If anything I'm agreeing with him and offering a reason as to why. I thought that was pretty clear in my posts but then Kirk asks me to explain myself, which I didn't feel was necessary as I had already explained my point. 

So not only did Kirk not understand my posts and tell me to repeat myself, he also did it in an obnoxious and pretentious manner, that I quite frankly found very insulting. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with someone disagreeing with me and having to defend my opinion, but treating me like one of his students and repeating himself over and over like a parrot really pisses me off. If he disagrees with my opinion that's fine, but at least have the decency and courtesy to respect my opinion and not treat me like a child.


----------



## lklawson

Midnight-shadow said:


> Am I somehow typing in some foreign language here? Here's how the discussion between myself and Kirk has gone so far. He made a statement that so far in 9 pages, nobody can agree on what the purpose of kata is. I then replied saying that to me the amount of pages signifies how important kata is, and then followed up that statement by saying that the reason for so much disagreement is because the purpose of kata is different for each person depending on the style they practice and each individual kata they learn. How is that disagreeing with Kirk's statement? If anything I'm agreeing with him and offering a reason as to why. I thought that was pretty clear in my posts but then Kirk asks me to explain myself, which I didn't feel was necessary as I had already explained my point.


Sure; the problem appears to be your preconceived notions coupled with a simultaneous comprehension issue and insistence on "being right."  If you were going for the basic tenor of newbies to MT, congratulations, you nailed it!  



> like a parrot


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Midnight-shadow said:


> Am I somehow typing in some foreign language here? Here's how the discussion between myself and Kirk has gone so far. He made a statement that so far in 9 pages, nobody can agree on what the purpose of kata is. I then replied saying that to me the amount of pages signifies how important kata is, and then followed up that statement by saying that the reason for so much disagreement is because the purpose of kata is different for each person depending on the style they practice and each individual kata they learn. How is that disagreeing with Kirk's statement? If anything I'm agreeing with him and offering a reason as to why. I thought that was pretty clear in my posts but then Kirk asks me to explain myself, which I didn't feel was necessary as I had already explained my point.
> 
> So not only did Kirk not understand my posts and tell me to repeat myself, he also did it in an obnoxious and pretentious manner, that I quite frankly found very insulting. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with someone disagreeing with me and having to defend my opinion, but treating me like one of his students and repeating himself over and over like a parrot really pisses me off. If he disagrees with my opinion that's fine, but at least have the decency and courtesy to respect my opinion and not treat me like a child.


This seems, then, to be related to something being discussed in another thread. Your original communication didn't communicate what you hoped it would. Both Kirk and I read it as a disagreement with his post, and that apparently wasn't your intent. Rather than clarify when asked, you apparently took the request as a challenge to your ____ (expertise, understanding, something else?) _____.

To quote George Bernard Shaw (I think), "The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."


----------



## Midnight-shadow

gpseymour said:


> This seems, then, to be related to something being discussed in another thread. Your original communication didn't communicate what you hoped it would. Both Kirk and I read it as a disagreement with his post, and that apparently wasn't your intent. Rather than clarify when asked, you apparently took the request as a challenge to your ____ (expertise, understanding, something else?) _____.
> 
> To quote George Bernard Shaw (I think), "The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."






> The amount of pages shows how meaningful kata are, and depending on the style and individual movements, they can be used for training in many different ways. That is the beauty of it and the more you learn and practice them, the more meaningful they become.





> Maybe it's just us liking to disagree over and over, but in my opinion the purpose of kata varies depending on the style you practice, and each individual kata you practice. And since pretty much everyone here is of a different style or lineage, and everyone practices different kata, everyone has a different opinion on the purpose of kata.



I fail to see how my opinion wasn't made clear on this, and I even expanded on my original answer when requested:



> I am merely pointing out that every person here will have a slightly different interpretation of the purpose of kata because of the huge variety of styles represented on this forum. To me, this shows how important and multifaceted the forms are as they can be used in so many different ways to train. And quite frankly, we could go on like this for another 100 pages and nobody can be proven right or wrong, because the forms are understood and used in a different way by each person.



Here, I'll even summarize both mine and Kirk's points into a single sentence to make it easier for you:

"nobody can agree on the purpose of kata because the purpose is different for each person based on the Martial Arts style they practice and each kata they learn." I honestly don't know how much clearer I can be at this point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Midnight-shadow said:


> I fail to see how my opinion wasn't made clear on this, and I even expanded on my original answer when requested:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll even summarize both mine and Kirk's points into a single sentence to make it easier for you:
> 
> "nobody can agree on the purpose of kata because the purpose is different for each person based on the Martial Arts style they practice and each kata they learn." I honestly don't know how much clearer I can be at this point.


Have you noted the tone of your own replies to me? I stepped in to give you my interpretation of what I was seeing. Even when I pointed out the obvious miscommunication, you remain defensive, pointing at your own posts and saying, "See? This is what I said. I was very clear!" It might be more helpful to instead look at the situation and ask yourself why at least some folks didn't understand what you meant. Or even ask me why I thought you were disagreeing. Or just try saying it in a different way, and ask if that's clearer. Pointing back to your previous posts doesn't make them any clearer in the original context. Obviously, now that I know the intent behind them, they are clearer, but that doesn't help any of us improve.


----------



## lklawson

gpseymour said:


> Have you noted the tone of your own replies to me? I stepped in to give you my interpretation of what I was seeing. Even when I pointed out the obvious miscommunication, you remain defensive, pointing at your own posts and saying, "See? This is what I said. I was very clear!" It might be more helpful to instead look at the situation and ask yourself why at least some folks didn't understand what you meant. Or even ask me why I thought you were disagreeing. Or just try saying it in a different way, and ask if that's clearer. Pointing back to your previous posts doesn't make them any clearer in the original context. Obviously, now that I know the intent behind them, they are clearer, but that doesn't help any of us improve.


Like cursive writing, introspection isn't taught in school.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Midnight-shadow

gpseymour said:


> Have you noted the tone of your own replies to me? I stepped in to give you my interpretation of what I was seeing. Even when I pointed out the obvious miscommunication, you remain defensive, pointing at your own posts and saying, "See? This is what I said. I was very clear!" It might be more helpful to instead look at the situation and ask yourself why at least some folks didn't understand what you meant. Or even ask me why I thought you were disagreeing. Or just try saying it in a different way, and ask if that's clearer. Pointing back to your previous posts doesn't make them any clearer in the original context. Obviously, now that I know the intent behind them, they are clearer, but that doesn't help any of us improve.



My tone has been one of extreme exasperation, and once again I'm scratching my head wondering if I've somehow shifted to a different language without knowing it. Once again I'm forced to refer back to my previous posts, where I wrote:



> Did I? I don't ever saying the words "I don't agree with you" or any connotation of those words. I am merely pointing out that every person here will have a slightly different interpretation of the purpose of kata because of the huge variety of styles represented on this forum. To me, this shows how important and multifaceted the forms are as they can be used in so many different ways to train. And quite frankly, we could go on like this for another 100 pages and nobody can be proven right or wrong, because the forms are understood and used in a different way by each person.



As you can see, I did question why Kirk thought I was disagreeing with him and reworded my statement with more detail. His only reply to that is to put a link to my original post.....So yes I am being quite defensive because right now because I feel like I'm conversing with a bunch of morons who can't understand the English language. I honestly can't tell if you guys genuinely don't understand what I'm writing or if you are just trolling me. Really the only thing I could have done differently is offer an example to explain my opinion, so here's an example. You have one person who practices Taijiquan and another who practices Hung gar. The Taijiquan practitioner does his forms to develop balance and grace, whereas the Hung Gar practitioner is training to have a strong rooted stance. Both pracitioners have different aims in practicing their forms based on their separate arts.

Even in the same style, different forms are designed to accomplish different things. In the white crane style I practice our first form is designed to a) teach you how to walk forwards and backwards, and b) how to breath and tense your body for an incoming strike. On the other hand our second form, which is our stance form is designed to develop solid stances as well as balance and grace when moving between the stances. 2 forms from the same system but with completely different purposes.

EDIT: You know what else pisses me off? The fact that your replies to me so far have pretty much consisted of "if you had done x,y and z we would have understood you better and we wouldn't be in this situation". Each of the things you have brought up have been things I've done which is why I'm constantly having to go back and copy paste my previous posts. Not once have you even acknowledged the points I've made as a contribution to this thread, except to say that I was disagreeing with Kirk. So here's an idea: instead of criticising me for your own misunderstandings why not take the time to read my posts and respond to the things I say as a part of the discussion, rather than try to lecture me about how to debate.


----------



## Deleted member 34973

Midnight-shadow said:


> Am I somehow typing in some foreign language here? Here's how the discussion between myself and Kirk has gone so far. He made a statement that so far in 9 pages, nobody can agree on what the purpose of kata is. I then replied saying that to me the amount of pages signifies how important kata is, and then followed up that statement by saying that the reason for so much disagreement is because the purpose of kata is different for each person depending on the style they practice and each individual kata they learn. How is that disagreeing with Kirk's statement? If anything I'm agreeing with him and offering a reason as to why. I thought that was pretty clear in my posts but then Kirk asks me to explain myself, which I didn't feel was necessary as I had already explained my point.
> 
> So not only did Kirk not understand my posts and tell me to repeat myself, he also did it in an obnoxious and pretentious manner, that I quite frankly found very insulting. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with someone disagreeing with me and having to defend my opinion, but treating me like one of his students and repeating himself over and over like a parrot really pisses me off. If he disagrees with my opinion that's fine, but at least have the decency and courtesy to respect my opinion and not treat me like a child.


You will get this from a few of the Advisors and so-called mentors. My advice, ignore their responses. If you disagree with these self proclaimed experts. Some will dislike every post or comment that you make.

This is why I ignore their comments and advice.

Dog piling is a favorite thing here at MT.
But it is funny to watch.


----------



## Deleted member 34973

You will now see ikky, dislike everything you post.


----------



## Flying Crane

lklawson said:


> Like cursive writing, introspection isn't taught in school.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


That's unfortunate.  I guess I'll need to teach my son cursive writing when he gets older.


----------



## Steve

They taught my kids cursive in school.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> They taught my kids cursive in school.


I have actually heard that it is on the way out.  Maybe not everywhere.  Yet.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Midnight-shadow said:


> My tone has been one of extreme exasperation, and once again I'm scratching my head wondering if I've somehow shifted to a different language without knowing it. Once again I'm forced to refer back to my previous posts, where I wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, I did question why Kirk thought I was disagreeing with him and reworded my statement with more detail. His only reply to that is to put a link to my original post.....So yes I am being quite defensive because right now because I feel like I'm conversing with a bunch of morons who can't understand the English language. I honestly can't tell if you guys genuinely don't understand what I'm writing or if you are just trolling me. Really the only thing I could have done differently is offer an example to explain my opinion, so here's an example. You have one person who practices Taijiquan and another who practices Hung gar. The Taijiquan practitioner does his forms to develop balance and grace, whereas the Hung Gar practitioner is training to have a strong rooted stance. Both pracitioners have different aims in practicing their forms based on their separate arts.
> 
> Even in the same style, different forms are designed to accomplish different things. In the white crane style I practice our first form is designed to a) teach you how to walk forwards and backwards, and b) how to breath and tense your body for an incoming strike. On the other hand our second form, which is our stance form is designed to develop solid stances as well as balance and grace when moving between the stances. 2 forms from the same system but with completely different purposes.
> 
> EDIT: You know what else pisses me off? The fact that your replies to me so far have pretty much consisted of "if you had done x,y and z we would have understood you better and we wouldn't be in this situation". Each of the things you have brought up have been things I've done which is why I'm constantly having to go back and copy paste my previous posts. Not once have you even acknowledged the points I've made as a contribution to this thread, except to say that I was disagreeing with Kirk. So here's an idea: instead of criticising me for your own misunderstandings why not take the time to read my posts and respond to the things I say as a part of the discussion, rather than try to lecture me about how to debate.


Actually, I've been trying to facilitate some understanding between you and Kirk. Your lashing out and calling everyone who doesn't understand your point "morons" makes me less interested in doing so.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> That's unfortunate.  I guess I'll need to teach my son cursive writing when he gets older.


Please do - there are cognitive benefits to using it to take notes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I have actually heard that it is on the way out.  Maybe not everywhere.  Yet.


I've heard from younger folks (I refuse to call them "kids these days") that many schools have phased it out.


----------



## Steve

Not all, apparently.  Also teach typing skills (although I think I'm aging myself using that term).   Both starting in second grade.    Frankly, my opinion is that the keyboarding is more useful and worthwhile.   If cursive goes away, I'm not getting too worked up about it.   Im 100% sure that any cognitive benefits are not exclusive to cursive writing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Not all, apparently.  Also teach typing skills (although I think I'm aging myself using that term).   Both starting in second grade.    Frankly, my opinion is that the keyboarding is more useful and worthwhile.   If cursive goes away, I'm not getting too worked up about it.   Im 100% sure that any cognitive benefits are not exclusive to cursive writing.


The cognitive benefit I mention is from taking notes by hand. It activates different areas of the brain, and requires a level of synthesis not needed when typing (because we generally type faster). Cursive is generally much faster than print, so someone without cursive will be very limited in their ability to take notes by hand.


----------



## lklawson

Flying Crane said:


> I have actually heard that it is on the way out.  Maybe not everywhere.  Yet.


Cursive Handwriting Will No Longer Be Taught in Schools: Should It?
Why Aren't Kids Being Taught Cursive in School Anymore?

There has been some pushback and a few reversals or delays.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> The cognitive benefit I mention is from taking notes by hand. It activates different areas of the brain, and requires a level of synthesis not needed when typing (because we generally type faster). Cursive is generally much faster than print, so someone without cursive will be very limited in their ability to take notes by hand.


there is something to be said for typing faster, or we wouldn't have had people proficient in shorthand before computers were widely available.

All,I can really say for sure is that my two adult kids learned it and never use it, and my 3rd grader is learning it and I suspect will also never really use it.  Personally, I'm much more worked up when I hear about eliminating recess.   That and school nutrition... at least here it is terrible what they feed the kids in the school provided lunches.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> there is something to be said for typing faster, or we wouldn't have had people proficient in shorthand before computers were widely available.
> 
> All,I can really say for sure is that my two adult kids learned it and never use it, and my 3rd grader is learning it and I suspect will also never really use it.  Personally, I'm much more worked up when I hear about eliminating recess.   That and school nutrition... at least here it is terrible what they feed the kids in the school provided lunches.


I agree on those last two points, Steve. As for kids never using cursive, how did they take notes? Most of my notes were part cursive, part print. If they can print fast enough, the cursive isn't necessary, but most of us are much faster with cursive. And the memory benefits of writing (even using shorthand) are significant. The benefits of having to synthesize because we can't write it all down (meaning not using shorthand) are also significant. There's definitely a need to be able to type fast, especially today. Notes on a computer are for reference. Notes by hand are for memory and reference. I actually teach business people to combine the two, so they have the computer notes for reference, and written note so they don't need the reference notes as often.

Wow, we are WAAAAY off-topic now, Steve!


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> there is something to be said for typing faster, or we wouldn't have had people proficient in shorthand before computers were widely available.
> 
> All,I can really say for sure is that my two adult kids learned it and never use it, and my 3rd grader is learning it and I suspect will also never really use it.  Personally, I'm much more worked up when I hear about eliminating recess.   That and school nutrition... at least here it is terrible what they feed the kids in the school provided lunches.


I use cursive every day, tho admittedly it's often a mix of cursive and print.  

I've seen reports that in education, the act of writing notes in class is more effective in retaining the information, than typing on a laptop in class.  Of course writing could be cursive or printing.


----------



## lklawson

gpseymour said:


> Wow, we are WAAAAY off-topic now, Steve!


What?!?  Thread drift?!?  Here?!?!

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lklawson said:


> What?!?  Thread drift?!?  Here?!?!
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Shocking, I know. And for me to be involved is simply scandalous.


----------



## Steve

Ive never taken notes using the International Phonetic Alphabet, but probably because I've never learned it.   I think more is made of this than the situation warrants,   It's a few different things.  1.  We tend to justify what we do, and dismiss what we don't.  And 2.  We like to wring our hands when our kids do things differently. 

If you find it helpful to take notes by hand, I say more power to you.   My experience is that many managers never use paper for notes and manage very well.  The one benefit paper notes can have is in labor relations.  if a manager keeps extensive jogger notes, keeping them electronically could cause problems.

Edit...  to tie this back to my thoughts in kata, if you do them and find them helpful, more power to you.  But we have ample evidence that kata (and paper notes) are one way to do things, but not better than many other ways to do the same things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Ive never taken notes using the International Phonetic Alphabet, but probably because I've never learned it.   I think more is made of this than the situation warrants,   It's a few different things.  1.  We tend to justify what we do, and dismiss what we don't.  And 2.  We like to wring our hands when our kids do things differently.
> 
> If you find it helpful to take notes by hand, I say more power to you.   My experience is that many managers never use paper for notes and manage very well.  The one benefit paper notes can have is in labor relations.  if a manager keeps extensive jogger notes, keeping them electronically could cause problems.
> 
> Edit...  to tie this back to my thoughts in kata, if you do them and find them helpful, more power to you.  But we have ample evidence that kata (and paper notes) are one way to do things, but not better than many other ways to do the same things.


I'm referring to actual research, not personal preference. I actually often prefer to take notes by typing, but have added handwriting back into my arsenal because of the benefit to memory. I do have some suspicion that part of the difference can be removed by changing how we take notes when typing (being more synthetic, as we tend to do when writing), but typing simply doesn't activate the same areas of the brain, so cannot have all the same benefits. At the same time, written notes (because of the synthesis) are less accurate as records, so typing is preferable for creating notes for future reference.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'm referring to actual research, not personal preference. I actually often prefer to take notes by typing, but have added handwriting back into my arsenal because of the benefit to memory. I do have some suspicion that part of the difference can be removed by changing how we take notes when typing (being more synthetic, as we tend to do when writing), but typing simply doesn't activate the same areas of the brain, so cannot have all the same benefits. At the same time, written notes (because of the synthesis) are less accurate as records, so typing is preferable for creating notes for future reference.


Yeah, but there are many successful people who never take a handwritten note.   This idea of it being better for everyone, full stop, just Doesn't hold water.   I've seen too much firsthand evidence to the contrary, from senior executives to brand new supervisors.

My opinion is that most of the benefits of taking notes are organizing them in a way that they make sense to you later, so that you can quickly identify action items and find information later when you need it.  This is true whether you are doing it on paper or electronically.

Don't get me wrong.   I'm not trying to be contrary, and I'm sure you're right for some people.  Maybe even most.   But I think human beings are too complex for absolute statements.  Can cursive or hand writing notes be good for some people?  Of course.  Does it make a difference for everyone.  I don't buy it, and have seen too many examples where people are far more productive using technology.

I think there are issues with memory but tend to agree more with the research on that which points to the trend now to google everything, and undervalueing actually remembering facts and information.   I think it's more how we've become used to just pulling out our phones and asking Siri to answer every question, regardless of how mundane.  In other words, it's an issue, but what causes it and how to mitigate it is at least open to some debate.


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> I'm referring to actual research, not personal preference. I actually often prefer to take notes by typing, but have added handwriting back into my arsenal because of the benefit to memory. I do have some suspicion that part of the difference can be removed by changing how we take notes when typing (being more synthetic, as we tend to do when writing), but typing simply doesn't activate the same areas of the brain, so cannot have all the same benefits. At the same time, written notes (because of the synthesis) are less accurate as records, so typing is preferable for creating notes for future reference.



I think you're over stating the case. Lots of people benefit from note taking, but it's hardly universal.
I've gone through High School, College, Grad School and countless hours of continuing education with excellent grades, and I take no notes. None. Ever. If I take notes, the words go in my ears and out my hand without ever stopping in my brain.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> I think you're over stating the case. Lots of people benefit from note taking, but it's hardly universal.
> I've gone through High School, College, Grad School and countless hours of continuing education with excellent grades, and I take no notes. None. Ever. If I take notes, the words go in my ears and out my hand without ever stopping in my brain.


Nothing is entirely universal when we are talking about the brain. We can only talk in commonalities. Besides that, your experience shows that you didn't need notes, not that you wouldn't have benefited from them. Perhaps you'd have retained more if you had taken notes, but you didn't need to retain more, so it wouldn't have been a useful addition. I never did homework, and learned quite well, but there's ample evidence that homework - properly used - has a benefit on learning.

EDIT: I re-read your post and my reply, and apparently I forgot part of your post while replying. You may, in fact, be one of those for whom the activity of taking notes takes you away from the topic. It is possible you would have benefited from a different approach to note-taking, but that would be a guess, and it's at least as likely that you wouldn't.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Nothing is entirely universal when we are talking about the brain. We can only talk in commonalities. Besides that, your experience shows that you didn't need notes, not that you wouldn't have benefited from them. Perhaps you'd have retained more if you had taken notes, but you didn't need to retain more, so it wouldn't have been a useful addition. I never did homework, and learned quite well, but there's ample evidence that homework - properly used - has a benefit on learning.
> 
> EDIT: I re-read your post and my reply, and apparently I forgot part of your post while replying. You may, in fact, be one of those for whom the activity of taking notes takes you away from the topic. It is possible you would have benefited from a different approach to note-taking, but that would be a guess, and it's at least as likely that you wouldn't.


Funny that you mention homework, because there are entire learning models which have found that homework, not to be confused with independent work, is of little value for many reasons.   This is the foundation of a reverse classroom, and the variations of it that have been emergeing over the last several years.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Funny that you mention homework, because there are entire learning models which have found that homework, not to be confused with independent work, is of little value for many reasons.   This is the foundation of a reverse classroom, and the variations of it that have been emergeing over the last several years.


That was why I said "properly used". There are a lot of ways homework can be useless, and a few that appear to actually help. I'm always behind on reviewing those studies, since I don't teach in a school system, but it sounds like it may be time for another visit to that topic.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That was why I said "properly used". There are a lot of ways homework can be useless, and a few that appear to actually help. I'm always behind on reviewing those studies, since I don't teach in a school system, but it sounds like it may be time for another visit to that topic.


Used properly is pretty hard to nail down.   It can range anywhere from redefining the term "homework" completely, to advocating it isn't assigned at all, to advocating it be assigned nightly to reinforce the day's instruction in a traditional sense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Used properly is pretty hard to nail down.   It can range anywhere from redefining the term "homework" completely, to advocating it isn't assigned at all, to advocating it be assigned nightly to reinforce the day's instruction in a traditional sense.


Fair enough. When I said "used properly" I should perhaps have said "used effectively".


----------



## Steve

Even that's a term so subjective its not too helpful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Even that's a term so subjective its not too helpful.


Well, we're going to run out of ways to say this, Steve. I think you get my point, though. There are ways to use homework that consistently facilitate learning. There are ways that do not (at least not consistently). The former are effective in that context, while the latter are not.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Well, we're going to run out of ways to say this, Steve. I think you get my point, though. There are ways to use homework that consistently facilitate learning. There are ways that do not (at least not consistently). The former are effective in that context, while the latter are not.


yeah and I get where you're at, but the jury is out on homework by any definition.   Regardless of definition its not as cut and dry as you are suggesting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> yeah and I get where you're at, but the jury is out on homework by any definition.   Regardless of definition its not as cut and dry as you are suggesting.


I'm okay with that level of disagreement. Your previous posts make it clear you're a bit more updated on that research than I am.


----------



## wingchun100

I was a part of this conversation back when it was about katas. At first when you were talking about homework, I thought you meant thinking of katas as homework. Then I went back a page and saw it was about cursive being phased out and so on. I went back a little further to try to find the last time katas were discussed, but I lost interest. LOL

So, in order to be somewhat part of the conversation still, I will say that the only time I use cursive is to sign my name on business letters.


----------



## wingchun100

Or credit/debit card receipts.


----------

