# Kata a Penetrating Look and Insight



## hungfistron (Apr 1, 2009)

_The following quote is from my Instructor Sonny King..._





> Why does Kata exist?
> 
> 
> It is my opinion the Kata, though used for combat, has in its curriculum the betterment of the human being, and the shaping of the human being through repetition of movement and the polishing of ones movement. Therefore, it is the repetition of Kata which removes unnecessary movement, produces good metabolic health, and keeps the body in optimum condition.
> ...



Article.


----------



## exile (Apr 1, 2009)

I suppose you can think of it that way, if you like. 

My own feeling is, kata are nothing more or less than convenient summaries of tactical response sets to different attack initiations&#8212;a grab, a shove, an out-of-the-blue haymaker that you have the awareness to see coming. There are four or five subsegments of each kata that are stand-alone technique guides. Each kata has several different relevant bunkai/applications, so the amount of information is quite large.  

But unless you pressure test the techniques encoded in the kata with non-compliant training partners simulating street attacks in increasingly realistic ways, your knowledge of what to do will not translate into your ability to do it. It's the realistic-situation training which is what drives the responses into your muscle memory. Doing kata repeatedly, without a partner and without variations in the mode of attack trains you to use the kata knowledge for SD no better than kicking the air repeatedly trains you to use that kick in a life-or-death confrontation to take out an attacker. The kata contain the information&#8212;they're like the book on swimming technique. But if you don't actually get in the water and _practice swimmming_, you'll never be able to translate that knowledge into action.

If you want to make kata _more_ than that, no harm done, I suppose...


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 1, 2009)

I have to say something here about the squirrels, sorry but I'm serious. The American squirrel and it's behaviour doesn't match the European squirrel at all. European squirrels are red and smaller, the American squirrels are grey and murderous little sods. They are wiping out the population of red squirrels here since they were introduced. They are actually on the list of the 100 worst invasive species.they are vermin and we are actually allowed to shoot them on sight.
http://conservation-issues.co.uk/Articles%20Pages/Grey_Squirrel_Article_07-07.htm

I prefer and share Exiles view of kata. If you wish to see only the airy fairy side and like the thing about the squirrels turn your eyes away from the truth I'm sure that fine for you.


----------



## hungfistron (Apr 1, 2009)

> My own feeling is, kata are nothing more or less than convenient summaries of tactical response sets to different attack initiationsa grab, a shove, an out-of-the-blue haymaker that you have the awareness to see coming. There are four or five subsegments of each kata that are stand-alone technique guides. Each kata has several different relevant bunkai/applications, so the amount of information is quite large.






> It is my opinion the Kata, though used for combat, has in its curriculum the betterment of the human being, and the shaping of the human being through repetition of movement and the polishing of ones movement. Therefore, it is the repetition of Kata which removes unnecessary movement, produces good metabolic health, and keeps the body in optimum condition.




Thats the message my Instructor is trying to convey, kata is used primary for the polishing of the mind, body, and spirit. This is a positive result of years of practice whether with another person or without.  This is its focus! Contrary to what many may believe, its application is for positive development of the practitioner, whether it can be used effectively in a combat situation is debatable.  

It is actually used to develop the practitioner in the mindset of _avoiding_  fighting.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 1, 2009)

hungfistron said:


> Thats the message my Instructor is trying to convey, kata is used primary for the polishing of the mind, body, and spirit. This is a positive result of years of practice whether with another person or without. This is its focus! Contrary to what many may believe, its application is for positive development of the practitioner, whether it can be used effectively in a combat situation is debatable.
> 
> *It is actually used to develop the practitioner in the mindset of avoiding fighting.[/*quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## hungfistron (Apr 1, 2009)

> I prefer and share Exiles view of kata. If you wish to see only the airy fairy side and like the thing about the squirrels turn your eyes away from the truth I'm sure that fine for you.



Heh, I appreciate your candor about the squirrels... the differences were very interesting that you stated.   

"Airy fairy side" that you refered to is very disrespectful to those that don't share in your opinion about this subject or about the "truth " as you put it. If I choose to look at something differently than you do, there is no need to label negatively my outlook.  Lets just say that say that we have a difference in viewpoints and leave it at that.

Thanks for taking the time to post!


----------



## exile (Apr 1, 2009)

hungfistron said:


> It is actually used to develop the practitioner in the mindset of _avoiding_  fighting.



Let me ask you something, h. 

When the creator of modern linear Karate, Bushi Matsumura, was working in the service of the King of Okinawa as security director, chief of law enforcement and so on, he was sent to deal with a guy who was stealing food and other important items from people in one of the districts around Shuri. The perp turned out to be a shipwrecked Chinese sailor named Chinto, living 'rough', as the Brits say, in the area, who&#8212;astonishingly&#8212;fought Matsumura to a standstill. Matsumura was so impressed by Chinto's fighting abilities that he made a deal with him: teach me your combat system, all the good stuff, and I'll see that you get food and a lift home. He recorded the core of Chinto's techniques in the _Chinto_ kata practiced by karateka to this day. 

My question is, why do think Matsumura made up a whole kata recording the best of his formidable former antagonist's techniques? _To give himself another way to avoid fighting???_


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 1, 2009)

Your view of airy fairy must be different to mine. All it means is that you are taking the more ethereal view to kata than the rest of us. I said 'I think and I beliive' I didn't quote it as the truth so  don't get a strop on with me.


----------



## Steve (Apr 1, 2009)

hungfistron said:


> _The following quote is from my Instructor Sonny King..._
> 
> It is easier to understand Kata if you were to look at all of the Kata that are being performed in nature.
> 
> ...


With respect to your instructor, there is a concrete difference between fighting and kata, just as there is a very real difference between flapping my arms like a hummingbird and being able to fly.  The metaphor doesn't work.  Nature doesn't do kata.  A frog doesn't practice the art of jumping; rather, it just jumps.  A cheetah doesn't imagine fake prey to stalk.  It simply stalks its prey.  





> All things in nature have this in common. Creating itself through repetitive movement. It is the movement which identifies each thing in nature.


Doing something over and over again can be valuable, but this argument lends itself better toward the repetition of the act, rather than the repitition of a derivative of that act.  In other words, driving a manual transmission is the result of hours logged behind the wheel of the car.  Over years, coordinating one's feet and hands to shift the car quickly and smoothly is as automatic as anything else.  Pretending to drive can only take you so far.

The rest seems to be an argument in favor of natural selection.  

Honestly, there is value in repetitive drills.  There is value in solo drills, and there is value in compliant drills with a partner.  The problem is when this is where the training stops.  To try and use the analogy that your instructor uses, if the baby bird were to stay in the nest forever, flapping its wings, it would never fly.  It would only be pretending.


----------



## Steve (Apr 1, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I have to say something here about the squirrels, sorry but I'm serious. The American squirrel and it's behaviour doesn't match the European squirrel at all. European squirrels are red and smaller, the American squirrels are grey and murderous little sods. They are wiping out the population of red squirrels here since they were introduced. They are actually on the list of the 100 worst invasive species.they are vermin and we are actually allowed to shoot them on sight.
> http://conservation-issues.co.uk/Articles Pages/Grey_Squirrel_Article_07-07.htm
> 
> I prefer and share Exiles view of kata. If you wish to see only the airy fairy side and like the thing about the squirrels turn your eyes away from the truth I'm sure that fine for you.


American squirrels ROCK!  We're totally kicking your European squirrels' butts!  And they're not just going after the little European squirrels... http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/01/23/nutkins-revenge-squirrel-attacks-on-the-rise/


----------



## hungfistron (Apr 1, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Your view of airy fairy must be different to mine. All it means is that you are taking the more ethereal view to kata than the rest of us. I said 'I think and I beliive' I didn't quote it as the truth so  don't get a strop on with me.



I would never get personal with anyone in these forums, if I offended you with my opinion, or the way that I took your words im very sorry. I look forward to more discussions with you, and I will always stay objective.




> My question is, why do think Matsumura made up a whole kata recording the best of his formidable former antagonist's techniques? _To give himself another way to avoid fighting???_




Matsumura was a practitioner of Goju ryu, Karate and he was consumed with fighting his entire life.  He was no doubt one of the best fighters in his time, but the _fighting itself_ is what he lived and breathed.  Some would say that is the reason that he grew upset when Funakoshi was chosen by the Japanese to represent Karate instead on himself.  He thought that Funakoshi was a poor example of what a master of Karate, or a fighter should be, and he challenged him numerous times to fight. Funakoshi never accepted. 

Of course Matsumura would say that kata would be used for fighting and fighting only. But this proves only what his view was of kata was, this view is not the only view of kata. My instructors view of kata is simply closer to what Funakoshi's (The Father of Modern day Karatedo) view of kata was.

For you to use him as an example proves only a another point of view, which is exactly what I was trying to convey with my instructors post. 
Thank you for your opinion on the matter, and for your kind words.

Sorry if I didn't post quickly enough, im currently at work


----------



## exile (Apr 1, 2009)

hungfistron said:


> Matsumura was a practitioner of Goju ryu, Karate and he was consumed with fighting his entire life.



Say what??? As far as we know, there were no separate styles of karate back in the mid-19th century! But if any individual originated Goju Ryu, it would be Higashionna Kanryo, and it wasn't a Shuri development, but a Naha development. I have yet to see one Karate lineage that seriously proposes Matsumura as a transmission link in the propagation for Gojo Ryu, and no wonder: the guy was born at the end of the 18th century, and developed linear karate _way_ before any fragmentation into separate styles.



hungfistron said:


> He was no doubt one of the best fighters in his time, but the _fighting itself_ is what he lived and breathed.  Some would say that is the reason that he grew upset when Funakoshi was chosen by the Japanese to represent Karate instead on himself.  He thought that Funakoshi was a poor example of what a master of Karate, or a fighter should be, and he challenged him numerous times to fight. Funakoshi never accepted.



Are you kidding me? What are you talking about?? Matsumura _died_ in 1889/90, around thirty years before Funakoshi left for Japan! 



hungfistron said:


> Of course Matsumura would say that kata would be used for fighting and fighting only. But this proves only what his view was of kata was, this view is not the only view of kata. My instructors view of kata is simply closer to what Funakoshi's (The Father of Modern day Karatedo) view of kata was.



You mean the Funakoshi who said (in _Tote Jutsu_ (Canada: Masters Publication, 1994), 291-307) that '_War is a method which God gave humans to organize the world._&#8221; (291) The peaceful Funakoshi who sold the Japanese military on the idea that Karate could build great esprit de corps amongst the young conscripts who were going to be cannon fodder in the coming war that he enthusiastically supported? _That_ Funakoshi?



hungfistron said:


> For you to use him as an example proves only a another point of view, which is exactly what I was trying to convey with my instructors post.



Chotoku Kyan, Choki Motobu and plenty of others of the great karate pioneers had exactly the same view of kata and combat. Funakoshi was primarily a teacher, not an originator; his gift was to make karate not a combat art but a martial calisthenics to serve the purpose of Japanese militarism, which was why he was supported by the Japanese Ministries of War and of Education. But I'm still reeling from your comment that Matsumura, dead a generation before anyone thought about teaching karate in Japan, was _jealous_  of his student Itosu's student for being 'selected' to go to Japan...

...wait... this is an April Fools joke, right? Whew!.... well, you had me fooled there for a minute, that's for sure! :wink1:


----------



## hungfistron (Apr 1, 2009)

> Doing something over and over again can be valuable, but this argument lends itself better toward the repetition of the act, rather than the repitition of a derivative of that act. In other words, driving a manual transmission is the result of hours logged behind the wheel of the car. Over years, coordinating one's feet and hands to shift the car quickly and smoothly is as automatic as anything else. Pretending to drive can only take you so far.



Thats exactly his point. The goal is for your kata to become your nature, so that you never think your way through it. It is performed without thinking, without a 2nd thought. The animal moves instinctively, though kata a man over many years of practice can do the same. Far from pertending to be or do anything...


----------



## elder999 (Apr 1, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I have to say something here about the squirrels, sorry but I'm serious. The American squirrel and it's behaviour doesn't match the European squirrel at all. European squirrels are red and smaller, the American squirrels are grey and murderous little sods. They are wiping out the population of red squirrels here since they were introduced. They are actually on the list of the 100 worst invasive species.they are vermin and we are actually allowed to shoot them on sight.
> http://conservation-issues.co.uk/Articles Pages/Grey_Squirrel_Article_07-07.htm
> .


 

If you're shooting them,I have several really good recipes......


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 1, 2009)

I may be a throwback, but I just plain don't understand the concept of linking self-betterment to one's martial arts.  Surely there are better outlets than a fighting system meant to dealt out crippling, if not killing, blows to one's attackers?  It's a popular idea I understand...  When did Zen Buddhism creep its way in karate?  Another 'recent' Japanese add-on?


----------



## Steve (Apr 1, 2009)

hungfistron said:


> Thats exactly his point. The goal is for your kata to become your nature, so that you never think your way through it. It is performed without thinking, without a 2nd thought. The animal moves instinctively, though kata a man over many years of practice can do the same. Far from pertending to be or do anything...


His point is backwards.  Have you ever read any David Hume?  Your instructor would love him.  

Anyway, that aside, I think that your instructor has it a little backwards.  It's more than just the action.  It's the action in context.  For example, walking is a specific motion.  Walking in zero gravity could look exactly the same as walking on Earth.  However, the motion of walking in zero gravity, whether done once or a million times, will in no way prepare a person to walk on the Earth.  The motion is ingrained, but out of context, the lesson is incomplete. 

It's interesting that you use the nature metaphor.  I have a 7 month old daughter (my third) and I'm enjoying watching her develop.  She's rolling over now, can sit up on her own and is very precocious.  She doesn't learn anything in theory.  Nothing is academic or learned in a vacuum.  Every single thing she does is with specific intent.  She learns to grasp by grasping... not practicing the motion of grasping, but actually by trying over and over again to control her arms and hands.  Trial and error is how she is learning.

Or all of that said in a much simpler way, there is no better way to learn something than to actually do it.  Everything else is supplementary.   Now, it's very easy to justify "kata" by widening the definition to the point where any repitition of motion is included.  I disagree with that.  Kata is a simulation of action.  Even within the Martial Arts model, there is Kata, there is Sparring and there is Fighting.  The distinction is the degree of resistance.  Kata is well defined and does not include active resistance.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 1, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> American squirrels ROCK! We're totally kicking your European squirrels' butts! And they're not just going after the little European squirrels... http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/01/23/nutkins-revenge-squirrel-attacks-on-the-rise/


That's what i'm talking about.


----------



## Steve (Apr 1, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> i may be a throwback, but i just plain don't understand the concept of linking self-betterment to one's martial arts. Surely there are better outlets than a fighting system meant to dealt out crippling, if not killing, blows to one's attackers? It's a popular idea i understand... When did zen buddhism creep its way in karate? Another 'recent' japanese add-on?


qft!


----------



## Stac3y (Apr 1, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> American squirrels ROCK! We're totally kicking your European squirrels' butts! And they're not just going after the little European squirrels... http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/01/23/nutkins-revenge-squirrel-attacks-on-the-rise/


 
:roflmao:

If this article were dated today, I'd think it was a great April Fool's joke.


----------



## jim777 (Apr 1, 2009)

dancingalone said:


> I may be a throwback, but I just plain don't understand the concept of linking self-betterment to one's martial arts.  Surely there are better outlets than a fighting system meant to dealt out crippling, if not killing, blows to one's attackers?  It's a popular idea I understand...  When did Zen Buddhism creep its way in karate?  Another 'recent' Japanese add-on?



1976   That's when Kaicho Tadashi Nakamura started Seido Juku (afdter leaving Kyokushin), which indeed has Zen classes as part of the 4th kyu and above belt requirements.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 1, 2009)

jim777 said:


> 1976  That's when Kaicho Tadashi Nakamura started Seido Juku (afdter leaving Kyokushin), which indeed has Zen classes as part of the 4th kyu and above belt requirements.


 
Actually, the linking of Zen with karate dates back to Funakoshi, and is even evinced in the nationalistic alteration of the characters for the name from meaning _china hand_ to _*empty* hand_.

And it was definitely a part of the culture of Kyokushin when I was a kid, and before 1976......Shoshin Nagmine (Matsubyashi ryu) also was a zen adept, and incorporated zen training into karate as early as 1966.

FWIW, I think kata is a catalogue of movements and their relationships.


----------



## boobishi (Apr 1, 2009)

People will argue the value of kata till they are blue in the face. I don't. Most often Kata is maligned because of peoples assumptions about it's lack of efficacy in combat. I would encourage them to consider Maslows hierarchy of needs. The base of Maslow's pyramid is security and safety. Without that being established in a persons life if is very difficult to progress through the natural stages of personal development. Still it is at the bottom. At the top of the pyramid humans aspire to meaning and purpose. It would be foolish and a waste of energy to expend more energy and time than was necessary to meet a need and even more wasteful to continue on focus on a practice that meets a need that is already met.

I think it is safe to say that the compelling reasons to continue the practice of kata and bunkai supersede gaining security based on kata's efficacy. As an art form kata rescues the beauty of combat from the chaos of brutality and war. The value of a system and an art form is multileveled. The practice of an art or system based on combat allow for both the recording, recognition and recovery from the experience of violence that happens to us and also the violence and conflict that originates in us.

Kata can be much more than people generally assume. It is a puzzle. It is a Practice in paradox. It is a forge to strengthen us. It is a mirror that reflects who we really are. It is the the practice of fighting which is the most "Alive". Alive because as Matt Thornton would say it is about his art "It is a powerful form of Yoga". Though Matt would call it a dead practice because of the assumption that there is no resiting opponate. I refer to it as "Alive" because you are facing off against the most deceptive and subtle of opponents, your self. It is a complex physical and mental task that provides challenges for us on many levels as part of a lifelong learning process. It grounds us within a particular martial history and a community of people dedicated to the well being of each others minds, bodies and spirits. It is in fact, &#8220;the way one behaves&#8221;.

So, if a person is choosing a method of self defense it is essential that the person understand which "self" they are intending to defend. I don't encourage people to practice kata if it holds no interest for them. I also never encourage people to marry or have kids. If it is a compelling idea to them, have at it.

There are people that believe that the practice of kata produces magical results. Thats kind of like thinking the woman you are marrying will always be young and sweet and the kids you pop out will all get scholarships to harvard. Sure...best of luck with that.

In my opinion kata is a beautiful thing and I have great respect for the people that created them and those that attempt to master them. One the other hand if someone's main purpose is  personal protection there may be faster and better options. I see kata as part of a balanced diet.

Being a champion fighter(though I have been) isn't a compelling illusion for me. Defending myself from assault? (which I have done) Hmmm... Not so much. Being a vigorous healthly old fart, surrounded by people having a good time, working toward mutual goals does. Now I certainly don't have to do kata to find those things but for today, thats where I find those things, and myself.


----------



## exile (Apr 1, 2009)

boobishi said:


> I think it is safe to say that the compelling reasons to continue the practice of kata and bunkai supersede gaining security based on kata's efficacy. As an art form kata rescues the beauty of combat from the chaos of brutality and war.



The techs that kata contain have plenty of violence in them, b. A very straightforward oyo for the first few moves of Taikyoku Shodan uses hikite and an arm pin to force a grabbing attacker's head down, smash a horizontal elbow into the side of his face, continue with the elbow past that impact and then spear with the elbow point downward back into his face, and followup with  the fist on the spearing arm coming down hard&#8212;the so-called 'down block'&#8212;in a hammer fist to the carotid sinus. That hand becomes the gripping hand through muchimi, and a forward transfer of weight and an accompanying punch to the throat with the other fist&#8212;or a palm-heel strike into the face&#8212;will pretty much bring the attacker to the ground. And after that initial arm pin, all the moves are forced. The only beauty there is the beauty of efficiency. I train this and other bunkai from the hyungs and kata I study, with partners who aren't making things easy at all. The contact is constrained, but if it weren't, the result would be every bit as unpleasant as it sounds. And I teach these kinds of techs to my classes. That's the information that is in the kata. There's no prettifying them, b.&#8212;they are instructions on how to destroy an attacker's will to fight by hurting him more than he can take. 



boobishi said:


> Though Matt would call it a dead practice because of the assumption that there is no resiting opponate. I refer to it as "Alive" because you are facing off against the most deceptive and subtle of opponents, your self.



I have to say, I don't see anything at all in the kata about _oneself_ as the opponent. The kata are telling me where to attack weak points on my _attacker's_ body, in a way which keeps him out of the game&#8212;always a tempo down, as the chess players say. My own belief, which I've seen some evidence for in Motobu's and other karateka's writings, is that the intention never was endless solo rehearsal of kata&#8212;a _partner for training the applications was always assumed_. People think performing kata is practicing kata; I disagree. Really practicing kata is doing the bunkai, then working the oyo with noncompliant training partners who resist&#8212;hard. It's that way in other MAs; for some reason, people have confused the _performance_ of kata with the martial _practice_ of kata, but they're quite different. Once you've learned the kata and have begun to unravel their destructive content, you need to practice the techs you've discovered with a noncompliant partner so that you can implement that destructiveness. Iain Abernethy, Peyton Quinn and Geoff Thompson have written about this indispensible aspect of kata training in detail&#8212;IA has a great article here that goes into some detail&#8212;and no curriculum which omits it can claim to be getting anything remotely like full SD value from the kata students learn in it.

Kata are manuals for damaging people who are attacking you physically. If you want to make more of them than that, fine&#8212;but that's what they were originally created to be. As Motobu himself has indicated in his writings, in the early days, the kata weren't _part_ of a martial art, they _were_ the art. Rohai, Empi and the rest were considered _styles_ unto themselves. They were what Matsumura, Itosu, Kyan and Motobu _did_ to the people they fought with. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me.


----------



## dnovice (Apr 1, 2009)

Wassup guys, 

I'm going to weigh in on this. From a practical point of view Kata solely a way of transfering and maintaining techniques/moves through time. Now, how these techniques affects a person attitude towards others is based on each individual, and their thoughts on life. 

Take me for instance, the mere fact that I can fight, or lol i feel i can fight if you will, makes me avoid fights if i can. I do not see the need to pick on someone not versed in fighting. 

This could be in contrast to someone that brawls all the time. He would use the techniques in the kata to further his purpose. 

One can't say either one view is right or wrong. Its just a personal interpretation. 

cheers.


----------



## exile (Apr 1, 2009)

dnovice said:


> Wassup guys,
> 
> I'm going to weigh in on this. From a practical point of view Kata solely a way of transfering and maintaining techniques/moves through time. Now, how these techniques affects a person attitude towards others is based on each individual, and their thoughts on life.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, dn, but none of this makes any sense to me.

If kata contain, as they were created to contain, effective combat information, then that would help someone be able to fight&#8212;which in your case would make you avoid fights if possible, as you say. And if someone is  a brawler, then it would give them new tools to use in brawling. So _how_ you use the information in kata is something that has nothing to do with the kata themselves, right? In which case, it's really irrelevant to the question of what the kata themselves are all about. The kata, on your own story, are strictly neutral about what you do with the information they contain. So where's the relevance in any of this to the _kata?_

And note that everything you've said is applicable to arts like Krav Maga or Hapkido, which don't use kata to encode that combat knowledge. Some people will use the confidence their fighting skill (which their knowledge of their art  gives them) to avoid fights, and some&#8212;a small minority in either the kata-based or non-kata-based arts&#8212;will use that knowledge in fights they seek out happily. That's true, kata or no kata. So again, what does any of what you've said have to do with kata themselves?


----------



## Steve (Apr 1, 2009)

boobishi said:


> People will argue the value of kata till they are blue in the face. I don't. Most often Kata is maligned because of peoples assumptions about it's lack of efficacy in combat.


Boobishi, I completely understand the points you're making.  I want to make it clear that I haven't argued against the value of kata.  I am specifically addressing the OP and his assertion (or rather, his instructor's assertion) that kata is equivalent to the way animals learn in nature.  I disagree with that.

You mention Matt Thornton and aliveness.  I want to clarify that kata and alive training are not mutually exclusive.  Aliveness revolves around the three I's of Introduction, Isolation and Integration.  Alongside these stages are such things as shadow boxing, solo and partner drills and assorted other training techniques.  All, including Kata, are legitimate ways to develop rhythm.  I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.

But, and this is again back to the OP, there is no value in Kata (or shadow boxing or compliant drills) without actual practice under pressure and in context.  I've written a few times on my blog about integrity, and for an activity to have integrity, it must teach a real skill.  Whether it's learning a musical instrument, a sport or a martial art, the activity must at least deliver some core skill.  There is much to be gained from learning to play a musical instrument... a lot of personal fulfillment can be gained for a lifetime from being able to pick up a stringed instrument and make music.  But... the fulfillment doesn't come about if you don't ever ACTUALLY learn to play.  If you just strum random notes and claim that the cacophony is harmonious, the activity doesn't have integrity.   

I'll never forget reading Moby Dick in high school.  The teacher said, "What is Moby Dick?"  While all of us in the class offered many possible symbolic meanings for the whale, the one thing we all missed was that, in order for the story to work, Moby Dick was at the very least, a whale.


----------



## dnovice (Apr 1, 2009)

exile said:


> I'm sorry, dn, but none of this makes any sense to me.


reread what i've written. it has no hidden meaning.



exile said:


> If kata contain, as they were created to contain, effective combat information, then that would help someone be able to fightwhich in your case would make you avoid fights if possible, as you say.


 
ok. if you reread what i wrote above. "This could be in contrast to someone that brawls all the time. He would use the techniques in the kata to further his purpose."  did i say something different from what you wrote????



exile said:


> And if someone is a brawler, then it would give them new tools to use in brawling.


 
ok???



exile said:


> So _how_ you use the information in kata is something that has nothing to do with the kata themselves, right?


 
huuuuuh? did i say anything different. I'm tired of requoting myself. 



exile said:


> In which case, it's really irrelevant to the question of what the kata themselves are all about.


 
transfering techniques is irrelevant?? are you serious??? 



exile said:


> The kata, on your own story, are strictly neutral about what you do with the information they contain. So where's the relevance in any of this to the _kata?_


_ somehow i don't think transfering techniques is of no relevance. _Ok. Here. some of you guys say kata is for avoiding fights and some are saying that kata is vicious. What i'm saying, which wasn't hidden in context, is that it depends on the person at hand so _that discussion is irrelevant!_



exile said:


> And note that everything you've said is applicable to arts like Krav Maga or Hapkido, which don't use kata to encode that combat knowledge.


 
Ok. Did i or anyone say that there is only one way of transfering techniques. History can be transfered through books or from person to person (krav maga) mouth to mouth. Two ways...



exile said:


> Some people will use the confidence their fighting skill (which their knowledge of their art gives them) to avoid fights, and somea small minority in either the kata-based or non-kata-based artswill use that knowledge in fights they seek out happily. That's true, kata or no kata. So again, what does any of what you've said have to do with kata themselves?


 That the arguments you are making need not be arguments.;-)


----------



## boobishi (Apr 2, 2009)

Exile,
 At no time did I say that the practice of kata is not about violence and it's effective application. I only said that I do not argue with people that dislike it because they doubt it efficacy.  Trying to convince someone of the depth of practicality in them is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It can't be done and it just irritates the pig. 

I also do not remember giving any description of how I train but it appears that you have assumed what my approach might be. I'm familiar with the Gentelmen that you mentioned. Iain in particular. We correspond regularly. 
You mentioned...

"Once you've learned the kata and have begun to unravel their destructive content, you need to practice the techs you've discovered with a noncompliant partner so that you can implement that destructiveness".

If you interested in what I think about the practical application of karate kata I would encourage you to (if you havent already) download Iain's free online magazine "Jissen". You will find my articles in each issue (with the exception of the first).

You also said...

"Kata are manuals for damaging people who are attacking you physically. If you want to make more of them than that, finebut that's what they were originally created to be. As Motobu himself has indicated in his writings, in the early days, the kata weren't _part_ of a martial art, they _were_ the art. Rohai, Empi and the rest were considered _styles_ unto themselves. They were what Matsumura, Itosu, Kyan and Motobu _did_ to the people they fought with. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me. 

I notice that you italicised the word "did". If that is true which I believe it is the kata stand not simply as manuals of distruction but a historical record of the development as warrior, fighters and creative problem solvers. They are autobiographies. As with many great books a person can read a passage at 15, 30, 50 and 70. In each period hopefully their understanding and perception will be enriched and broadened by their life experience.

If we go back a few years to when Frenchmen lived in caves we could imagine them out on a hunt. Why? Because after they "did" hunted fought
they came back to the cave. After they finish their meal they look at the mess on the cave floor. The bones, the blood the animal fat soaking into the red dirt and the charcoal in the fire. The two cave men see the same items. One falls asleep by the fire. The other gets an idea. He grabs a piece of charred wood and draws on the wall. Then he mixes clay, water, fat and some blood. He scoops up the mixture and puts it in his mouth. He then picks up a hollow bone raises it to his mouth and blows the pigment onto the wall leaving a record of his experience. It is not only a manual of mammoth destruction.

About myself as the opponant in kata. Speaking only for myself, in any endeavor that one wants to be excellent in I find that at many stages along the way I will be at odds with myself. will I give up? Will I persevere? Will I push through the pain and bordom when no one else is there. So even without anyone there I experience conflict, which is one of the roots of violence.

As I said before I don't have to do kata or even karate to experience that. I could find that in a knitting circle at Border's.


----------



## exile (Apr 2, 2009)

b., I don't really have _anything_ to dissent from in what you say here. Just a few thoughts...



boobishi said:


> Exile,
> At no time did I say that the practice of kata is not about violence and it's effective application. I only said that I do not argue with people that dislike it because they doubt it efficacy.  Trying to convince someone of the depth of practicality in them is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It can't be done and it just irritates the pig.



Oh yes, I've had the same experience, on MT and elsewhere. It's pretty frustrating. But I do think it's worth arguing the point with people who have that view&#8212;not to convince them, but to persuade others, who may be more open-minded about the possibility that the kata contain several layers of applications, not just the most simple and obvious.



boobishi said:


> I also do not remember giving any description of how I train but it appears that you have assumed what my approach might be.



No&#8212;I really wasn't assuming _anything _about your own training methods. My point was that the 'aliveness' of the training isn't a function of the kata so much as the protocol one follows in implementing the knowledge contained in the kata. My comments were directed at the general idea, which seemed to be embodied in Mr. Thornton's views as you quoted them, that the practice of kata reduces to the performance of kata. It's a very common view, unfortunately.




boobishi said:


> I'm familiar with the Gentelmen that you mentioned. Iain in particular. We correspond regularly.
> You mentioned...
> 
> "Once you've learned the kata and have begun to unravel their destructive content, you need to practice the techs you've discovered with a noncompliant partner so that you can implement that destructiveness".
> ...



I've got all the issues... which are your articles, b? Are they the cartoon graphic illustrations of applications from the kata? Those are outstanding. They're not just amusing, but make the body dynamics of the particular sequences extremely clear&#8212;more so than all but the very best photos (which are usually the Achilles' heel of books or articles on practical bunkai...)



boobishi said:


> You also said...
> 
> "Kata are manuals for damaging people who are attacking you physically. If you want to make more of them than that, fine&#8212;but that's what they were originally created to be. As Motobu himself has indicated in his writings, in the early days, the kata weren't _part_ of a martial art, they _were_ the art. Rohai, Empi and the rest were considered _styles_ unto themselves. They were what Matsumura, Itosu, Kyan and Motobu _did_ to the people they fought with. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
> 
> I notice that you italicised the word "did". If that is true which I believe it is the kata stand not simply as manuals of distruction but a historical record of the development as warrior, fighters and creative problem solvers. They are autobiographies. As with many great books a person can read a passage at 15, 30, 50 and 70. In each period hopefully their understanding and perception will be enriched and broadened by their life experience.



Well, this is true, certainly. But in a sense, the applications are the core raison d'être for the forms. They might, as in your cave-painting comparison, also have a biographical and æsthetic dimension as well&#8212;but I think that their quality, like that of a good textbook, depends primarily on how effective the techniques they encode are. 





boobishi said:


> About myself as the opponant in kata. Speaking only for myself, in any endeavor that one wants to be excellent in I find that at many stages along the way I will be at odds with myself. will I give up? Will I persevere? Will I push through the pain and bordom when no one else is there. So even without anyone there I experience conflict, which is one of the roots of violence.
> 
> As I said before *I don't have to do kata or even karate to experience that*. I could find that in a knitting circle at Border's.



Yes, exactly&#8212;but if conflict about one's own level of dedication and achievement is a universal accompaniment of any serious effort, then what there is about _kata_, as vs. anything else, that gives them their particular character, has to be something different, something specific to _them_, and that involves their relevance against an external enemy. I hope what I'm saying is clear&#8212;it's just another instance of the idea that you can't explain the particular on the basis of what is true in general. _Any_ activity can be a test of oneself, but kata have the special characteristic of being about an attacker.

In any case, I very much appreciate your post!


----------



## exile (Apr 2, 2009)

dnovice said:


> reread what i've written. it has no hidden meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, dn, I really don't think you're getting what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that kata are for avoiding fights, or that they're for getting into fights. They are guides to your best moves if you find yourself _in_ a fight. But that kind of guidance isn't exclusive to kata in particular, it's true of the content of any martial art, kata or no kata. What you're saying is something about MAs&#8212;they they can be used to give you the confidence to avoid fights, or to get into them&#8212;or, probably most realistically, to walk away from them with minimal damage if a fight finds you and you can't avoid it. 

But the particular question that the discussion has been pursuing is what _kata_ specifically (as vs. MAs in general) give you. So far as I can see, they do not give any particular attitude, or point of view on violence, or anything to do with peace, or virtue or whatever. They give you information that can help make you more competent in a SD situation. What I didn't understand about your post, and still don't, is how any of the things you said have anything to do with kata in particular,  as a specific means of conveying strategic and tactical ideas about fighting. What you were saying seems to have much more to do with knowledge of MAs than with the nature of kata as a specific means of (or format for) encoding that knowledge. That's all, really.


----------



## dnovice (Apr 2, 2009)

Ok exile. here. I juxtapose your initial argument to Hungfistron. You first.




exile said:


> My own feeling is, kata are nothing more or less than convenient summaries of tactical response sets to different attack initiationsa grab, a shove, an out-of-the-blue haymaker that you have the awareness to see coming. There are four or five subsegments of each kata that are stand-alone technique guides. Each kata has several different relevant bunkai/applications, so the amount of information is quite large.





exile said:


>


 
true. primary benefit.



exile said:


> But unless you pressure test the techniques encoded in the kata with non-compliant training partners simulating street attacks in increasingly realistic ways, your knowledge of what to do will not translate into your ability to do it. It's the realistic-situation training which is what drives the responses into your muscle memory. Doing kata repeatedly, without a partner and without variations in the mode of attack trains you to use the kata knowledge for SD no better than kicking the air repeatedly trains you to use that kick in a life-or-death confrontation to take out an attacker. The kata contain the informationthey're like the book on swimming technique. But if you don't actually get in the water and _practice swimmming_, you'll never be able to translate that knowledge into action.


 

true. ok so the primary benefit needs to be cultivated. (hungfistron never said otherwise.)

[/quote] If you want to make kata _more_ than that, no harm done, I suppose...[/quote]
whattt? There can be side benefits.

Now for Hungfistron.




hungfistron said:


> _The following quote is from my Instructor Sonny King..._





hungfistron said:


> Why does Kata exist?
> 
> 
> It is my opinion the Kata, though used for combat, has in its curriculum the betterment of the human being, and the shaping of the human being through repetition of movement and the polishing of ones movement.




comparing kata to regular routines in life. ok.




hungfistron said:


> Therefore, it is the repetition of Kata which removes unnecessary movement, produces good metabolic health, and keeps the body in optimum condition.


True, except for the metabolic health part. Exercise is good for good metabolic health. Not all repetitions are exercise.





hungfistron said:


> It is easier to understand Kata if you were to look at all of the Kata that are being performed in nature.


 
 ok.





hungfistron said:


> The hawk which uses the Kata of gliding when flying, as opposed to the hummingbird which uses the rapid flapping of the wings to fly.


 
ok.







hungfistron said:


> Each organism produces itself through the subjugation of its parts through repetition and practice. As it evolves, it leaves this information of success, and its failures in its genetic makeup. Therefore, the next species in line can benefit from this knowledge, refine its workings, and move on.





hungfistron said:


> (without reading a single book - I might add)




not sure how accurate this is scientifically, but you are saying Kata=way to transfer what is efficient at one point in time.




hungfistron said:


> Take it a step further, and cross the oceans, and in a park, or in a lowland somewhere your same notes for the North American squirrel's behavior would match almost identically to its European relative.


 
ermmm. don't know if its exactly the same. different things work in different environments. Still, your point is not negated, ie. the transfering of effective techniques, and the benefits of kata/routines.






hungfistron said:


> Human beings were much closer to social healing through ritual during the agricultural periods of our world's history. The industrialization period drew us even further away from mental, physical & spiritual unification, of self and society. The informational period has all but removed our ways of enhancing the quality of life from the scene.


 
a bit lofty here, man. still thats what you decide you want to get from it. 





hungfistron said:


> Regardless of the Kata involved, if it is mastered, it will shine with eloquence. Each and every Kata has this as its gift to you.


 true.




hungfistron said:


> In a lifetime, one who has managed two Kata or five Kata will have a wonderfully developed metabolism, as well as, good posture, and an ability to bear the weight correctly.


 
lol. if thats your only source of exercise. yes.





hungfistron said:


> As a side note, since Kata is a muscle memory skill, it holds up well in warding off attacks from aggressors. If you practice it faithfully, like walking and running etc., it will protect you.


a little realistic practice should help. Although, it contains the tools you need. You just need to work on finding actual application of those tools.


 Ok exile, you are saying that kata is solely for helping in dire situations. "They give you information that can help make you more competent in a SD situation."

This is a primary benefit of kata. 

Hungfistron is also saying what kata is for, however, he is talking about its secondary benefits, which may or may not have been the makers intentions. 

What i'm doing is pointing out that your view the primary benefit of kata, doesn't preclude the hungfistrons views the secondary benefits. (which he may or may not consider to be HIS primary views. ) In short its subjective.

In other words you are both right. No one is wrong. And in my opinion just arguing for the sake of arguing.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 2, 2009)

_


dnovice said:



Ok exile. here. I juxtapose your initial argument to Hungfistron. You first.

Click to expand...

_


dnovice said:


> _true. primary benefit._
> 
> 
> _true. ok so the primary benefit needs to be cultivated. (hungfistron never said otherwise.)_


_ If you want to make kata more than that, no harm done, I suppose...[/quote]_
_whattt? There can be side benefits._

_Now for Hungfistron._



_comparing kata to regular routines in life. ok._


_True, except for the metabolic health part. Exercise is good for good metabolic health. Not all repetitions are exercise._




_ok._




_ok._






_not sure how accurate this is scientifically, but you are saying Kata=way to transfer what is efficient at one point in time._



_ermmm. don't know if its exactly the same. different things work in different environments. Still, your point is not negated, ie. the transfering of effective techniques, and the benefits of kata/routines._




_a bit lofty here, man. still thats what you decide you want to get from it. _



_true._


_lol. if thats your only source of exercise. yes._



_a little realistic practice should help. Although, it contains the tools you need. You just need to work on finding actual application of those tools._


_Ok exile, you are saying that kata is solely for helping in dire situations. "They give you information that can help make you more competent in a SD situation."_

_This is a primary benefit of kata. _

_Hungfistron is also saying what kata is for, however, he is talking about its secondary benefits, which may or may not have been the makers intentions. _

_What i'm doing is pointing out that your view the primary benefit of kata, doesn't preclude the hungfistrons views the secondary benefits. (which he may or may not consider to be HIS primary views. ) In short its subjective._

_In other words you are both right. No one is wrong. And in my opinion just arguing for the sake of arguing. [/quote]_



Did you think we couldn't understand any of the arguments in this discussion then?


----------



## exile (Apr 2, 2009)

dnovice said:


> In other words you are both right. No one is wrong. And in my opinion just arguing for the sake of arguing.



_Any_ discussion in which people disagree about specifics can be tarred with that brush, dn&#8212;it's an easy accusation to make. But what I'm after is a crucial difference between the primary and secondary benefits: without the primary benefits, you don't have a fighting combat-effective art. The MAs weren't created to be a kind of violent-looking dance performance. They have existed in a civilian context for a very long time simply because people are vulnerable to violence in societies in which most people&#8212;i.e., non-richies&#8212; don't get much protection from those who rule. They're not a luxury. And they aren't about spirituality, even though you can _project_ spirituality onto damaging and killing technique sets if you want. But you can do that with skiing or ping pong, for that matter. Or any activity. 

The reason this is important is that the actual reading of kata, their use as guides to combat, has been progressively forgotten, and people are left wondering what this stuff is for. As Abernethy and other bunkai-revival pioneers have noted, there is a tendency to mystify the kata in place of understanding them. As IA puts it in his landmark book _Bunkai-Jutsu: the Practical Application of Karate Kata,_

_...when a movement is attributed a physical or spiritual significance, as opposed to a combative one, it is a sure sign that the person espousing the significance has no idea what the movement is actually for! But rather than be honest and admit that they do not understand the movement's purpose, they prefer to bluff their way around it.​_
(p.32) Abernethy's point is not just the combat significance of kata movements, but the fact that physical conditioning, spiritual 'meaning' or supposed benefits, training in balance and so on are used to disguise the loss of knowledge of what you're calling the _primary_ benefit. The more we tell ourselves these kinds of comforting fables about the kata, the more we enable, as they say, this kind of technical amnesia. To my way of thinking, any account of kata (especially a self-described 'penetrating, insight[ful]' account) that doesn't make the combat-technical aspect of kata primary helps promote this loss of knowledge.

So it's not arguing for arguing's sake in the least, dn. It's about resisting the confusion of some hazy, possible secondary roles that kata _might_ play with the main reason for their existence. And the OP was a perfect, textbook example of that confusion.


----------



## dnovice (Apr 2, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Did you think we couldn't understand any of the arguments in this discussion then?


 
Don't allocate notions or words to me. I'm simply stating my opinion on the matter.


----------



## dnovice (Apr 2, 2009)

exile said:


> _Any_ discussion in which people disagree about specifics can be *tarred* with that brush, dnit's an easy accusation to make.


no tarring here.



exile said:


> But what I'm after is a crucial difference between the primary and secondary benefits: without the primary benefits, you don't have a fighting combat-effective art.


Ok if thats your point cool. However, that point can't be derived from 



exile said:


> _My own feeling is, kata *are nothing more or less* than convenient summaries of tactical response sets to different attack initiationsa grab, a shove, an out-of-the-blue haymaker that you have the awareness to see coming. quote]_
> 
> In your own words you are saying there are no other benefits to kata, and that Hungfistron is wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## exile (Apr 2, 2009)

dnovice said:


> But to call the secondary benefits a fable is erroneous and condescending. Why can't you have both, primary and secondary ie.???



Well, you _can_&#8212;but the primary benefit depends on skill at reading a kata, which is much harder and less accessible than the secondaries. I'm not saying that things like balance training and so on are _inherently_ fables in connection with kata&#8212;only that they are when they're used as substitutes for knowledge of the combat content. That's the crucial bit, from my point of view. My concern is that it's very easy to think that the tail is all there is to the dog, when it comes to kata. Everything I've posted comes from that angle.


----------



## Steve (Apr 2, 2009)

Okay.  I'm lost.


----------



## boobishi (Apr 2, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> Boobishi, I completely understand the points you're making.  I want to make it clear that I haven't argued against the value of kata.  I am specifically addressing the OP and his assertion (or rather, his instructor's assertion) that kata is equivalent to the way animals learn in nature.  I disagree with that.
> .



Steve I hear you. I disagree with that assertion as well. I'm familiar with the I method and also Thornton's perspective and positions. The only real disagreement I have with them Is allowing him to determine the definition of "Alive" and as some might assume that the merit of the activity to rest soley  on aquiring skill in fighting. 

If a person were to practice Kata for a reason other than aquiring fighting skill than the measure of wheither they gained those skills would not neccesarily apply. Say for example her reason for practicing was increased flexiblity, better balance, improved cardio vascular health, and a desire to explore another cultures arts and mindsets? As she aquires "skill" in the performance of kata she may reach those particular goals (which she has determined to be primary) she can measure wheither or not the practice aids her in attaining what she sought.

So I beleive that it is the individual that needs to determine  the goal select a behavior or practice to acheive those goals and then implement it succsessfully.

I appologise  for veiring away from the original posters points but i do have one other thought.  When it come to kata training for self defense or "Fighting" I have had students with very modest experience encounter assaults. Both women and men. They had practiced sparring but in each of their encounters used techniques from kata trained without a resisting opponants. Each of them was able to overcome their assailents without injury to themselves. One mom even pinned her assailent in a walmart parking lot until police arrived.

So when Matt say something is of "no" value for fighting it doesen't ring true in my experience. I would not mind if he said "little" value or "limited" value but "no" value seems only to serve as perjorative from him.

I admire Matts approach and I do not doubt for a minute the quality of his work and have people that I would consider friends in the SBG. I personally find  some of his language a tad derogatory in regard to traditional arts.

A gain I'm not putting the practice of Kata or Karate as the penultimate in efficacy. I'm only saying that if left to the individual to determine their goals and what skills they wish to aquire that depending on those goal kata may be an effective (but not exclusive) way of reaching them.

With the guitar analogy in mind ones persons goal may be to play one song so he can impress a girl and get laid. Another person's goal may be to perform solo at Carnegie Hall (Like one of my friends who did.) each can measure there progress toward those goals even though they have very different aspirations.

The only real problem is when the first guy pretends or comes to "believe" that he is ready for Carnegie Hall just because he got the girl. The other possibility is that the concert guitarist may look at what the first guy does and say "This guys sucks, hes got no skills". To this the first guy might respond "What do I care? I just got laid! I'm a FREAKIN" PROCREATOR!!"
The second guys has tremendous but still can't hook up.

Sorry once again. My thoughts are prone to wander.


----------



## Steve (Apr 2, 2009)

boobishi said:


> Steve I hear you. I disagree with that assertion as well. I'm familiar with the I method and also Thornton's perspective and positions. The only real disagreement I have with them Is allowing him to determine the definition of "Alive" and as some might assume that the merit of the activity to rest soley on aquiring skill in fighting.


Hey, I know you know. I don't know whether anyone else knew... or knew that you knew.  You know?  (I've had a little too much coffee today!)





> If a person were to practice Kata for a reason other than aquiring fighting skill than the measure of wheither they gained those skills would not neccesarily apply. Say for example her reason for practicing was increased flexiblity, better balance, improved cardio vascular health, and a desire to explore another cultures arts and mindsets? As she aquires "skill" in the performance of kata she may reach those particular goals (which she has determined to be primary) she can measure wheither or not the practice aids her in attaining what she sought.
> 
> So I beleive that it is the individual that needs to determine the goal select a behavior or practice to acheive those goals and then implement it succsessfully.


This is precisely what I was getting at before.  If a person picks up a guitar and practices diligently for a year with no intention of learning to play any music, many of the other benefits of learning music are lost as well, because the activity has no integrity... the foundation has been undermined.  In a martial art, you must _at least_ learn martial skill, or any other benefit, particularly any spiritual or mental benefits, will be illusory.  

Honestly, I have no problem with people who enjoy tertiary benefits from training in Martial Arts.  My goals aren't at all related to self defense.  But be honest about what you're learning and aren't learning.  If a woman does Tae Bo, no problem.  If a woman thinks that she's gaining anything more than a good workout from it, there's a problem.  





> I appologise for veiring away from the original posters points but i do have one other thought. When it come to kata training for self defense or "Fighting" I have had students with very modest experience encounter assaults. Both women and men. They had practiced sparring but in each of their encounters used techniques from kata trained without a resisting opponants. Each of them was able to overcome their assailents without injury to themselves. One mom even pinned her assailent in a walmart parking lot until police arrived.
> 
> So when Matt say something is of "no" value for fighting it doesen't ring true in my experience. I would not mind if he said "little" value or "limited" value but "no" value seems only to serve as perjorative from him.
> 
> I admire Matts approach and I do not doubt for a minute the quality of his work and have people that I would consider friends in the SBG. I personally find some of his language a tad derogatory in regard to traditional arts.


Matt Thornton is making a point.  I'm not as hardline as all that.  In my mind, Kata is right there with shadow boxing and compliant drills, both of which are valuable.  





> A gain I'm not putting the practice of Kata or Karate as the penultimate in efficacy. I'm only saying that if left to the individual to determine their goals and what skills they wish to aquire that depending on those goal kata may be an effective (but not exclusive) way of reaching them.
> 
> With the guitar analogy in mind ones persons goal may be to play one song so he can impress a girl and get laid. Another person's goal may be to perform solo at Carnegie Hall (Like one of my friends who did.) each can measure there progress toward those goals even though they have very different aspirations.
> 
> ...


Just Kata is more akin to the kids in the River City band.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 2, 2009)

dnovice said:


> Don't allocate notions or words to me. I'm simply stating my opinion on the matter.


 

_Allocate_? I'm asking you a question mate. Your posts seem to come across as you thinking we are stupid.
I don't think anyone here has dismissed thoughts that kata has *secondary *benefits, we know they have. I think you have been missing the point by being only focused on what *your* point is.


----------



## dnovice (Apr 2, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> _Allocate_? I'm asking you a question mate. *Your posts seem to come across as you thinking we are stupid*.
> I don't think anyone here has dismissed thoughts that kata has *secondary *benefits, we know they have. I think you have been missing the point by being only focused on what *your* point is.


 
lol. Apparently you are allocating. If i'm coming across in that manner, I appologize man, not my intention. 

The problem was in peoples first posts, words like "sole" (or synonyms) were used to describe the benefits, meaning that there is only ONE way. 

Anyways, I have the utmost respect for everyone on here. If i didn't I wouldn't even take the time to objectively critique, give my opinion, or ask questions of you guys. 

Truce Tez3??


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 2, 2009)

dnovice said:


> lol. Apparently you are allocating. If i'm coming across in that manner, I appologize man, not my intention.
> 
> The problem was in peoples first posts, words like "sole" (or synonyms) were used to describe the benefits, meaning that there is only ONE way.
> 
> ...


----------



## exile (Apr 2, 2009)

Tez3 said:
			
		

> The main purpose of kata we believe ( and I always say believe or think, I never claim to have the truth) is for combat and that's the way many of us use and practice kata. I did a seminar with Iain Abernethy a little while ago ( Exile, I love saying that lol can't wait till I can do another) and all the techniques in kata were for combat, it was an amazing experience.



I'm going to be in the UK from August through the end of the year, Tez, and I'm hoping to get together with you, Mark _ and_ Iain A for one of his legendary seminars... and some of that great Adnam's Broadside, of course!


----------



## boobishi (Apr 2, 2009)

stevebjj said:


> This is precisely what I was getting at before.  If a person picks up a guitar and practices diligently for a year with no intention of learning to play any music, many of the other benefits of learning music are lost as well, because the activity has no integrity... the foundation has been undermined.  In a martial art, you must _at least_ learn martial skill, or any other benefit, particularly any spiritual or mental benefits, will be illusory.



My point was not that the guitarist had no interest in learning to play music, it was that he knew exactly what he wanted "To be able to play one song, impress a girl; and get laid". If he acquired the stated goal or benefit that he first sought, his choice of discipline can be determined to have "integrity". The fact that he did not understand there were potentially greater lessons to be learned and more satisfying pleasures to be had only shows that he was either not interested in those other benefits or believed they even existed. That does not show a lack of integrity. It only shows either ignorence or perhaps a low level of ambition.



> In a martial art, you must _at least_ learn martial skill, or any other benefit, particularly any spiritual or mental benefits, will be illusory.


You would first have to determine if the "Guitarist" believed those benefits existed and that he sought them out via the discipline and art of music. On top of that the assumptions rests on the idea that acquiring the spiritual and mental benefit  (if they exist and are sought) are arrived at by the acquistion of funtional skill. That would seem to imply that in other arenas of life spiritual and mental benefit that may be available are arrived at through attaining any skill and not just fighting.

If that were true we could expect to conclude that the people who are most  skilled in there persuits (what ever they may be) would also be the most enlighted and mentally the most well balanced. Maybe? Maybe not.

If one assumes that their method can produce results and other methods can't, therein lies the possibility for a attachment to that method of discipline to develope. Most philosophies and belief systems generally do not see attachment to method as progress. That is unless the persons life was ineffective because of randomness and chaos. Attachment to a method can be beneficial in helping establish order. But that generally leads to rigidity and arrogance. (Oh and BTW I'm not saying that of you.)

So then that would beg the question "what would different stages of human spirituality or human development look like and how can they be fostered if indeed they can?". But that would be a different topic.


----------



## Steve (Apr 2, 2009)

boobishi said:


> My point was not that the guitarist had no interest in learning to play music, it was that he knew exactly what he wanted "To be able to play one song, impress a girl; and get laid". If he acquired the stated goal or benefit that he first sought, his choice of discipline can be determined to have "integrity". The fact that he did not understand there were potentially greater lessons to be learned and more satisfying pleasures to be had only shows that he was either not interested in those other benefits or believed they even existed. That does not show a lack of integrity. It only shows either ignorence or perhaps a low level of ambition.


And the point is well made.  I think that, for me, the crucial distinction between what you're saying and what I'm saying is perspective.  While a dude could join a martial arts school specifically to earn a kata in order to impress a girl, this is unrelated to whether the activity has integrity.   What I mean is, from an instructional perspective, the individual's specific intent does not affect the inherent integrity of the activity.  In fact, I'd argue that if he's training in a martial art with no regard to development of martial skill, then no matter what else he gains, the activity is hollow. 


> You would first have to determine if the "Guitarist" believed those benefits existed and that he sought them out via the discipline and art of music. On top of that the assumptions rests on the idea that acquiring the spiritual and mental benefit (if they exist and are sought) are arrived at by the acquistion of funtional skill. That would seem to imply that in other arenas of life spiritual and mental benefit that may be available are arrived at through attaining any skill and not just fighting.
> 
> If that were true we could expect to conclude that the people who are most skilled in there persuits (what ever they may be) would also be the most enlighted and mentally the most well balanced. Maybe? Maybe not.


I dont follow.  The point is that, in most things, there are some core objectives to be gained.  In Drivers Education, the end goal is to be able to operate a car.  In band, the end result is to be able to play a musical instrument.  If 20 people take a drivers education class and none of them can drive, theres a problem.  If 20 kids take band and none of them can play a musical instrument, theres a problem.  

This is independent of the specific goals of the students.  Whether good or bad, anything else that results from the training is irrelevant to the quality of the training.   


> If one assumes that their method can produce results and other methods can't, therein lies the possibility for a attachment to that method of discipline to develope. Most philosophies and belief systems generally do not see attachment to method as progress. That is unless the persons life was ineffective because of randomness and chaos. Attachment to a method can be beneficial in helping establish order. But that generally leads to rigidity and arrogance. (Oh and BTW I'm not saying that of you.)


And this exact argument is the core of arguments against kata.

For what its worth, attachment to a method that is proven to work is not a bad thing, provided that the method continues to work.  This can even be true if other, more efficient methods are developed.  Its only when the methods are shown to be inneffectual, but people cling to them for perceived secondary benefits that the process breaks down.


----------



## boobishi (Apr 2, 2009)

Steve,
Thank you for the articulate and well reasoned post. I'm off to class now but I will return. Have a good evening. Thank for primeing the cognitive pump.


----------



## Steve (Apr 2, 2009)

boobishi said:


> Steve,
> Thank you for the articulate and well reasoned post. I'm off to class now but I will return. Have a good evening. Thank for primeing the cognitive pump.


 Just keep writing me into your comics.  Superpowers wouldn't be a bad idea, either.


----------



## hungfistron (Apr 3, 2009)

> Are you kidding me? What are you talking about?? Matsumura _died_ in 1889/90, around thirty years before Funakoshi left for Japan!



 Kenwa Mabuni is who i ment   Don't ask me how I thought thats who you ment, because these instructors are totally different, and are in totally different time periods.  Thats what I get for trying to discuss these types of things while working... must be getting old. 

I don't have a working cpu at home at the moment, so in between actually doing work at work, its fun to read or post on this site.  Thats why it took me so long to post this  I appreciate all the people that posted their thoughts on what my Instructors words were about kata.  I wanted to share his feelings on the matter, and get feedback from all of you.  


Of course this is his and my viewpoint of kata, but I wanted to make clear that I was making the argument for _what we get out of kata and how it effects us spiritually_.  That  _doesn't_ mean that I don't respect or don't agree with anyone elses view of kata, because I do.  I just wanted to make clear why my instructor and I feel what we do, and thats all. I am also a Daoist, so that would go against my beliefs to embrace what others feel to be correct, and respect it.


That being said I look forward to posting more information, and getting feedback from anyone who would like to provide it. Remember just as dnovice stated, its purely subjective.

_(bows)_


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 3, 2009)

You know if a bloke thinks a tune on a guitar will impress a girl to enough to go to bed with him, thats a bit sad rofl! Now if he learned to make her laugh.......!

Exile I look forward to your arrival! I will be there even if I have to pull a sickie lol!


----------



## jim777 (Apr 3, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Actually, the linking of Zen with karate dates back to Funakoshi, and is even evinced in the nationalistic alteration of the characters for the name from meaning _china hand_ to _*empty* hand_.
> 
> And it was definitely a part of the culture of Kyokushin when I was a kid, and before 1976......Shoshin Nagmine (Matsubyashi ryu) also was a zen adept, and incorporated zen training into karate as early as 1966.
> 
> FWIW, I think kata is a catalogue of movements and their relationships.



I was really being facetious, as it is obvious in Funakoshi's writings that he was a man of Zen. But I'm fairly positive that whether or not it was part of the Kyokushin culture when you studied it, it was not and is not actually a test requirement of Kyokushin. Kaicho Nakamura was the head instructor at the Tokyo Kyokushinkai Honbu and the founder of the North American Honbu, and he was the one who found Kyokushin specifically lacking in that department. It is a test requirement in Seido, as part of the written section of the promotion test. But again, I was really only teasing with the '76 reference.



Tez3 said:


> You know if a bloke thinks a tune on a guitar will impress a girl to enough to go to bed with him, thats a bit sad rofl! Now if he learned to make her laugh.......!



You know, the guitar bit did work quite a lot back in the 80's, just sayin' :lol:

jim


----------



## Steve (Apr 3, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> You know if a bloke thinks a tune on a guitar will impress a girl to enough to go to bed with him, thats a bit sad rofl! Now if he learned to make her laugh.......!
> 
> Exile I look forward to your arrival! I will be there even if I have to pull a sickie lol!


Haha! As long as you make her laugh BEFORE you get to bed!


----------



## dnovice (Apr 3, 2009)

jim777 said:


> You know, the guitar bit did work quite a lot back in the 80's, just sayin' :lol:
> 
> jim


 
still works now.


----------



## exile (Apr 3, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> You know if a bloke thinks a tune on a guitar will impress a girl to enough to go to bed with him, thats a bit sad rofl! Now if he learned to make her laugh.......!
> 
> Exile I look forward to your arrival! I will be there even if I have to pull a sickie lol!



Great, Tezthe first three rounds are on me, eh? And you can hold me _to_ that. :cheers:


----------



## Uchinanchu (Apr 7, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> hungfistron said:
> 
> 
> > Thats the message my Instructor is trying to convey, kata is used primary for the polishing of the mind, body, and spirit. This is a positive result of years of practice whether with another person or without. This is its focus! Contrary to what many may believe, its application is for positive development of the practitioner, whether it can be used effectively in a combat situation is debatable.
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 7, 2009)

Uchinanchu said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > With respect to Abernethy, that is _his opinion/take_ on its meaning. If he is correct in his assumption, then why does practically every kata in every style of karate start with a block?
> ...


----------



## astrobiologist (Apr 7, 2009)

hungfistron said:


> A clear example of this is seen in nature on a more deeper inquiry. If for an example you watched a snake hop by you on a path, you may consider that that snake is in difficulty of some sort. The same can be said about a frog that slithers by. Something is wrong with it.
> Each organism produces itself through the subjugation of its parts through repetition and practice. As it evolves, it leaves this information of success, and its failures in its genetic makeup. Therefore, the next species in line can benefit from this knowledge, refine its workings, and move on.
> (without reading a single book - I might add)


 
No offense to your Master, but he is wrong.  As a scientist I must step in here.  The above statements ARE NOT how biological evolution functions.  Your Master's thoughts are similar to those of the scientific community in the early 1800's, before Charles Darwin wrote on his theory of natural selection as a means of evolution.

Your Master is being thoughtful and I respect that, but the idea of organisms controlling their own evolution through inheritance of acquired characteristics has long been disproven.  The theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, also called Lamarckism (after Jean-Baptiste Lamarck 1744-1829), was one of the many ideas thhat Charles Darwin commented on in his book, On the Origin of Species. 

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck once noted in his ideas that a giraffe's neck may have gotten longer because he was stretching out throughout his life so that he could reach the leaves in trees.  Lamarck thought that the giraffe could pass this on to its offspring and thus each generation could have longer necks.  We now know that the primary driving force in the neck length of giraffe's is most likely due to sexual selection; the male giraffe's use their necks as weapons to fight for mates, the giraffe's with the longest, biggest necks win and thus reproduce, and so they pass their genes on.

If I punched the Makiwara over and again for years and acquired large knuckles, that in no way means that my children will be born with large knuckles, because the large knuckles that I acquired were not from my genes, but from my hard work through the years.  Acquired characters cannot be passed on.

Like I said, not hating on your Master, but maybe he should have read a few books first.


----------



## exile (Apr 7, 2009)

Uchinanchu said:


> With respect to Abernethy, that is _his opinion/take_ on its meaning.  If he is correct in his assumption, then why does practically every kata in every style of karate start with a block?



Yes, it is his opinion, but it's his opinion _for a reason_. I think I asked this question earlier, but no one bit: _why do you think that that opening move is a block?_ You learned it as a block. But the _name_ of the movement in Japanese, _gedan uke_, does not mean block&#8212;_uke_ refers to 'receiving', and 'reception' is probably a far more accurate translation. So why do we use the label 'block' for that 'reception'? Because modern karate labels go back to Anko Itosu and his program, in the first decade of the twentieth century, to get the Okinawan school authorities to accept karate as part of the physical education component in the elementary school curriculum. Part of his success in doing so was removing the harsh 'adult' techs from the syllabus, but as he himself tells us in his 'Precepts', the adult's karate should not follow the children's version. As Abernethy observes,

_It is important to remember that many of the names given to kata movements have no link with the application of that movement. Terms such as 'rising block' or 'outer block' stem from the watered-down karate taught to Okinawan school children, and not the highly potent fighting art taught to adults... The traditional practice had been to learn the kata and when it was of a sufficient standard (and the student had gained the master's trust) the applications would be taught. However, it now became the norm to teach the kata for their own sake and the applications might never be taught (as is sadly still the case in the majority of karate schools today​_
(_Bunkai-Jutsu_, p. 11). I mentioned earlier that Higaki in his book on the bunkai for the Pinan kata shows a photo of Funakoshi doing the double block that begins Pinan Shodan&#8212;except that the 'outward middle block' is being applied as a no-nonsense _throat/jaw_ strike! And if you break a 'down block' into its basic parts, you see right off the bat that it consists of a rising elbow strike, followed by a spearing strike by the same elbow and a downward hammer fist. To answer your question, what if the attack is always on an attacker's trapped grabbing or striking limb, and the elbow is a counterattack on their pinned arm, or head? Rather more effective, by far, than the passive block that depends completely on your attacker cooperating with you and standing there after the 'block' to allow you to deliver your lunge punch or whatever!

The children's version of karate that Itosu taught was not intended for combat. Itosu stressed the point&#8212;but he also warned adults that the karate _they_ were doing was intended for use, and he didn't mean sparring of the contemporary sport variety. The last thing he would have wanted would be for us adult practitioners to follow a schoolchild's curriculum and use of what for him and his contemporaries was a severely practical combat art.


----------



## Uchinanchu (Apr 7, 2009)

exile said:


> Yes, it is his opinion, but it's his opinion _for a reason_. I think I asked this question earlier, but no one bit: _why do you think that that opening move is a block?_ You learned it as a block. But the _name_ of the movement in Japanese, _gedan uke_, does not mean block¡ª_uke_ refers to 'receiving', and 'reception' is probably a far more accurate translation. So why do we use the label 'block' for that 'reception'? Because modern karate labels go back to Anko Itosu and his program, in the first decade of the twentieth century, to get the Okinawan school authorities to accept karate as part of the physical education component in the elementary school curriculum. Part of his success in doing so was removing the harsh 'adult' techs from the syllabus, but as he himself tells us in his 'Precepts', the adult's karate should not follow the children's version. As Abernethy observes,
> 
> _
> It is important to remember that many of the names given to kata movements have no link with the application of that movement. Terms such as 'rising block' or 'outer block' stem from the watered-down karate taught to Okinawan school children, and not the highly potent fighting art taught to adults... The traditional practice had been to learn the kata and when it was of a sufficient standard (and the student had gained the master's trust) the applications would be taught. However, it now became the norm to teach the kata for their own sake and the applications might never be taught (as is sadly still the case in the majority of karate schools today​_
> ...


 ÊÜ¤±¡¡(to receive/accept) I would think would make it clear as to the mindset of the technique in question.  True, any given technique can be used/applied in an offensive or defensive way, depending on what the situation calls for.  But, to receive/accept means that one is on the receiving end of an attack.  In other words, there is no initial attack on the karateka's part.  To block, then, implies meeting the agressors attack, thus 'blocking' (receiving) their attack and countering it, with the appropriate application of said technique.  This is a basic precept taught in most traditional dojo here in Okinawa.
Again, an individual technique can be whatever one can make of it, but we are talking about the overall basic principals that make up kata, and karate in general.


----------



## exile (Apr 7, 2009)

Uchinanchu said:


> ÊÜ¤±¡¡(to receive/accept) I would think would make it clear as to the mindset of the technique in question.  True, any given technique can be used/applied in an offensive or defensive way, depending on what the situation calls for.  But, to receive/accept means that one is on the receiving end of an attack.  In other words, there is no initial attack on the karateka's part.  *To block, then, implies meeting the agressors attack, thus 'blocking' (receiving) their attack and countering it, with the appropriate application of said technique. * This is a basic precept taught in most traditional dojo here in Okinawa.
> Again, an individual technique can be whatever one can make of it, but we are talking about the overall basic principals that make up kata, and karate in general.



Sure, there's no problem at all with looking at it that way; it's consistent with the idea that _you're_ not the initiator of the fight. The problem with notions such as 'block', 'stance' and so on only arises when they're taken in a strictly literal sense. 

For me the great revelation about these kinds of applications, when I first encountered all the exciting and innovative work of the neo-jutsu movement, as I think of it, was the way in which the techniques proposed (usually after a good deal of pressure testing and dojo 'experimentation') actually work in three dimensions. I'm bad at spatial relations; I have a hard time visualizing movements, rotations and so on in three dimensions. A lot of the kinds of applications that people like Abernethy, Burgar, Anslow and O'Neil have proposed look really economical and ingenious to me&#8212;like finding the shortest forced mate in a chess game&#8212;but it's uphill work for me to do the same kind of thing, because I lose track of how things are working in physical space. So I really appreciate the imaginative thinking that lets people look at certain movements in space and see in them these very effective combinations of controlling moves, strikes and throws.


----------



## K-man (Apr 7, 2009)

Uchinanchu said:


> ÊÜ¤±¡¡(to receive/accept) I would think would make it clear as to the mindset of the technique in question. True, any given technique can be used/applied in an offensive or defensive way, depending on what the situation calls for. But, to receive/accept means that one is on the receiving end of an attack. In other words, there is no initial attack on the karateka's part. *To block, then, implies meeting the agressors attack, thus 'blocking'* (receiving) their attack and countering it, with the appropriate application of said technique. This is a basic precept taught in most traditional dojo here in Okinawa.
> Again, an individual technique can be whatever one can make of it, but we are talking about the overall basic principals that make up kata, and karate in general.





> With respect to Abernethy, that is _his opinion/take_ on its meaning. If he is correct in his assumption, then why does practically every kata in every style of karate start with a block?


I'm with exile. I don't believe the kata contain blocks at all, even though that's what is taught at lower levels. In goju kata, the first kata after taikyoku kata is Saifa .. starts with a pull to the side, not a 'block'. Seinchin ... step out shiko dachi and drop hands, not a block. San Seru starts like Sanchin, no way would you use that opening in a pub fight to block anything. Same applies to Seisan, and Shisochin and Suparinpei. Seipai begins with a downward deflection or teisho strike, Kururunfa starts with tsabaki to evade. In the taikyoku kata that seem to start with a block, the first arm movement is a deflection, followed by the second movement which is the strike. As exile stated, uke is to receive not to block. 
Two questions. Firstly, why would you want to 'stop' an attack with a block? As soon as one attack is stopped the next attack commences. 
Secondly, why would the masters, passing on all the information required to produce a deadly fighting system, waste their time filling the kata with basic 'blocks'? Many of them only practised two or three katas. Maybe we need to look to the applications a little more.
I could argue that there are NO blocks in karate. :asian:


----------



## Uchinanchu (Apr 8, 2009)

exile said:


> Sure, there's no problem at all with looking at it that way; it's consistent with the idea that _you're_ not the initiator of the fight. The problem with notions such as 'block', 'stance' and so on only arises when they're taken in a strictly literal sense.
> 
> For me the great revelation about these kinds of applications, when I first encountered all the exciting and innovative work of the neo-jutsu movement, as I think of it, was the way in which the techniques proposed (usually after a good deal of pressure testing and dojo 'experimentation') actually work in three dimensions. I'm bad at spatial relations; I have a hard time visualizing movements, rotations and so on in three dimensions. A lot of the kinds of applications that people like Abernethy, Burgar, Anslow and O'Neil have proposed look really economical and ingenious to melike finding the shortest forced mate in a chess gamebut it's uphill work for me to do the same kind of thing, because I lose track of how things are working in physical space. So I really appreciate the imaginative thinking that lets people look at certain movements in space and see in them these very effective combinations of controlling moves, strikes and throws.


 I wholeheartedly agree with you on techniques being taken too literally at times.  Maybe a better description for 'block' would be 'defensive counter', since what we refer to in english as being blocks, usually have several offensive and defensive applications (some of which are applied simultaniously).
A main point that I overlooked in mentioning earlier was that Funakoshi's supposed coined frase that "There is no first strike in karate", though fitting from a philosophical point in that karate is taught to be used for defense/protection, also has a practical point as well in concerns to application.  Karate, especially the southern chinese influenced styles such as Goju and Uechi Ryu, focuses alot on minimizing damage to oneself while delivering maximum power to ones attacker.  Now, what must be kept in mind is that when delivering a blow/strike/punch/kick of any sort, you are opening yourself up to your attacker's strikes/counters.  The further a limb is extended out, the more structurally weak (and vulnerable) it becomes.  It also leaves holes in your defense that can be exploited by your attacker.  Now, to me, this is basic karate 101, that was taught to me from day one (in Goju Ryu), but I have also studied other styles in the past that never addressed this at all.
 I also know exactly how you feel in regards to that 'uphill' battle.  I myself can be quite a bit of a rock at times when it comes to figuring things out.  Luckily for me, I have a great teacher that is more than happy to explain things to me...ouch.  Only one way to really learn it and understand it, is to be on the receiving end of it.  Again, ouch.
It's also always nice to learn others take/perspective on applications, so even though I might come off as a bit harsh and/or abbrupt at times, please try not to take offense...my character is a work in progress.
Yoroshiku


----------



## boobishi (Apr 8, 2009)




----------



## astrobiologist (Apr 9, 2009)

Ha ha ha!  Boobishi's cartoons are excellent!


----------



## boobishi (Apr 12, 2009)

Feel free to stop by www.oldmansboobishi.com there are a bunch there.


----------



## astrobiologist (Apr 12, 2009)

boobishi said:


> Feel free to stop by www.oldmansboobishi.com there are a bunch there.



Very cool!


----------



## SenseiRuss (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm with you and Exile on this. 

Abernethy's take on kata and bunkai is amazing. As I said to one of my students, seeing Iain's views and techniques on this subject, it was like waking up from a 30-year coma  my shallow "understanding" of kata! All of Iain's takes on kata/bunkai aren't the final word, of course (have you checked out Vince Morris?  pretty interesting stuff, too), but Abernethy's teachings can only improve and make much more effective one's foundations. As a matter of fact, even when not practicing with a partner for the bunkai, I now find that my solo kata has more power, intent and focus.

There are times when I do a tai-chi-ish walk-through of my kata with meditative music, so I can also see the "secondary" benefits, for sure. But the primary understanding of kata , IMHO, have to be the bunkai as per Abernethy, Morris, et al.

Osu,
Russell


----------



## K-man (Feb 6, 2013)

Another old thread but interesting to re-read.   I miss *Exile*. I've just purchased another lot of Iain's DVDs. Even though we practise different styles, the principles he promotes transcend the style.  :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2013)

For those Americans close to Chicago Iain will be there in April this year. very worth going to!

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/events/seminar-chicago-usa


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Feb 7, 2013)

SenseiRuss said:


> I'm with you and Exile on this.
> 
> Abernethy's take on kata and bunkai is amazing. As I said to one of my students, seeing Iain's views and techniques on this subject, it was like waking up from a 30-year coma  my shallow "understanding" of kata! All of Iain's takes on kata/bunkai aren't the final word, of course (have you checked out Vince Morris?  pretty interesting stuff, too), but Abernethy's teachings can only improve and make much more effective one's foundations. As a matter of fact, even when not practicing with a partner for the bunkai, I now find that my solo kata has more power, intent and focus.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## chinto (Feb 7, 2013)

exile said:


> Let me ask you something, h.
> 
> When the creator of modern linear Karate, Bushi Matsumura, was working in the service of the King of Okinawa as security director, chief of law enforcement and so on, he was sent to deal with a guy who was stealing food and other important items from people in one of the districts around Shuri. The perp turned out to be a shipwrecked Chinese sailor named Chinto, living 'rough', as the Brits say, in the area, whoastonishinglyfought Matsumura to a standstill. Matsumura was so impressed by Chinto's fighting abilities that he made a deal with him: teach me your combat system, all the good stuff, and I'll see that you get food and a lift home. He recorded the core of Chinto's techniques in the _Chinto_ kata practiced by karateka to this day.
> 
> My question is, why do think Matsumura made up a whole kata recording the best of his formidable former antagonist's techniques? _To give himself another way to avoid fighting???_



you are correct there Exile, that is what kata does, teaches technique and doctrine, and footwork. Kata teaches you what you need to know from the system to use it in combat. the rest of the things it teaches are very much bonus type things by the originators way of thinking.  Remember people at that time it was Life and Death in a fight! on Okinawa the normal way of deciding the winner of the fight was who was still breathing, even if it was only a while after the looser!


----------



## chinto (Feb 7, 2013)

hungfistron said:


> I would never get personal with anyone in these forums, if I offended you with my opinion, or the way that I took your words im very sorry. I look forward to more discussions with you, and I will always stay objective.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No sir HE WAS NOT  A GOJU practitioner! I am sorry to say you are completely wrong in that statement! also Funakoshi was a student of Anku Itosu who was a student of Bushi Matsumura, and that branch of Karate is called Shuri-Te, and latter Shorin-Ryu.  Goju-Ryu was of the Naha-te branch, and its original name under Kanryo Higashionna shorei ryu, and later under Ch&#333;jun Miyagi  that it was named goju ryu. It is actually a harder style the shuri-te/shorin ryu.

I am unaware of any chalange by Bushi Matsumura to funakoshi, especially as I believe the demo in question was around 1918 or so and Matsumura had died before then! the latest date I have ever seen for Bushi Matsumura is 1901. most dates I have seen are in the mid to late 1890's.


----------



## chinto (Feb 7, 2013)

Uchinanchu said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > With respect to Abernethy, that is _his opinion/take_ on its meaning.  If he is correct in his assumption, then why does practically every kata in every style of karate start with a block?
> ...


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Feb 7, 2013)

chinto said:


> Uchinanchu said:
> 
> 
> > is every block always a block? many blocks can also be interpreted as a strike.  the Pinan kata's start that way partly *because they were designed by Itosu for the schools*, but still could be strikes. as far as a lot of other kata they are strikes or perhaps going on guard before the engagement. there are a lot of interpretations as to what is going on.
> ...


----------



## K-man (Feb 7, 2013)

chinto said:


> Uchinanchu said:
> 
> 
> > is every block always a block? many blocks can also be interpreted as a strike.  the Pinan kata's start that way partly because they were designed by Itosu for the schools, but still could be strikes. as far as a lot of other kata they are strikes or perhaps going on guard before the engagement. there are a lot of interpretations as to what is going on.
> ...


----------



## chinto (Feb 7, 2013)

the block can also be a strike to an attackers limb or just a block .. there are a lot of things that it can be depending on whats happening.  as far as the age of the pinan kata they are from about the same time as Karate getting in the school system. but there are so many versions of each kata that some may indeed predate that by a small time. some are much more advanced in techniques then some other versions.


----------



## K-man (Feb 7, 2013)

chinto said:


> the block can also be a strike to an attackers limb or just a block .. there are a lot of things that it can be depending on whats happening.  as far as the age of the pinan kata they are from about the same time as Karate getting in the school system. but there are so many versions of each kata that some may indeed predate that by a small time. some are much more advanced in techniques then some other versions.


Over the last few nights I've discussed 'blocks' with a few of my senior guys after reading some of the posts here on MT. We looked at what they were taught as mid section 'blocks' years back.  Then I suggested they should try whatever block they liked to stop the punch I was going to throw to the chest. The only proviso was that it had to be a 'block' they had been taught. They didn't know which hand was coming and I was inside striking range. Even the fastest guy didn't get near 'blocking'.  Next we went to reflex or instinctive response and they can deflect the attack and respond appropriately. I've had people try to tell me that with all the training they have done they can defend with a specific 'block' but I've yet to come across one in person.  :asian:


----------



## mook jong man (Feb 7, 2013)

K-man said:


> Over the last few nights I've discussed 'blocks' with a few of my senior guys after reading some of the posts here on MT. We looked at what they were taught as mid section 'blocks' years back.  Then I suggested they should try whatever block they liked to stop the punch I was going to throw to the chest. The only proviso was that it had to be a 'block' they had been taught. They didn't know which hand was coming and I was inside striking range. Even the fastest guy didn't get near 'blocking'.  Next we went to reflex or instinctive response and they can deflect the attack and respond appropriately. I've had people try to tell me that with all the training they have done they can defend with a specific 'block' but I've yet to come across one in person.  :asian:



I have done similar experiments within the Wing Chun frame work as well.
Starting from a position of having no guard and with the hands just hanging down by the sides , with the attacker in close and punching at the face or chest.

The best response by far was to use the Pak Sau , ( a sidewards slapping deflection with the palm ) it was the fastest and most instinctive.
Being a fellow Aussie you would know it is just like shooing a fly away from your face in summer.

The Pak Sau also happens to be performed repeatedly in several sections of the Siu Lim Tao form , and one thing that I have learned over the years , is that if a movement is featured heavily in any Wing Chun form then it usually means it is very important.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 7, 2013)

mook jong man said:


> The Pak Sau also happens to be performed repeatedly in several sections of the Siu Lim Tao form , and one thing that I have learned over the years , is that if a movement is featured heavily in any Wing Chun form then it usually means it is very important.



Absolutely!!


----------



## K-man (Feb 7, 2013)

mook jong man said:


> The best response by far was to use the Pak Sau , ( a sidewards slapping deflection with the palm ) it was the fastest and most instinctive.
> Being a fellow Aussie you would know it is just like shooing a fly away from your face in summer.


Which is exactly what I teach.  

But my real thanks are for your insight into the reason for the existence of those little black menaces. Who would have thought they were on Earth purely to facilitate my training. 
  :s127:


----------

