# Losing love of Karate due to excessive Kata at training sessions. rant



## HankSchrader

Greetings all

Forgive me, English is not my first language. I am new to this forum and was looking for some guidance.

 I've recently started Kyokushin and I enjoy it, however in my opinion too much time is spent on Kata and I fail to see any relevance it has to combat. We are taught kata and we go through the motions for the sake of "grading" but it really irks me as this takes the place of "live" training for major parts of sessions. I understand that Kata is supposedly a recording of techniques (however everyone teachers bunkai seems to be different which leads me to believe noone really has any idea) but why not train the techniques in kata in an alive manner first, before going through the motions of kata and committing them to memory? It would give the movements a context at least. I don't know why we even bother with Kata? If a kata supposedly has a takedown or throw recorded in it then students are not going to get good at it by doing the move its represented by in kata, they're going to get good at it by drilling it and using it in randoori against resisting opponents. Doing hours of kata isn't going to help anyone become a better martial artist than someone who solely does their whole art in an alive manner. For self defence purposes its asinine to waste time doing an act which represents something, yet not actually doing the move properly. I come from a grappling background in martial arts (wrestling, bjj) and in those arts you spend 100% of your time doing the art. A 2 hour training session in those arts involves 5 minutes warm up and 2 hours of practicing on fully resisting opponents. But in Kyokushin its split in half with kata which is very infuriating as noone at my club seems to have any experience doing the actual moves in kata on resisting opponents. Why can't karate just do away with Kata and teach the moves within kata in an alive manner? So if Kata has grappling and wrestling applications then lets just do those moves in randoori, if there's self defence applications, like getting out of wrist control then lets add that into randoori. If there's clinch fighting in Kata, then lets train that and add it into randoori etc. Just doing kata for the sake of it seems such a waste of time. If you want to do kata have the option there, similar to when you get to BB in Judo you can choose to learn a Kata, but practice Kata on your own or minimally in class. There is 0 logic in having a solo training method as part of a class group, it just wastes time. 

Karate seems to be built on lineage and instructors seem terrified to deviate from the path that their teachers laid out and their teachers teacher before them. Just because your teacher taught you to do kata doesn't make it right. If karate has elements of all ranges of combat inherent in its kata, then it must be treated as such properly and trained in a modern alive way. Much like the striking segment of Kyokushin is, in competition format.

I would love it if Kyokushin just stuck to stand up and competition rules stuff as it would have a strong identity doing so. But when it is watered down with Kata and those elements are not elaborated upon, it just becomes weaker due to tradition. Why can't Karate grow up like other modern arts? Its self defence applications are severely weakened by these lazy training methods.

Does anyone else share these gripes?


----------



## Buka

Welcome to the forum, Hank.
I understand your concerns, but before we even go there, why would you give up wrestling and BJJ for Karate?

And...are there any other striking schools in your area that you've considered?


----------



## Mephisto

Whoa! Careful using such strong language about kata, that's heresy to some! I've never trained karate but in many circles kyokushin comes highly recommended due to its emphasis on alive training and competition, I'm still not sure if anyone in the MMA community uses it as a striking component. I'm with you on kata, I don't see the point training to simulate an act you never do, especially if the moves are hidden in bunkai. You can find combative roots to moves in some traditional dances but no one learns traditional dance to get better at fighting (ok maybe, capoeira). I think kata has value for solo training and I think minimal time should be spent on it in group sessions. I've previously read that kata is newer than many people think and that traditionally karate didn't have such an emphasis on kata. Kata seems like an antiquated training method from times when moves had to be hidden, due to oppressive governments or the need to keep fighting secrets a secret until a student proved trustworthy of the real fighting knowledge. It's a way to keep students in the dark and keep getting their money all in the name of patience and character building. It may have been more beneficial in times when one trained 10 hours a day both with and without partners, most of us are lucky to get in 6-8 hours a week as such application is very important. 

You  could talk to your instructor but if you're the only one complaining it might be pointless. You might not be right for the school, perhaps there are other kyokushin schools near by that spend less time on kata. Or maybe your school is just emphasizing kata at present and will transition to other things later. This is why I train boxing, the workouts are grueling, and everything directly relates to how you fight, not to mention its cheap!


----------



## TimoS

Mephisto said:


> I've previously read that kata is newer than many people think and that traditionally karate didn't have such an emphasis on kata


I would like to know where you read that, because that is not how it is. Sure, the moves that make up the kata were there first, but the entire reason for kata (or forms) training is that it is a nice compact way of passing on knowledge to people who may or not be able to read and write. The basics that you do in karate are from kata. Well, most of them anyway. The combinations that you do with a partner are, or maybe I should say that they should be, from kata. To me, there is just kata. There is no division between kihon, kata and kumite. It's all kata. Now, I'll agree that just doing the kata only by yourself is not very beneficial. You really need a partner and a teacher who actually understands kata.


----------



## Tez3

So many incorrect generalisations in the OP that I'm a bit stuck as to where to start to answer. It sounds like the rant of someone who hates karate rather than someone who is training in it. I'm going to have to think about this one otherwise if I answer straight away it will come over as very harsh. I understand that many don't do or see why they should 'do' kata but I also think one should train in a style that you love rather than one you as a beginner consider 'all wrong'.


----------



## HankSchrader

I didn't give up on them Buka, I never will. I just wanted to see if anyone else loved Karate but hated kata. Yeah there's lots of Muay Thai schools around, but Kyokushin had been something that had interested me for a long time.


----------



## HankSchrader

Tez3 said:


> So many incorrect generalisations in the OP that I'm a bit stuck as to where to start to answer. It sounds like the rant of someone who hates karate rather than someone who is training in it. I'm going to have to think about this one otherwise if I answer straight away it will come over as very harsh. I understand that many don't do or see why they should 'do' kata but I also think one should train in a style that you love rather than one you as a beginner consider 'all wrong'.



How am I generalising my own experiences? I'm a grown up, someone's "harsh" words online really do not bother me so feel free to type freely. I love the practical side of Karate and what Kyokushin can offer, my gripe is that it could be so much "better" if Kata was abandoned in my opinion.


----------



## HankSchrader

Mephisto said:


> Whoa! Careful using such strong language about kata, that's heresy to some! I've never trained karate but in many circles kyokushin comes highly recommended due to its emphasis on alive training and competition, I'm still not sure if anyone in the MMA community uses it as a striking component. I'm with you on kata, I don't see the point training to simulate an act you never do, especially if the moves are hidden in bunkai. You can find combative roots to moves in some traditional dances but no one learns traditional dance to get better at fighting (ok maybe, capoeira). I think kata has value for solo training and I think minimal time should be spent on it in group sessions. I've previously read that kata is newer than many people think and that traditionally karate didn't have such an emphasis on kata. Kata seems like an antiquated training method from times when moves had to be hidden, due to oppressive governments or the need to keep fighting secrets a secret until a student proved trustworthy of the real fighting knowledge. It's a way to keep students in the dark and keep getting their money all in the name of patience and character building. It may have been more beneficial in times when one trained 10 hours a day both with and without partners, most of us are lucky to get in 6-8 hours a week as such application is very important.
> 
> You  could talk to your instructor but if you're the only one complaining it might be pointless. You might not be right for the school, perhaps there are other kyokushin schools near by that spend less time on kata. Or maybe your school is just emphasizing kata at present and will transition to other things later. This is why I train boxing, the workouts are grueling, and everything directly relates to how you fight, not to mention its cheap!



Wow you took the words right out of my mouth there and said it much better than I could. I am the only one complaining about it unfortunately so maybe you are right. Time spent on application is very important I agree, at present its only open for 4-6 hours a week but nearly half of that is Kata. Boxing sounds like a good way to go thankyou for your comment


----------



## Grenadier

HankSchrader said:


> I've recently started Kyokushin and I enjoy it, however in my opinion too much time is spent on Kata and I fail to see any relevance it has to combat. We are taught kata and we go through the motions for the sake of "grading" but it really irks me as this takes the place of "live" training for major parts of sessions.



Kata gives you a chance to practice the technique in the most perfect manner possible.  It's not designed to teach you how to fight, but rather, to help you improve your fundamental techniques to the point where you don't have to think about it while throwing the technique when doing so under less-than-perfect circumstances.  

For example, learning how to punch from a chambered position isn't going to be seen in an actual fight, but that doesn't mean that such practice was without merit.  If anything, learning to punch from the chambered position, using a good hikite (pullback), developing correct tension in the lateral muscles, etc., all helps when you throw that punch in an actual fight, that your body mechanics stay synchronized based on good tension and direction.  

Even more importantly, it teaches you proper timing, distancing, acceleration, and most importantly, control.  Even when you're in a full contact sparring session, which Kyokushin dojos often do, there is still an element of control that must be learned (and demonstrated) before they trust you to go full contact with someone who might not be able to handle your full power shots.  Remember, even in full contact jiyu-kumite, you're still there to help each other out, that it's still a partnered drill where both practitioners benefit.  

Once someone understands good bodily mechanics and control, then teaching them any kind of advanced technique is usually quite simple.  It may seem like taking the longer path, but in the end, it's much safer and productive than letting someone just go all out from the start.  




> I don't know why we even bother with Kata? If a kata supposedly has a takedown or throw recorded in it then students are not going to get good at it by doing the move its represented by in kata, they're going to get good at it by drilling it and using it in randoori against resisting opponents.



Again, the bigger picture states that the use of kata to perfect someone's techniques and mechanics is the primary goal.  Once someone has these techniques and mechanics in hand, then it's actually much more straight-foward teaching someone how to perform throws, takedowns, etc., based on these mechanics.  For example, if someone uses mechanics similar to the classical knife-hand block, but apply it close in using the hip twisting motion that has been deeply ingrained through many hours of kata training, along with a good sense memory of how the body works, allows him to perform a throw with relative ease.  

Otherwise, if someone does not have an understanding of how the body works, and does not have the proper conditioning, you end up with his learning how to throw using too much upper body, poor synchronization of the lower and upper, etc., which leads to interfering with his development.  


That being said, there probably are other ways for someone to develop mechanics, techniques and conditioning that don't involve kata.  However, to say that kata is useless for such work is missing the big picture.  



> Doing hours of kata isn't going to help anyone become a better martial artist than someone who solely does their whole art in an alive manner. For self defence purposes its asinine to waste time doing an act which represents something, yet not actually doing the move properly.



That is where we will simply disagree.  Good techniques / mechanics are good techniques / mechanics, plain and simple.  They can be applied to both a "kata" and a "non-kata" situation, and someone with those good mechanics is going to be able to hit pretty darn hard in an actual fight.  Even if you're not punching from a fully chambered position, the countless number of hours spent practicing good synchronization of the lower body and the upper body (both with hip twisting and driving forward with one's legs), along with proper tension underneath the arm, will still be a very strong punch, and quite combat-worthy.  



> I come from a grappling background in martial arts (wrestling, bjj) and in those arts you spend 100% of your time doing the art. A 2 hour training session in those arts involves 5 minutes warm up and 2 hours of practicing on fully resisting opponents. But in Kyokushin its split in half with kata which is very infuriating as noone at my club seems to have any experience doing the actual moves in kata on resisting opponents. Why can't karate just do away with Kata and teach the moves within kata in an alive manner?



I have explained the value of kata training above.  It's not the most easily apparent way to get a good set of fundamentals and mechanics, but it does work, and works quite well.  

Think of it this way...  If you have someone who wants to learn how to become a world-class vocalist / singer, it only makes sense that the said musician is going to spend countless hours of time practicing scales, arpeggios, intonation, vibrato, etc., before being considered ready to tackle on a difficult piece of music.  Otherwise, if a voice teacher made his student sing "The Barber of Seville" during an early phase, it might not be a very productive session at all.  Such a singer must be able to demonstrate that he is capable of having the correct techniques and training before being able to reap the benefits from tackling on a difficult song.  

That being said, there are some truly talented individuals (both in music and martial arts) who might be able to "get it" at a very early stage.  More power to them, but for the overwhelming majority of folks in these fields, it takes time and patience.  



> There is 0 logic in having a solo training method as part of a class group, it just wastes time.
> 
> Karate seems to be built on lineage and instructors seem terrified to deviate from the path that their teachers laid out and their teachers teacher before them. Just because your teacher taught you to do kata doesn't make it right. If karate has elements of all ranges of combat inherent in its kata, then it must be treated as such properly and trained in a modern alive way. Much like the striking segment of Kyokushin is, in competition format.
> 
> I would love it if Kyokushin just stuck to stand up and competition rules stuff as it would have a strong identity doing so. But when it is watered down with Kata and those elements are not elaborated upon, it just becomes weaker due to tradition. Why can't Karate grow up like other modern arts? Its self defence applications are severely weakened by these lazy training methods.



It comes with patience and time.  While you may not see the value of kata training at this stage (you just started, after all), as you get more advanced, you'll grow to appreciate it.  



> Does anyone else share these gripes?



When I first started out, yes, I did share those gripes.  It wasn't until I was a green belt that I realized that there was a lot to be appreciated from Sensei's methods, and even now, after almost 30 years of training, the experience never gets stale.


----------



## K-man

Coming from a Japanese based style I had similar thoughts about kata until I was introduced to the Okinawan Goju. They teach the application of kata, something that in the past was totally unrealistic, and now I spend much of the time training kata bunkai. However, I do agree with you that in the context of competitive sparring, kata has limited use because it is designed for close contact fighting, not sparring distance.
:asian:


----------



## Tez3

HankSchrader said:


> How am I generalising my own experiences? I'm a grown up, someone's "harsh" words online really do not bother me so feel free to type freely. I love the practical side of Karate and what Kyokushin can offer, my gripe is that it could be so much "better" if Kata was abandoned in my opinion.



Actually I wasn't concerned that harsh words would upset you, more that this is a site where considered replies are preferred.

The simple answer is that the training of kata where you are is either not being done correctly or that you are failing to understand that training. Kata is hugely practical...if you know how to train it. The fact that you don't know this doesn't mean that kata should be abandoned, it means only you don't know or understand. Why throw the baby out with the bath water. If you choose not to learn kata, Bunkai and kumite, that's fine but to think that it should be thrown out of karate because _you_ don't like it is like saying no one should wear a specific colour because you dislike that colour.


----------



## ballen0351

Found your problem



HankSchrader said:


> I've recently started



Give it time.  Your new your dont see the value of Kata yet.  If you stick with it you will.  You need to actually learn a kata, Not mimic the moves but actually learn it, break it apart, study it, it will make your Karate and your fighting so much better in the long run


----------



## Tez3

There are many good exponents of pragmatic Karate, other posters can give you more names and articles etc to look up but I'm posting this as from personal experience Iain, to me, is  the best.

Articles | Iain Abernethy


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Tez3 said:


> There are many good exponents of pragmatic Karate, other posters can give you more names and articles etc to look up but I'm posting this as from personal experience Iain, to me, is  the best.
> 
> Articles | Iain Abernethy



I could go into a lengthy dissertation on the benefit of kata and how it directly applies to real world combat.  However, Tez has provided a link to one of the premier resources on the subject.  My suggestion, if you truly intend to study Karate....REAL Karate and wish to understand how and why it is taught in the manner that it is you will open the link and begin reading the articles.  Either start with the *The Pinan-Heian Series as a Fighting System *or *The Basics of Bunkai (Kata Application)*.  From there you can expand out to the rest of the articles with a new foundation of knowledge.


----------



## HankSchrader

Tez3 said:


> There are many good exponents of pragmatic Karate, other posters can give you more names and articles etc to look up but I'm posting this as from personal experience Iain, to me, is  the best.
> 
> Articles | Iain Abernethy



I don't think you got my point in the first post. I've all for Bunkai. I want it taught properly however.

I can see all the bunkai in the world when I look at the Kata, my problem is how Kata is trained, its not trained as Bunkai, its trained as kata. There is a difference. And even when Bunkai is done its not done in a fully alive way in Karate dojos. 

I've done many different arts so I can see locks, throws, grabs etc present in the moves. Karate isn't trained the way it should be. If you're lining up doing kata as a group in your class sessions then you're wasting your time. However if your teacher shows you one move from kata and says this is a single leg tackle and has you sparring and drilling it in your class with proper resistance then its legit. The moves should be taken from kata (the bunkai) and trained seriously. And the kata should be discarded and used solely as a guide not a teaching method.  You don't need a kata in wrestling, judo, bjj, sambo, boxing, kickboxing. There's no need to constantly do Kata in class, just train the hidden/represented movements in sparring. So karate then becomes a grapply/strikey art instead of just a competition of punches and kicks.

I know all about how karate is supposed to be 50% striking 50% grappling but I never see it taught that way.

Why is every Bunkai different? Could it be because its under the influence of the teacher, and noone really knows the correct application? 

I've already even written out my own bunkai for different kata... the problem still stands that in class, its not being taught and these ideas are not being realistically practiced.

Most Bunkai is like this "do kata for an hour in class" then if you want to learn how to use it, don't bother trying to in Karate class, you'll have to cross train in Wrestling/judo/jujutsu/bjj etc. Its backwards.


----------



## ballen0351

HankSchrader said:


> I can see all the bunkai in the world when I look at the Kata, my problem is how Kata is trained, its not trained as Bunkai, its trained as kata. There is a difference. And even when Bunkai is done its not done in a fully alive way.
> 
> I've done many different arts so I can see locks, throws, grabs etc present in the moves. Karate isn't trained the way it should be. The moves should be taken from kata (the bunkai) and trained seriously. And the kata should be discarded as a guide not a teaching method. You don't need a kata in wrestling, judo, bjj, sambo, boxing, kickboxing.
> 
> I know all about how karate is supposed to be 50% striking 50% grappling but I never see it taught that way.
> 
> Why is every Bunkai different? Could it be because its under the influence of the teacher, and noone really knows the correct application?
> 
> I've already even written out my own bunkai for different kata... the problem still stands that in class, its not being taught and these ideas are not being realistically practiced.



Ohhhhhh see I didn't know you were a master and all these old Karate guys before you just had it all wrong.


----------



## ballen0351

Tez3 said:


> It sounds like the rant of someone who hates karate rather than someone who is training in it.



Winner


----------



## Hanzou

HankSchrader said:


> Greetings all
> 
> Forgive me, English is not my first language. I am new to this forum and was looking for some guidance.
> 
> I've recently started Kyokushin and I enjoy it, however in my opinion too much time is spent on Kata and I fail to see any relevance it has to combat. We are taught kata and we go through the motions for the sake of "grading" but it really irks me as this takes the place of "live" training for major parts of sessions. I understand that Kata is supposedly a recording of techniques (however everyone teachers bunkai seems to be different which leads me to believe noone really has any idea) but why not train the techniques in kata in an alive manner first, before going through the motions of kata and committing them to memory? It would give the movements a context at least. I don't know why we even bother with Kata? If a kata supposedly has a takedown or throw recorded in it then students are not going to get good at it by doing the move its represented by in kata, they're going to get good at it by drilling it and using it in randoori against resisting opponents. Doing hours of kata isn't going to help anyone become a better martial artist than someone who solely does their whole art in an alive manner. For self defence purposes its asinine to waste time doing an act which represents something, yet not actually doing the move properly. I come from a grappling background in martial arts (wrestling, bjj) and in those arts you spend 100% of your time doing the art. A 2 hour training session in those arts involves 5 minutes warm up and 2 hours of practicing on fully resisting opponents. But in Kyokushin its split in half with kata which is very infuriating as noone at my club seems to have any experience doing the actual moves in kata on resisting opponents. Why can't karate just do away with Kata and teach the moves within kata in an alive manner? So if Kata has grappling and wrestling applications then lets just do those moves in randoori, if there's self defence applications, like getting out of wrist control then lets add that into randoori. If there's clinch fighting in Kata, then lets train that and add it into randoori etc. Just doing kata for the sake of it seems such a waste of time. If you want to do kata have the option there, similar to when you get to BB in Judo you can choose to learn a Kata, but practice Kata on your own or minimally in class. There is 0 logic in having a solo training method as part of a class group, it just wastes time.
> 
> Karate seems to be built on lineage and instructors seem terrified to deviate from the path that their teachers laid out and their teachers teacher before them. Just because your teacher taught you to do kata doesn't make it right. If karate has elements of all ranges of combat inherent in its kata, then it must be treated as such properly and trained in a modern alive way. Much like the striking segment of Kyokushin is, in competition format.
> 
> I would love it if Kyokushin just stuck to stand up and competition rules stuff as it would have a strong identity doing so. But when it is watered down with Kata and those elements are not elaborated upon, it just becomes weaker due to tradition. Why can't Karate grow up like other modern arts? Its self defence applications are severely weakened by these lazy training methods.
> 
> Does anyone else share these gripes?



Why'd you leave Bjj in the first place?

I did Shotokan for the better part of a decade and I really disliked kata practice. As Mephisto said, its (unfortunately) a method to pad instructional time in many dojos. I know a lot of people stress that its important to training, but honestly other arts have showcased that you don't need kata to produce effective martial artists. It's also pretty annoying to have some kid black belt criticize your kata poses constantly, and then you spar with him and you absolutely demolish him with ease. While you're demolishing him, neither one of you are using kata techniques. Instead you're doing some weird modified form of kickboxing. :uhoh:

If you really want to learn a hard striking style, learn Muay Thai kickboxing. You'll get the toughness of Kyokushin without the kata.


----------



## Mephisto

Grenadier said:


> Kata gives you a chance to practice the technique in the most perfect manner possible.  It's not designed to teach you how to fight, but rather, to help you improve your fundamental techniques to the point where you don't have to think about it while throwing the technique when doing so under less-than-perfect circumstances.
> 
> For example, learning how to punch from a chambered position isn't going to be seen in an actual fight, but that doesn't mean that such practice was without merit.  If anything, learning to punch from the chambered position, using a good hikite (pullback), developing correct tension in the lateral muscles, etc., all helps when you throw that punch in an actual fight, that your body mechanics stay synchronized based on good tension and direction.
> 
> Even more importantly, it teaches you proper timing, distancing, acceleration, and most importantly, control.  Even when you're in a full contact sparring session, which Kyokushin dojos often do, there is still an element of control that must be learned (and demonstrated) before they trust you to go full contact with someone who might not be able to handle your full power shots.  Remember, even in full contact jiyu-kumite, you're still there to help each other out, that it's still a partnered drill where both practitioners benefit.
> 
> Once someone understands good bodily mechanics and control, then teaching them any kind of advanced technique is usually quite simple.  It may seem like taking the longer path, but in the end, it's much safer and productive than letting someone just go all out from the start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the bigger picture states that the use of kata to perfect someone's techniques and mechanics is the primary goal.  Once someone has these techniques and mechanics in hand, then it's actually much more straight-foward teaching someone how to perform throws, takedowns, etc., based on these mechanics.  For example, if someone uses mechanics similar to the classical knife-hand block, but apply it close in using the hip twisting motion that has been deeply ingrained through many hours of kata training, along with a good sense memory of how the body works, allows him to perform a throw with relative ease.
> 
> Otherwise, if someone does not have an understanding of how the body works, and does not have the proper conditioning, you end up with his learning how to throw using too much upper body, poor synchronization of the lower and upper, etc., which leads to interfering with his development.
> 
> 
> That being said, there probably are other ways for someone to develop mechanics, techniques and conditioning that don't involve kata.  However, to say that kata is useless for such work is missing the big picture.
> 
> 
> 
> That is where we will simply disagree.  Good techniques / mechanics are good techniques / mechanics, plain and simple.  They can be applied to both a "kata" and a "non-kata" situation, and someone with those good mechanics is going to be able to hit pretty darn hard in an actual fight.  Even if you're not punching from a fully chambered position, the countless number of hours spent practicing good synchronization of the lower body and the upper body (both with hip twisting and driving forward with one's legs), along with proper tension underneath the arm, will still be a very strong punch, and quite combat-worthy.
> 
> 
> 
> I have explained the value of kata training above.  It's not the most easily apparent way to get a good set of fundamentals and mechanics, but it does work, and works quite well.
> 
> Think of it this way...  If you have someone who wants to learn how to become a world-class vocalist / singer, it only makes sense that the said musician is going to spend countless hours of time practicing scales, arpeggios, intonation, vibrato, etc., before being considered ready to tackle on a difficult piece of music.  Otherwise, if a voice teacher made his student sing "The Barber of Seville" during an early phase, it might not be a very productive session at all.  Such a singer must be able to demonstrate that he is capable of having the correct techniques and training before being able to reap the benefits from tackling on a difficult song.
> 
> That being said, there are some truly talented individuals (both in music and martial arts) who might be able to "get it" at a very early stage.  More power to them, but for the overwhelming majority of folks in these fields, it takes time and patience.
> 
> 
> 
> It comes with patience and time.  While you may not see the value of kata training at this stage (you just started, after all), as you get more advanced, you'll grow to appreciate it.
> 
> 
> 
> When I first started out, yes, I did share those gripes.  It wasn't until I was a green belt that I realized that there was a lot to be appreciated from Sensei's methods, and even now, after almost 30 years of training, the experience never gets stale.


I think your violin example misses the point. Boxers, and grapplers isolate techniques and work them individually or on a bag too. But your violin example concerning kata would be like trying to learn to play without a violin. You can moves your hands in a violin playing motion, you might even get some benefit from it but to say it's superior is not true. If you're in no hurry to learn to play the violin go ahead and "ghost" violin in the air, kata is the same thing. I'm not saying it's useless but if it were the superior method of training to learn fighting skill they'd be doing it in the ring or to prepare for the ring.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

HankSchrader said:


> loved Karate but hated kata.



 The form/Kata is for teaching and learning (as text book). It's not for training.


----------



## drop bear

There are karate guys who prefer face punching to kata.

They do Kudo. The world is wonderful and full of choice.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n13JLzkMXIw


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Ohhhhhh see I didn't know you were a master and all these old Karate guys before you just had it all wrong.



Seriously?

The guy has had five posts and you are trolling already.


----------



## Buka

For what it's worth -  I haven't done a kata in 41 years. But I sure  wish I had. My base is American Karate, boxing, kickboxing and  grappling, and that's where my love has always been. I mean that  sincerely. But now I'm in my sixties....sure as hell wish I had been  doing some good kata from the git go. And that's the honest to God  truth.


----------



## Grenadier

Mephisto said:


> I think your violin example misses the point.



What violin example?  If I recall correctly, I clearly stated a vocalist's example.  



> Boxers, and grapplers isolate techniques and work them individually or on a bag too. But your violin example concerning kata would be like trying to learn to play without a violin. You can moves your hands in a violin playing motion, you might even get some benefit from it but to say it's superior is not true.



Where did I say that it was superior?  I simply stated that it's a proven way that helps you perfect your techniques to the point where teaching someone advanced application becomes much easier. 

Furthermore, your example of the air violin is not valid in this case, since performing waza in a kata is performing the actual technique, and there's a premium on proper bodily mechanics, conditioning, timing, awareness, etc., all of which are vital to a martial artist.   Your air violin example isn't actually playing the violin, nor is it developing any kind of technique or actual skill, which is why it's not a valid comparison, since the techniques of Karate performed in kata are certainly valid.  

If you said that you saw a dojo where people were simply flailing around their arms and legs in a totally random motion, then I would agree, but this is clearly not the case.  

A better comparison would be a violinist using the proven and tested Kreutzer exercises to strengthen his fingers, develop better timing, develop better intonation, precision, accuracy, and to be able to train brain to work more optimally.  Someone who has shown that he can perform all of the Kreutzer exercises with a high level of proficiency can certainly be taught to tackle on any number of advanced concertos.  



> If you're in no hurry to learn to play the violin go ahead and "ghost" violin in the air, kata is the same thing. I'm not saying it's useless but if it were the superior method of training to learn fighting skill they'd be doing it in the ring or to prepare for the ring.



I simply disagree with you and your assertion.  I've seen the value of kata, and well-respected organizations the likes of the JKA, along with Kanazawa's SKIF and Okazaki's ISKA, have done exceptionally well using these methods.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Buka said:


> For what it's worth -  I haven't done a kata in 41 years. But I sure  wish I had. My base is American Karate, boxing, kickboxing and  grappling, and that's where my love has always been. I mean that  sincerely. But now I'm in my sixties....sure as hell wish I had been  doing some good kata from the git go. And that's the honest to God  truth.



My situation is similar. I have not done form/Kata for over 35 years. I'm also in my sixties. I have learned over 50 forms among 10 different CMA styles in my life. Do I want to go back to my form/Kate? Definitely not. Do I miss it? Also definitely not. My interest is in the kick, punch, lock, throw, ground game integration. There are more important things that deserve my training time. 

Even if I can do as good form/Kata as my teacher does, I can only be a good "copy machine", no more and no less. I can repeat Shakespeare's play 10,000 times, but it still won't make me a play writer.


----------



## EddieCyrax

Sounds to me like you need to go to a different school as your current one doesn't fit "your" expectations.  That is your choice....plenty of options out there.  

as it relates to kata....if you are just playing follow the leader and treating it like a dance you will get nothing out of it.   Is it required for combat....no.  But that does not mean it is without merit as a training method.

others have given you resources to describe kata's benefits.....but it sounds like you have already made up your mind....

good luck....


----------



## TimoS

HankSchrader said:


> Why is every Bunkai different? Could it be because its under the influence of the teacher, and noone really knows the correct application?


Almost, but not quite so. Many, I would say most who are teaching applications to kata never really learned them and they have "reverse engineered" them. And yes, this includes e.g. Ian Abernathy. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it just explains the diversity. 
The kata applications are still being taught in the Okinawan traditions, but most Japanese styles have lost the "true" bunkai ages ago.


----------



## Tez3

HankSchrader said:


> I don't think you got my point in the first post. I've all for Bunkai. I want it taught properly however.
> 
> I can see all the bunkai in the world when I look at the Kata, my problem is how Kata is trained, its not trained as Bunkai, its trained as kata. There is a difference. And even when Bunkai is done its not done in a fully alive way in Karate dojos.
> 
> I've done many different arts so I can see locks, throws, grabs etc present in the moves. Karate isn't trained the way it should be. If you're lining up doing kata as a group in your class sessions then you're wasting your time. However if your teacher shows you one move from kata and says this is a single leg tackle and has you sparring and drilling it in your class with proper resistance then its legit. The moves should be taken from kata (the bunkai) and trained seriously. And the kata should be discarded and used solely as a guide not a teaching method.  You don't need a kata in wrestling, judo, bjj, sambo, boxing, kickboxing. There's no need to constantly do Kata in class, just train the hidden/represented movements in sparring. So karate then becomes a grapply/strikey art instead of just a competition of punches and kicks.
> 
> I know all about how karate is supposed to be 50% striking 50% grappling but I never see it taught that way.
> 
> Why is every Bunkai different? Could it be because its under the influence of the teacher, and noone really knows the correct application?
> 
> I've already even written out my own bunkai for different kata... the problem still stands that in class, its not being taught and these ideas are not being realistically practiced.
> 
> Most Bunkai is like this "do kata for an hour in class" then if you want to learn how to use it, don't bother trying to in Karate class, you'll have to cross train in Wrestling/judo/jujutsu/bjj etc. Its backwards.




I love that as a beginner you are saying you know all about Bunkai, karate and how it should all be taught just because 'you've done a lot of styles'. Lets put it into perspective, the class you go to doesn't satisfy you so therefore all karate, all kata and all Bunkai is rubbish. I'm not sure who told you that karate is half striking half grappling and I'm not sure where you get the idea that learning Bunkai is about doing a kata for an hour. I'm also not sure who told you karate is for competition either.

Your idea of karate seems mixed up, whether that's your instructor or you I can't tell. Firstly, what do you want out of martial arts? Is it competing in stand up competitions? for self defence? fitness or a mixture of all three? Why have you 'done' so many styles? Is it that you are dissatisfied with each one of them and have moved on to the next? 

Blaming karate is pointless, the issue is you and your class, not karate. Instead of blaming karate look for a class and instructor that suits you in whatever style they teach. The instructor you have now may well teach badly or just teach what he is comfortable in BUT this is not karate's fault, it's not kata's fault so ranting about that is ignorant to be honest. Coming over as if you know everything when you say you are a beginner in karate doesn't help plead your case. Why should karate become what YOU want it to be, who are you? One word...empty cup.

You don't like karate? go train something else.


----------



## Cirdan

Your kata is not alive you say? Something to work on then I suppose.


----------



## seasoned

Writings I have accumulated over time. May help OP reconnect. 


Lost in Translation. Kata are sequences of techniques, presumably ones the creator (or modifiers) of the kata had found to be particularly effective. Today we know the names of the kata and the names of each technique and stance present in the kata. Fukyugata Ichi (created by Matsubayashi-Ryu founder Shoshin Nagamine in 1940), for example, begins with a left downward block (gedan barai or gedan uke) in a left zenkutsu dachi, followed by a right middle punch (chudan tsuki) in a right shizentai dachi. See: The 1940 Karate-Do Special Committee: The Fukyugata "Promotional" Kata. Can you visualize this?




That was a trick! Once the movements of a kata are identified as specific techniques, the meanings become fixed. A "block" has a certain meaning, as does a "punch." A stance has a certain configuration and weight distribution. A dynamic process is reduced to a series of still photographs.




We assume that techniques and movements have always had names. The teachers of old were much less likely to verbalize or write down such things. They would demonstrate techniques and say "like this." The student would follow and generally not ask any questions. If the student asked for clarification, the teacher would often reply, "I already said, like this." The teacher was unlikely to elaborate verbally.




Words became particularly necessary when books about Karate started to be written in the 1920s. Each technique had to be named to accompany the proper picture or photograph. Often names were just descriptive or made up. If the teacher showed a punch to the face, the author (in his language) might have used the term "face punch." Or he might have used "upper level punch" or "rising punch." But the odds are that his teacher used no term at all (except "like this.")




But wait a minute. Suppose instead of merely punching, the teacher actually poked the attacker in the eyes, closed his fingers, and followed through with a punch. Should this be written down? Perhaps the author of the book would leave out the eye poke because it was not quite suitable for the general readership (we can't have children going around poking eyes). Such a gruesome technique might offend the publisher (who probably thought that Kendo was a more noble art). Karate teachers had to overcome widespread prejudice against and misinformation about their art during this time period. Besides, this aspect of the technique could be practiced by the teacher's advanced students who didn't really need a book anyway.




Editorial choices aside, the very act of naming techniques presents a very real danger of limiting them in terms of performance and applications. My sensei, Katsuhiko Shinzato, is a professor of linguistics in Okinawa. Although fluent in both Japanese and English, and an established expert in linguistics, he resists any requests to label techniques or body dynamics processes. "In order for the body to move freely," he says, "the mind must not be fixed."




Once you name a technique, you limit it -- you limit its performance and potential applications.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

HankSchrader said:


> Greetings all
> 
> ... If a kata supposedly has a takedown or throw recorded in it then students are not going to get good at it by doing the move its represented by in kata, they're going to get good at it by drilling it and using it in randoori against resisting opponents. Doing hours of kata isn't going to help anyone become a better martial artist than someone who solely does their whole art in an alive manner. For self defence purposes its asinine to waste time doing an act which represents something, yet not actually doing the move properly. I come from a grappling background in martial arts (wrestling, *bjj*) and in those arts you spend 100% of your time doing the art. *A 2 hour training session in those arts involves 5 minutes warm up and 2 hours of practicing on fully resisting opponents.* But in Kyokushin its split in half with kata which is very infuriating as noone at my club seems to have any experience doing the actual moves in kata on resisting opponents. Why can't karate just do away with Kata and teach the moves within kata in an alive manner? ...



I'm not a karateka or a fan of kata, so I can't help you with that question. I did want to respond to your assertion regarding BJJ. You seem to be saying that your BJJ training was 96% sparring/randori/rolling.  Speaking as a BJJ guy, that doesn't sound like good training to me. You need lots of time practicing techniques and drills with a partner who is not fully resisting if you want to learn anything.

For what it's worth, my instructor's formula is as follows. For beginners: 75% drills & technique practice, 25% sparring/randori. For intermediate students: 50% drills & technique practice, 50% sparring/randori.  For advanced practitioners: 25% drills & technique practice, 75% sparring/randori. (This is of course a generalization which can vary according to the needs of an individual.)

We do sometimes have workouts where all we do is randori, but those need to be balanced out with other sessions where we do other things.

Can you give more detail about your BJJ experience?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

HankSchrader said:


> I understand that Kata is supposedly a recording of techniques (however everyone teachers bunkai seems to be different which leads me to believe noone really has any idea) but why not train the techniques in kata in an alive manner first, before going through the motions of kata and committing them to memory? It would give the movements a context at least.



I've actually talked to a karate instructor (on another forum) who does this more or less. He teaches the individual techniques/applications first and _then _puts them together in the kata.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Seriously?


  Yep I'm serious.



> The guy has had five posts and you are trolling already.


Guy had 5 post all of wich say how he knows better then the actual founders of the styles we learn today.  He's a beginner yet he knows all the bunkai and in his vast knowledge he has decided kata is a waist of time.  Nope I'm not the troll in this thread.


----------



## Tez3

ballen0351 said:


> Yep I'm serious.
> 
> 
> Guy had 5 post all of wich say how he knows better then the actual founders of the styles we learn today.  He's a beginner yet he knows all the bunkai and in his vast knowledge he has decided kata is a waist of time.  Nope I'm not the troll in this thread.



I'm not sure at the moment whether the OP is actually trolling but certainly even allowing for the fact English isn't his first language his posts come over as arrogant rather than seeking knowledge. I understand that kata isn't for many people but then they don't do it preferring to do another style rather than moan about kata. To suggest you know everything there is to know is a dangerous thing on the internet :uhoh:, you are going to get shot down without doubt. Ballen certainly isn't trolling, just telling it how it is, bluntly.


----------



## ballen0351

Yes I did forget English wasn't his first language so maybe something was lost in the translation.  In the end he picked a style that has Kata in it and a dojo that teaches Kata.  If it bothers him that much he needs to move on.  Or if he really wants to learn that style as he says well guess what kata is part of learning that style.  Like I said once you start learning and not copying the moves it will help your karate improve alot.  Or perhaps your just have a poor teacher and he's not teaching the kata he's simply copying what he saw.  To say all kata is bad because one short stay at a dojo is a little silly


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Yes I did forget English wasn't his first language so maybe something was lost in the translation.  In the end he picked a style that has Kata in it and a dojo that teaches Kata.  If it bothers him that much he needs to move on.  Or if he really wants to learn that style as he says well guess what kata os part of learning that style.  Like I said once you start learning and not copying the moves it will help your karate improve alot.  Or perhaps your just have a poor teacher and he's not teaching the kata he's simply copying what he saw.  To say all kata is bad because one short stay at a dojo is a little silly



Which is a better way to make the point.


----------



## Tez3

I was wondering whether it was a mistranslation or a misunderstanding when the OP said he couldn't understand kata's role in combat. Combat and karate don't go together, kata's role is in self defence as karate is really rather than combat. If he means 'competition' the same still applies, understanding what karate is would go a long way to helping as well as actually understanding what kata is for.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Which is a better way to make the point.



Waaaaaaaaaa so put me on ignore


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Waaaaaaaaaa so put me on ignore



Or I could continue to correct you.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Or I could continue to correct you.



Sure whatever makes you feel important lol


----------



## drop bear

Anyway. OP.

Not everybody has to like kata. It is not universally accepted metthod of training and not liking kata does not make you wrong. . like all training methods you will find what works for you and what does not.

As you can see there is a bit more passion than intelegence invested in this debate.

Unfortunately karate does like kata it is part of their method and will continue to be, if you want to learn karate. Do the kata. It is simple as that. It is part of learning the whole method.

If kata is driving you nuts there are different options out there.

Ironically Ian atherby does accept there is two schools of thought on kata.
http://www.usadojo.com/articles/iain-abernethy/kata-why-bother.htm


----------



## Dirty Dog

Gentlemen, allow me to point out that your posts are completely off topic and serve no purpose other than to derail the thread and incite a flamewar. This is not OK. You can avoid doing this as an exercise in self-control. Or, if you can't do that, you can put each other on ignore. Or, if you think someone else is posting something that violates the TOS, you can hit the Report to Moderator button. I do not recommend continuing on your present course of action.

Thank you.
Mark A Cochran
Dirty Dog
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Anyway. OP.
> 
> Not everybody has to like kata. It is not universally accepted metthod of training and not liking kata does not make you wrong. . like all training methods you will find what works for you and what does not.
> 
> * As you can see there is a bit more passion than intelegence invested in this debate.*
> 
> Unfortunately karate does like kata it is part of their method and will continue to be, if you want to learn karate. Do the kata. It is simple as that. It is part of learning the whole method.
> 
> If kata is driving you nuts there are different options out there.
> 
> Ironically Ian atherby does accept there is two schools of thought on kata.
> Kata: Why Bother? By Iain Abernethy




*That is just plain rude. *( and badly spelt)

As I've said, you don't have to like kata, you don't have to do it. If you join a class that does kata and you don't like it, leave. Simples.

Don't disrespect what others do just because you don't like it. Don't assume you know *all* about a subject as large and wide as karate, no one does. Don't generalise anything about 'karate', so many different styles so many different ways of training even within the same style. 

That's not passion by the way it's common sense.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Kata shows people what you know and understand, without words. I understand how one may prefer to just tell people how awesome they are.


----------



## Mephisto

Grenadier said:


> What violin example?  If I recall correctly, I clearly stated a vocalist's example.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that it was superior?  I simply stated that it's a proven way that helps you perfect your techniques to the point where teaching someone advanced application becomes much easier.
> 
> Furthermore, your example of the air violin is not valid in this case, since performing waza in a kata is performing the actual technique, and there's a premium on proper bodily mechanics, conditioning, timing, awareness, etc., all of which are vital to a martial artist.   Your air violin example isn't actually playing the violin, nor is it developing any kind of technique or actual skill, which is why it's not a valid comparison, since the techniques of Karate performed in kata are certainly valid.
> 
> If you said that you saw a dojo where people were simply flailing around their arms and legs in a totally random motion, then I would agree, but this is clearly not the case.
> 
> A better comparison would be a violinist using the proven and tested Kreutzer exercises to strengthen his fingers, develop better timing, develop better intonation, precision, accuracy, and to be able to train brain to work more optimally.  Someone who has shown that he can perform all of the Kreutzer exercises with a high level of proficiency can certainly be taught to tackle on any number of advanced concertos.
> 
> 
> 
> I simply disagree with you and your assertion.  I've seen the value of kata, and well-respected organizations the likes of the JKA, along with Kanazawa's SKIF and Okazaki's ISKA, have done exceptionally well using these methods.



you make good points, obviously I don't know how to read. Somehow I got violinist out of vocalist, guess I just suck. I think we're somewhat in agreement. There is no evidence to prove kata is a superior training method, but it is one way to train and it builds some useable attributes. You might think those attributes are more important than I do. Bottom line, if you like kata go ahead and do it. If you don't, find another school.


----------



## ballen0351

Mephisto said:


> There is no evidence to prove kata is a superior training method,


There is no superior method since humans learn differently.  What works for me might not work for you.  The last class I went to about learning styles I was taught 27 different ways people Learn most effectively.  Kata is however a great way to teach many different people the same thing the same way.  It becomes easy to see who's doing something wrong or different.  When you watch a class full of students doing the same kata the ones that need more help are easy to spot.  It's also an easy way for people to train at home or away from the dojo.  It also builds muscle memory.  So the technique in the kata becomes reflex.  It builds breathing and timing.  It's a great workout.  Run through a kata a full speed and power a few times your breathing hard and sweating in no time. So there are alot of positives that come from kata.  There are alot of positives from all different leaning methods.  


> Bottom line, if you like kata go ahead and do it. If you don't, find another school.



Yep


----------



## ballen0351

Once your doing it for a while then you really get to break down and understand kata and why you d this technique this way or that technique that way.  During out black belt classes we can spend a hour breaking down and examining the 1st 6 moves of the 1st kata we ever learned and still see things that are new.


----------



## donald1

I remember my first time practicing reps on kata,  repeating the same form over and over again... 
In my karate class we still go over the same form over and over again...  But now it's a more advanced kata...  Bored? It's going to happen but don't give up!  That's how you get better.  
Just this morning did 5 katas 5 times each...  It gets boring after a while but it's good training.  I know what you mean...


----------



## K-man

HankSchrader said:


> I don't think you got my point in the first post. I've all for Bunkai. I want it taught properly however.


There are only a handful of people in the world doing that, but that is another story. Bunkai is not 'taught properly'. Bunkai is your own study of the kata. What works for someone else may not work for you, so logically, bunkai as such is not taught, it is learned.



HankSchrader said:


> I can see all the bunkai in the world when I look at the Kata, my problem is how Kata is trained, its not trained as Bunkai, its trained as kata. There is a difference. And even when Bunkai is done its not done in a fully alive way in Karate dojos.


That is a problem with the style you are learning. Kyokoshin is not a grappling style of karate. That doesn't take anything away from Kyokoshin but if you are sparring at two metres bunkai is no part of that.



HankSchrader said:


> I've done many different arts so I can see locks, throws, grabs etc present in the moves. Karate isn't trained the way it should be. If you're lining up doing kata as a group in your class sessions then you're wasting your time. However if your teacher shows you one move from kata and says this is a single leg tackle and has you sparring and drilling it in your class with proper resistance then its legit. The moves should be taken from kata (the bunkai) and trained seriously. And the kata should be discarded and used solely as a guide not a teaching method.  You don't need a kata in wrestling, judo, bjj, sambo, boxing, kickboxing. There's no need to constantly do Kata in class, just train the hidden/represented movements in sparring. So karate then becomes a grapply/strikey art instead of just a competition of punches and kicks.


You have to learn the kata first. 



HankSchrader said:


> I know all about how karate is supposed to be 50% striking 50% grappling but I never see it taught that way.


Come to any of my classes or any of my mates schools who are teaching that way.



HankSchrader said:


> Why is every Bunkai different? Could it be because its under the influence of the teacher, and noone really knows the correct application?


There is no set bunkai. Bunkai is infinitely variable. There is no 'correct' application.



HankSchrader said:


> I've already even written out my own bunkai for different kata... the problem still stands that in class, its not being taught and these ideas are not being realistically practiced.


That is what you are supposed to do. 



HankSchrader said:


> Most Bunkai is like this "do kata for an hour in class" then if you want to learn how to use it, don't bother trying to in Karate class, you'll have to cross train in Wrestling/judo/jujutsu/bjj etc. Its backwards.


No,you just don't understand it. 

From Iain Abernethy's article:


> _To practise karate as a pragmatic system, kata needs to be actively studied, as opposed to just 'practised'. Gichin Funakoshi (founder of Shotokan Karate) considered the practise of kata without learning to apply them in live situations to be ' useless' (Karate-do Kyohan). Numerous other masters were also very critical of karateka who only emphasise the aesthetic performance of the kata. To my mind, without in-depth study of bunkai (kata application), kata practise loses all meaning. We should always keep in mind that kata were created to record fighting techniques and principles._



I've just returned from five days overseas studying bunkai under an Okinawan master called Masaji Taira. If you want to understand kata and bunkai you need to train with people like him. You are never going to learn bunkai from someone who has never studied bunkai.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> I've just returned from five days overseas studying bunkai under an Okinawan master called Masaji Taira. If you want to understand kata and bunkai you need to train with people like him. You are never going to learn bunkai from someone who has never studied bunkai.
> :asian:



Im very jealous of you right now.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> *That is just plain rude. *( and badly spelt)
> 
> As I've said, you don't have to like kata, you don't have to do it. If you join a class that does kata and you don't like it, leave. Simples.
> 
> Don't disrespect what others do just because you don't like it. Don't assume you know *all* about a subject as large and wide as karate, no one does. Don't generalise anything about 'karate', so many different styles so many different ways of training even within the same style.
> 
> That's not passion by the way it's common sense.



So you are agreeing with me?

I don't know. There may be karate that does not do kata. But pretty much everyone I have heard of does. I mean if we could find kataless karate OPs problem would be solved.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> There is no superior method since humans learn differently.  What works for me might not work for you.  The last class I went to about learning styles I was taught 27 different ways people Learn most effectively.  Kata is however a great way to teach many different people the same thing the same way.  It becomes easy to see who's doing something wrong or different.  When you watch a class full of students doing the same kata the ones that need more help are easy to spot.  It's also an easy way for people to train at home or away from the dojo.  It also builds muscle memory.  So the technique in the kata becomes reflex.  It builds breathing and timing.  It's a great workout.  Run through a kata a full speed and power a few times your breathing hard and sweating in no time. So there are alot of positives that come from kata.  There are alot of positives from all different leaning methods.



If the technique in kata becomes reflex, why are there no Karatekas fighting in a way that resembles their kata?


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> If the technique in kata becomes reflex, why are there no Karatekas fighting in a way that resembles their kata?



Who says they arent? Dont give me the "in the cage" stuff either. There is a big difference between "fighting" and self defense.  I train Karate for self defense not to"fight" There is a difference.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Who says they arent?


 
In the cage, on the street, in the dojo, it simply never occurs. I'm well aware that you guys talk about people fighting with their katas, but its just like the people who claim they've seen bigfoot and the loch ness monster.



> Dont give me the "in the cage" stuff either. There is a big difference between "fighting" and self defense.  I train Karate for self defense not to"fight" There is a difference.



Semantic nonsense at its finest. :lol: Whether self defense, training in the dojo, or in a cage, Bjj, MT, Wrestling, Judo, etc. all looks pretty much the same. Yet somehow Karate is a completely different martial art "on the streets"? 

Okay...


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> In the cage, on the street, in the dojo, it simply never occurs. I'm well aware that you guys talk about people fighting with their katas, but its just like the people who claim they've seen bigfoot and the loch ness monster.


Your hanging out at the wrong Dojo's then



> Semantic nonsense at its finest. :lol: Whether self defense, training in the dojo, or in a cage, Bjj, MT, Wrestling, Judo, etc. all looks pretty much the same. Yet somehow Karate is a completely different martial art "on the streets"?
> 
> Okay...


Its not semantics at all.  If you cant see the difference between a fight and self defense well that's why you just don't get it. The Goju I use on the street looks just like the Goju I train in the Dojo except I usually try to tone it down a bit at work since I have rules what I can and cant do at work.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Hanzou said:


> In the cage, on the street, in the dojo, it simply never occurs. I'm well aware that you guys talk about people fighting with their katas, but its just like the people who claim they've seen bigfoot and the loch ness monster.
> 
> 
> 
> Semantic nonsense at its finest. :lol: Whether self defense, training in the dojo, or in a cage, Bjj, MT, Wrestling, Judo, etc. all looks pretty much the same. Yet somehow Karate is a completely different martial art "on the streets"?
> 
> Okay...


There is nothing you think you know that isn't in kata.


----------



## Hanzou

Touch Of Death said:


> There is nothing you think you know that isn't in kata.



I achieved a high rank in karate. I learned several kata. I even studied some of Abernethy's Bunkai books and videos.

I still feel that its a waste of time, and training time can be better devoted to something else. Spending time in arts where there are no katas kind of proved it to me.

That's simply my opinion though.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Who says they arent? Dont give me the "in the cage" stuff either. There is a big difference between "fighting" and self defense.  I train Karate for self defense not to"fight" There is a difference.



Yeah but I think here we are discussing fighting. The actual physical action of defending rather than the elements like awareness and deescalation.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Yeah but I think here we are discussing fighting. The actual physical action of defending rather than the elements like awareness and deescalation.



Actually were supposed to be discussing Kata per the OP.  I dont want the Hall Monitor to warn me again so feel free to start a new thread


----------



## Grenadier

Hanzou said:


> If the technique in kata becomes reflex, why are there no Karatekas fighting in a way that resembles their kata?



If you can't see the resemblance, then you should look more closely.  

When you see someone engaged in a fight, you'll see that the same bodily mechanics that I had previously explained in good detail, are going to be used, where the lower body (hips and legs) will be using both forward driving and twisting motions to maximize the body's ability to throw a powerful punch.  This is but one example.  

 Those very same bodily mechanics are the ones honed by the practice of kata.  

All of the deep stance training will have strengthened the legs and hips to the point where you no longer need to be in a deep stance to tense the correct lower body muscles in order to generate power.  




			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> I did Shotokan for the better part of a decade



Someone who has practiced Shotokan Karate for 4 or 5 years should definitely understand what I explained above.  If you don't mind my asking, which organization did your Shotokan dojo follow?  I won't ask for the name of your dojo, or your sensei / shihan.  I'm simply curious as to which organization it's lineage resides?  

If you practiced Shotokan Karate for the better part of a decade, especially ones that came from the JKA lineage (including SKIF, ISKF, IJKA, and JKS), then you should definitely understand how fundamental techniques, bodily mechanics, etc., are part of all aspects of Karate, including kata and kumite.  Even the ones who decided to take a more unique approach, such as Asai Sensei, still utilized kata as an important training tool for the development of their techniques, timing, and other critical fundamentals.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Your hanging out at the wrong Dojo's then



Apparently I'm not the only one. 



> Its not semantics at all.  If you cant see the difference between a fight and self defense well that's why you just don't get it. The Goju I use on the street looks just like the Goju I train in the Dojo except I usually try to tone it down a bit at work since I have rules what I can and cant do at work.



Again, when an exponent of Muay Thai gets into a self defense situation and is forced to use MT, s/he doesn't look much different than they do in the ring or the gym. You're telling me that a karateka goes from pseudo-kickboxer mode in the dojo to kata mode in the streets. I seriously doubt that's the case.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Apparently I'm not the only one.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when an exponent of Muay Thai gets into a self defense situation and is forced to use MT, s/he doesn't look much different than they do in the ring or the gym. You're telling me that a karateka goes from pseudo-kickboxer mode in the dojo to kata mode in the streets. I seriously doubt that's the case.



ok


----------



## Touch Of Death

Hanzou said:


> I achieved a high rank in karate. I learned several kata. I even studied some of Abernethy's Bunkai books and videos.
> 
> I still feel that its a waste of time, and training time can be better devoted to something else. Spending time in arts where there are no katas kind of proved it to me.
> 
> That's simply my opinion though.


Its fine that you found an art where you can rely on your advantages, but much of Kata is as much for the teacher as the student. In my system the first few kata or forms as we call them have a lot of information an complexity with just moving with a few blocks and punches: Posture; Balance; Relaxation; and Speed. It there or it isn't, and you can see a students progression or lack there of, in just those few basic moves. I don't care if a big no necked guy can knock me out, I care about his form, and will comment on it while we are fighting if he doesn't kill me first.


----------



## Hanzou

Grenadier said:


> If you can't see the resemblance, then you should look more closely.
> 
> When you see someone engaged in a fight, you'll see that the same bodily mechanics that I had previously explained in good detail, are going to be used, where the lower body (hips and legs) will be using both forward driving and twisting motions to maximize the body's ability to throw a powerful punch.  This is but one example.
> 
> Those very same bodily mechanics are the ones honed by the practice of kata.
> 
> All of the deep stance training will have strengthened the legs and hips to the point where you no longer need to be in a deep stance to tense the correct lower body muscles in order to generate power.



Amazingly, Muay Thai achieves the same results without all of that superfluous kata training.




> Someone who has practiced Shotokan Karate for 4 or 5 years should definitely understand what I explained above.  If you don't mind my asking, which organization did your Shotokan dojo follow?  I won't ask for the name of your dojo, or your sensei / shihan.  I'm simply curious as to which organization it's lineage resides?
> 
> If you practiced Shotokan Karate for the better part of a decade, especially ones that came from the JKA lineage (including SKIF, ISKF, IJKA, and JKS), then you should definitely understand how fundamental techniques, bodily mechanics, etc., are part of all aspects of Karate, including kata and kumite.  Even the ones who decided to take a more unique approach, such as Asai Sensei, still utilized kata as an important training tool for the development of their techniques, timing, and other critical fundamentals.



My dojo was under the JKA. And yes, I understand what you're explaining above. My issue is that all of that kata training is unnecessary to achieve those desired results. In fact, I would argue that that kata training is actually detrimental to that development, because its teaching unnatural movements that you're not going to be using as a part of your natural fighting style. 

For example, is it necessary to learn 8 stances when you're only going to be using one? Is it necessary to learn an archaic blocking system when more natural blocking systems have been developed? Is it necessary to learn deep chambered punches when you're going to be utilizing more boxing-like punches when you actually fight?


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Actually were supposed to be discussing Kata per the OP.  I dont want the Hall Monitor to warn me again so feel free to start a new thread



Well the OP also related kata to fighting. In regards to however you want to call it. Physical effectiveness. Look if it has value outside of fighting and therefore why it should be trained it is still a valid point.

If it has some sort of non fighting self defence benefit. Then that would be an easy answer to OPs question as to why they don't just scrap the thing.

I would have thought the non fighting aspect was the lead argument in that martial arts contains histories and traditions that make the art a more complete and complex system than just a device for churning out kill monsters.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Hanzou said:


> Amazingly, Muay Thai achieves the same results without all of that superfluous kata training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dojo was under the JKA. And yes, I understand what you're explaining above. My issue is that all of that kata training is unnecessary to achieve those desired results. In fact, I would argue that that kata training is actually detrimental to that development, because its teaching unnatural movements that you're not going to be using as a part of your natural fighting style.
> 
> For example, is it necessary to learn 8 stances when you're only going to be using one? Is it necessary to learn an archaic blocking system when more natural blocking systems have been developed? Is it necessary to learn deep chambered punches when you're going to be utilizing more boxing-like punches when you actually fight?


Just to be clear, not all Kata uses unnatural movement.


----------



## drop bear

Touch Of Death said:


> Just to be clear, not all Kata uses unnatural movement.




Like?........


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Well the OP also related kata to fighting. In regards to however you want to call it. Physical effectiveness. Look if it has value outside of fighting and therefore why it should be trained it is still a valid point.
> 
> If it has some sort of non fighting self defence benefit. Then that would be an easy answer to OPs question as to why they don't just scrap the thing.
> 
> I would have thought the non fighting aspect was the lead argument in that martial arts contains histories and traditions that make the art a more complete and complex system than just a device for churning out kill monsters.



Again "Fighting" in a cage, in the dojo, at a bar isnt self defense. BOTH are physical but they are not the same thing.  2 guys swinging and rolling with each other no matter  where or who started it is a fight not self defense.  I dont get in fights anymore I do and have used my training from Kata to prevent fighting.  So yes Kata is very Physically effective but not so much for a fight


----------



## Grenadier

Hanzou said:


> For example, is it necessary to learn 8 stances when you're only going to be using one?



Each stance has its own merit when it comes to improving the body's strength and coordination.  

Sochin / fudo dachi, for example, is excellent for strengthening the legs and improving hip flexibility when practicing punches.  

Neko dachi is a great way to improve single leg strength, while also improving balance.  

Kokutsu dachi improves stability, while also being a platform upon which you can more easily learn how important body shifting is.  

Kiba dachi teaches you proper leg tension, which is important regardless of the depth of stance.  

The list goes on and on.  Even if you only use a more upright, more flexibile, modified zen-kutsu dachi for kumite, the benefits of all that stance training are going to improve your techniques, strength, speed, etc.  



> Is it necessary to learn an archaic blocking system when more natural blocking systems have been developed?



Taking the long way is what helps you develop strength, flexibility, and dexterity.  Of course you're not going to see someone making a full blocking motion in jiyu kumite, but all things otherwise equal, the individual who has practiced those full blocking motions will have a better block and a better understanding of positioning, leverage, etc., than someone who didn't practice that way.  

Furthermore, someone who has trained using those full motions and has solid fundamental technique, can make small modifications to those blocks, and turn them into joint locks, throws, etc.  Not only will he be able to learn these more easily, he'll also have much better control.   



> Is it necessary to learn deep chambered punches when you're going to  be utilizing more boxing-like punches when you actually fight?



Practicing punches from a properly chambered position is a great way to develop the muscles under the armpit / shoulder, which are of critical importance when it comes to using proper bodily mechanics.  Those muscles can help you with upper body stability, along with keeping your bodily alignment in the correct position, even if you're not in a chambered position.  

There's much more to this than what I've described already.  That's the beauty of the system, that it's straightforward, it can be learned by almost anyone willing to be patient, and it produces excellent results.  Nakayama, et al., had brilliant insights into how the human body works, and those who carried on (especially Asai Sensei, even when he broke away to form the JKS) put an even heavier emphasis on developing the correct mechanics.  Kata practice has always been an important part of their methods, since it is a proven way of developing those mechanics and fundamentals.    

Furthermore, it's a method that allows you to continually improve, even when you're past your physical prime.  I've seen first-hand, the physical prowess of Shihan Kos Yokota (one of Asai Sensei's top students), and at the age of 65, he can hit harder and faster than most people half his age.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Again "Fighting" in a cage, in the dojo, at a bar isnt self defense. BOTH are physical but they are not the same thing.  2 guys swinging and rolling with each other no matter  where or who started it is a fight not self defense.  I dont get in fights anymore I do and have used my training from Kata to prevent fighting.  So yes Kata is very Physically effective but not so much for a fight



I mean the physical aspect of self defence I define that as fighting. They hit you you block sort of thing. I am not sure what other physical methods you are discussing.

There are other aspects to self defence but I don't think kata trains that.

But OK you have used kata elements for self defence but not fighting. How so?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> He teaches the individual techniques/applications first and _then _puts them together in the kata.



I have always believed that the best way to learn MA is to start with "partner drill". If you train "partner drill" without partner, you will get "solo drill" by default. When you start to train "combo", you will link some "solo drills" in a logical sequence. Usually those sequence will be less than 7 or 8 moves. Any combo sequence longer than that may be combat unrealistic. Whether you want to link different "combo sequences" into a long form/Kata is not important IMO. 



Hanzou said:


> If the technique in kata becomes reflex, why are there no Karatekas fighting in a way that resembles their kata?



In the following example, it's easy to see that the "partner drill" and "solo drill" are identical. If you train your technique through "partner drill", your fighting and your training will be the same.

partner drill:






solo drill:


----------



## drop bear

Grenadier said:


> Each stance has its own merit when it comes to improving the body's strength and coordination.
> 
> Sochin / fudo dachi, for example, is excellent for strengthening the legs and improving hip flexibility when practicing punches.
> 
> Neko dachi is a great way to improve single leg strength, while also improving balance.
> 
> Kokutsu dachi improves stability, while also being a platform upon which you can more easily learn how important body shifting is.
> 
> Kiba dachi teaches you proper leg tension, which is important regardless of the depth of stance.
> 
> The list goes on and on.  Even if you only use a more upright, more flexibile, modified zen-kutsu dachi for kumite, the benefits of all that stance training are going to improve your techniques, strength, speed, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Taking the long way is what helps you develop strength, flexibility, and dexterity.  Of course you're not going to see someone making a full blocking motion in jiyu kumite, but all things otherwise equal, the individual who has practiced those full blocking motions will have a better block and a better understanding of positioning, leverage, etc., than someone who didn't practice that way.
> 
> Furthermore, someone who has trained using those full motions and has solid fundamental technique, can make small modifications to those blocks, and turn them into joint locks, throws, etc.  Not only will he be able to learn these more easily, he'll also have much better control.
> 
> 
> 
> Practicing punches from a properly chambered position is a great way to develop the muscles under the armpit / shoulder, which are of critical importance when it comes to using proper bodily mechanics.  Those muscles can help you with upper body stability, along with keeping your bodily alignment in the correct position, even if you're not in a chambered position.
> 
> There's much more to this than what I've described already.  That's the beauty of the system, that it's straightforward, it can be learned by almost anyone willing to be patient, and it produces excellent results.  Nakayama, et al., had brilliant insights into how the human body works, and those who carried on (especially Asai Sensei, even when he broke away to form the JKS) put an even heavier emphasis on developing the correct mechanics.  Kata practice has always been an important part of their methods, since it is a proven way of developing those mechanics and fundamentals.
> 
> Furthermore, it's a method that allows you to continually improve, even when you're past your physical prime.  I've seen first-hand, the physical prowess of Shihan Kos Yokota (one of Asai Sensei's top students), and at the age of 65, he can hit harder and faster than most people half his age.



Which is the most reasonable of the pro kata arguments.


----------



## Hanzou

Grenadier said:


> /snip



We'll simply have to agree to disagree here Grenadier. I simply don't believe that those methods are necessary to achieve the desired results.

Excellent post though.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> I mean the physical aspect of self defence I define that as fighting.


So when your fighting in the gym are you defending yourself or are you fighting?  
You do security or something I believe.  When youneed to use your training at work Im sure you go as fast and hard as possible to stop the threat and keep yourself safe.  When you rolling in a cage or training you dont.  You go hard but your not  trying to save your life.  2 guys fighting in a bar because someone looked at his girl wrong are not trying to defend there life they are fighting.


> They hit you you block sort of thing. I am not sure what other physical methods you are discussing.
> 
> There are other aspects to self defence but I don't think kata trains that.
> 
> But OK you have used kata elements for self defence but not fighting. How so?


Well someone swings at me.  I move, deflect, strike back. HMMMMMM just like the 1st part, of the 1st kata, I started learning on the first day on my 1st class.  I had someone grab me from behind and try to take my gun from my holster as I Was trying to arrest his cousin.  I used parts of Seyiunchin Kata to get him off.  

If you find no value in Kata great dont train in it.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> We'll simply have to agree to disagree here Grenadier. I simply don't believe that those methods are necessary to achieve the desired results.


except they have achieved the desired results


> Excellent post though.


I agree


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> So you are agreeing with me?
> 
> I don't know. There may be karate that does not do kata. But pretty much everyone I have heard of does. I mean if we could find kataless karate OPs problem would be solved.



What on earth makes you think I'm agreeing with you? I think you are not understanding what is going on here.

The OP has gone to a karate class, he says there's too much kata, that already knows all the Bunkai for the kata and there's no enough grappling in his karate class. He says kata is pointless and karate should get rid of it. 

The real point is that if he want to grappling in a kata free class karate is not for him. Why should karate have to change because he doesn't like kata? Other's don't like kata, don't see it's point there they don't do kata, they join classes in other styles that do what suits them, which is entirely sensible.

Hanzou, you can say all you like about kata ( and we have been over everything already so bringing up the same old same old is just boring), it's uses or non uses but even you don't expect karateka to change karate to suit you. if you don't like takedowns and grappling on the floor you don't take a Judo or BJJ class do you, you don't join their classes then whinge that Judo/BJJ would be really good if weren't for the floor work and they did more striking. That's what the OP is doing, he's saying that karate would be great if they didn't do kata and did more grappling.
We all have our opinions on kata, but training in a style has contains kata and then complaining about it is nuts.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> We'll simply have to agree to disagree here Grenadier. I simply don't believe that those methods are necessary to achieve the desired results.
> 
> Excellent post though.




To be honest though the OP isn't about kata as such it's about a poster who trains in a style that contains something he doesn't like or want to do, the answer is simple, as I said, train something else.


----------



## Touch Of Death

drop bear said:


> Like?........


Like every form in the system in which I train.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> If the technique in kata becomes reflex, why are there no Karatekas fighting in a way that resembles their kata?


You train a different system. One of the top Goju guys in the US has written a book where he talks of 'advanced beginners'. Unless you have trained to fight using bunkai you will never use bunkai. The fact that *you* can't see the kata in a fight doesn't mean it isn't there. The adage is learn the technique, forget the technique, use the technique. 

I would suggest that many high ranking practitioners are simply 'advanced beginners'. They have never progressed beyond the kihon stage.



Hanzou said:


> I achieved a high rank in karate. I learned several kata. I even studied some of Abernethy's Bunkai books and videos.


What's high rank? You obviously didn't 'learn' even one kata. You learned to *perform* several ... huge difference. I don't believe you 'studied' Iain Abernethy's material. You might have looked at some of it. If you had studied even a small part of what he has produced you would not be posting the stuff you are posting.


Hanzou said:


> I still feel that its a waste of time, and training time can be better devoted to something else. Spending time in arts where there are no katas kind of proved it to me.


Many people train martial arts without kata. No problem there. But you don't have the first idea of the training we do, you have never travelled to train Bunkai with the top people, yet you claim to be an expert on kata. 



Hanzou said:


> That's simply my opinion though.


And an uneducated one at that, but nonetheless valid for you.



Hanzou said:


> Apparently I'm not the only one.


Quite true. Not many schools teach the bunkai applications.




Hanzou said:


> Again, when an exponent of Muay Thai gets into a self defense situation and is forced to use MT, s/he doesn't look much different than they do in the ring or the gym. You're telling me that a karateka goes from pseudo-kickboxer mode in the dojo to kata mode in the streets. I seriously doubt that's the case.


As you have pointed out in the past, not many schools teach kata as a fighting system. If I was filmed in a fight I wouldn't be using Muay Thai. I have trained a bit of it but not enough to be useful. Same for people training bunkai. Even so, if they were using it could you even recognise it?




Hanzou said:


> Amazingly, Muay Thai achieves the same results without all of that superfluous kata training.


Muay Thai is a different system. So is boxing. Krav doesn't have kata ... so what?



Hanzou said:


> My dojo was under the JKA. And yes, I understand what you're explaining above. My issue is that all of that kata training is unnecessary to achieve those desired results. In fact, I would argue that that kata training is actually detrimental to that development, because its teaching unnatural movements that you're not going to be using as a part of your natural fighting style.


Sorry, but if your kata was teaching you unnatural movements it was not being taught correctly. I would bet a million that you never went beyond kihon kata.



Hanzou said:


> For example, is it necessary to learn 8 stances when you're only going to be using one? Is it necessary to learn an archaic blocking system when more natural blocking systems have been developed? Is it necessary to learn deep chambered punches when you're going to be utilizing more boxing-like punches when you actually fight?


Again, total ignorance of karate. You obviously learned very little in the time you trained karate, which is understandable in that the competition you were training for was point sparring and competition kata.

I don't know which stances you are referring to but they are all our stances are utilised in grappling. In the fighting you are used to you would normally only see moto dachi. That was our sparring stance. Often in tournaments I would also use neko, but until you are actually grappling the other stances don't come into play. Your 'archaic blocking system' is also at odds with reality. I teach that there are no blocks in karate, at least none that need to be taught. The techniques you are thinking of as 'blocks' might be used as a block, but again, I would never even think of using them that way and I would never teach them as blocks. 

And to cap of the demonstration that you learned little from your time in karate, the 'chambered punch' is kihon. The reality is the punch is thrown from where ever your hand is. The chambered part is for grappling but no point in trying to explain that to you. You don't want to understand.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Again, total ignorance of karate. You obviously learned very little in the time you trained karate, which is understandable in that the competition you were training for was point sparring and competition kata.
> 
> I don't know which stances you are referring to



Back stance, front stance, cat stance, horse stance, Crane Leg stance, Half-Moon, Sanchin, etc. Sorry, don't feel like looking up the Japanese names.



> but they are all our stances are utilised in grappling. In the fighting you are used to you would normally only see moto dachi. That was our sparring stance. Often in tournaments I would also use neko, but until you are actually grappling the other stances don't come into play.



Interesting, since Karate is not known for grappling, and actual grappling arts don't teach grappling/throws in that fashion.



> Your 'archaic blocking system' is also at odds with reality. I teach that there are no blocks in karate, at least none that need to be taught. The techniques you are thinking of as 'blocks' might be used as a block, but again, I would never even think of using them that way and I would never teach them as blocks.



Then why are they literally called "blocks"?



> And to cap of the demonstration that you learned little from your time in karate, the 'chambered punch' is kihon. The reality is the punch is thrown from where ever your hand is. The chambered part is for grappling but no point in trying to explain that to you. You don't want to understand.



Nope, because its nonsense. The same type of nonsense that says the reverse punch when chambered quickly is actually an elbow strike if someone is behind you.


----------



## Tames D

Tez3 said:


> To be honest though the OP isn't about kata as such it's about a poster who trains in a style that contains something he doesn't like or want to do, the answer is simple, as I said, train something else.



Tez. I think you nailed it here.
To the OP. Check out a couple other fighting systems. Two I can recommend from personal experience are *Kung Fu San Soo* and *Jeet Kune Do. *
KFSS does have forms but not really required to know, or spend time on. It's about fighting. It's a bit traditional and at the same time not. It really is about the fighting.
JKD has no forms, totally non traditional, and is a kick *** fighing system. You won't have to waste your time with forms, low horse stances and all the other non essential aspects of training. It too is all about the fighting.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> What on earth makes you think I'm agreeing with you? I think you are not understanding what is going on here.
> 
> The OP has gone to a karate class, he says there's too much kata, that already knows all the Bunkai for the kata and there's no enough grappling in his karate class. He says kata is pointless and karate should get rid of it.
> 
> The real point is that if he want to grappling in a kata free class karate is not for him. Why should karate have to change because he doesn't like kata? Other's don't like kata, don't see it's point there they don't do kata, they join classes in other styles that do what suits them, which is entirely sensible.
> 
> Hanzou, you can say all you like about kata ( and we have been over everything already so bringing up the same old same old is just boring), it's uses or non uses but even you don't expect karateka to change karate to suit you. if you don't like takedowns and grappling on the floor you don't take a Judo or BJJ class do you, you don't join their classes then whinge that Judo/BJJ would be really good if weren't for the floor work and they did more striking. That's what the OP is doing, he's saying that karate would be great if they didn't do kata and did more grappling.
> We all have our opinions on kata, but training in a style has contains kata and then complaining about it is nuts.



Which is what I said. 

Anyway. OP.

Not everybody has to like kata. It is not universally accepted metthod of training and not liking kata does not make you wrong. . like all training methods you will find what works for you and what does not.

As you can see there is a bit more passion than intelegence invested in this debate.

Unfortunately karate does like kata it is part of their method and will continue to be, if you want to learn karate. Do the kata. It is simple as that. It is part of learning the whole method.

If kata is driving you nuts there are different options out there.

Ironically Ian atherby does accept there is two schools of thought on kata.
http://www.usadojo.com/articles/iain...why-bother.htm


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> So when your fighting in the gym are you defending yourself or are you fighting?
> You do security or something I believe.  When youneed to use your training at work Im sure you go as fast and hard as possible to stop the threat and keep yourself safe.  When you rolling in a cage or training you dont.  You go hard but your not  trying to save your life.  2 guys fighting in a bar because someone looked at his girl wrong are not trying to defend there life they are fighting.
> 
> Well someone swings at me.  I move, deflect, strike back. HMMMMMM just like the 1st part, of the 1st kata, I started learning on the first day on my 1st class.  I had someone grab me from behind and try to take my gun from my holster as I Was trying to arrest his cousin.  I used parts of Seyiunchin Kata to get him off.
> 
> If you find no value in Kata great dont train in it.



OK fighting in a gym is fighting not self defence.

Fighting in a bar is fighting not self defence.

Fighting to save your life is fighting not self defence.

Self defence can contain a fighting element. And that is the bit we are focusing on here.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> We'll simply have to agree to disagree here Grenadier. I simply don't believe that those methods are necessary to achieve the desired results.
> 
> Excellent post though.



Which is a pity because we have just glossed over the most sensible post in the thread. So I am keen to explore this.

OK skipping. Which I hate by the way. Increases core strength,fitness,timing and footwork. But does not look like boxing.

But boxers skip because they feel the importance of training a basic structure as well as training movements that resemble boxing. 

Now let's compare with kata.

Kata trains the basic structure. That could be a viable argument.


----------



## TimoS

Touch Of Death said:


> There is nothing you think you know that isn't in kata.


Not quite sure I agree with you on this. While kata teaches you really much, they weren't designed to teach you the ground grappling. If you want to learn that, there are better arts for that, such as BJJ or judo. The way I've been taught is that karate is good for when you're standing up, but not so good when you're down on floor


----------



## Touch Of Death

TimoS said:


> Not quite sure I agree with you on this. While kata teaches you really much, they weren't designed to teach you the ground grappling. If you want to learn that, there are better arts for that, such as BJJ or judo. The way I've been taught is that karate is good for when you're standing up, but not so good when you're down on floor


We have ground kata.


----------



## Tez3

How nice, this has turned into a kata hate/love thread instead of looking at the OPs issues of training in a style whose training methods he doesn't approve of and wants to change. Do any of the people bashing kata not think that's a bit odd? Instead of slagging off kata again perhaps you might like to re-read the OP and see why someone who claims to have 'done' several martial arts, claims to know all the Bunkai and is criticising the class he's in because he already knows more than the instructor, posted and incidentally once having set everyone off on the road of the pro/anti kata argument hasn't replied since.


----------



## TimoS

> Then why are they literally called "blocks"


In English, yes, they are called blocks, but that's not what the word means. The word "uke" I'm told means more something like "to receive".


----------



## Hanzou

TimoS said:


> In English, yes, they are called blocks, but that's not what the word means. The word "uke" I'm told means more something like "to receive".



Uke (Blocks)
*SHOTOKAN KARATE TERMINOLOGY
SHOTOKAN KARATE TERMINOLOGY
Karate Glossary
Karate techniques - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess everyone has it wrong... 



Tez3 said:


> How nice, this has turned into a kata hate/love thread instead of looking at the OPs issues of training in a style whose training methods he doesn't approve of and wants to change. Do any of the people bashing kata not think that's a bit odd? Instead of slagging off kata again perhaps you might like to re-read the OP and see why someone who claims to have 'done' several martial arts, claims to know all the Bunkai and is criticising the class he's in because he already knows more than the instructor, posted and incidentally once having set everyone off on the road of the pro/anti kata argument hasn't replied since.



Good point. I'm done. Others are free to have the last word.


----------



## TimoS

Hanzou said:


> I guess everyone has it wrong...


Yes

http://translate.google.com/m/translate#ja/en/受け


----------



## Cirdan

Hanzou said:


> I guess everyone has it wrong...



Indeed. Another not so minor thing I guess you did not pick up during your decade in Shotokan. Link all you want but it won`t change reality.


----------



## Tez3

Not my club but my style. Scroll down to Uke ( though reading on the way down is a good idea.)

Kihon » Bournemouth Karate Club


----------



## Hanzou

Cirdan said:


> Indeed. Another not so minor thing I guess you did not pick up during your decade in Shotokan. Link all you want but it won`t change reality.



The reality that a block is just a block and a punch is just  a punch?

You're right. 



TimoS said:


> Yes
> 
> http://translate.google.com/m/translate#ja/en/受け



I suppose the Koreans got it wrong as well, since they also call those techniques blocks within Korean karate (TSD, TKD, etc.).

Those sneaky Japanese, always trying to trick someone. :lol:


----------



## TimoS

Don't know the corresponding word for the Japanese word for "uke". Do you?

And if they really call them blocks IN KOREANS, which I doubt, then that is their right. However, the Japanese word does not mean block, as I already showed. Unless you wish to correct those who really do speak the language, I suggest you accept the fact.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> The reality that a block is just a block and a punch is just  a punch?
> 
> You're right.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the Koreans got it wrong as well, since they also call those techniques blocks within Korean karate (TSD, TKD, etc.).
> 
> Those sneaky Japanese, always trying to trick someone. :lol:



Ah good so we are not all taking the high road on this.

I was training with a karate guy today helping out with the mma. Good guy trained up a national champion recently. Here is his theory. Low stances and dramatic movements are slower harder and not the same as how they would spar. (Sort of. That is a rough version)

But training in that manner does not make you slower in a fighting stance. Because they are harder to move in they make you faster lighter and more responsive when you get into a higher lighter stance.


----------



## drop bear

TimoS said:


> Don't know the corresponding word for the Japanese word for "uke". Do you?



Tori........


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Tori........



Tori isn't the corresponding word, it's the opposite word. Uke = receive, tori = 'give'. usually used in relation to demos or teaching one person is the tori the other the uke.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Tori isn't the corresponding word, it's the opposite word. Uke = receive, tori = 'give'. usually used in relation to demos or teaching one person is the tori the other the uke.



Yep my mistake.


----------



## TimoS

drop bear said:


> Tori........



And how is that written using Korean characters?


----------



## Cirdan

Hanzou said:


> The reality that a block is just a block and a punch is just a punch?
> 
> You're right.



At best those are simplified concepts for beginners and kids, as I am sure you have realized by now. But by all means, keep blocking.


----------



## Hanzou

Cirdan said:


> At best those are simplified concepts for beginners and kids, as I am sure you have realized by now. But by all means, keep blocking.



Would those "beginners and kids" also include instructors and owners of dojos? Because throughout the US karate exponents also call them "blocks", and they're taught as blocks to students.

Just FYI: "To receive" can also mean to block or deflect, which is probably why they're translated as "blocks" in other languages. You're still "receiving" the technique if you're blocking/deflecting it. 

The overriding point however is that those blocking techniques aren't very efficient, which is why you don't see them when two karate exponents are fighting each other.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Ah good so we are not all taking the high road on this.
> 
> I was training with a karate guy today helping out with the mma. Good guy trained up a national champion recently. Here is his theory. Low stances and dramatic movements are slower harder and not the same as how they would spar. (Sort of. That is a rough version)
> 
> But training in that manner does not make you slower in a fighting stance. Because they are harder to move in they make you faster lighter and more responsive when you get into a higher lighter stance.



As someone who was trained in that exact method, I simply disagree. Its better to train in your fighting stance than to learn several awkward stances that are just put in place to supposedly "develop" your leg muscles. When you spend so much time learning techniques that you're never going to use instead of learning techniques that you can actually use, you develop a fairly awkward fighting style. I see it throughout karate.


I see this;






Far too often. That's how we fought in my dojo. I visited a friend's dojo last week, and that's how they were fighting, and they weren't a Shotokan dojo.

Here's a TKD dojang doing the exact same thing;






So its not just limited to Japanese karate. No graceful kata-like techniques. No "uke" or whatever you want to call it to speak of. Just two people flailing about when they actually make contact. :uhoh:


----------



## Buka

This is very nostalgic for me. Haven't been around a real "Kata argument"  in a long time. I may have to put on some disco music. 

It's kind of  like the age old argument - what came first, the chicken.....or the cheese  omelet?


----------



## TimoS

Hanzou said:


> Just FYI: "To receive" can also mean to block or deflect, which is probably why they're translated as "blocks" in other languages


Is that so? I admit English isn't my first language, so I could be wrong, but to me blocking is almost the opposite of receiving


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> As someone who was trained in that exact method, I simply disagree. Its better to train in your fighting stance than to learn several awkward stances that are just put in place to supposedly "develop" your leg muscles. When you spend so much time learning techniques that you're never going to use instead of learning techniques that you can actually use, you develop a fairly awkward fighting style. I see it throughout karate.
> 
> 
> I see this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Far too often. That's how we fought in my dojo. I visited a friend's dojo last week, and that's how they were fighting, and they weren't a Shotokan dojo.
> 
> Here's a TKD dojang doing the exact same thing;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So its not just limited to Japanese karate. No graceful kata-like techniques. No "uke" or whatever you want to call it to speak of. Just two people flailing about when they actually make contact. :uhoh:


Thats not what Karate was designed for so it will look different when your using it out of context.  Karate wasnt made to score points or for sparing.  A pencil was designed to write on paper.  It does a crappy job as a paint brush.


----------



## Tez3

Buka said:


> This is very nostalgic for me. Haven't been around a real "Kata argument"  in a long time. I may have to put on some disco music.
> 
> It's kind of  like the age old argument - what came first, the chicken.....or the cheese  omelet?



This thread is turning into a continuation of another recent one on kata, it's basically one guy who trains in another style completely posting videos to show how bad karate is, mistaking sparring for 'fighting', misunderstanding what kata is for and not wanting to let an opportunity go pass to show how great BJJ is. 
Misunderstanding, disliking or not being bothered to train kata and Bunkai doesn't actually make you right and the others wrong. It just means you dislike, misunderstand or can't be bothered. Yawn.

If you explain your philosophy of martial arts, how you train and what you do it doesn't mean you are the only one who is right. Martial arts are like petrol (gas to the North Americans) lots of different brands but they all do the same job, you have your favourite brand and it may have an additive or two you prefer but all in all it's still petrol. You might not understand why one guy puts the cheaper/more expensive stuff in his vehicle but hey that's his choice you can't say he's wrong and you are right. It's down to preference and all the posting of videos in the world isn't going to prove anything, there's bad and good out there of every style which proves only that people like videoing themselves. To constantly harp on about how wrong a style is, how mistaken it's practitioners are, how wrong they train etc etc is verging on bullying not martial arts evangelism. Ok your style is awesome, the best ever well good for you but disrespecting everyone else's style, sneering and hectoring doesn't do much to prove the point. 

The best advice is ...let it go. Don't like kata, don't do it. Don't like the way someone spars, don't spar with them. It's easy. :miffer:


----------



## Cirdan

Hanzou said:


> Would those "beginners and kids" also include instructors and owners of dojos? Because throughout the US karate exponents also call them "blocks", and they're taught as blocks to students.
> 
> Just FYI: "To receive" can also mean to block or deflect, which is probably why they're translated as "blocks" in other languages. You're still "receiving" the technique if you're blocking/deflecting it.
> 
> The overriding point however is that those blocking techniques aren't very efficient, which is why you don't see them when two karate exponents are fighting each other.



Sad to hear you spent a decade practicing something that does not work for you then. Maybe if it was applied the right way.. but that would be way too much work I guess. And you will always have youtube, yay!


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Thats not what Karate was designed for so it will look different when your using it out of context.  Karate wasnt made to score points or for sparing.  A pencil was designed to write on paper.  It does a crappy job as a paint brush.



You seem to miss the fact that the second video had nothing to do with scoring points. It was sparring for a black belt.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Tez3 said:


> This thread is turning into a continuation of another recent one on kata, it's basically one guy who trains in another style completely posting videos to show how bad karate is, mistaking sparring for 'fighting', misunderstanding what kata is for and not wanting to let an opportunity go pass to show how great BJJ is.



Tez3 et al (* And others *),

If you believe that a post is art bashing (* Against one of the rules that the Terms of Service agreement references *) then please use the RTM (* report to moderator *) function of each post. 

The little triangle at the bottom of each post with a exclamation point "!" within the triangle is the RTM button. If one mouses over the button a pop up reads "Report Post". 

When the report post window opens please fill out why you think the post is an issue. 


Thanks


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> This thread is turning into a continuation of another recent one on kata, it's basically one guy who trains in another style completely posting videos to show how bad karate is, mistaking sparring for 'fighting', misunderstanding what kata is for and not wanting to let an opportunity go pass to show how great BJJ is.
> Misunderstanding, disliking or not being bothered to train kata and Bunkai doesn't actually make you right and the others wrong. It just means you dislike, misunderstand or can't be bothered. Yawn.



Actually that's not correct.

You guys are saying that kata practice produces a result. I'm telling you that kata practice produces a different result and showing evidence that supports that stance from black belts in a variety of karate (and related) styles.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> You seem to miss the fact that the second video had nothing to do with scoring points. It was sparring for a black belt.


Again Karate wasnt designed for sparing period points or no points thats not its purpose


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Actually that's not correct.
> 
> You guys are saying that kata practice produces a result.


correct it does


> I'm telling you that kata practice produces a different result and showing evidence that supports that stance from black belts in a variety of karate (and related) styles.


and your wrong since Kata has nothing to do with sparring.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Actually that's not correct.
> 
> You guys are saying that kata practice produces a result. I'm telling you that kata practice produces a different result and showing evidence that supports that stance from black belts in a variety of karate (and related) styles.



You see, you are *telling *us and a video produces no evidence because as I said there are good an bad videos everywhere. It makes it sound like you know better than the founders of styles an people who have been doing them for decades. All karate style stances aren't the same, they may have the same use but at least one style doesn't use long stances.

You are assuming one result when we are pointing out another, you insist that kata is for 'fighting' so is therefore unsuccessful when it is clearly not for 'fighting'. what do you believe karate is 'for'?


----------



## TimoS

ballen0351 said:


> and your wrong since Kata has nothing to do with sparring.



In a way, it does. For ages kata was the method of transferring individual techniques and those same techniques are used also in sparring


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Again Karate wasnt designed for sparing period points or no points thats not its purpose



So an art that revolves around kicking and punching wasn't designed for kicking and punching? :uhoh:


----------



## EddieCyrax

I train in both Kempo and BJJ......I hate to tell everyone that I have applied kata in BJJ.

Structure, positioning, applied efficiency of motion.....

Perhaps you dont recognize it when you see/feel it.....as you havent trained it with the proper emphasis.

The benefit of kata is not a beginner or novice concept.....

I am now leaving this conversation as it has become quite circular.....


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> So an art that revolves around kicking and punching wasn't designed for kicking and punching? :uhoh:


Sparring is  not real You do understand that right?  So Arts were not designed around pretend kicking and punching.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> Sparring is  not real You do understand that right?  So Arts were not designed around pretend kicking and punching.



Sparring is the laboratory where you develop your individual fighting style, along with timing, power, and other attributes. 

So do you honestly believe that TKD girl's fighting style would alter dramatically if she was fighting someone on the street?

I don't.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Sparring is the laboratory where you develop your individual fighting style, along with timing, power, and other attributes.


No its a game or practice its NOT real and is nothing like a real fight


> So do you honestly believe that TKD girl's fighting style would alter dramatically if she was fighting someone on the street?
> 
> I don't.


I have no idea I dont train TKD, I dont know her, her teacher, or the situation she will be found in.  You cant make a determination about what people will and wont do off a youtube clip.  Well you can I guess but I wont 

Anyway we will just agree to disagree since we are moving to far away from the OP's question and have moved to the effectiveness of Sparring which is a totally different topic to which Im sure we wont agree since to me Sparring is not very important and borderline useless


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Sparring is the laboratory where you develop your individual fighting style, along with timing, power, and other attributes.


how you feel about Sparring is how I feel about Kata


----------



## EddieCyrax

Hanzou said:


> Sparring is the laboratory where you develop your individual fighting style, along with timing, power, and other attributes.




This how I feel about both Sparring and Kata.

These are not mutually exclusive.  One does not have to pick one.

Two of many training methods.

Like arguing over push-ups and lifting sand bags.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> No its a game or practice its NOT real and is nothing like a real fight



Yet we have numerous examples of people coming from styles that revolve around sparring performing just fine in real fights. Interestingly their sparring looks just as effective as their fighting ability.



> I have no idea I dont train TKD, I dont know her, her teacher, or the situation she will be found in.  You cant make a determination about what people will and wont do off a youtube clip.  Well you can I guess but I wont.



So you don't want to make a determination of her fighting ability after watching her flail around in a safe environment, and repeatedly closing her eyes and turning her head away while punching a training partner?

Okay.



> Anyway we will just agree to disagree since we are moving to far away from the OP's question and have moved to the effectiveness of Sparring which is a totally different topic to which Im sure we wont agree since to me Sparring is not very important and borderline useless



Well again, unlike kata, we have evidence to support sparring to fighting ability in a variety of martial arts and combat sports.


----------



## EddieCyrax

EddieCyrax said:


> This how I feel about both Sparring and Kata.
> 
> These are not mutually exclusive.  One does not have to pick one.
> 
> Two of many training methods.
> 
> Like arguing over push-ups and lifting sand bags.



And don't get me started on kettle-bells.   -vampfeed-


----------



## Hanzou

EddieCyrax said:


> This how I feel about both Sparring and Kata.
> 
> These are not mutually exclusive.  One does not have to pick one.
> 
> Two of many training methods.
> 
> Like arguing over push-ups and lifting sand bags.



Well there are some martial arts that don't practice kata at all.

Martial arts that don't spar on the other hand? :uhoh:


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> Yet we have numerous examples of people coming from styles that revolve around sparring performing just fine in real fights. Interestingly their sparring looks just as effective as their fighting ability.
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want to make a determination of her fighting ability after watching her flail around in a safe environment, and repeatedly closing her eyes and turning her head away while punching a training partner?
> 
> Okay.
> 
> 
> 
> Well again, unlike kata, we have evidence to support sparring to fighting ability in a variety of martial arts and combat sports.


Lol ok............


----------



## EddieCyrax

Hanzou said:


> Well there are some martial arts that don't practice kata at all.



Ok.

Their choice.....as is the original poster of this thread....if they do not see the value, go to another school.

I see value in both. My school does both.

I do not see an argument here.


----------



## Hanzou

EddieCyrax said:


> I do not see an argument here.



The "argument" is that some posters here are saying that kata produces a result that isn't seen while Karate exponents are sparring. There's something clearly missing in the training methodology if the goal is to resemble the kata while fighting.


----------



## EddieCyrax

Hanzou said:


> The "argument" is that some posters here are saying that kata produces a result that isn't seen while Karate exponents are sparring. There's something clearly missing in the training methodology if the goal is to resemble the kata while fighting.



I would suggest the practice of kata improves the effectiveness ones sparring.  Notice I did not say that their sparring contained the exact movements/patterns of their kata.

Their sparring should contain the structure/footwork/stance/power/etc......One should be able to see these things within their sparring and kata.

Can one achieve these things without kata???.....sure - with an attentive instructor.....

Look at a fighter who has trained for some number of years.....  They move very different than a novice.....ideally black belt vs white belt......

Movement comes from experience.......kata is a training tool.....

I do not train TKD, so I can not speak to the kata application in the video you posted.  This said, when I watch both practitioners i look to the footwork, body mechanics of their strikes, etc.

You would argue these are a result of sparring over time, and perhaps they are.    

But then again perhaps it is a result of both their practiced sparring and kata over time.

Training methods...... 

Time to go do a few sit-ups to work core......or perhaps a plank is better....then again their are those nasty burpies....


----------



## Hanzou

EddieCyrax said:


> I would suggest the practice of kata improves the effectiveness ones sparring.  Notice I did not say that their sparring contained the exact movements/patterns of their kata.
> 
> Their sparring should contain the structure/footwork/stance/power/etc......One should be able to see these things within their sparring and kata.
> 
> Can one achieve these things without kata???.....sure - with an attentive instructor.....
> 
> Look at a fighter who has trained for some number of years.....  They move very different than a novice.....ideally black belt vs white belt......
> 
> Movement comes from experience.......kata is a training tool.....



You will never hear me say that kata is not a training tool. The question is that if a martial art can be successful without kata practice, why does kata exist in some styles? Is it simply because of tradition? Is karate somehow more difficult to learn without kata practice?



> I do not train TKD, so I can not speak to the kata application in the video you posted.  This said, when I watch both practitioners i look to the footwork, body mechanics of their strikes, etc.



You train Karate right? What are your thoughts on this;






Considering that Kyokushin's kata looks like this;


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> The question is that if a martial art can be successful without kata practice, why does kata exist in some styles?


because the person that invented the style thought it was important.


> Is it simply because of tradition?


Tradition and it works


> Is karate somehow more difficult to learn without kata practice?


depends on what you want out of your karate.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Originally Posted by *K-man*
> Again, total ignorance of karate. You obviously learned very little in the time you trained karate, which is understandable in that the competition you were training for was point sparring and competition kata.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reality that a block is just a block and a punch is just  a punch?
> 
> You're right.
> 
> I suppose the Koreans got it wrong as well, since they also call those techniques blocks within Korean karate (TSD, TKD, etc.).
> 
> Those sneaky Japanese, always trying to trick someone. :lol:
Click to expand...


Again your lack of the ability to comprehend is letting you down. A punch is normally a punch unless it is grabbing and pulling but a 'block' is pretty much never a block. Why would I want to stop your attack? The very act of stopping one attack precipitates the next and means I have to defend against the second attack. I want to deflect or redirect your first attack in a way that you don't immediately realise your attack has been thwarted. In that fraction of a second I can counter. If karate is what you claim it to be it would be totally useless as it seems your time spent training karate obviously was.




Hanzou said:


> Would those "beginners and kids" also include instructors and owners of dojos? Because throughout the US karate exponents also call them "blocks", and they're taught as blocks to students.
> 
> Just FYI: "To receive" can also mean to block or deflect, which is probably why they're translated as "blocks" in other languages. You're still "receiving" the technique if you're blocking/deflecting it.
> 
> The overriding point however is that those blocking techniques aren't very efficient, which is why you don't see them when two karate exponents are fighting each other.


I might suggest that the word 'Uke' was first misunderstood when the Americans were in Okinawa and Japan post WW2. They were taught 'schoolboy karate' by the Japanese and took it home believing like you that they knew everything. In the intervening 60 years many practitioners have realised that there is much more to karate than was originally shown. You obviously haven't kept up with the change. As to blocks, as I have often explained, why would I teach someone a technique that takes time when an instinctive move does a better job. Even my 5yo grandson can block a strike to his head without me teaching him to block. Blocking and deflecting are almost exact opposites when it comes to fighting. A block stops an attack. A deflection allows the attack to continue but off target. 

As I said earlier, there are a lot of 'advanced beginners' teaching karate. 



Hanzou said:


> Originally Posted by* K-man*
> I don't know which stances you are referring to but all our stances are utilised in grappling. In the fighting you are used to you would normally only see moto dachi. That was our sparring stance. Often in tournaments I would also use neko, but until you are actually grappling the other stances don't come into play.
> 
> 
> 
> Back stance, front stance, cat stance, horse stance, Crane Leg stance, Half-Moon, Sanchin, etc. Sorry, don't feel like looking up the Japanese names.
> 
> Interesting, since Karate is not known for grappling, and actual grappling arts don't teach grappling/throws in that fashion.
Click to expand...

Seeing you have never trained grappling in your karate how would you know? For what it's worth here is a video of us training 'stances'.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gxyyK_9vZ6A



Hanzou said:


> Originally Posted by *K-man*
> Your 'archaic blocking system' is also at odds with reality. I teach that there are no blocks in karate, at least none that need to be taught. The techniques you are thinking of as 'blocks' might be used as a block, but again, I would never even think of using them that way and I would never teach them as blocks.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are they literally called "blocks"?
Click to expand...

As has been said, they aren't. The literal meaning is 'receive'. The techniques taught as blocks utilise two hands. I'll leave it to you to try to work out which hand is doing what.



Hanzou said:


> Originally Posted by *K-man*
> And to cap of the demonstration that you learned little from your time in karate, the 'chambered punch' is kihon. The reality is the punch is thrown from where ever your hand is. The chambered part is for grappling but no point in trying to explain that to you. You don't want to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, because its nonsense. The same type of nonsense that says the reverse punch when chambered quickly is actually an elbow strike if someone is behind you.
Click to expand...

A reverse punch is a reverse punch, a hand pulled back to carriage can be many things including a backward elbow. 

You are the perfect example of why I no longer teach children. They think they know everything when in fact they know very little. What you learned in your junior karate class was kihon. You never got to the next level.


----------



## Hanzou

ballen0351 said:


> because the person that invented the style thought it was important.



A person who lived over 100 years ago. Shouldn't the art evolve over time? For example,  judoka revere Kano, but that hasn't stopped judo coaches from removing kata from its syllabus. 



> Tradition and it works



It "works" in what sense? Again, we have other styles, even some karate styles, that have abandoned kata completely and turn out just fine. If we're spending a good portion of class time on kata just because of tradition, shouldn't that class time be spent on something a bit more applicable to the development of overall fighting ability?


----------



## donald1

Hanzou said:


> You will never hear me say that kata is not a training tool. The question is that if a martial art can be successful without kata practice, why does kata exist in some styles? Is it simply because of tradition? Is karate somehow more difficult to learn without kata practice?



I thought I'd go ahead and throw my 2 cents in.  If I've learned anything in karate involving kata.  When my instructor teaches kata a lot of the time he will teach us what it could be.  I'm not going to too into detail but if in the kata you punch,  kick,  step then punch you could see what else is effective like punch,  kick,  step,  elbow strike,  backfist,  then punch 

Two man sets like bunkai are important but kata are just as important too 
Best of luck


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> A person who lived over 100 years ago.


who did? Chojun Miyagi founder of Goju died in the 1953, Tatsuo Shimabuku founder of Isshin Ryu died in 1975, Masutatsu Oyama founder of Kyokushin died in the 1990s.  All believed in the benefits of Kata


> Shouldn't the art evolve over time?


Not if they are still effective and work.  Also that would depend on what you want out of Karate


> For example,  judoka revere Kano, but that hasn't stopped judo coaches from removing kata from its syllabus.


Sport based schools do The Judo I was taught didnt remove anything.
Again it also depends on what you want out of Karate.  And Judo isnt Karate its Judo



> It "works" in what sense?


I dont follow?  In every sense I need it to


> Again, we have other styles, even some karate styles, that have abandoned kata completely and turn out just fine.


Your arguing a point nobody made.  Nobody said you must train Kata or else your a faliure.  Id argue your not learning the Karate the way it was designed by its founder but again it all depends on what you want out of Karate.  You also speak of Karate like its one thing and its not


> If we're spending a good portion of class time on kata just because of tradition, shouldn't that class time be spent on something a bit more applicable to the development of overall fighting ability?


Again your opinion is Kata doesnt develop overall fighting ability and I disagree


Look you came into the Karate section of this forum to tell Karate guys the bedrock of what they do some here for decades is basically crap.  Its not going to fly here in the Karate section.  Try that nonsense in a different section you may get a better response.  You dont like Kata great dont do it.  Your not going to change anyones mind here


----------



## EddieCyrax

Hanzou said:


> You train Karate right? What are your thoughts on this;
> Considering that Kyokushin's kata looks like this;



First Caveat: - I am only 5ish years in my training....I have a world still to learn.
2nd Caveat:  - I am sure there are many others on this forum and more specifically on this thread that can provide much more insight than I.

But since you asked I will scratch the surface with only one small observation, but there are others.....

First video.... look at the practitioner's stances... Although they are moving they generally maintain their neutral bow... Feet apart/balanced...allows for weight transfer to either front/back/sides for defense/attack.... They base their feet to build structure when they move into attack.   They are pulling their strikes as this is a friendly sparring session. They are clearly being playful here.  This said - you can still clearly see the body mechanics

Second video - first kata shown  (i know this as One Pinan in my style) - This is the first kata taught in my style.  Purpose is to introduce and isolate neutral bow stance while moving.  In addition it develops the concept of striking power through Force = Mass*Acceleration....  The combination of stance and the delivery of force.   I am sure their is even more to it that others can explain.  

If in the first video the practitioners fully engaged, ideally you would see where the stance/structure adds additional power to their strikes/kicks.

My instructors stances are extremely solid in everything they do (kata/sparring).  They create incredible power from the stance/structure even while in motion.  

You practice BJJ.....I am sure your instructors talk about base structure.....it is no different in stand-up......


----------



## EddieCyrax

Also notice in first video the yellow belt.....his stances are all over the place.  He is in bad form/position throughout.  Negates both is ability to defend and initiate an attack.  If this was a real fight this would have robbed a lot of potential power in his strikes, and lack of balance would have potentially put him on the ground.


----------



## jks9199

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
Asst. Administrator
*


----------



## EddieCyrax

I was the same at yellow.....all beginners have to learn....heck I am still learning....no disrespect intended to anyone in the video.....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> the goal is to resemble the kata while fighting.



I believe it should be the other way around. The form/Kata should resemble the fighting. If we want to evolve the MA, we should create "modern" form/Kata in such a way that each and every move should be exactly the same as you will use it in combat. Those form/kata should be used only for "teaching and learning". It should not be used for "training".

The following 2 form/Kata were created in the modern time. IMO, sometime the "modern" form/Kata is better than the ancient form/Kata.

Should Karate also create "modern" form/Kata?


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> You will never hear me say that kata is not a training tool. The question is that if a martial art can be successful without kata practice, why does kata exist in some styles? Is it simply because of tradition? Is karate somehow more difficult to learn without kata practice?
> 
> 
> 
> You train Karate right? What are your thoughts on this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that Kyokushin's kata looks like this;




That cuts both ways. If a martial art can be successful with kata then everybody should be doing it. 

Now let's look at this a bit. kyokashin kick differently to Thai. Two oposing methods two successful results. Even within our club we don't have one generic training method or one style of fighting.

So what is your clubs most successful submission. The one everybody should be spending the bulk of their time training?


----------



## Rich Parsons

Hanzou said:


> You will never hear me say that kata is not a training tool. The question is that if a martial art can be successful without kata practice, why does kata exist in some styles? Is it simply because of tradition? Is karate somehow more difficult to learn without kata practice?
> 
> . . .



Hanzou,

In many a FMA there are drills that are nothing more than a two man kata or form or what ever name one applies to them. 

I have also see straight kata for FMA's as well. 

Do I personally like them? Not really. 

Do I teach them? Yes.


Why? I have seen some not able to get their hips into a strike until they did a simple Block / Strike Kata over and over and got better at it. 
It is a tool that can be done alone to give repetition a chance to build upon. (* of course one can argue that if they practice wrong - different topic - different discussion *)


----------



## drop bear

Boxing body shot.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j03-Bhh5anA

The common fault is breaking at the hip. And not developing your comfort in a deep stance. 
Fixing boxing structure.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YSfJ6abYtFE

This is where all that deep stance training and over emphasised moment can come into play. Get low move around low. And then when you have to do it right for that split second your body does not force yourself to cheat.

You are training a greater range of motion than just training out of a fighting stance.


----------



## drop bear

Wrestling stance. Low and deep and what can't we do?

Break at the hip.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wji1jm_kEM

Double leg movement in a deep stance.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X3xKwQcDKM0
Random karate kata. Low and deep movement that does not break at the hip.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X0Scs8v4qto

If all kata did was teach that it is a worthwhile training aid.


----------



## Tez3

ballen0351 said:


> who did? Chojun Miyagi founder of Goju died in the 1953, Tatsuo Shimabuku founder of Isshin Ryu died in 1975, Masutatsu Oyama founder of Kyokushin died in the 1990s.  All believed in the benefits of Kata
> 
> Not if they are still effective and work.  Also that would depend on what you want out of Karate
> 
> Sport based schools do The Judo I was taught didnt remove anything.
> Again it also depends on what you want out of Karate.  And Judo isnt Karate its Judo
> 
> 
> I dont follow?  In every sense I need it to
> 
> Your arguing a point nobody made.  Nobody said you must train Kata or else your a faliure.  Id argue your not learning the Karate the way it was designed by its founder but again it all depends on what you want out of Karate.  You also speak of Karate like its one thing and its not
> 
> Again your opinion is Kata doesnt develop overall fighting ability and I disagree
> 
> 
> Look you came into the Karate section of this forum to tell Karate guys the bedrock of what they do some here for decades is basically crap.  Its not going to fly here in the Karate section.  Try that nonsense in a different section you may get a better response.  You dont like Kata great dont do it.  Your not going to change anyones mind here




The founder of Wado Ryu karate, Hironori &#332;tsuka Sensei lived until 1982, he was teaching right up to then so we have plenty of people who know how the kata's should be done, what they are for etc. having been taught by the master himself.


----------



## Cirdan

I must say denying that drills can produce results is a very weird line of thought for me.


----------



## drop bear

Cirdan said:


> I must say denying that drills can produce results is a very weird line of thought for me.



It is a bigger subject than that though.

It is solo drills vs partner drills vs compliant vs non compliant and how much time and focus should be spent to get the best results. They all have their pros and cons.

And that is before we even get to the idea that if somone does not like kata they are being mean or something.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> It is a bigger subject than that though.
> 
> It is solo drills vs partner drills vs compliant vs non compliant and how much time and focus should be spent to get the best results. They all have their pros and cons.
> 
> And that is before we even get to the idea that if somone does not like kata they are being mean or something.



No one here has said not liking kata is mean 'or something', what we don't understand is someone who clearly doesn't like kata moaning about doing it, why would you? Yet again the answer is simple, don't do kata is you don't like it. We get that there's people who don't like it, what we don't get is why those people who don't like it disrespect those who do by saying it's rubbish. It seems to be the fashion now to disrespect those whose views don't agree with yours. Kata is what it is, something you love, hate or have not much of an opinion on. fine but why do those who dislike kata feel the need to rubbish it? It doesn't float your boat fine it doesn't, but why try so hard to prove it 'doesn't work' or that it's 'pointless' to those who are happy with how it works for them.
 I don't think everyone should be training kata and Bunkai, it might be useful if they understood it better and stopped using what they think it is against those who do use it though. Arguments like this aren't ever going to be resolved and go around and round in circles getting increasingly more bitter. 

Is the OP coming back or having put the cat among the pigeons is not going to comment any more?


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> No one here has said not liking kata is mean 'or something', what we don't understand is someone who clearly doesn't like kata moaning about doing it, why would you? Yet again the answer is simple, don't do kata is you don't like it. We get that there's people who don't like it, what we don't get is why those people who don't like it disrespect those who do by saying it's rubbish. It seems to be the fashion now to disrespect those whose views don't agree with yours. Kata is what it is, something you love, hate or have not much of an opinion on. fine but why do those who dislike kata feel the need to rubbish it? It doesn't float your boat fine it doesn't, but why try so hard to prove it 'doesn't work' or that it's 'pointless' to those who are happy with how it works for them.
> I don't think everyone should be training kata and Bunkai, it might be useful if they understood it better and stopped using what they think it is against those who do use it though. Arguments like this aren't ever going to be resolved and go around and round in circles getting increasingly more bitter.
> 
> Is the OP coming back or having put the cat among the pigeons is not going to comment any more?



You don't understand somone who doesn't like kata moaning about having to do it? He likes karate doesn't like kata. Thinks karate would be better without it. That is not really rubbishing kata just stating a personal opinion.

I don't like kata and don't do it and yet could still find reasons why people would do kata. It is a discussion on training techniques. Simple as that. So those who don't like kata can have discussion on why they don't like it. Just like you can say why you do like it.

And believe it or not we can do this with out getting all emotional.

Accusing people of not understanding kata is a cop out by the way. If they don't understand explain it. If you disagree counter argue. Attacking the poster is what leads to bitter threads. And where I do it on purpose. Yo do it as well and I don't think you realise it.

Why isn't OP here?
He was getting attacked. Maybe he was chased off this forum for a friendlier one.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> Why isn't OP here?
> He was getting attacked. Maybe he was chased off this forum for a friendlier one.


Or his accounts under review because there was something shady going on


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> You don't understand somone who doesn't like kata moaning about having to do it? He likes karate doesn't like kata. Thinks karate would be better without it. That is not really rubbishing kata just stating a personal opinion.
> 
> I don't like kata and don't do it and yet could still find reasons why people would do kata. It is a discussion on training techniques. Simple as that. So those who don't like kata can have discussion on why they don't like it. Just like you can say why you do like it.
> 
> And believe it or not we can do this with out getting all emotional.
> 
> Accusing people of not understanding kata is a cop out by the way. If they don't understand explain it. If you disagree counter argue. Attacking the poster is what leads to bitter threads. And where I do it on purpose. Yo do it as well and I don't think you realise it.
> 
> Why isn't OP here?
> He was getting attacked. Maybe he was chased off this forum for a friendlier one.



 No I don't understand someone doing kata when they don't like it. why would you do something you don't like?  I don't like breaking boards, I don't see the point in it so I don't do it but I don't whinge about how it's a waste of time, it's not my waste of time, I don't do it! Others get a lot out of doing it so it's great for them. ( oh I can btw and have done only it was roof tiles)

A very new beginner doing a style and finding certain parts of it pointless and thinking the style would be better off without it certainly is moaning.

I'm not 'accusing' people of not understanding it, and why you think people are getting 'emotional' puzzles me. If you are aiming that at me because you think women get emotional, that would make me laugh big style.

People who don't understand kata and then moan about it being useless aren't wanting to understand it they want to moan and say they get on fine without it. If they want to understand it they will, they still don't have to use it. There has been enough links on here and explanations of people's various understanding of kata and it's uses so telling us to explain is a tad patronising.

The OP set the tone of the debate, he can't then complain if a. he receives robust rebuttals or b. doesn't post again.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

ballen0351 said:


> Or his accounts under review because there was something shady going on



I don't know what the mods are investigating his account for. Maybe he was a troll, maybe not. If not, maybe he will come back and add something to the conversation.  That said ...

It's not particularly unusual for someone to appreciate some aspects of a martial art they are practicing, but not care for others.

This might be because they haven't spent enough time in the art to understand the value of the part they don't appreciate or it might be that they understand it well enough but will never care for it anyway.

If this aspect is central to the art as the instructor understands it, then the student has the choice of either sucking it up and practicing the parts they don't like along for the sake of the parts they do like or else moving on to a different art or school. If they do stick with the art, perhaps down the line they will become an instructor and leave out the parts they don't think are useful or important. This is part of how we get new systems.

If a student does choose to stay in a given art, despite the presence of certain aspects they don't care for, there's nothing too terrible about occasionally venting, wishing things were different, or seeing if anyone else feels the same way.

The key word there is _occasionally_. More than that and you're just being an annoying whiner. Besides, if you're going to stay in the art anyway for the parts you like, you're going to have to practice the other parts anyway. You might as well listen to the folks who have studied the parts you don't like in depth. Maybe they'll have some insight that will allow you to get more value out of those aspects of your training.


----------



## EddieCyrax

HankSchrader said:


> ....I don't know why we even bother with Kata?.......For self defence purposes its asinine to waste time .........Why can't karate just do away with Kata and teach the moves within kata in an alive manner?.........There is 0 logic in having a solo training method as part of a class group, it just wastes time.
> 
> Karate seems to be built on lineage and instructors seem terrified to deviate from the path that their teachers laid out and their teachers teacher before them. Just because your teacher taught you to do kata doesn't make it right. If karate has elements of all ranges of combat inherent in its kata, then it must be treated as such properly and trained in a modern alive way. Much like the striking segment of Kyokushin is, in competition format.
> 
> I would love it if Kyokushin just stuck to stand up and competition rules stuff as it would have a strong identity doing so. But when it is watered down with Kata and those elements are not elaborated upon, it just becomes weaker due to tradition. Why can't Karate grow up like other modern arts? Its self defence applications are severely weakened by these lazy training methods.
> 
> Does anyone else share these gripes?



I agree with Tez that the OP set the tone of this discussion.  His lack of understanding lead to his thoughts.....Ideally he should of had this conversation with his instructors (terrified to discuss topics in person?!?).  I believe the community attempted to educate the kata training method. 

Success.....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

In the school environment, you should take advantage on the availability of partners. You should spend your training time mainly in "partner training" and not in "solo training". After your instructor has taught you the Kata/form, he should help you to polish it through "partner training" and let you to work on your "solo" at home when partner is not available.


----------



## Chris Parker

This has been a fun one 



Tez3 said:


> Tori isn't the corresponding word, it's the opposite word. Uke = receive, tori = 'give'. usually used in relation to demos or teaching one person is the tori the other the uke.



Small point here, but no, "tori" (&#21462 doesn't mean "to give" it's actually the opposite, and means "to take", or "catch/capture" and, in this instance, refers to the person "taking/performing" the technique. The term has achieved prominence from Judo, where Kano derived it from the terms "ukemi" (&#21463;&#12369;&#36523, meaning "receiving body", the person who has the technique performed on them (those that "receive" the technique), and "torimi" (&#21462;&#12426;&#35211, meaning "catching body", the person who "catches" the enemy. For the record, the usage of "uke/tori" is not universal by any means a range of older systems use quite different terminology, for a range of reasons Aikido uses "uke" and "nage" instead of "tori" and then you have the weapon arts, who have similar, or completely different terms.



Hanzou said:


> You will never hear me say that kata is not a training tool. The question is that if a martial art can be successful without kata practice, why does kata exist in some styles? Is it simply because of tradition? Is karate somehow more difficult to learn without kata practice?



I think it's about time to take this in another direction rather than explain (again and again) what kata are, perhaps we can start with your understanding and expectation of what it is and go from there. So, with that in mind, can you say what you personally think kata is actually for? You note that it is a training tool what do you think it's actually training and teaching?

When it comes to the idea of a martial art being successful without kata, sure but I have to say, so what? Different arts have different aims, different contexts, different methodologies, different ideals, and more it's like saying that some cultures cuisines work well without having pasta in their menus that doesn't invalidate the cuisines, nor does it prove anything about pasta of course, the first question comes back to what you think kata is actually for before you can say whether or not it's "needed"...



Hanzou said:


> A person who lived over 100 years ago. Shouldn't the art evolve over time?



No. You're not looking at the art, you're looking at your personal values and beliefs which might be applicable, or might have nothing at all to do with it. For instance, if you walk into my classes with that idea, you'll be told fairly quickly that you're missing the point.



Hanzou said:


> For example,  judoka revere Kano, but that hasn't stopped judo coaches from removing kata from its syllabus.



Some coaches (sport/Olympic) might not teach kata but I haven't heard of any actually being removed from the syllabus (which is the Kodokan syllabus, not a personal coaches).



Hanzou said:


> It "works" in what sense?



That's the question for a moment, I'd like to invite you to leave off your personal expectations of what a martial art is about, and look to what kata is actually designed for.



Hanzou said:


> Again, we have other styles, even some karate styles, that have abandoned kata completely and turn out just fine.



Look at what their context is, and what they're "just fine" for for instance, all the "karate" systems I've seen that have abandoned kata have, to my mind, completely missed the point, and are deeply lacking in a large number of ways so I'd question what you mean by "just fine"



Hanzou said:


> If we're spending a good portion of class time on kata just because of tradition, shouldn't that class time be spent on something a bit more applicable to the development of overall fighting ability?



Why? The issue here is that you're expecting all martial arts to be what you think they should be and that all aspects should address that (false) ideal. You train karate to learn karate part of that is, or can be, fighting ability but that's far from the whole story.

Oh, and just because I noted you didn't answer earlier, can you say what "high rank" you achieved in under a decade training in Shotokan?


----------



## Tez3

Ah well 'tori' still isn't the same as'uke' though LOL! Very good post, it is getting very tiring going over the same things without any result.

I tried Judo kata once, my instructor's first style was Judo, far too hard on the knees for me, vey interesting though all the same. Not what you imagine it to be either when you say Judo.


----------



## Chris Parker

Ha, well, that's going to depend on which kata from Judo's rather large list&#8230; I recently took my guys through the Kime no Kata&#8230; that has 8 kata from seiza, and 12 standing&#8230; other sets, such as the Koshiki no Kata are all standing, although they often finish in a half-kneeling position&#8230; same with the Itsutsu no Kata&#8230; the katame no kata are all on the ground&#8230; the nage no kata all start standing, and often remain there&#8230; and so on and so forth&#8230;


----------



## Hanzou

A large part of why I've stopped responding to this thread is because Tez made the earlier point that if you don't like kata, you shouldn't be training in arts that practice kata. I thought that was a good point, and re-reading some of my posts in this thread, I realized that my stance was pretty selfish and one-sided. I left karate because I didn't like how it was taught among other things. That certainly doesn't apply to everyone, and I shouldn't act like it does. 

So I do apologize for arguing in that fashion, it wasn't necessary or justified. I got a bit carried away with my own distaste for kata and my personal anger regarding my time spent in Shotokan. Karate isn't going to change, nor does it need to change. If you enjoy kata and/or how your art is taught, by all means keep doing it. If not, you should find another art that better fits your needs and desires. 

Thanks for the post Tez, I know we don't agree on much, but I did appreciate your post.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> if you don't like kata, you shouldn't be training in arts that practice kata.



I don't think kata should prevent you from training a certain system. 

I don't like form but I have trained my long fist system all my life which has many forms. I don't train the long fist form any more but I still train the long fist system. It gives me all the kicking/punching tools that I need.

IMO, you are the master and your style is you slave. You should train your system "the way that you want to train" and not allowing your system to force you to train the system wants you to train.

In the following clip, the "groin kick, face punch combo" should work both in the ring and also in the street. It should have nothing to do with "style" but just a logical kick/punch combo. It's the information inside the form that's important and not the form itself.

Of course you don't need to train form to learn this kick/punch combo. But it doesn't hurt to have it "recorded" in the form so people would know this combo existed in the ancient time.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> A large part of why I've stopped responding to this thread is because Tez made the earlier point that if you don't like kata, you shouldn't be training in arts that practice kata. I thought that was a good point, and re-reading some of my posts in this thread, I realized that my stance was pretty selfish and one-sided. I left karate because I didn't like how it was taught among other things. That certainly doesn't apply to everyone, and I shouldn't act like it does.
> 
> So I do apologize for arguing in that fashion, it wasn't necessary or justified. I got a bit carried away with my own distaste for kata and my personal anger regarding my time spent in Shotokan. Karate isn't going to change, nor does it need to change. If you enjoy kata and/or how your art is taught, by all means keep doing it. If not, you should find another art that better fits your needs and desires.
> 
> Thanks for the post Tez, I know we don't agree on much, but I did appreciate your post.



To be fair you did give it a go, it's a shame you didn't get the training in kata that would give you a different perspective on it but that doesn't mean you would have liked it more! The problem with many instructors perhaps is that aren't teaching what is really the style, many reasons for this with money probably being the foremost one. Belt promotions are often seem as a money maker, so performing katas is done for the tests, just learning the movements and nothing else. I would hate that as well. Others don't like kata because they weren't taught what you could do with it or they preferred to just teach the 'exciting' stuff which many people want, the sparring.

The OP as a beginner would have been better asking if what he was doing in class was what was expected, whether other classes did this. The answer may well have been no. The class he is in may have concentrated too much on kata, e don't really know because it was a rant about kata, something he didn't know about though he claimed he knew many styles well. Instead what we got was how he thought kata should be thrown out. Imagine if it had been mostly sparring he hated and wanted that thrown out! 
The best thing is to be happy in what style you do, life is too short to train anything you aren't progressing in, don't enjoy and is probably costing too much money.
thank you Hanzou, I'm betting we can agree on a lot more. x


----------



## Chris Parker

Hanzou said:


> A large part of why I've stopped responding to this thread is because Tez made the earlier point that if you don't like kata, you shouldn't be training in arts that practice kata. I thought that was a good point, and re-reading some of my posts in this thread, I realized that my stance was pretty selfish and one-sided. I left karate because I didn't like how it was taught among other things. That certainly doesn't apply to everyone, and I shouldn't act like it does.
> 
> So I do apologize for arguing in that fashion, it wasn't necessary or justified. I got a bit carried away with my own distaste for kata and my personal anger regarding my time spent in Shotokan. Karate isn't going to change, nor does it need to change. If you enjoy kata and/or how your art is taught, by all means keep doing it. If not, you should find another art that better fits your needs and desires.
> 
> Thanks for the post Tez, I know we don't agree on much, but I did appreciate your post.



That'd be fine if that's what you were actually saying (just that you didn't like kata)&#8230; except it wasn't. What you were saying was that kata "didn't work"&#8230; "wasn't what you saw in sparring"&#8230; there was the constant rhetoric of kata not being "needed" in other arts (which denied the structure, history, ideals, beliefs, values, reasons, perspectives, and realities of both kata-based and non-kata systems on a huge number of levels)&#8230; lot's of implications that it was contrary to the skills, and so on&#8230; all of which while abjectly refusing to look at what kata actually is, or what it's designed to do.

Look, not liking kata is fine&#8230; no-one here has an issue with that as a personal opinion. You don't do kata based systems, you don't have to like it&#8230; you don't have to do it&#8230; and that's not a problem at all. You don't like it? Great. You have an opinion of it's worth for you? No issue. But, again, that's not what you were actually saying.

That said, are you able to go back and answer my questions from my previous post to you? It may help avoid such issues in the future&#8230; on both sides.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't think kata should prevent you from training a certain system.
> 
> I don't like form but I have trained my long fist system all my life which has many forms. I don't train the long fist form any more but I still train the long fist system. It gives me all the kicking/punching tools that I need.



Are you really training in Long Fist if you're not training Long Fist forms, though? I'll put to you the same question as I posited to Hanzou&#8230; what do you think forms/kata actually are teaching? Is it just kicking and punching methods?



Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, you are the master and your style is you slave. You should train your system "the way that you want to train" and not allowing your system to force you to train the system wants you to train.



That I completely disagree with&#8230; if you can just do it however you like, what's the point of learning a particular system? You're there to learn that art&#8230; not to just do what you think is good. To be honest, I'd regard that attitude as one of arrogance.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the following clip, the "groin kick, face punch combo" should work both in the ring and also in the street. It should have nothing to do with "style" but just a logical kick/punch combo. It's the information inside the form that's important and not the form itself.



Hmm&#8230; and what information do you think is there? Oh, and for the record, while I can see a form of application of what is seen in the video, I really wouldn't say that it is really equally applicable in each context&#8230; there's a fair amount that needs to change in both cases&#8230; and the form has everything to do with "style"&#8230; there's a reason it's done there, as well as why it's done the way it is&#8230; which is all about the particular style itself.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Of course you don't need to train form to learn this kick/punch combo. But it doesn't hurt to have it "recorded" in the form so people would know this combo existed in the ancient time.



It's got nothing to do with the "combo"&#8230; and yes, to do it the way that system does it, you do need to train that form. It's really not as simple as you're making it out to be...


----------



## Tez3

Originally Posted by *Kung Fu Wang*         IMO, you are the master and your style is you slave. You should train your system "the way that you want to train" and not allowing your system to force you to train the system wants you to train.


That doesn't make any sense. If you are a beginner how can you not train your 'system'? How would you have the knowledge not to be 'forced' into training the way your system wants you to? and why would you train in a system and completely ignore it's teaching and way of training, what would be the point?  I'm sorry I don't understand that at all. No one is 'forced' to train anyway at all, one chooses one's art according to what suits you, your pocket and your sense of self, to then ignore all the teaching seems nonsensical.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> That'd be fine if that's what you were actually saying (just that you didn't like kata) except it wasn't. What you were saying was that kata "didn't work" "wasn't what you saw in sparring" there was the constant rhetoric of kata not being "needed" in other arts (which denied the structure, history, ideals, beliefs, values, reasons, perspectives, and realities of both kata-based and non-kata systems on a huge number of levels) lot's of implications that it was contrary to the skills, and so on all of which while abjectly refusing to look at what kata actually is, or what it's designed to do.



All of which came from my personal experiences with kata. I didn't like it because in my experience it wasn't being used for anything other than rank padding. We weren't being taught its usefulness, just that it was something we had to do to advance to the next belt. My experiences in TKD and TSD were largely the same. When I met a guy who practiced MMA, it really opened my eyes to what my training lacked; practicality. That same practicality is what drew me to Judo and eventually Bjj. There wasn't this twerp standing next to me pointing out how my foot wasn't turned the right way, or my elbow wasn't pressed against my hip properly. In the latter arts I could feel if I was doing things right or wrong, and I could just accordingly.



> That said, are you able to go back and answer my questions from my previous post to you? It may help avoid such issues in the future on both sides.



What questions in particular? Your previous post was pretty long.


----------



## Tames D

ballen0351 said:


> Or his accounts under review because there was something shady going on



Member Accounts can be under review for many reasons. It doesn't automatically mean something "shady" is going on. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt, since you are not involved in the the backroom discussion.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Chris Parker said:


> Are you really training in Long Fist if you're not training Long Fist forms, though?



A form can be as simple as a sentence such as "This is a book". 

This - subject
is - verb
a - article
book - object.

Through a form (sentence), you can learn "grammar" and "vocabulary". The important thing is not this sentence itself but how to use the same grammar to construct other sentence such as:

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

 Even if you have repeated "This is a book" 1,000,000 times in your life, that sentence is still "only a sentence". You should start to use the grammar and vocabulary to create your own sentences instead.

If you have learned "groin kick, face punch" combo from your form, you should be able to come up with:

- foot sweep, back fist,
- low roundhouse kick, hook punch,
- side kick, spin back fist,
- ...

The form is the starting point. It's not the ending point. It's the information inside the forms that you need to dig out and expand.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tez3 said:


> If you are a beginner how can you not train your 'system'?



Of course you will need to learn "all the forms" that your system can offer to you. After you have completed your system, you can start to be the master and let your style to be your slave. This is different from "your system is your master for the rest of your life". 

I have learned all the forms that my long fist system has to offer. Do I want to spend the rest of my life to repeat my forms over and over? Of course not. I have more important thing to do (such as "entering strategies" and "finish strategies"). I just don't have the time to concentrate on one single system no matter how much that I love my long fist system.



Tez3 said:


> How would you have the knowledge not to be 'forced' into training the way your system wants you to?



After you have learned all the open hand forms, you have also learned

- 1 dagger form,
- 2 Dao forms,
- 2 Jean form,
- 2 staff forms, and 
- 1 spear form.

If your interest is not in the traditional weapon training, do you want to stay for another 2 years in your system to learn another 6 weapon forms in order to be 100% complete in your system, or will you just move on and try to learn another system instead?


----------



## Tez3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A form can be as simple as a sentence such as "This is a book".
> 
> This - subject
> is - verb
> a - article
> book - object.
> 
> Through a form (sentence), you can learn "grammar" and "vocabulary". The important thing is not this sentence itself but how to use the same grammar to construct other sentence such as:
> 
> - This is a pen.
> - That is a book.
> - This is not a book.
> - ...
> 
> *Even if you have repeated "This is a book" 1,000,000 times in your life, that sentence is still "only a sentence".* You should start to use the grammar and vocabulary to create your own sentences instead.
> 
> If you have learned "groin kick, face punch" combo from your form, you should be able to come up with:
> 
> - foot sweep, back fist,
> - low roundhouse kick, hook punch,
> - side kick, spin back fist,
> - ...
> 
> The form is the starting point. It's not the ending point. It's the information inside the forms that you need to dig out and expand.



Unwise. *I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.*
* Bruce Lee
*


----------



## ballen0351

Tames D said:


> Member Accounts can be under review for many reasons. It doesn't automatically mean something "shady" is going on. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt, since you are not involved in the the backroom discussion.



Why?  He came here trolling in my opinion and now his account is under review.  If it look like a duck,quacks like a duck well.......


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tez3 said:


> Unwise. *I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.*
> *Bruce Lee
> *


I agree! But a general will need many soldiers to protect him.

If you want your "left side kick" to work, when your opponent block your left side kick and spin your body to your

- left, you may need to follow up with a right palm strike to his neck.
- right, you may need to follow up with a right spin back fist to his head.

So a "side kick" is more than just a "side kick". To use it against someone on your level, you will need more than that. 

If you want to make your "head lock" work, you have to master 20 other skills such as, twist, spring, lift, block, cut, over hook, crack, ... The reason is simple, your opponent may respond in 20 different ways. For each of his responds, you should have a good follow up move for it. For each of his counters for your follow up, you will need to have your counter for his counter as well. 

If you train:

- technique,
- counters to that technique,
- counters to those counters to that technique,
- ...

You will start to grow a "tree" with many branches. If you grow many trees, you will grow a "forest". If you develop your MA skill this way, you will find out that you no longer have the luxury to repeat the forms that you have learned from your teacher. You will spend the rest of your life to take information out of your forms and start to grow your "tree" one after another.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

You may want to develop your own "entering strategy - move in without been hit" and "finish strategy - knock/take down your opponent ASAP". It will require the integration of kick, punch, lock, throw, and ground game. This may take the majority of your personal training time. IMO, it's much more important than to spend your time in your solo forms training.


----------



## Tez3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I agree! But a general will need many soldiers to protect him.
> 
> If you want your "left side kick" to work, when your opponent block your left side kick and spin your body to your
> 
> - left, you may need to follow up with a right palm strike to his neck.
> - right, you may need to follow up with a right spin back fist to his head.
> 
> So a "side kick" is more than just a "side kick". To use it against someone on your level, you will need more than that.
> 
> If you want to make your "head lock" work, you have to master 20 other skills such as, twist, spring, lift, block, cut, over hook, crack, ... The reason is simple, your opponent may respond in 20 different ways. For each of his responds, you should have a good follow up move for it. For each of his counters for your follow up, you will need to have your counter for his counter as well.
> 
> If you train:
> 
> - technique,
> - counters to that technique,
> - counters to those counters to that technique,
> - ...
> 
> You will start to grow a "tree" with many branches. If you grow many trees, you will grow a "forest". If you develop your MA skill this way, you will find out that you no longer have the luxury to repeat the forms that you have learned from your teacher. You will spend the rest of your life to take information out of your forms and start to grow your "tree" one after another.




Generals don't need protecting, that's not what soldiers are for. As for the rest, I train simply, I don't over think and I don't really like being lectured about 'horticulture' nor am I keen on faux philosophy.


----------



## Tames D

ballen0351 said:


> Why?  He came here trolling in my opinion and now his account is under review.  If it look like a duck,quacks like a duck well.......



So you ASSume he's a troll.


----------



## ballen0351

Tames D said:


> So you ASSume he's a troll.



Yep and now so are you.  Get over it man he's gone who cares


----------



## Tames D

ballen0351 said:


> Yep and now so are you.  Get over it man he's gone who cares



So now I'm a troll. You are a piece of work dude.


----------



## ballen0351

Tames D said:


> So now I'm a troll. You are a piece of work dude.



Hmmmm 12 pages of some pretty good comments on the actual topic yet you pic one small unrelated post from 2 days ago to have an objection to.......yep troll.  Beat feet dude


----------



## Tames D

ballen0351 said:


> Hmmmm 12 pages of some pretty good comments on the actual topic yet you pic one small unrelated post from 2 days ago to have an objection to.......yep troll.  Beat feet dude


Bring your ego down a couple of notches little man.


----------



## ballen0351

Tames D said:


> Bring your ego down a couple of notches little man.



LOL Thanks I have been working out and on a diet Im glad you noticed.........so do you plan on actually discussing the topic here?


----------



## Tames D

ballen0351 said:


> LOL Thanks I have been working out and on a diet Im glad you noticed.........so do you plan on actually discussing the topic here?



You can LOL all you want. I responded to your PM. Your bully tactics won't work on me. I guarantee it!


----------



## ballen0351

Tames D said:


> You can LOL all you want. I responded to your PM. Your bully tactics won't work on me. I guarantee it!



So no your not planning on discussing the topic?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

 Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

 -Brian R. VanCise
 -MT Moderator-*


----------



## Chris Parker

Hanzou said:


> All of which came from my personal experiences with kata. I didn't like it because in my experience it wasn't being used for anything other than rank padding. We weren't being taught its usefulness, just that it was something we had to do to advance to the next belt. My experiences in TKD and TSD were largely the same.



The problem is that that's nothing to do with kata as a training methodology, as (if that's the way you were taught it), that's not training in kata. 



Hanzou said:


> When I met a guy who practiced MMA, it really opened my eyes to what my training lacked; practicality. That same practicality is what drew me to Judo and eventually Bjj.



"Practicality" depends entirely on the context, of course...



Hanzou said:


> There wasn't this twerp standing next to me pointing out how my foot wasn't turned the right way, or my elbow wasn't pressed against my hip properly. In the latter arts I could feel if I was doing things right or wrong, and I could just accordingly.



Hmm "twerp"? I can see how the respect you had for your teacher continues to today but more to the point, did you ever stop to think about why they were giving the corrections? I mean I can get quite pedantic on my students form for very good reasons. And, as far as you can just "feel" when it's right or not, to be honest, I'm not convinced of that I'd suggest you can certainly feel when you think it's "right" but your coach standing next to you could often give you a pointer to improve what you're doing which is really exactly the same as the "twerp" telling you to be aware of where your elbow is.



Hanzou said:


> What questions in particular? Your previous post was pretty long.



There were really only two questions and that post wasn't long, trust me.

The questions are: What do you think kata is actually for, and what it's supposed to give the student? And what "high rank" did you achieve in your Shotokan training?



Tames D said:


> Member Accounts can be under review for many reasons. It doesn't automatically mean something "shady" is going on. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt, since you are not involved in the the backroom discussion.



I don't know quite what the OP was doing or why his account is "under review" but I will say that my suspicions were raised on the first post starting by saying that English is not his primary language, then continuing to be pretty much flawless in his grammar, spelling, use of idioms, and a range of unusual words that, frankly, I'd only expect a fully fluent (and commonly native speaker) of English to use such as "irks" "asinine" "cannot help but fail to think" Frankly, there's no way that English was his second language to the point that any allowances would need to be made.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> A form can be as simple as a sentence such as "This is a book".
> 
> This - subject
> is - verb
> a - article
> book - object.
> 
> Through a form (sentence), you can learn "grammar" and "vocabulary". The important thing is not this sentence itself but how to use the same grammar to construct other sentence such as:
> 
> - This is a pen.
> - That is a book.
> - This is not a book.
> - ...
> 
> Even if you have repeated "This is a book" 1,000,000 times in your life, that sentence is still "only a sentence". You should start to use the grammar and vocabulary to create your own sentences instead.
> 
> If you have learned "groin kick, face punch" combo from your form, you should be able to come up with:
> 
> - foot sweep, back fist,
> - low roundhouse kick, hook punch,
> - side kick, spin back fist,
> - ...
> 
> The form is the starting point. It's not the ending point. It's the information inside the forms that you need to dig out and expand.



Er none of that is really anything to do with what I asked you or the question of mine you quoted


----------



## punisher73

OK, I read the original OP and then read about the first 5 pages of rants about the value of kata.

That had NOTHING to do with what the OP was.  Setting aside the value of kata.  I can agree and appreciate where he is coming from, AS A PERSON WHO TRAINS AND LOVES KATA.  Just putting that out there so this isn't seen as an "anti-kata" post/person.

In some cases, things are done in schools/classes as "filler".  You have limited class time and want to maximize it as much as possible.  I have seen classes that are filled with warm ups and calisthenics and only about 15-20 minutes of actual instruction.  Is conditioning important?  Yep, absolutely.  Can it be done at home, yep.  Kata is important, are there going to be classes that a lot of class time is spent learning a sequence or kata?  Yep.  BUT, I have also seen classes where a kata is assigned and the instructor wanders off and the student is just left to perform it over and over without feedback or input.  After the sequence/kata is learned, could it be possible to do the reps at home and spend more class time drilling and working on applications?  Yep.

It sounded to me like the OP just wanted to spend more class time drilling with a partner or sparring than endless repetition of a kata.  Again, that had nothing to do with the value of kata training, just different emphasis on limited class time.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> The problem is that that's nothing to do with kata as a training methodology, as (if that's the way you were taught it), that's not training in kata.



That's how we trained in kata at my dojo. I also wouldn't be surprised if that form of teaching kata was fairly widespread. I think it was Kman who said that the Japanese taught a lot of American GIs "children's Karate". I'm starting to believe it.



> "Practicality" depends entirely on the context, of course...



Of course.



> Hmm "twerp"? I can see how the respect you had for your teacher continues to today but more to the point, did you ever stop to think about why they were giving the corrections? I mean I can get quite pedantic on my students form for very good reasons.



Well first of all it wasn't my instructor. It was a 12 year old brown belt who went on to become a 14 year old black belt. 



> And, as far as you can just "feel" when it's right or not, to be honest, I'm not convinced of that I'd suggest you can certainly feel when you think it's "right" but your coach standing next to you could often give you a pointer to improve what you're doing which is really exactly the same as the "twerp" telling you to be aware of where your elbow is.



It's simply different in the grappling arts. If I'm not using my hips correctly in side mount for example, my partner can roll onto their side much easier. You don't get that same feedback from punching and kicking air. This is compounded when you free spar, and you immediately revert back to your natural fighting style.




> There were really only two questions and that post wasn't long, trust me.
> 
> The questions are: What do you think kata is actually for, and what it's supposed to give the student? And what "high rank" did you achieve in your Shotokan training?



1. I believe that Kata was originally a living depository of techniques that a karateka should be able to pull from, utilize, and transfer.
2. I achieved Shodan rank. I was that rank for 3 years. At the time of my departure, I was about to test for both my nidan, and instructor certification in a month's time.


----------



## Tez3

punisher73 said:


> OK, I read the original OP and then read about the first 5 pages of rants about the value of kata.
> 
> so, when you disagree with something people write it's a 'rant' but you alone understand what the OP despite the fact he was actually quite rude?
> 
> That had NOTHING to do with what the OP was.  Setting aside the value of kata.  I can agree and appreciate where he is coming from, AS A PERSON WHO TRAINS AND LOVES KATA.  Just putting that out there so this isn't seen as an "anti-kata" post/person.
> 
> No, he was rude, argumentative and even a tad aggressive. if he'd written a less confrontational post where he wasn't stating he knew everything about martial arts and that kata was crap, he would have been received entirely differently. *He set the tone of the thread* and noticeably he is under review now.
> 
> In some cases, things are done in schools/classes as "filler".  You have limited class time and want to maximize it as much as possible.  I have seen classes that are filled with warm ups and calisthenics and only about 15-20 minutes of actual instruction.  Is conditioning important?  Yep, absolutely.  Can it be done at home, yep.  Kata is important, are there going to be classes that a lot of class time is spent learning a sequence or kata?  Yep.  BUT, I have also seen classes where a kata is assigned and the instructor wanders off and the student is just left to perform it over and over without feedback or input.  After the sequence/kata is learned, could it be possible to do the reps at home and spend more class time drilling and working on applications?  Yep.
> 
> It sounded to me like the OP just wanted to spend more class time drilling with a partner or sparring than endless repetition of a kata.  Again, that had nothing to do with the value of kata training, just different emphasis on limited class time.



It sounded to the rest of us, rightly I believe, as someone who thought he knew it all hectoring the rest of us.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> That's how we trained in kata at my dojo. I also wouldn't be surprised if that form of teaching kata was fairly widespread. I think it was Kman who said that the Japanese taught a lot of American GIs "children's Karate". I'm starting to believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all it wasn't my instructor. It was a 12 year old brown belt who went on to become a 14 year old black belt.
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply different in the grappling arts. If I'm not using my hips correctly in side mount for example, my partner can roll onto their side much easier. You don't get that same feedback from punching and kicking air. This is compounded when you free spar, and you immediately revert back to your natural fighting style.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I believe that Kata was originally a living depository of techniques that a karateka should be able to pull from, utilize, and transfer.
> 2. I achieved Shodan rank. I was that rank for 3 years. At the time of my departure, I was about to test for both my nidan, and instructor certification in a month's time.



If you had a 14 year old blackbelt instructing,  how old were you when you received yours?
I would say if you had child instructors no wonder kata wasn't taught properly.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> If you had a 14 year old blackbelt instructing,  how old were you when you received yours?
> I would say if you had child instructors no wonder kata wasn't taught properly.



I was 26 when I received my black belt.


----------



## punisher73

Tez3 said:


> It sounded to the rest of us, rightly I believe, as someone who thought he knew it all hectoring the rest of us.



Could be right.  I saw that "English isn't my first language" and figure "tone" might be lost in translation and subtleties of language. Then him venting about his frustrations and then all the responses were about the importance of kata.  I didn't see too many responses about HOW the kata was trained in class or how the rest of class was structured to find out more.


----------



## punisher73

Tez3 said:


> If you had a 14 year old blackbelt instructing,  how old were you when you received yours?
> I would say if you had child instructors no wonder kata wasn't taught properly.



Can't speak specifically for him, but I have heard many stories of "kids" teaching adults in classes.  I have had many people complain about this.  For example, my sister studied at a school and was taught by a young child (around 10-12, and she was in her early 20's) and it drove her nuts and was ultimately what made her stop going.


----------



## Tez3

At the risk of starting a whole new argument...please don't lol..... the first sign of it being a McDojo is blackbelts under 18 and children teaching. 

Responses of how kata should be taught would have been pointless when the OP said bluntly it shouldn't be taught. You can't argue about _how_ it should be taught when someone thinks it's pointless, useless and ruins karate, it doesn't leave anywhere for the debate to go.


----------



## ballen0351

punisher73 said:


> Could be right.  I saw that "English isn't my first language" and figure "tone" might be lost in translation and subtleties of language. Then him venting about his frustrations and then all the responses were about the importance of kata.  I didn't see too many responses about HOW the kata was trained in class or how the rest of class was structured to find out more.



None of us are in his class to comment on "how" it is being taught in his class.  The best advise we could give was regardless of the methods he needed to remember how important Kata is and remember the benefits. 
I'm old school I guess it's my military background I'm more of the quit "venting" shut up and train.  If you don't like what's being taught then find a school you like but either way quit your crying and go train.  I've done lots of things I don't like but you do it bacause that's what the teacher says.  It's his class his school his rules.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> At the risk of starting a whole new argument...please don't lol..... the first sign of it being a McDojo is blackbelts under 18 and children teaching.



No argument there, but to be fair to my former instructor, he was elderly, and he really wanted to motivate the kids he was teaching. Additionally, the kid's parents really pressed him to promote their kid, who was pretty dedicated.

I know that deep down, he didn't want to do it. He just sold out.


----------



## ballen0351

Hanzou said:


> I think it was Kman who said that the Japanese taught a lot of American GIs "children's Karate". I'm starting to believe it.


I'm not sure how true this is.  There are enough people around that trained with the masters pre and post war times that are not American GI'S who's kata is the same as they are today.  Most of the Okinawan styles are not that old so we have direct links to students of the founders some still alive.  


> Well first of all it wasn't my instructor. It was a 12 year old brown belt who went on to become a 14 year old black belt.


That sucks.  If you found someone actually doing a good job at teaching Kata I think you would have a better impression.  Sadly 1st impressions are hard to shake.  


> It's simply different in the grappling arts. If I'm not using my hips correctly in side mount for example, my partner can roll onto their side much easier. You don't get that same feedback from punching and kicking air.



Sure you do.  I can tell by a students foot placment if they have squared their hips, or if they are using good fundamentals.  Honestly I can feel if I'm doing my kata properly by where I start the angles I flow into and out of techniques.  Where my feet land when I stop.  Ect ect.  Then I can feel if my elbows are in the right position or my weight is distributed properly as well doing kata and even in bunkai.  It's just as responsive as grappling if you know what your looking at.



> This is compounded when you free spar, and you immediately revert back to your natural fighting style.


Because kata wasn't made for sparing


----------



## Tez3

ballen0351 said:


> None of us are in his class to comment on "how" it is being taught in his class.  The best advise we could give was regardless of the methods he needed to remember how important Kata is and remember the benefits.
> I'm old school I guess it's my military background I'm more of the quit "venting" shut up and train.  If you don't like what's being taught then find a school you like but either way quit your crying and go train.  I've done lots of things I don't like but you do it bacause that's what the teacher says.  It's his class his school his rules.



Our fitness coach is military ( Scots Guards, he has just finished as the Garrison Sgt.Maj at Camp Bastian, if you saw any footage of the lowering flags at Bastian when it closed down a couple of weeks ago he was the chap behind the flagpole lowering the Union Jack) his favourite saying is 'awa an get yersel a cup of man up' for just about everything. I don't see the OP's point in moaning, if he doesn't like it, find something else. Why moan? Fix it instead.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> That's how we trained in kata at my dojo. I also wouldn't be surprised if that form of teaching kata was fairly widespread. I think it was Kman who said that the Japanese taught a lot of American GIs "children's Karate". I'm starting to believe it.
> 
> 1. I believe that Kata was originally a living depository of techniques that a karateka should be able to pull from, utilize, and transfer.





ballen0351 said:


> I'm not sure how true this is.  There are enough people around that trained with the masters pre and post war times that are not American GI'S who's kata is the same as they are today.  Most of the Okinawan styles are not that old so we have direct links to students of the founders some still alive.
> 
> Because kata wasn't made for sparing


If you talk to the top Okinawan guys they will tell you. Spending an afternoon talking with Tetsuhiro Hokama Sensei is a time I will always treasure. ( About Hokama Hanshi ) The Jundokan guys say the same thing. I think it is beyond doubt that the early Western karate only taught the basics (kihon) and that is all that was taught in the schools and universities. Certainly there were Westerners training post war who maybe were taught things others were not (I'm not sure about pre-war) but that would have been on the basis that they had proved their sincerity and were trusted to keep the knowledge to themselves. Even today there are peopled saying Taira Sensei shouldn't be sharing with us what he is teaching.

But, none of that is anything to do with the teaching of kata. The kata is the same. Sure it varies from style to style and from one master to another but the kihon kata is the same for everyone. It is what you can learn from the kata that gives kata its value. To me kata is like a travel book. You can look at the pictures and appreciate the beauty or you can read the text and plan your journey. Most people just look at the pictures.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> If you talk to the top Okinawan guys they will tell you. Spending an afternoon talking with Tetsuhiro Hokama Sensei is a time I will always treasure. ( About Hokama Hanshi ) The Jundokan guys say the same thing. I think it is beyond doubt that the early Western karate only taught the basics (kihon) and that is all that was taught in the schools and universities. Certainly there were Westerners training post war who maybe were taught things others were not (I'm not sure about pre-war) but that would have been on the basis that they had proved their sincerity and were trusted to keep the knowledge to themselves. Even today there are peopled saying Taira Sensei shouldn't be sharing with us what he is teaching.


So in Goju for example I have trained with for example Higaonna Sensei who has made corrections to my Kata.  As you saying he was only taught a watered down version as well?  Or that he only teaches a watered down version?


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> So in Goju for example I have trained with for example Higaonna Sensei who has made corrections to my Kata.  As you saying he was only taught a watered down version as well?  Or that he only teaches a watered down version?


There is a lot of controversy with Higaonna and his relationship with the Jundokan. I have no idea how much he knows. Certainly I have seen no evidence of his teaching beyond the kihon. The correction to kata is an interesting topic as it has been commented on in passing by a number of top guys. There are examples in seminars of one high ranked instructor making a correction to someone's hand position only to have another equally highly ranked instructor change it back. The comment being that in making minor changes to the kata really was irrelevant it the scheme of things. So yes if there is a problem with a position in kata that would influence it effectiveness it should be corrected but if it is cosmetic it really doesn't matter. As an example of something that might be corrected here are two videos of Gekisai dai ichi. The first one is similar to how we were taught to perform the kata in Goju Kai. The second, by Morio Higaonna, is how we have been instructed it should be performed.

Learn Gekisai Dai Ichi - Kata for Goju-Ryu Karate - Black Belt Wiki

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vKLX3tZN1JQ

There is a subtle difference and my kata was only recently corrected from the first to the second and the reason for the correction is quite obvious when you think about it, just that I was training the first way for over 30 years. Not wanting to put pressure on you or to be a smartarse, can you tell the difference? Lolly for the first person to pick it up in the next little while or I will point out the difference shortly.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> There is a lot of controversy with Higaonna and his relationship with the Jundokan. I have no idea how much he knows. Certainly I have seen no evidence of his teaching beyond the kihon. The correction to kata is an interesting topic as it has been commented on in passing by a number of top guys. There are examples in seminars of one high ranked instructor making a correction to someone's hand position only to have another equally highly ranked instructor change it back. The comment being that in making minor changes to the kata really was irrelevant it the scheme of things. So yes if there is a problem with a position in kata that would influence it effectiveness it should be corrected but if it is cosmetic it really doesn't matter. As an example of something that might be corrected here are two videos of Gekisai dai ichi. The first one is similar to how we were taught to perform the kata in Goju Kai. The second, by Morio Higaonna, is how we have been instructed it should be performed.
> 
> Learn Gekisai Dai Ichi - Kata for Goju-Ryu Karate - Black Belt Wiki
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vKLX3tZN1JQ
> 
> There is a subtle difference and my kata was only recently corrected from the first to the second and the reason for the correction is quite obvious when you think about it, just that I was training the first way for over 30 years. Not wanting to put pressure on you or to be a smartarse, can you tell the difference? Lolly for the first person to pick it up in the next little while or I will point out the difference shortly.
> :asian:


I was using Higaonnna more as an exaple.  I guess I was trying to say are the heads of Goju today be it IOGKF or Jundokan or Okinawa Goju Ryu Karate Do Kenkyu Kai teaching different then what Chojun Miyagi? (Besides individual changes between organizations)  When I see something like "well karate today was watered down for Americans and school kids" I wonder then what are these heads teaching?  Is this the watered down version or not?  I'm not disagreeing with you I don't known the answer I'm not as knowledgeable on the History of Goju as I wish I was.


----------



## ballen0351

Im on a phone so it's hard to see the videos but are they both Higaonna?  On my small screen it both looks like him


----------



## ballen0351

By the way if we need to move to a new topic or PM thats fine this is interesting to me


----------



## K-man

ballen0351 said:


> Im on a phone so it's hard to see the videos but are they both Higaonna?  On my small screen it both looks like him


Looks similar but pretty sure it's not him. The style is different although it is a hybrid of the Okinawan and Japanese kata. I'll wait until you have a chance to look at it on a larger screen.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> Looks similar but pretty sure it's not him. The style is different although it is a hybrid of the Okinawan and Japanese kata. I'll wait until you have a chance to look at it on a larger screen.
> :asian:



Yeah I'll look later tonight when I get home but that clip was posted by an IOGKF dojo if you let it run to the end it's advertising for a NY city dojo and has the IOGKF logo.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hanzou said:


> That's how we trained in kata at my dojo. I also wouldn't be surprised if that form of teaching kata was fairly widespread. I think it was Kman who said that the Japanese taught a lot of American GIs "children's Karate". I'm starting to believe it.



Cool. The point we were making, though, is that just because the training method isn't properly utilised in your dojo, or others, doesn't invalidate the training methodology itself that said, I personally feel that kata training is one of the least properly understood training methodologies out there (as seen in karate and similar systems), while simultaneously being the most important in those arts.

With regards to "children's karate", I don't know that it's restricted to just the early US Gi's who were given that when Funakoshi went to Japan, he wasn't the best karate-ka around, nor the most knowledgable and many reports suggest that he didn't teach, or emphasise, much beyond "here is the sequence of moves" when it came to kata. Then you have specific kata that were developed specifically for children, such as the Gekisai forms, and the Heian/Pinan forms (which were simplified from earlier kata to make it easier for young children to remember/perform). In a real sense, most karate around is "children's karate" when looked at in this light, if we're to use such terms.



Hanzou said:


> Of course.



My point was that you were exposed to a different contextual "practicality" so it wasn't that your earlier training necessarily lacked it (it may have, it may not), but it may have been addressing a different form of practicality that wasn't recognised.



Hanzou said:


> Well first of all it wasn't my instructor. It was a 12 year old brown belt who went on to become a 14 year old black belt.



When you were in your 20's? Well, firstly, labelling a 12 year old kid who is doing what he thinks is correct a "twerp" might not be the most charitable thing you could do but, more realistically, I'd question what real education you would receive from someone that young sure, they might have had some idea of how it was supposed to be done (the kata), but I'd question the level of their understanding as to "why" as a result, I'm not overtly shocked that such a training experience was not optimal for you but again, that's not the fault of kata training, but of the lack of any real depth or understanding in the way it was presented to you (in that instance).



Hanzou said:


> It's simply different in the grappling arts. If I'm not using my hips correctly in side mount for example, my partner can roll onto their side much easier.



Just a reminder here, my arts are largely grappling based not ground, but grappling (as the term itself is defined) as well as having a striking component. My point is that, well, no, it's not different. You, on a personal level, get more readily identifiable feedback in your grappling system that doesn't mean anything other than that you get more readily identifiable feedback there. I can just as easily point out where there's an issue with a students form when they're doing something solo, with a partner, striking, grappling, ground work, weapon work, or anything else. And even when they think they've got it, and are in the right position, I can tweak it and improve it or point out where they think they're safe, but aren't.

With regards to your side-mount example, sure, I can see how you can come to that conclusion but it's going to have as much to do with who you're rolling with at the time or if you're even rolling at all (or just running drills). Someone less experienced, for example, might not know to turn to their side or how to and let you get away with something that doesn't necessarily "work" at it's optimal level. To pick up on that, a coach standing over you, telling you to adjust your hips, or your arms, or whatever, is the same as the kid telling you to mind your elbows. Of course, the immediate results might be far clearer to you in your grappling form but that doesn't mean that the kata correction was less practical, effective, or correct.



Hanzou said:


> You don't get that same feedback from punching and kicking air.



Again, that's very subjective speaking personally, I get a lot of feedback from doing things solo and can recognise when my balance is off, when I'm open where I shouldn't be, when my power is lacking, and so on.



Hanzou said:


> This is compounded when you free spar, and you immediately revert back to your natural fighting style.



Ah, well, that's getting to it, isn't it? Why would you be reverting to something that isn't what you're learning when you free spar? To me, that's a complete failure of the training and one reason I'm not fond of sparring, particularly early on...



Hanzou said:


> 1. I believe that Kata was originally a living depository of techniques that a karateka should be able to pull from, utilize, and transfer.



Okay, cool. I'd suggest that that's not the reality there the idea isn't of a collection of techniques, it's more that it's giving you tactical applications of techniques. The techniques you should already have the execution of down what kata gives you is the consistency and understood/developed methods of applying them rather than relying on random, inconsistent personal explorations. 

But here's the thing in sports, personal explorations are the standard each person is trying to find what helps them be successful against others trying the same thing but when learning a particular approach/system, you don't want the results to be so random, which is where kata comes into it. The problem is when both are seen as the same thing or when one is seen as being even related to the other which is where you've been coming from. Kata is about learning the approach and tactical methodology of the system itself learning to do the art the way it's intended sparring/sports methodology is about trying things to see what works "for you" which is far more random in it's ability to generate success.

In other words, kata is teaching you karate sparring isn't. The two are almost completely unrelated.



Hanzou said:


> 2. I achieved Shodan rank. I was that rank for 3 years. At the time of my departure, I was about to test for both my nidan, and instructor certification in a month's time.



Cool, thanks. Of course, as you know, many won't consider that a "high rank" we'd be more looking at 5th Dan and higher but that's where I thought you were meaning.


----------



## Zero

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you want to make your "head lock" work, you have to master 20 other skills such as, twist, spring, lift, block, cut, over hook, crack, ... The reason is simple, your opponent may respond in 20 different ways. For each of his responds, you should have a good follow up move for it. For each of his counters for your follow up, you will need to have your counter for his counter as well.


I hear what you are saying and on one level agree with you but with respect to your comments on the need for follow up counters to counters, I wager that you are no longer talking about simply putting on a good head lock, you are talking about being a well-rounded fighter.  That is a different thing.
You can choose to simply train in a very few techniques that you find effective (for whatever reason).  You can absolutely make that headlock work without the need for worrying about numerous follow ups with various different counters or different techniques. You drill and train that headlock and the timing and distance skills for employing it effectively.  You don't just throw these techniques out there willy nilly, you wait until they are "on". You simply "do" when the moment is there.  For whatever reason, and in keeping with your headlock example, one of my favourite and often effective moves which I have used in freestyle and mma and also sparring is a front headlock or guillotine into suplex where I end up in mount for ground and pound or I separate for a head kick (often actually harder as grapplers can be such quick scramblers).  When I throw the headlock it is going on, if it is deflected or countered I am then doing something entirely different but it is no longer about the headlock.

Also, there is no reason why each of your opponent's moves cannot be responded to with just a few moves of your own, provided you got those moves down.  One move in itself can be used against a great variety of differing attacks or openings.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hanzou said:


> That's how we trained in kata at my dojo. I also wouldn't be surprised if that form of teaching kata was fairly widespread. I think it was Kman who said that the Japanese taught a lot of American GIs "children's Karate". I'm starting to believe it.



I made that statement.  Many of the early pioneers of karate maintained that the essence of all karate was in the kata.  In fact, Uechi Kanbun Sensei stated that to know the kata Seisan was to know all of karate.  Many others maintained that 1-3 kata was really all that was needed for a lifetime of training.  The point being that, generally speaking, kata training isn't what it once was.  So the question becomes, 'why the paradigm shift'?  How did kata go from being the foundational cornerstone of karate to a class-filler that many consider a complete waste of time?

My belief (and that of many) is that there are several factors.  First, when sport is added to an art, or sport takes the major role in the art, the training changes.  If the sport looks akin to a kickboxing match, you don't need locks and chokes and throws and cavity pressing etc.  So emphasis is added to one component of the training while de-emphasising or eliminating other components.  Secondly, as mentioned in one of my earlier posts, Itosu Sensei reworked the Pinan katas for children's consumption.  I will differ slightly with Chris in that I feel the Pinan katas were designed for adults and then relabled/watered down for children and that the children's version is what was widely taught after WWII.  Thus an instructor can only teach what he/she were taught themselves.  So now we've had many generations of karateka that really know only the block-punch-kick side of karate with perhaps a bit of the other stuff sprinkled in here and there.  That is a general statement and there are exceptions of course.  

Lastly, the methodology of training has changed.  In the 'old' days, training was more focused and intense.  As I've mentioned often, Uechi Sensei, while learning Sanchin kata (Uechi version) spent hours a day for many months just training the opening movements of the kata.  Not the whole kata, just the opening movements.  How powerful/intense/focused could you be in these movements if it were your sole focus for hours a day for weeks and months?  Answer...you'd get quite good at it.  But nowadays a form can be learned in a single class session because you only train a couple of times a week and you're going to need to know that kata for the next colored belt test in a month or so.  So kata is relegated to the 'boring-why I'm I doing this crap-class filler for the next test' portion of training.

Kata, whether passed along from instructor to student in it's original intent or whether it's been reversed engineered is dynamic, interesting and informative.  One 'should' literally be able to take just a portion of a kata (waza) and train it for months due to the information contained therein.  And not just limited to the original movements.  It teaches concepts, strategies and tactics more than just limited movements.  If a portion of the kata is demonstrating a lock in one plane of travel, it will also work in another plane.  So a standing shoulder lock can be performed standing, kneeling, prone etc because it is the principle of locking that the kata holds, not just a limited technique.  

This is why karate is a:


Striking art
Kicking art
Grappling art

Ground fighting art
Locking art
Throwing art
Pressure point art
Etc
Karate can be, and should be a one-stop-shop art.  You really want to get good at the ground game....karate is the answer.  You really want to get good at locks and throws....karate is the art you're looking for.  And so on.  Because of the modern paradigm it's sometimes hard to get your brain wrapped around it.  

"Don't go to the ground with this guy...he knows karate"!

Or let's really go the extra step, "Don't go to the ground with this guy...he knows Taekwondo"!

But if either karate or TKD were trained as they could be, and have been in the past it wouldn't sound odd at all.


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> I made that statement.  Many of the early pioneers of karate maintained that the essence of all karate was in the kata.  In fact, Uechi Kanbun Sensei stated that to know the kata Seisan was to know all of karate.  Many others maintained that 1-3 kata was really all that was needed for a lifetime of training.  The point being that, generally speaking, kata training isn't what it once was.  So the question becomes, 'why the paradigm shift'?  How did kata go from being the foundational cornerstone of karate to a class-filler that many consider a complete waste of time?
> 
> My belief (and that of many) is that there are several factors.  First, when sport is added to an art, or sport takes the major role in the art, the training changes.  If the sport looks akin to a kickboxing match, you don't need locks and chokes and throws and cavity pressing etc.  So emphasis is added to one component of the training while de-emphasising or eliminating other components.  Secondly, as mentioned in one of my earlier posts, Itosu Sensei reworked the Pinan katas for children's consumption.  I will differ slightly with Chris in that I feel the Pinan katas were designed for adults and then relabled/watered down for children and that the children's version is what was widely taught after WWII.  Thus an instructor can only teach what he/she were taught themselves.  So now we've had many generations of karateka that really know only the block-punch-kick side of karate with perhaps a bit of the other stuff sprinkled in here and there.  That is a general statement and there are exceptions of course.
> 
> Lastly, the methodology of training has changed.  In the 'old' days, training was more focused and intense.  As I've mentioned often, Uechi Sensei, while learning Sanchin kata (Uechi version) spent hours a day for many months just training the opening movements of the kata.  Not the whole kata, just the opening movements.  How powerful/intense/focused could you be in these movements if it were your sole focus for hours a day for weeks and months?  Answer...you'd get quite good at it.  But nowadays a form can be learned in a single class session because you only train a couple of times a week and you're going to need to know that kata for the next colored belt test in a month or so.  So kata is relegated to the 'boring-why I'm I doing this crap-class filler for the next test' portion of training.
> 
> Kata, whether passed along from instructor to student in it's original intent or whether it's been reversed engineered is dynamic, interesting and informative.  One 'should' literally be able to take just a portion of a kata (waza) and train it for months due to the information contained therein.  And not just limited to the original movements.  It teaches concepts, strategies and tactics more than just limited movements.  If a portion of the kata is demonstrating a lock in one plane of travel, it will also work in another plane.  So a standing shoulder lock can be performed standing, kneeling, prone etc because it is the principle of locking that the kata holds, not just a limited technique.
> 
> This is why karate is a:
> 
> 
> Striking art
> Kicking art
> Grappling art
> 
> Ground fighting art
> Locking art
> Throwing art
> Pressure point art
> Etc
> Karate can be, and should be a one-stop-shop art.  You really want to get good at the ground game....karate is the answer.  You really want to get good at locks and throws....karate is the art you're looking for.  And so on.  Because of the modern paradigm it's sometimes hard to get your brain wrapped around it.
> 
> "Don't go to the ground with this guy...he knows karate"!
> 
> Or let's really go the extra step, "Don't go to the ground with this guy...he knows Taekwondo"!
> 
> But if either karate or TKD were trained as they could be, and have been in the past it wouldn't sound odd at all.



karate does not tend to represent well in grappling competition though.

haven't seen much bjj in k1 either.


----------



## Zero

Let's not kid ourselves here. 

Some karate styles such as goju ryu (at certain clubs) do work on actual grappling and throw components but many styles do not at all.  I have trained at quite a few kyokoshin clubs as I used to enter into their tournaments and I never ever saw any grappling aspects.  Even those that have more of a focus like "some" goju clubs do not spend nearly as much time rolling as a jujitsu or bjj club, so it makes complete sense that a bjj or wrestler is hopefully going to lick the floor with a karate guy in a pure grappling sense or possibly even freestyle forum unless that karate guy has done extra grappling/submission training or also has a background in this (which of course is done but not as a mainstream component of most karate).

The opposite also applies, if it is purely stand up/striking, then unless your bjj guy has significantly supplemented his bjj training with striking, he is going to get laid out when facing a karate opponent.

Seems patently obvious to me.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

drop bear said:


> karate does not tend to represent well in grappling competition though.
> 
> haven't seen much bjj in k1 either.


 
This illustrates my point(s).

First, the full aspect of Karate isn't normally trained because most instructors don't know it exists.  But it is in the kata(s) if one wishes to utilize it.

Secondly, you are confusing sport competition with practical, real world Karate.  Two different animals.  Kata wasn't designed for competition.  It was designed for the real world and contains elements, techniques, concepts, tactics and strategies that aren't allowed in competition.  It is designed to end a violent encounter in short order, with an economy of motion and usually in brutal fashion.  As an example of what I'm referring to, joint manipulation really began as joint destruction and then was taken down a notch for application in less-than-lethal situations. 

So really, Karate shouldn't do well in a grappling venue for these two reasons.  But in a real world violent encounter there is no reason that it could not be effective, whether standing or on the ground.  Correct training for the appropriate venue.


----------



## K-man

Kong Soo Do said:


> I made that statement.  Many of the early pioneers of karate maintained that the essence of all karate was in the kata.  In fact, Uechi Kanbun Sensei stated that to know the kata Seisan was to know all of karate.  Many others maintained that 1-3 kata was really all that was needed for a lifetime of training.  The point being that, generally speaking, kata training isn't what it once was.  So the question becomes, 'why the paradigm shift'?  How did kata go from being the foundational cornerstone of karate to a class-filler that many consider a complete waste of time?


I have also made that statement on many occasions and made reference to 'advanced beginners', a term I would attribute to a Goju guy called Dave Oddy. Knowing what I know now I doubt I have time left to learn even three kata. I wish I knew thirty years ago what kata  were really about. How did it get to where it is today? Simple. It was taught as a series of techniques to perfect the stances, hand positions etc that have very little to do with practicality. The real reason for kata was told to people but the explanation was not offered. Therefore we knew it was for fighting but we didn't have the first clue as to how you would use it.



Kong Soo Do said:


> My belief (and that of many) is that there are several factors.  First, when sport is added to an art, or sport takes the major role in the art, the training changes.  If the sport looks akin to a kickboxing match, you don't need locks and chokes and throws and cavity pressing etc.  So emphasis is added to one component of the training while de-emphasising or eliminating other components.


With sport came rules. Karate devolved into punching and kicking from a distance of two metres like the videos *Hanzou* delights in claiming is real karate. Very little time was devoted to the other elements. However, those other elements are still evident in the kata if you go looking.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Secondly, as mentioned in one of my earlier posts, Itosu Sensei reworked the Pinan katas for children's consumption.  I will differ slightly with Chris in that I feel the Pinan katas were designed for adults and then relabled/watered down for children and that the children's version is what was widely taught after WWII.  Thus an instructor can only teach what he/she were taught themselves.  So now we've had many generations of karateka that really know only the block-punch-kick side of karate with perhaps a bit of the other stuff sprinkled in here and there.  That is a general statement and there are exceptions of course.


But true nevertheless.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Lastly, the methodology of training has changed.  In the 'old' days, training was more focused and intense.  As I've mentioned often, Uechi Sensei, while learning Sanchin kata (Uechi version) spent hours a day for many months just training the opening movements of the kata.  Not the whole kata, just the opening movements.  How powerful/intense/focused could you be in these movements if it were your sole focus for hours a day for weeks and months?  Answer...you'd get quite good at it.  But nowadays a form can be learned in a single class session because you only train a couple of times a week and you're going to need to know that kata for the next colored belt test in a month or so.  So kata is relegated to the 'boring-why I'm I doing this crap-class filler for the next test' portion of training.


Yes, but what was he learning? A simple form, such as Sanchin ,can be learned in 5 or 10 minutes. What is in Sanchin can take many years to understand. Sanchin and Tensho are the internal kata of Goju Ryu. You don't get good at it. You actually learn what is required to make your karate effective.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Kata, whether passed along from instructor to student in it's original intent or whether it's been reversed engineered is dynamic, interesting and informative.  One 'should' literally be able to take just a portion of a kata (waza) and train it for months due to the information contained therein.  And not just limited to the original movements.  It teaches concepts, strategies and tactics more than just limited movements.  If a portion of the kata is demonstrating a lock in one plane of travel, it will also work in another plane.  So a standing shoulder lock can be performed standing, kneeling, prone etc because it is the principle of locking that the kata holds, not just a limited technique.


Sure.



Kong Soo Do said:


> This is why karate is a:
> 
> Striking art
> Kicking art
> Grappling art
> 
> Ground fighting art
> Locking art
> Throwing art
> Pressure point art
> Etc




I agree with all but the ground fighting bit. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that to my satisfaction. Well, yes, against an untrained person on the ground a karate guy is fine, but reality says that we are not in the same class as specialist ground fighters.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Karate can be, and should be a one-stop-shop art.  You really want to get good at the ground game....karate is the answer.  You really want to get good at locks and throws....karate is the art you're looking for.  And so on.  Because of the modern paradigm it's sometimes hard to get your brain wrapped around it.
> 
> "Don't go to the ground with this guy...he knows karate"!
> 
> Or let's really go the extra step, "Don't go to the ground with this guy...he knows Taekwondo"!
> 
> But if either karate or TKD were trained as they could be, and have been in the past it wouldn't sound odd at all.


Mmm! Maybe. My ground skills are way behind the skilful BJJ guys and I'm not sure in the past the karate masters spent much time grappling. If that was the case why did Ei'ichi Miyazato learn Judo to 7th Dan level. Masaji Taira is 4th dan Judo. If grappling was a big part of karate why didn't Chojun Miyagi teach it to Miyazato? I think we need to be mindful of the areas of expertise in a system and the areas of weakness. Karate is not designed for ground fighting. Sure you can use many of the techniques on the ground but the basic premise for us is 'don't go to the ground and if you do get back to your feet ASAP'.



Chris Parker said:


> With regards to "children's karate", I don't know that it's restricted to just the early US Gi's who were given that when Funakoshi went to Japan, he wasn't the best karate-ka around, nor the most knowledgable and many reports suggest that he didn't teach, or emphasise, much beyond "here is the sequence of moves" when it came to kata. Then you have specific kata that were developed specifically for children, such as the Gekisai forms, and the Heian/Pinan forms (which were simplified from earlier kata to make it easier for young children to remember/perform). In a real sense, most karate around is "children's karate" when looked at in this light, if we're to use such terms.


The Heian/Pinan kata were certainly designed to teach. That is pretty much what Yamaguchi did with his Taikyoku kata but the difference is that the Yamaguchi kata were for teaching basics where the Pinan kata were adapted by Itosu to teach much more than basic technique. His kata were adapted from older kata whereas Yamaguchi's were set basic pattern with footwork linked to a particular stance, strike and block.

But the Gekisai kata are totally different. They really are kata you can use in a fight in many different ways. Because they are Kyu grade kata we spend a lot of time with them and I am constantly amazed at their depth, particularly when Taira Sansei is around.  So I would disagree with the notion that they were designed specifically for children. Simple? Sure, but full of content.




Chris Parker said:


> In other words, kata is teaching you karate sparring isn't. The two are almost completely unrelated.


So true!


----------



## Kong Soo Do

K-man said:


> I agree with all but the ground fighting bit. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that to my satisfaction. Well, yes, against an untrained person on the ground a karate guy is fine, but reality says that we are not in the same class as specialist ground fighters.


 
Depends upon the venue.  If we're talking a sport venue then I agree with you 100%.  BJJ is a premier ground fighting art.  Primarily for competition, but elements can be used in self defense.  Sport BJJ is what generally gets the press though, with good reason.  Whereas the ground fighting found in kata is not intended for the sporting venue.  Put a guy well versed in true karate ground fighting against a BJJ practitioner who also trains for self defense and it may be a matter of 'who gets there first with the most'.  In this case, we're not looking at two people looking to get an arm bar or cross body mount on the other.  Rather it is more towards punching into the throat, gouging the eye, hooking the clavicle or destroying a joint or sensitive area i.e. something to end the fight in seconds.  Rather than submitting the opponent, the karateka is looking to maim or kill the attacker so they can get back up immediately. 

But certainly karate doesn't 'specialize' in ground fighting to the extent of an art like BJJ (whether the training is sport or street).  But I would toss out that it wasn't designed specifically to be used against a specialist but rather an unarmed civilian method of self defense.


----------



## TimoS

K-man said:


> I agree with all but the ground fighting bit.


Yes, that I disagree with as well. Karate is quite good for stand-up fighting purposes, but not for ground fighting. Sure, people have added ground-fighting to their karate, but that's still a later addition


----------



## Kong Soo Do

TimoS said:


> Yes, that I disagree with as well. Karate is quite good for stand-up fighting purposes, but not for ground fighting. Sure, people have added ground-fighting to their karate, but that's still a later addition


 
With respect, I'd have to disagree with you on this.  I'll use locking techniques to illustrate why I take this position.  In the past, the opening movement of Pinan Shodan has been discussed to demonstrate a shoulder lock that can be quite effective.  The lock demonstrated is in a standing position, however, the principle of the lock can be effectively used while in a prone position as well. In either instance, this joint lock when applied as a joint destruction is going to do a vast amount of damage to the rotator cuff and various attached muscles. 

So no, the kata in this instance does not specifically show a move-by-move on the ground, but the principle demonstrated can be used on the ground.  This is why just a small section of a kata can be dissected into a plethora of additional training.   I stress that exacting movements aren't necessarily the goal of a kata over and above the principle(s) behind the movement.  Seisan kata has a movement that involves hooking the clavicle in a fashion to cause major damage and of course pain.  Again, demonstrated as a standing attack but of course can also be done on the ground. 

I want to make it clear that I'm not saying a karate kata will enable you to enter a BJJ tourney and win.  Wrong training for the wrong venue.  What I am saying is that for the purpose for which karate was designed i.e. personal self defense against (normally) unarmed people in a real world setting, kata contains the information to effectively ground fight.  Depends upon the knowledge base of the instructor and how far they wish to take the information contained in a kata. 

From a self defense perspective, I would suggest that indeed one should take a kata and wring it out for every drop of information it contains.  Take a segment and say to the student:


Can this be used standing (as in someone is throwing a punch at you)?
Can this be used standing (as in grappling)?
Can this be used on the ground?
Can this be used from a position of disadvantage?
Can this be used as a less-than-lethal option?
Etc.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kong Soo Do said:


> Depends upon the venue.  If we're talking a sport venue then I agree with you 100%.  BJJ is a premier ground fighting art.  Primarily for competition, but elements can be used in self defense.  Sport BJJ is what generally gets the press though, with good reason.  Whereas the ground fighting found in kata is not intended for the sporting venue.  Put a guy well versed in true karate ground fighting against a BJJ practitioner who also trains for self defense and it may be a matter of 'who gets there first with the most'.  *In this case, we're not looking at two people looking to get an arm bar or cross body mount on the other.  Rather it is more towards punching into the throat, gouging the eye, hooking the clavicle or destroying a joint or sensitive area i.e. something to end the fight in seconds.  Rather than submitting the opponent, the karateka is looking to maim or kill the attacker so they can get back up immediately.*



One of the things that the BJJ pioneers determined early on is that the fighter who can establish and maintain positional dominance has a huge advantage when it comes to throat punching, eye gouging, and the like.  This is where the expertise of the specialist comes into play.



Kong Soo Do said:


> But certainly karate doesn't 'specialize' in ground fighting to the extent of an art like BJJ (whether the training is sport or street).  *But I would toss out that it wasn't designed specifically to be used against a specialist but rather an unarmed civilian method of self defense*.



This is the key. There is a difference between the way an untrained person intent on an assault will attack you and the way a skilled martial artist in a "dueling" mindset will attack you. This is what Hanzou is missing when he asks why you don't see karateka in a sparring match use Abernathy's bunkai. It's not really anything much to do with the real applications being too deadly for sparring or anything like that. It's that the attacks you are countering are different. The BJJ curriculum includes a number of highly effective counters to a headlock. You rarely see these techniques in BJJ tournaments because it's very rare for someone to use a street style headlock in competition, so there is no need for the counter. What I've seen of most karate bunkai is that sort of thing - intended for use against close range, untrained attacks.


----------



## ballen0351

TimoS said:


> , but that's still a later addition


How much later:


----------



## ballen0351

By the way I have no idea what the pic proves I just thought it was cool and wanted to post it LOL


----------



## TimoS

ballen0351 said:


> How much later:


That picture looks like it's from a takedown, which, to me at least, is not ground fighting. I am not familiar with Goju kata, but that looks similar in concept to the opening move of Gojushiho


----------



## ballen0351

TimoS said:


> That picture looks like it's from a takedown, which, to me at least, is not ground fighting. I am not familiar with Goju kata, but that looks similar in concept to the opening move of Gojushiho


Wait so putting people on the ground isn't part of ground fighting?


----------



## Cirdan

ballen0351 said:


> How much later:



Thanks man, that picture actually just made me connect two dots. 
A-haa! Love it when that happens every now and then.

Btw I think that is what we kall kibitsu gaeshi.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

ballen0351 said:


> Wait so putting people on the ground isn't part of ground fighting?



 I think the usual way of using the term is that "ground fighting" is what happens _after_ you put someone on the ground. Takedowns are a necessary precursor to ground fighting, but not necessarily part of it.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think the usual way of using the term is that "ground fighting" is what happens _after_ you put someone on the ground. Takedowns are a necessary precursor to ground fighting, but not necessarily part of it.


 
With respect Tony, I have to disagree with this.  Being able to put someone on the ground is an instrumental and foundational part of ground fighting.  Indeed, we don't just start on the ground in a fight or in a competition.  And learning how to take someone down for positioning ON the ground is also foundational.  You really can't have one without the other.  The are part and parcel of the same training.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

You could say that you can teach takedowns without ground fighting, but you *can't *teach ground fighting without takedowns. 

Depending on how you take someone to the ground determines the positioning you'll have on the ground.  Just something to toss out there.


----------



## TimoS

Kong Soo Do said:


> With respect, I'd have to disagree with you on this.


That's fine, but I am basing my opinion on the fact that neither the oral tradition of the old masters nor (to the best of my knowledge) any of the current Okinawan masters teach how to use the kata once you go to the ground. Takedowns, sure, but no ground fighting. Just an example, Minoru Higa, the head of Shorin ryu Kyudokan, is apparently a 4. dan in judo and yet he only teaches stand-up fighting. 
Can some of the techniques in kata be used in ground fighting? Probably, but to me that is more of a coincidence or the limitations of the human body than design.
Learning how to fight on the ground would be quite beneficial, but to learn that my suggestion is to enroll in a dojo that teaches judo or BJJ. Personally, I might go to a BJJ club next year, after all, I have two of those within a 500 m from where I live


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> This illustrates my point(s).
> 
> First, the full aspect of Karate isn't normally trained because most instructors don't know it exists.  But it is in the kata(s) if one wishes to utilize it.
> 
> Secondly, you are confusing sport competition with practical, real world Karate.  Two different animals.  Kata wasn't designed for competition.  It was designed for the real world and contains elements, techniques, concepts, tactics and strategies that aren't allowed in competition.  It is designed to end a violent encounter in short order, with an economy of motion and usually in brutal fashion.  As an example of what I'm referring to, joint manipulation really began as joint destruction and then was taken down a notch for application in less-than-lethal situations.
> 
> So really, Karate shouldn't do well in a grappling venue for these two reasons.  But in a real world violent encounter there is no reason that it could not be effective, whether standing or on the ground.  Correct training for the appropriate venue.



we don't know whether karate grapples well on the street or not. It is an unknown quantity.

doesn't do well in grappling comps. Kung fu has kata. There has been some kung fu grappling wins. 

karate has had some striking legends in competition. The restrictions on illegal moves did not hold them back there.

strange that they have a street system that cant. Be converted to a competition result.


----------



## MJS

HankSchrader said:


> Greetings all
> 
> Forgive me, English is not my first language. I am new to this forum and was looking for some guidance.
> 
> I've recently started Kyokushin and I enjoy it, however in my opinion too much time is spent on Kata and I fail to see any relevance it has to combat. We are taught kata and we go through the motions for the sake of "grading" but it really irks me as this takes the place of "live" training for major parts of sessions. I understand that Kata is supposedly a recording of techniques (however everyone teachers bunkai seems to be different which leads me to believe noone really has any idea) but why not train the techniques in kata in an alive manner first, before going through the motions of kata and committing them to memory? It would give the movements a context at least. I don't know why we even bother with Kata? If a kata supposedly has a takedown or throw recorded in it then students are not going to get good at it by doing the move its represented by in kata, they're going to get good at it by drilling it and using it in randoori against resisting opponents. Doing hours of kata isn't going to help anyone become a better martial artist than someone who solely does their whole art in an alive manner. For self defence purposes its asinine to waste time doing an act which represents something, yet not actually doing the move properly. I come from a grappling background in martial arts (wrestling, bjj) and in those arts you spend 100% of your time doing the art. A 2 hour training session in those arts involves 5 minutes warm up and 2 hours of practicing on fully resisting opponents. But in Kyokushin its split in half with kata which is very infuriating as noone at my club seems to have any experience doing the actual moves in kata on resisting opponents. Why can't karate just do away with Kata and teach the moves within kata in an alive manner? So if Kata has grappling and wrestling applications then lets just do those moves in randoori, if there's self defence applications, like getting out of wrist control then lets add that into randoori. If there's clinch fighting in Kata, then lets train that and add it into randoori etc. Just doing kata for the sake of it seems such a waste of time. If you want to do kata have the option there, similar to when you get to BB in Judo you can choose to learn a Kata, but practice Kata on your own or minimally in class. There is 0 logic in having a solo training method as part of a class group, it just wastes time.
> 
> Karate seems to be built on lineage and instructors seem terrified to deviate from the path that their teachers laid out and their teachers teacher before them. Just because your teacher taught you to do kata doesn't make it right. If karate has elements of all ranges of combat inherent in its kata, then it must be treated as such properly and trained in a modern alive way. Much like the striking segment of Kyokushin is, in competition format.
> 
> I would love it if Kyokushin just stuck to stand up and competition rules stuff as it would have a strong identity doing so. But when it is watered down with Kata and those elements are not elaborated upon, it just becomes weaker due to tradition. Why can't Karate grow up like other modern arts? Its self defence applications are severely weakened by these lazy training methods.
> 
> Does anyone else share these gripes?



Welcome to the forum! I've been training in Kyokushin for about 4 years now, and I love it.  I can't speak for every dojo, but I would imagine each is different, with the way things are taught.  At my school, we do focus quite a bit on the basics, ie: punching, kicking, stance work.  Some times we'll do bag work.  We do a lot of sparring, although not in every class.  We do focus on kata, obviously as that's required for rank, although we usually don't focus too much on the application of the kata.  This isn't to say kata breakdowns don't happen...they do.  I do recall a number of classes, in which we took parts from a kata and worked it with a partner.  

As far as working application before learning the kata...well, that's like putting the cart before the horse.  Even in the BJJ classes that I've taken, a new technique isn't taught 'full force' initially.  It's introduced, worked on, with gradual resistance.  Nothing wrong, IMO, with learning the kata, and then the application behind it.  

You might want to politely inquire about this, with your teacher or some of the senior students, before getting completely frustrated with the art.


----------



## ballen0351

TimoS said:


> That's fine, but I am basing my opinion on the fact that neither the oral tradition of the old masters nor (to the best of my knowledge) any of the current Okinawan masters teach how to use the kata once you go to the ground.


How many of these masters have you spoke with?  Sonce you say its a fact it doesnt happen you must have spokento them all.  I have trained ground techniques with Higaonna Sensei during a seminar.  I have also spoken with high ranking members that have done far more training with him on ground techniques. 


> Takedowns, sure, but no ground fighting. Just an example, Minoru Higa, the head of Shorin ryu Kyudokan, is apparently a 4. dan in judo and yet he only teaches stand-up fighting.


so one guy in one style is a fact?


> Can some of the techniques in kata be used in ground fighting? Probably, but to me that is more of a coincidence or the limitations of the human body than design.


We will just have to disagree


> Learning how to fight on the ground would be quite beneficial,


Learning how to fight in general is beneficial


> but to learn that my suggestion is to enroll in a dojo that teaches judo or BJJ.


Each have positives and negs you need to decide what you want to learn and what works better for you and your situation


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> we don't know whether karate grapples well on the street or not. It is an unknown quantity.


No thats an individual thing not a style thing.   


> doesn't do well in grappling comps. Kung fu has kata. There has been some kung fu grappling wins.


Its not its design


> karate has had some striking legends in competition. The restrictions on illegal moves did not hold them back there.


it all depends on the rules


> strange that they have a street system that cant. Be converted to a competition result.


because its not the point of Karate


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> No thats an individual thing not a style thing.
> 
> Its not its design
> 
> it all depends on the rules
> 
> because its not the point of Karate



yeah funny you should say that. Apparently karate has the grapple.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> yeah funny you should say that. Apparently karate has the grapple.


?


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> ?



yeah sorry i missed the thrust of that thread. 

i can really only judge karate's grappling by the evidence. And there is an absence of evidence.

competition is a benchmark that is definable. I am not sure how else we could compare a system.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> yeah sorry i missed the thrust of that thread.
> 
> i can really only judge karate's grappling by the evidence. And there is an absence of evidence.
> 
> competition is a benchmark that is definable. I am not sure how else we could compare a system.


Why compare systems?


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Why compare systems?



because we are trying to define if karate has a comprehensive grappling system. There has to be some sort of measure.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> because we are trying to define if karate has a comprehensive grappling system. There has to be some sort of measure.




You do understand that 'karate' is a generic title and not the style as such? You can't compare 'karate' with anything really, you would have to compare style with style.
I don't think 'we' are trying to define if karate has a comprehensive grappling system or not. Why does there have to be some sort of measure? Most of *us* are happy with what we do, it's only others that aren't happy with what *we *do! I think quite honestly people should wind their necks in and train. The karate 'has grapple' (sic) thing has been done to death.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> You do understand that 'karate' is a generic title and not the style as such? You can't compare 'karate' with anything really, you would have to compare style with style.
> I don't think 'we' are trying to define if karate has a comprehensive grappling system or not. Why does there have to be some sort of measure? Most of *us* are happy with what we do, it's only others that aren't happy with what *we *do! I think quite honestly people should wind their necks in and train. The karate 'has grapple' (sic) thing has been done to death.



if the statement is karate has a system of grappling that makes you happy then i agree with you. And there is no reason to compare styles.


----------



## K-man

TimoS said:


> Yes, that I disagree with as well. Karate is quite good for stand-up fighting purposes, but not for ground fighting. Sure, people have added ground-fighting to their karate, but that's still a later addition


I suppose it depends on what you call 'ground fighting'. If you call the chaotic thrashing around on the ground of a fight between untrained people 'ground fighting', ok, but I would more call it simply fighting on the ground. 

Now put a karateka on the ground and he has a lot of techniques that will work. Chokes, strangles, gouges, finger locks, arm bars etc are the same on the ground as standing. Escapes from those techniques apply as well, and of course there are still the strikes. Nothing needs to be added in that respect. The difference from my perspective is the training to get into position to apply a technique, something the BJJ guys do very well. 

Now I'm a bit old for this sort of stuff with elbows that are stuffed and shoulders that don't move as far as they used to. I love playing around on the ground with a mate who is a BJJ black belt among with many other disciplines. I am very aware when he is about to do something nasty that I wouldn't be able to stop and tap way before I need to, but you would be surprised just how well the MA principles that I utilise in normal training work just as well on the ground. 

I have no doubt that if I was on the ground with an untrained attacker I would have a significant advantage, something that in real life I have had to utilised just once.

What I have added to my training thanks to BJJ is the escape from the mount and escape from the guard.


----------



## K-man

TimoS said:


> That picture looks like it's from a takedown, which, to me at least, is not ground fighting. I am not familiar with Goju kata, but that looks similar in concept to the opening move of Gojushiho


It's also the takedown seen in Sanseru and Kururunfa kata.


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> because we are trying to define if karate has a comprehensive grappling system. There has to be some sort of measure.


Sure go train in it and learn.  That's your measure.  I'm pretty happy with my training so I don't really need to measure anything


----------



## K-man

Kong Soo Do said:


> With respect Tony, I have to disagree with this.  Being able to put someone on the ground is an instrumental and foundational part of ground fighting.  Indeed, we don't just start on the ground in a fight or in a competition.  And learning how to take someone down for positioning ON the ground is also foundational.  You really can't have one without the other.  The are part and parcel of the same training.



I can agree in part with this. A lot of takedowns end with control of an arm or even in a choke, so yes, putting someone on the ground is certainly part and parcel of 'ground fighting' but the other element is where you are on the ground for whatever reason and not in control. Maybe you have slipped and fallen, maybe you have been taken to the ground from a shoot or even been pulled down. Agreed that the takedown is part of ground fighting but fighting on the ground isn't always your choice.



Kong Soo Do said:


> You could say that you can teach takedowns without ground fighting, but you *can't *teach ground fighting without takedowns.
> 
> Depending on how you take someone to the ground determines the positioning you'll have on the ground.  Just something to toss out there.


Agreed, but that is from the perspective that you have chosen to go to the ground. I have a young lady waiting to join the police force and I make a point of taking a lot of the grappling to the ground to a position that she can control and cuff. 

When you have been forced to the ground as in the video in the other thread posted by *ballen*, 'Need a plan B', you are in a different world.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kong Soo Do said:


> With respect Tony, I have to disagree with this.  Being able to put someone on the ground is an instrumental and foundational part of ground fighting.  Indeed, we don't just start on the ground in a fight or in a competition.  And learning how to take someone down for positioning ON the ground is also foundational.  You really can't have one without the other.  The are part and parcel of the same training.



You _can_ teach ground fighting without takedowns. It's just a bad idea.

You're starting to see it in some BJJ schools that focus exclusively on sport competition. Since the rules allow competitors to pull guard and the opponent is penalized if he doesn't come forward, it is possible to train almost entirely starting on the ground with almost no time spent on takedowns. Some people do this.

I personally think it is a bad practice and antithetical to the martial heritage of BJJ, but focusing exclusively on sport competition can lead people into strange places.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

drop bear said:


> we don't know whether karate grapples well on the street or not. It is an unknown quantity.


 
Who is 'we'?  I know that 'my' karate grapples well...I just did it a few hours ago against a violent felon.  So to me, and the students I've taught that have gone on to use it effectively it is a known quantity.


----------



## K-man

Tez3 said:


> You do understand that 'karate' is a generic title and not the style as such? You can't compare 'karate' with anything really, you would have to compare style with style.
> I don't think 'we' are trying to define if karate has a comprehensive grappling system or not. Why does there have to be some sort of measure? Most of *us* are happy with what we do, it's only others that aren't happy with what *we *do! I think quite honestly people should wind their necks in and train. The karate 'has grapple' (sic) thing has been done to death.


Certainly we have had a lot of discussion but I'm not sure it has been fruitful discussion. It has been mostly defending against people saying my style is the best and you guys suck!  

I would love to discuss karate grappling without ********s from outside karate throwing their weight around. Of course input from skilled grapplers would be welcome, in a constructive way. Karate isn't a comprehensive grappling system, but it is a system that covers all facets of fighting against the untrained assailant.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

K-man said:


> Maybe you have slipped and fallen, maybe you have been taken to the ground from a shoot or even been pulled down. Agreed that the takedown is part of ground fighting but fighting on the ground isn't always your choice.


 
Now that you mention it, this would be an example of 'ground fighting' without inserting the actual takedown i.e. starting from a position of disadvantage for that very reason (slipped, sucker punched, ran into a tree etc).


----------



## K-man

TimoS said:


> That's fine, but I am basing my opinion on the fact that neither the oral tradition of the old masters nor (to the best of my knowledge) any of the current Okinawan masters teach how to use the kata once you go to the ground. Takedowns, sure, but no ground fighting. Just an example, Minoru Higa, the head of Shorin ryu Kyudokan, is apparently a 4. dan in judo and yet he only teaches stand-up fighting.
> Can some of the techniques in kata be used in ground fighting? Probably, but to me that is more of a coincidence or the limitations of the human body than design.
> Learning how to fight on the ground would be quite beneficial, but to learn that my suggestion is to enroll in a dojo that teaches judo or BJJ. Personally, I might go to a BJJ club next year, after all, I have two of those within a 500 m from where I live


Agree whole heartedly. The only rider I would add is that, to me kata are fighting systems. In Goju we have 10 if you leave Sanchin and Tensho on the shelf for the time being. These kata contain multiple takedowns but, to me, finish there with a strike or stomp, nothing to suggest that the fighting continues on the ground.

But the basic techniques available for stand up are still available for use on the ground. If you look at the Bubishi there are numerous examples of takedowns and several of fighting from the ground.


----------



## ballen0351

Kong Soo Do said:


> Now that you mention it, this would be an example of 'ground fighting' without inserting the actual takedown i.e. starting from a position of disadvantage for that very reason (slipped, sucker punched, ran into a tree etc).


True but thats just apart of ground fighting just like take downs are a part.  To say ground fighting doesnt include take downs is like saying I teach boxing but we dont train the jab


----------



## ballen0351

K-man said:


> . These kata contain multiple takedowns but, to me, finish there with a strike or stomp, nothing to suggest that the fighting continues on the ground.
> 
> .


Thats part of ground fighting as well.  Just because we are both not on the ground doesnt mean its not ground fighting


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> if the statement is karate has a system of grappling that makes you happy then i agree with you. And there is no reason to compare styles.




Well that went straight over the top of your head didn't it? You know , the bit where I said karate is the generic term?


----------



## K-man

Somewhere in all the excitement I missed these posts.


drop bear said:


> we don't know whether karate grapples well on the street or not. It is an unknown quantity.


Not true. You think it's an unknown quantity. There is no reason for the principles of karate not to work on the street.



drop bear said:


> doesn't do well in grappling comps. Kung fu has kata. There has been some kung fu grappling wins.


Karate is not for and never has been for competition. Some karate has been adapted for some sorts of competition but not grappling. In fact grappling is excluded from most karate competition.



drop bear said:


> karate has had some striking legends in competition. The restrictions on illegal moves did not hold them back there.


So? Who is talking of illegal moves. There are no illegal moves in kata. Neck breaks, limb destruction etc is all there. Whether you are legally justified in using them is tested in court, not in the ring.



drop bear said:


> strange that they have a street system that cant. Be converted to a competition result.


Sounds like you have been paying too much attention to another poster who shall remain nameless. 



drop bear said:


> i can really only judge karate's grappling by the evidence. And there is an absence of evidence.


No! What you mean is you haven't seen it on YouTube! So what? Oh, that's right it doesn't exist.



drop bear said:


> competition is a benchmark that is definable. I am not sure how else we could compare a system.


As others said, we are not comparing systems. Why would I want to compare a system? Unless you are imposing artificial parameters, all systems do what they are designed for.



drop bear said:


> because we are trying to define if karate has a comprehensive grappling system. There has to be some sort of measure.


No! *You* are trying to point out that karate is not a comprehensive grappling system. Karate has more than sufficient grappling for my needs.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

drop bear said:


> strange that they have a street system that cant. Be converted to a competition result.


 
A street system:


Doesn't have a rule set.
Doesn't have a referee.
Occurs outside of a regulated, controlled environment.
May have multiple attackers involved.
May have weapons involved.
A competition system doesn't conform to those factors.  So how could you convert one result over to fit another?  You can't and after all the discussion I don't understand how you're not getting this level of understanding.


----------



## punisher73

A couple of thoughts on the whole grappling and kata thing.

First, we need to define what is meant by "grappling".  Do you mean stand-up grappling or do you mean ground grappling or both?  Karate, does have stand up grappling, as we know in the form of joint locks/breaks, throws, takedowns etc.  Does karate have an extensive "ground grappling" system like we see in BJJ/Judo/Wrestling?  Nope.

This leads to the second part, karate deals with "ground fighting", NOT "ground grappling".  It was designed to take out your attacker, or put him on the ground and disable him. It was also designed to buy time until you can regain your own footing and get up off the ground.  It did not deal with rolling around with both people on the ground and staying on the ground on purpose.  Does that mean that a person can't apply a joint lock on the ground if the opportunity presents itself?  Nope, not at all.  Concepts that are effective in human movement are almost universal.

Lastly, nothing irritates me more than people taking a traditional kata and learning some BJJ move in a seminar and then saying that it is a "hidden technique" found in the kata.  For example, I saw an article one time that said that the crossover step from Naihanchi kata was REALLY a hidden triangle choke.  What???

Herein lies the problem with a discussion like this.  Physical movement as found in the kata is devoid of ANY meaning by itself until it is assigned a meaning by somebody (just take a look at the block/punch/kick applications that persist as the only meaning because of a label).  Many people look at the grappling arts like BJJ and apply concepts of karate to those movements.  They may even find physical movements that look the same because there are only so many ways to bend/break/restrain a limb.  But, that doesn't mean that was the original intention of the movement.  If we look historically at karate and kata, we don't find references to using it for wrestling with someone.  Much of what we see in karate as "ground grappling" is people assigning meanings that they have found based on looking at an outside source.  So, it may be a part of the "their karate", but that doesn't mean that it was the original intent.


----------



## tshadowchaser

unfortunately we where not around to ask the people who originally made the kata what they had in mind nor where we there when the forms where changed to fit children in schools in Japan.  We can only know what has been shown to us by our instructors and passed down to them by their instructors.  
Some people have said that in some of the old translations of certain books we can discern moves that are not what people today think of or have forgotten through the ages because of "dumbing down" the explanation for children or what was given as an explanation to service men so they could come back with part of the art, a black belt, and a hope that they would propagate the art in various countries no matter how watered down it was.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Somewhere in all the excitement I missed these posts.
> Not true. You think it's an unknown quantity. There is no reason for the principles of karate not to work on the street.
> 
> Karate is not for and never has been for competition. Some karate has been adapted for some sorts of competition but not grappling. In fact grappling is excluded from most karate competition.
> 
> So? Who is talking of illegal moves. There are no illegal moves in kata. Neck breaks, limb destruction etc is all there. Whether you are legally justified in using them is tested in court, not in the ring.
> 
> Sou
> nds like you have been paying too much attention to another poster who shall remain nameless.
> 
> No! What you mean is you haven't seen it on YouTube! So what? Oh, that's right it doesn't exist.
> 
> As others said, we are not comparing systems. Why would I want to compare a system? Unless you are imposing artificial parameters, all systems do what they are designed for.
> 
> No! *You* are trying to point out that karate is not a comprehensive grappling system. Karate has more than sufficient grappling for my needs.



and as i have said if those needs are sufficient for you that is fine. If you are happy then i am happy.

i train with boxers who have zero grappling. And they are happy.

i have not suggested the principals don't work on the street. I am saying there is no evidence of the principles working in competition. And there is not enough data to determine how well it works on the street.

now the street is the artificial parameter as it is not definable. Everything will work on the street under some condition you can find there because there are no rules. So even there you are technically right.


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> A street system:
> 
> 
> Doesn't have a rule set.
> Doesn't have a referee.
> Occurs outside of a regulated, controlled environment.
> May have multiple attackers involved.
> May have weapons involved.
> A competition system doesn't conform to those factors.  So how could you convert one result over to fit another?  You can't and after all the discussion I don't understand how you're not getting this level of understanding.



A competition system has standards and the street does not.

everything works in the street. Not everything works in competition.

some traditional styles can make the crossover to competition. Some have not.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Well that went straight over the top of your head didn't it? You know , the bit where I said karate is the generic term?



which are the strong grappling styles of karate?


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> i have not suggested the principals don't work on the street. I am saying there is no evidence of the principles working in competition. And there is not enough data to determine how well it works on the street.


The principles work just fine in competition. The same principles apply across the board. Principles of balance, principles of stability, principles of striking, principles of body movement, etc. I think there is ample evidence of the principles working.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> The principles work just fine in competition. The same principles apply across the board. Principles of balance, principles of stability, principles of striking, principles of body movement, etc. I think there is ample evidence of the principles working.



and if you are happy with that then i am happy.

which competition is this exactly?


----------



## K-man

I would have said, UFC, any MMA, Boxing, Pankration, Kick boxing, etc. Principles transcend styles.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> I would have said, UFC, any MMA, Boxing, Pankration, Kick boxing, etc. Principles transcend styles.



lots of karate trained grapplers in those styles?


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> lots of karate trained grapplers in those styles?


Not at all. I'm not talking of styles, techniques or practitioners. I'm talking of principles that are valid in all martial arts.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

drop bear said:


> which are the strong grappling styles of karate?



Kong Soo Do Karate would be one of them.  To expound on this, I grapple far more than I strike (and I've never kicked anyone outside of the Dojo).  Part of this is due to my profession, part of it is personal preference.  My philosophy is to be able to fight inside a phone booth.  This is either standing or prone.  So I pass this on to my students, who in turn have done the same.  This is one of the reasons I see these applications demonstrated in various kata, they are more or less a mirror of what I've done in actual application.  I always mention the opening application of Pinan Shodan as a shoulder lock.  The reason is I've applied shoulder locks over the years beyond count during violent altercations.  So I have a tremendous amount of experience with them and when I see those movements in a kata I can readily identify them.


----------



## Zero

Kong Soo Do said:


> My philosophy is to be able to fight inside a phone booth.  This is either standing or prone.


_Prone_ in a phone box(?!):
I take it that either (i) you come in at about 2.7 feet in height; or (ii) this involves combat amongst a travelling troop of Chinese contortionists?


----------



## Zero

Kong Soo Do said:


> My philosophy is to be able to fight inside a phone booth.


Is this with someone else or just against yourself standing on your head?


----------



## Zero

Kong Soo Do said:


> My philosophy is to be able to fight inside a phone booth.


Just make sure it's not Super Man in mid change that your decide to tussle with


----------



## Zero

Sorry KSD, for some reason I just found the phone booth comment a real side splitter, it was material just too good to pass up!!  : )


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Did I say fighting is a phone booth?  I meant sex in a phone booth, haven't you heard of...phone sex


----------



## tshadowchaser

HankSchrader said:


> Greetings all
> 
> Forgive me, English is not my first language. I am new to this forum and was looking for some guidance.
> 
> I've recently started Kyokushin and I enjoy it, however in my opinion too much time is spent on Kata and I fail to see any relevance it has to combat. We are taught kata and we go through the motions for the sake of "grading" but it really irks me as this takes the place of "live" training for major parts of sessions. I understand that Kata is supposedly a recording of techniques (however everyone teachers bunkai seems to be different which leads me to believe noone really has any idea) but why not train the techniques in kata in an alive manner first, before going through the motions of kata and committing them to memory? It would give the movements a context at least. I don't know why we even bother with Kata? If a kata supposedly has a takedown or throw recorded in it then students are not going to get good at it by doing the move its represented by in kata, they're going to get good at it by drilling it and using it in randoori against resisting opponents. Doing hours of kata isn't going to help anyone become a better martial artist than someone who solely does their whole art in an alive manner. For self defence purposes its asinine to waste time doing an act which represents something, yet not actually doing the move properly. I come from a grappling background in martial arts (wrestling, bjj) and in those arts you spend 100% of your time doing the art. A 2 hour training session in those arts involves 5 minutes warm up and 2 hours of practicing on fully resisting opponents. But in Kyokushin its split in half with kata which is very infuriating as noone at my club seems to have any experience doing the actual moves in kata on resisting opponents. Why can't karate just do away with Kata and teach the moves within kata in an alive manner? So if Kata has grappling and wrestling applications then lets just do those moves in randoori, if there's self defence applications, like getting out of wrist control then lets add that into randoori. If there's clinch fighting in Kata, then lets train that and add it into randoori etc. Just doing kata for the sake of it seems such a waste of time. If you want to do kata have the
> 
> option there, similar to when you get to BB in Judo you can choose to learn a Kata, but practice Kata on your own or minimally in class. There is 0 logic in having a solo training method as part of a class group, it just wastes time.
> 
> Karate seems .to be built on lineage and instructors seem terrified to deviate from the path that their teachers laid out and their teachers teacher before them. Just because your teacher taught you to do kata doesn't make it right. If karate has elements of all ranges of combat inherent in its kata, then it must be treated as such properly and trained in a modern alive way. Much like the striking segment of Kyokushin is, in competition format.
> 
> I would love it if Kyokushin just stuck to stand up and competition rules stuff as it would have a strong identity doing so. But when it is watered down with Kata and those elements are not elaborated upon, it just becomes weaker due to tradition. Why can't Karate grow up like other modern arts? Its self defence applications are severely weakened by these lazy training methods.
> 
> Does anyone else share these gripes?




My first commit on this OP should have been "If you do not like the training go somewhere else.  you obviously have no clue what the system or karate is all about . If you simply want to punch and kick something or someone just go do so. Karate is about more than these things but it dose involve these things
.
And for those that say kata dose not involve grappling  I'll take a quote and say Parker said;"The art of Kenpo as first perpetuated in Hawaii by Mitos,stressed attacking vital areas by punching,striking, chopping, thrusting, and poking, as well as throws,locks,and takedowns."


----------



## Dirty Dog

Kong Soo Do said:


> Did I say fighting is a phone booth?  I meant sex in a phone booth, haven't you heard of...phone sex



Good luck even finding a phone booth these days...

And no, the Tardis doesn't count.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Dirty Dog said:


> Good luck even finding a phone booth these days...
> 
> And no, the Tardis doesn't count.



What are you talking about?  A TARDIS is the ultimate babe magnet.


----------



## donald1

Tony Dismukes said:


> What are you talking about?  A TARDIS is the ultimate babe magnet.


and you get to go to the past and watch samurai riding tigers fighting dragons and dinosuars. if that dosnt get peoples attention i dont kniw what will


----------



## Zero

Tony Dismukes said:


> What are you talking about?  A TARDIS is the ultimate babe magnet.


Right on, look at all the hottie companions the Dr has these days!!


----------



## Probs92

HankSchrader said:


> Greetings all
> 
> Forgive me, English is not my first language. I am new to this forum and was looking for some guidance.
> 
> I've recently started Kyokushin and I enjoy it, however in my opinion too much time is spent on Kata and I fail to see any relevance it has to combat. We are taught kata and we go through the motions for the sake of "grading" but it really irks me as this takes the place of "live" training for major parts of sessions....



Not sure if this is how you to respond to a post, but here goes (first time posting).

First things first: The import of kata varies greatly from school to school. I come from a Goju-Ryu background, and in my tradition kata is very important, however in other dojos/disciplines kata is given less importance. If you are not too keen on kata, find a new school.

In my eyes, kata is vital to the transmission of karate-do from teacher to student. To my knowledge, in the days when karate-do wasn't yet conceived, the Satsuma clan of samurai occupied the Ryukyu Kingdom, which is now Okinawa, and during this period primordial ancestors of karate-do were honed. In a biological sense, martial technique darwinism played out: the successful techniques of the islanders were passed on (because those people who used the effective techniques were successfully able to defend themselves and pass on their knowledge). Unfortunately, those who used flawed technique were killed in the process, leading to the loss of the flawed technique. Eventually native Okinawan martial art evolved with influence from the Southern White Crane Fist into what is now known as Okinawan Karate-do. The first karate-do teachers threaded together these effective techniques into kata or flat out assimilated kata from other systems (viz. Sanchin Kata). 

Why is this important? Because kata represents a manual full of time honed and proven techniques for self defense. Each kata contains a wealth of knowledge.

Now, all that being said, without free style training I think kata loses efficacy. In a self defense situation it is great to rely on kata because it is committed to muscle memory, but if you find yourself in the middle of a bar fight you cannot stick to pure textbook rigidity, you need to think on your feet. 

Kata is like a textbook, it gives you a great deal of knowledge and prepares you for the exam, but when the times come for the test, you aren't going to have the text book and you are going to have to apply your knowledge in a new context.


----------



## K-man

Probs92 said:


> Not sure if this is how you to respond to a post, but here goes (first time posting).
> 
> First things first: The import of kata varies greatly from school to school. I come from a Goju-Ryu background, and in my tradition kata is very important, however in other dojos/disciplines kata is given less importance. If you are not too keen on kata, find a new school.
> 
> In my eyes, kata is vital to the transmission of karate-do from teacher to student. To my knowledge, in the days when karate-do wasn't yet conceived, the Satsuma clan of samurai occupied the Ryukyu Kingdom, which is now Okinawa, and during this period primordial ancestors of karate-do were honed. In a biological sense, martial technique darwinism played out: the successful techniques of the islanders were passed on (because those people who used the effective techniques were successfully able to defend themselves and pass on their knowledge). Unfortunately, those who used flawed technique were killed in the process, leading to the loss of the flawed technique. Eventually native Okinawan martial art evolved with influence from the Southern White Crane Fist into what is now known as Okinawan Karate-do. The first karate-do teachers threaded together these effective techniques into kata or flat out assimilated kata from other systems (viz. Sanchin Kata).
> 
> Why is this important? Because kata represents a manual full of time honed and proven techniques for self defense. Each kata contains a wealth of knowledge.
> 
> Now, all that being said, without free style training I think kata loses efficacy. In a self defense situation it is great to rely on kata because it is committed to muscle memory, but if you find yourself in the middle of a bar fight you cannot stick to pure textbook rigidity, you need to think on your feet.
> 
> Kata is like a textbook, it gives you a great deal of knowledge and prepares you for the exam, but when the times come for the test, you aren't going to have the text book and you are going to have to apply your knowledge in a new context.


What style of Goju are you training? I am interested in your claim that kata was present in Okinawa before Matsumura, Higaonna et al. brought the kata back from China. Have you a reference for that?


----------



## TimoS

K-man said:


> I am interested in your claim that kata was present in Okinawa before Matsumura, Higaonna et al. brought the kata back from China.


I think it's very likely there was kata in Okinawa well before e.g. Matsumura. I don't have any proof of this, but I think e.g. the Shorin try version of Seisan is much older than Matsumura. It is probably a "China import" also and "related" to e.g. Goju Seisan, they've just evolved into two distinct versions that look quite different, but still have things in common


----------



## Laplace_demon

Out of curiousity; which of the "familiar styles" in Karate does not emphasize kata over kumite and other training? Is it down to individual schools or inherent in the traditions of each styles? I don't think it's possible to train many older karate styles without heavy kata. It's a huge part of Karate.


----------



## HankSchrader

Hanzou said:


> Why'd you leave Bjj in the first place?
> 
> I did Shotokan for the better part of a decade and I really disliked kata practice. As Mephisto said, its (unfortunately) a method to pad instructional time in many dojos. I know a lot of people stress that its important to training, but honestly other arts have showcased that you don't need kata to produce effective martial artists. It's also pretty annoying to have some kid black belt criticize your kata poses constantly, and then you spar with him and you absolutely demolish him with ease. While you're demolishing him, neither one of you are using kata techniques. Instead you're doing some weird modified form of kickboxing. :uhoh:
> 
> If you really want to learn a hard striking style, learn Muay Thai kickboxing. You'll get the toughness of Kyokushin without the kata.


I didn't leave BJJ, I'm a grappler I love wrestling, bjj etc


----------



## HankSchrader

Hanzou said:


> Amazingly, Muay Thai achieves the same results without all of that superfluous kata training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dojo was under the JKA. And yes, I understand what you're explaining above. My issue is that all of that kata training is unnecessary to achieve those desired results. In fact, I would argue that that kata training is actually detrimental to that development, because its teaching unnatural movements that you're not going to be using as a part of your natural fighting style.
> 
> For example, is it necessary to learn 8 stances when you're only going to be using one? Is it necessary to learn an archaic blocking system when more natural blocking systems have been developed? Is it necessary to learn deep chambered punches when you're going to be utilizing more boxing-like punches when you actually fight?


Yes Muay Thai seems like a great style, did a bit of it and its only martial art/sport/combat based so you get good, have fun, work hard, make friends and develop character through a challenging art. Instead of wasting that time doing kata.

In Muay Thai you're either drilling with pads or doing sparring. Time isn't wasted on Kata. I like your posts Hanzou they are what I was trying to say except much more to the point


----------



## HankSchrader

drop bear said:


> Well the OP also related kata to fighting. In regards to however you want to call it. Physical effectiveness. Look if it has value outside of fighting and therefore why it should be trained it is still a valid point.
> 
> If it has some sort of non fighting self defence benefit. Then that would be an easy answer to OPs question as to why they don't just scrap the thing.
> 
> I would have thought the non fighting aspect was the lead argument in that martial arts contains histories and traditions that make the art a more complete and complex system than just a device for churning out kill monsters.



lol @ kill monsters

The traditions and histories is just a sales pitch

A martial art by definition has to be about combat, although there are other benefits to learning a martial art/sport.

For example I love freestyle wrestling because its so incredibly gruelling and you really bond and make friendships with your training partners who are pushing you hard in training. Its also incredibly fun and it teaches you to work hard. In terms of being a martial art, its 100% effective because it does what it says on the tin, it teaches people to take someone down, pin someone, throw someone, restrain someone etc who is fully resisting. Because that's all you've been doing in training. It also makes you a much more peaceful person in my opinion because it humbles you and you realise how demanding engaging a fully resisting opponent is and you have nothing to prove.

Karate on the other hand avoids a lot of these benefits because its so preoccupied with lineage and tradition and would much rather have its students punching and kicking the air in kata than actually humbling and testing themselves. All the other training, the drilling and sparring is done in spite of the time wasted in kata. Kata stops karates students achieving similar benefits as alive arts by throwing away its time on things which don't build character, friendships or combat skills nearly half as well in my opinion


----------



## HankSchrader

Tez3 said:


> What on earth makes you think I'm agreeing with you? I think you are not understanding what is going on here.
> 
> The OP has gone to a karate class, he says there's too much kata, that already knows all the Bunkai for the kata and there's no enough grappling in his karate class. He says kata is pointless and karate should get rid of it.
> 
> The real point is that if he want to grappling in a kata free class karate is not for him. Why should karate have to change because he doesn't like kata? Other's don't like kata, don't see it's point there they don't do kata, they join classes in other styles that do what suits them, which is entirely sensible.
> 
> Hanzou, you can say all you like about kata ( and we have been over everything already so bringing up the same old same old is just boring), it's uses or non uses but even you don't expect karateka to change karate to suit you. if you don't like takedowns and grappling on the floor you don't take a Judo or BJJ class do you, you don't join their classes then whinge that Judo/BJJ would be really good if weren't for the floor work and they did more striking. That's what the OP is doing, he's saying that karate would be great if they didn't do kata and did more grappling.
> We all have our opinions on kata, but training in a style has contains kata and then complaining about it is nuts.



How then does Iain Abernethy state that Karate is 50% grappling,
my old JKA Shotokan Teachers told me about Grappling applications and how karate is 50% grappling
as did my Kyokushin teachers.

Are they wrong? Is the JKA wrong and you are right?

All over the internet peoples Bunkai for kata involves grappling.

Is this not a huge red flag that noone seems to really know what their art actually is!!??!?!?

I bet every Judoka out there knows the same syllabus. But people can be Black Belts in Karate and disagree and debate over fundamental techniques?  Its worrying

Reread my posts as its clearly gone over your head.

Its more like people make up bullsh*t bunkai to change karate to suit them.


----------



## HankSchrader

EddieCyrax said:


> Ok.
> 
> Their choice.....as is the original poster of this thread....if they do not see the value, go to another school.
> 
> I see value in both. My school does both.
> 
> I do not see an argument here.



My point is about IMPROVING karate and using modern alive training methods with the current syllabus which I'm told by JKA instructors and Iain Abernethy involves grappling.


----------



## drop bear

HankSchrader said:


> lol @ kill monsters
> 
> The traditions and histories is just a sales pitch
> 
> A martial art by definition has to be about combat, although there are other benefits to learning a martial art/sport.
> 
> For example I love freestyle wrestling because its so incredibly gruelling and you really bond and make friendships with your training partners who are pushing you hard in training. Its also incredibly fun and it teaches you to work hard. In terms of being a martial art, its 100% effective because it does what it says on the tin, it teaches people to take someone down, pin someone, throw someone, restrain someone etc who is fully resisting. Because that's all you've been doing in training. It also makes you a much more peaceful person in my opinion because it humbles you and you realise how demanding engaging a fully resisting opponent is and you have nothing to prove.
> 
> Karate on the other hand avoids a lot of these benefits because its so preoccupied with lineage and tradition and would much rather have its students punching and kicking the air in kata than actually humbling and testing themselves. All the other training, the drilling and sparring is done in spite of the time wasted in kata. Kata stops karates students achieving similar benefits as alive arts by throwing away its time on things which don't build character, friendships or combat skills nearly half as well in my opinion



Our local karate is a kyokashin school. Who do kata and train alive. Now kata bores me to tears I don't do it. But they do and claim it helps them.

Now we can argue correlation does not equal causation. But that school does produce champions. So should I decide to be a karate man I would be doing the kata.

but otherwise i agree that live training is the way to go.


----------



## HankSchrader

Tez3 said:


> How nice, this has turned into a kata hate/love thread instead of looking at the OPs issues of training in a style whose training methods he doesn't approve of and wants to change. Do any of the people bashing kata not think that's a bit odd? Instead of slagging off kata again perhaps you might like to re-read the OP and see why someone who claims to have 'done' several martial arts, claims to know all the Bunkai and is criticising the class he's in because he already knows more than the instructor, posted and incidentally once having set everyone off on the road of the pro/anti kata argument hasn't replied since.



Know all the bunkai? then why is everyones Bunkai different? Go on, type a kata name + bunkai into youtube and you'll get different techniques and applications per video. Occams razor says noone knows what the Bunkai is (because there isn't any)

But to those who insist on Bunkai (in which 95% of katas have grappling applications according to Iain Abernethy et al)
why aren't the grappling applications trained properly?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

HankSchrader said:


> karate is 50% grappling.


All MA systems claim that they train kick, punch, lock, throw. If lock + throw = grappling then all MA systems are 50% grappling by definition.

How serious does one MA system have in the grappling training? It's very easy to prove by sending students to SC/Judo/wrestling/BJJ tournaments and see what the outcome may be. If a style can send their students to grappling tournaments and bring back the 1st place trophy, nobody will ever argue whether that style has good grappling or not.

If you think that you have good

- striking skill, you should test yourself in boxing, MT, kickboxing tournaments.
- grappling skill, you should test yourself in SC, Judo, wrestling, BJJ tournaments.

It should be just as simple as that.


----------



## HankSchrader

drop bear said:


> Our local karate is a kyokashin school. Who do kata and train alive. Now kata bores me to tears I don't do it. But they do and claim it helps them.
> 
> Now we can argue correlation does not equal causation. But that school does produce champions. So should I decide to be a karate man I would be doing the kata.
> 
> but otherwise i agree that live training is the way to go.


I understand what you mean about correlation, but in my opinion that school would win even more championships/trophies if you ditched Kata. That's just my opinion but I know when I want to win a grappling tournament I need to grapple more. There are solo drills for grapplers ala Jason Scully but I know if I used them as a training method in place of some actual grappling sessions I'd never win a trophy against others training in an alive manner.
I also know when Muay Thai fighters want to become champions they do as much Muay Thai as possible, and no solo drills.
I think Karatekas are scared to deviate from the norm because of Lineage and how they are taught. Those who teach or have schools would be ostracised and accused of watering down the art if they ditched Kata, when in my opinion they'd be bolstering the art and taking it forward.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> Our local karate is a kyokashin school. Who do kata and train alive. Now kata bores me to tears I don't do it. But they do and claim it helps them.
> 
> Now we can argue correlation does not equal causation. But that school does produce champions. So should I decide to be a karate man I would be doing the kata.
> 
> but otherwise i agree that live training is the way to go.



speaking of modern alive training methods they come down and train mma with us. And so can either change their methods like integrate modern boxing or test their traditional methods against mma style attacks.

what I find happens is they do a bit of both. So for example karate kicks work in a setting that includes grappling but the distances don't. So it is not that they are just throwing their stuff in the bin. They are adjusting tactics and adding extra defences.


----------



## HankSchrader

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All MA systems claim that they train kick, punch, lock, throw. If lock + throw = grappling then all MA systems are 50% grappling by definition.
> 
> How deep understand does one MA system have in grappling? It's very easy to prove by sending students to SC/Judo/wrestling/BJJ tournaments and see what the outcome may be. If a style can send their students to grappling tournaments and bring back the 1st place trophy, nobody will ever argue whether that style has good grappling or not.
> 
> Of you think that you have good
> 
> - striking skill, you should test yourself in boxing, MT, kickboxing tournaments.
> - grappling skill, you should test yourself in SC, Judo, wrestling, BJJ tournaments.
> 
> It's just as simple as that.


Exactly which is why Karate needs to either stop claiming to have anything to do with Grappling or actually train it.


----------



## HankSchrader

drop bear said:


> speaking of modern alive training methods they come down and train mma with us. And so can either change their methods like integrate modern boxing or test their traditional methods against mma style attacks.
> 
> what I find happens is they do a bit of both. So for example karate kicks work in a setting that includes grappling but the distances don't. So it is not that they are just throwing their stuff in the bin. They are adjusting tactics and adding extra defences.



They sound like good martial artists for Cross Training and are doing Karate a good service by moving into the modern age


----------



## drop bear

HankSchrader said:


> I understand what you mean about correlation, but in my opinion that school would win even more championships/trophies if you ditched Kata. That's just my opinion but I know when I want to win a grappling tournament I need to grapple more. There are solo drills for grapplers ala Jason Scully but I know if I used them as a training method in place of some actual grappling sessions I'd never win a trophy against others training in an alive manner.
> I also know when Muay Thai fighters want to become champions they do as much Muay Thai as possible, and no solo drills.
> I think Karatekas are scared to deviate from the norm because of Lineage and how they are taught. Those who teach or have schools would be ostracised and accused of watering down the art if they ditched Kata, when in my opinion they'd be bolstering the art and taking it forward.



karate is competition based. A school could ditch kata and then proceed to clean house in competition. So far this has not been the case.

when we discuss evidence based training which is the point of resisted training over kata. We need to look at the evidence.

so to make this point that kata is some sort of anchor we would need to find an example of that.


----------



## drop bear

HankSchrader said:


> They sound like good martial artists for Cross Training and are doing Karate a good service by moving into the modern age



well the point is of course. We are cross training as well by having them in.


----------



## Flying Crane

HankSchrader said:


> lol @ kill monsters
> 
> The traditions and histories is just a sales pitch
> 
> A martial art by definition has to be about combat, although there are other benefits to learning a martial art/sport.
> 
> For example I love freestyle wrestling because its so incredibly gruelling and you really bond and make friendships with your training partners who are pushing you hard in training. Its also incredibly fun and it teaches you to work hard. In terms of being a martial art, its 100% effective because it does what it says on the tin, it teaches people to take someone down, pin someone, throw someone, restrain someone etc who is fully resisting. Because that's all you've been doing in training. It also makes you a much more peaceful person in my opinion because it humbles you and you realise how demanding engaging a fully resisting opponent is and you have nothing to prove.
> 
> Karate on the other hand avoids a lot of these benefits because its so preoccupied with lineage and tradition and would much rather have its students punching and kicking the air in kata than actually humbling and testing themselves. All the other training, the drilling and sparring is done in spite of the time wasted in kata. Kata stops karates students achieving similar benefits as alive arts by throwing away its time on things which don't build character, friendships or combat skills nearly half as well in my opinion


Here's a piece of advice for you: don't do kata, don't train in a school that trains kata as part of their methodology, and don't worry your pretty little head about what others are up to in their own training.  There.  Now all of your problems are solved.


----------



## Flying Crane

HankSchrader said:


> But people can be Black Belts in Karate and disagree and debate over fundamental techniques?  Its worrying


It's worrying to YOU, apparently.  Meh, not to me or others here.  
See the advice I gave previously.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

HankSchrader said:


> IMPROVING karate and using modern alive training methods ...


If you go to a

- Judo forum and suggest that all Judo guys should train no-gi, you won't last very long in that forum.
- Karate forum and suggest that all Karate guys should train no-kata, you won't last very long in that forum either.

Some people don't mind to "evolve" but the majority people do.


----------



## HankSchrader

Flying Crane said:


> It's worrying to YOU, apparently.  Meh, not to me or others here.
> See the advice I gave previously.



Jesus, no wonder there are so many mcdojos


----------



## HankSchrader

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you go to a
> 
> - Judo forum and suggest that all Judo guys should train no-gi, you won't last very long in that forum.
> - Karate forum and suggest that all Karate guys should train no-kata, you won't last very long in that forum either.
> 
> Some people don't mind to "evolve" but the majority people do.



Actually its quite sensible to cross train no gi with judo, if you want to get good at pick ups, te geruma, kata garuma plenty of Judokas have cross trained in wrestling or no gi. Particularly with the old IJF rules. Very poor examples as people in those arts care about getting good through decent training methods


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

HankSchrader said:


> Actually its quite sensible to cross train no gi with judo, if you want to get good at pick ups, te geruma, kata garuma plenty of Judokas have cross trained in wrestling or no gi. Particularly with the old IJF rules. Very poor examples as people in those arts care about getting good through decent training methods


It takes time for a Judo teacher to switch to no-gi. It also takes time for a Karate instructor to switch to no-kata. That transition can be painful. Not everybody want to go through it.

When you switch to

- no-gi, you have to find all the valid contact points for "pulling".
- no-kata, you have to find enough partner drill training to replace Kata training.

Not everybody want to go outside of their comfort zone.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you go to a
> 
> - Judo forum and suggest that all Judo guys should train no-gi, you won't last very long in that forum.
> - Karate forum and suggest that all Karate guys should train no-kata, you won't last very long in that forum either.
> 
> Some people don't mind to "evolve" but the majority people do.



He is still allowed to hold that position without it being some sort of shot at all karate. There is such a Thing as too much group think.

no gi judo would be cool.


----------



## TimoS

HankSchrader said:


> then why is everyones Bunkai different?


Simple: in most cases the bunkai was forgotten/never learned for various reasons, maybe even decades ago and now many people are "reverse engineering" the bunkai, which causing a lot of variation. Also, the whole word is somewhat of a can of worms. To me, it means the formal, "rigid" application, that is the basis of the free form applications we also practice. To others, the word is equal with any application they do.


----------



## Dirty Dog

I don't see anything in the word bunkai that makes me think there's only one correct bunkai. Forms teach techniques. They also teach the principles behind those techniques. The bunkai is derived from the principles. And the principles are applicable to many scenarios, leading to different people coming up with different specific applications. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.


----------



## Cirdan

HankSchrader said:


> I think Karatekas are scared to deviate from the norm because of Lineage and how they are taught. Those who teach or have schools would be ostracised and accused of watering down the art if they ditched Kata, when in my opinion they'd be bolstering the art and taking it forward.



Then if we are scared to deivate why is the art so fragmented with dozens of styles and thousands of Dojos and organizations with their own take on Karate?
I teach and to me kata is very much the core of the art, without kata it is not really Karate anymore. I also train and am starting to teach another similar art (Ju Jitsu Norway) that does not use kata instead favoring pair work. This has its benefits too, but the students there sure could use some kata training to improve their stances and basic technique to mention just two. Then again you can`t have it all. I love Wado Karate for the crisp technique and beautiful use of power, I love Ju Jitsu for the practicality and physicality.

Bottom line if you hate kata then don`t do Karate. Kickboxing maybe?


----------



## HankSchrader

Cirdan said:


> Then if we are scared to deivate why is the art so fragmented with dozens of styles and thousands of Dojos and organizations with their own take on Karate?
> I teach and to me kata is very much the core of the art, without kata it is not really Karate anymore. I also train and am starting to teach another similar art (Ju Jitsu Norway) that does not use kata instead favoring pair work. This has its benefits too, but the students there sure could use some kata training to improve their stances and basic technique to mention just two. Then again you can`t have it all. I love Wado Karate for the crisp technique and beautiful use of power, I love Ju Jitsu for the practicality and physicality.
> 
> Bottom line if you hate kata then don`t do Karate. Kickboxing maybe?




yet all those styles do kata.


----------



## Cirdan

HankSchrader said:


> yet all those styles do kata.



Yet what? Not sure what you are getting at there.


----------



## HankSchrader

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It takes time for a Judo teacher to switch to no-gi. It also takes time for a Karate instructor to switch to no-kata. That transition can be painful. Not everybody want to go through it.
> 
> When you switch to
> 
> - no-gi, you have to find all the valid contact points for "pulling".
> - no-kata, you have to find enough partner drill training to replace Kata training.
> 
> Not everybody want to go outside of their comfort zone.



why would it take time in Judo in to switch to no-gi? Using underhooks/overhooks etc is already in Judo. They'd just need to learn to wrestle a bit but Its grappling all the same. It provides benefits to their pick up game etc. BJJ practitioners switch from gi to no gi all the time. Just like Sambo players will go no jacket and wrestle too.
Its not painful lol, there's nothing painful about it. Its just having fun and getting better. 
Yes in no-kata you'd have to train in an alive, effective manner with partners not with Kata, wouldn't that be lovely.


----------



## HankSchrader

Cirdan said:


> Yet what? Not sure what you are getting at there.



That lineage and tradition is prevalent in all styles of Karate and it hinders its growth and progressiveness. Making it far less effective and beneficial than a fully alive martial art, when it could be if people left the archaic methods behind.

Have you ever studied a fully alive martial art? (one without compliant partner drills, full contact sparring and no kata)


----------



## Cirdan

HankSchrader said:


> That lineage and tradition is prevalent in all styles of Karate and it hinders its growth and progressiveness. Making it far less effective and beneficial than a fully alive martial art, when it could be if people left the archaic methods behind.



Refer to my earlier post about training in styles both with and without kata.



> Have you ever studied a fully alive martial art? (one without compliant partner drills, full contact sparring and no kata)



I am alive not dead so my training in several arts have definitely been so too. 

No compliant drills at all? Nope, can`t  say I have seen that in any art including  Wado Karate, Kyokushin, Ju Jitsu, Kobudo, Iaido, Aikido, Kali Sikaran, Goshindo, Nihon Goshin Ryu, BJJ, Judo, Tai Chi, Kickboxing, Taekwondo or MMA for that matter. If there is an art without it I am pretty sure it must be complete horse manure, respectfully. Backyard Redneck Fu maybe?


----------



## Buka

HankSchrader said:


> That lineage and tradition is prevalent in all styles of Karate and it hinders its growth and progressiveness. Making it far less effective and beneficial than a fully alive martial art, when it could be if people left the archaic methods behind.
> 
> Have you ever studied a fully alive martial art? (one without compliant partner drills, full contact sparring and no kata)



I'm not sure what a compliant partner drill is. But then, I had never heard the term "bunkai" until I joined our forum several years ago, so I'm used to not knowing things.I train American Karate. It's in my blood. Our lineage and traditions only go back six decades. With all due respect, Hank, how the hell would you know what kind of lineage and traditions I and my students have. And why would you care?

We don't have Kata as part of our system, but some of my students have put some together and maybe they'll put it in. They're big boys who've taught for over thirty years and if they want it for their students, that's fine with me.
BUT, I shadowbox at times, which to me is the same as kata. I'm getting the feeling you don't much like shadowboxing, which is also fine with me, but I both love it and need it.

I'm not sure what a fully alive Martial Art is. (there's more of that personal confusion of mine) Martial Arts sure seem alive to me. Especially when I get whopped upside the head. Or crawl out of bed because my old bones are tired from training the night before.


----------



## Drose427

HankSchrader said:


> That lineage and tradition is prevalent in all styles of Karate and it hinders its growth and progressiveness. Making it far less effective and beneficial than a fully alive martial art, when it could be if people left the archaic methods behind.
> 
> Have you ever studied a fully alive martial art? (one without compliant partner drills, full contact sparring and no kata)



Im not sure I'd consider any of modern martial arts in the world right now _dead._ Also, I'm not sure what your background is, but even in Boxing and Muay Thay theres a degree of control. People aren't as bloodthirsty with their sparring during the week as they are in a bout. On the flipside, most Semi Contact TMA schools dont spar as lightly as people think. Bruising, blood, and damaged bodies are more common with the adults than outsiders think. I've been rocked and dropped just as much in my Moo Duk Kwan classes as I was in my Boxing days.

Every art, style or system has a degree of compliant partner drills. Your first day of Sparring in a Muay Thai gym, your trainer isn't going to let your partner clobber you. Nor should your partner come out and crush you. Early on, compliance from your partner is there so you can learn and get comfortable with techniques. More comfortable you are, the more resistance you should get.

One of the best benefits of Kata in my opinion is the teaching of proper technique, torque, and (depending on your instructor and how he teaches moves) applications. For example, Anderson Silva has an amazing TKD Front kick. He comes from TKD, and itd be ignorant to assume his Hyung never helped his kick at all.

Kata also arent meant to be practiced without One-Step Sparring and SD. You should be practicing Kata, then be taking  some of the applications and drilling them with a partner. With kata, you can still practice alone. Also, you have the benefit of having many, many more movements taught at once with which you can draw your own techniques and combinations from. Whereas, in systems without kata its exceedingly difficult to practice your SD techs on your own and you are limited by what your instructor knows or what you learn elsewhere as opposed to adapting a movement in from a choice of 50 moves in the most advantageous way for you.


----------



## Flying Crane

HankSchrader said:


> Jesus, no wonder there are so many mcdojos


Is that troubling to you?  I've got a stressful job and a family to take care of, so worrying about some McDojo doesnt even make it onto my list. 

Do what's right for you and stop nosing into other people's business.  You don't like kata, so you don't need to train it.  But others do, so stop this nonsense of pretending like you are concerned about the state of karate.  You are not.  You are simply looking for validation for you own personal preferences because apparently you are not strong enough on the inside to just make up your mind to follow your own path.  Well, I'd say you've gotten plenty of validation, hell, even I told you at least a couple times now, that you don't need to train forms.

So grow up, and do what's right for you and don't worry about what others are doing, especially when it's something you don't understand.


----------



## HankSchrader

Flying Crane said:


> Is that troubling to you?  I've got a stressful job and a family to take care of, so worrying about some McDojo doesnt even make it onto my list.
> 
> Do what's right for you and stop nosing into other people's business.  You don't like kata, so you don't need to train it.  But others do, so stop this nonsense of pretending like you are concerned about the state of karate.  You are not.  You are simply looking for validation for you own personal preferences because apparently you are not strong enough on the inside to just make up your mind to follow your own path.  Well, I'd say you've gotten plenty of validation, hell, even I told you at least a couple times now, that you don't need to train forms.
> 
> So grow up, and do what's right for you and don't worry about what others are doing, especially when it's something you don't understand.



Welcome to the real world of stressful jobs and kids you big cry baby. If you don't like your job man up and change it. Stop changing the topic to being about yourself. I have followed my own path. My problem is with the bullshido culture in Karate and how it weakens the Martial Art (I'm passionate about martial arts) for your information I dropped Karate like the bad habit it was. I

Lol @don't understand, my whole point is noone understands the martial art any more. Not going to bother replying to your comments any more. Hope you're okay today after a "stressful" day at work. *big hugs*


----------



## TimoS

HankSchrader said:


> Lol @don't understand, my whole point is noone understands the martial art any more.


Aren't we lucky to have you tell us what it's all about then


----------



## tshadowchaser

HankSchrader said:


> That lineage and tradition is prevalent in all styles of Karate and it hinders its growth and progressiveness. Making it far less effective and beneficial than a fully alive martial art, when it could be if people left the archaic methods behind.
> 
> Have you ever studied a fully alive martial art? (one without compliant partner drills, full contact sparring and no kata)




lets take your 2nd statement first.  No I have not there is no such a thing the way you describe it.  If you practice a technique you learned it somewhere from some one or thing and visualize it in you mind you are doing kata.

for the first part:  lineage and tradition may be present but that tradition may well be to learn and evolve as mine is. I do not see where having one or the other is hindering growth. And what are archaic methods of learning if a punch is ia punch, a throw is a throw and a kick is a kick.  unless you simply go out and brawl and no one ever says hey try this or try that or move your arm hear for better results your just brawling   OH but you don't believe in that because that is going back to tradition and learning how to do something


----------



## Steve

Couple of thoughts.  First, no-gi judo is a work in progress.  Rhonday Rousey is probably the most successful, pure example of a judoka in the ring.  There are others, of course, but the lack of grips requires modication to most of the techniques, and makes some impossible to execute.

Second, regarding compliant drills, every style I can think of, including MMA, BJJ, Boxing and you name it.  If you think that an absence of compliant drills is an essential characteristic of aliveness, then you really don't understand aliveness (or maybe don't understand what a compliant drill is). 

Regarding kata, take it or leave it.  I don't like the idea of kata, but if I trained in karate, I'd do it without complaint.  Sort of like going into an italian restaurant and demanding that they remove the pasta from the menu (or conversely, demanding they serve you kung pao chicken).  Point is, karate is a thing.  It is what it is, and kata is a part of it and always has been.  As a consumer, you can make a choice, but to presume to tell others that they shouldn't enjoy what they're doing because it's somehow undermining your own personal view makes no sense.  It's a particularly immature and narcissistic perspective to have.

I know guys that like to go out to the parks and pretend to be knights in the SCA.  I think it's dorky as hell, but they really enjoy it.  They understand why I think it's dorky, and they really don't care.  I would never presume to tell them that they're doing it wrong, even though it's not my bag.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> no-gi judo is a work in progress.  ... but the lack of grips requires modication to most of the techniques, and makes some impossible to execute.


IMO, to switch from gi to no-gi,

1st - you will need to use "arm wrap" because the "sleeve hold" is no longer available.
2nd - you will need to use "neck tie" because the "upper lapel hold" is also no longer available.
3rd - you can't use your grip to prevent your opponent from coming closer any more.
4th - you have less pulling ability.

It's not as simple as OP may think. A technique as shown in the following clip will need modification. You may still be able to push as hard, but will you be able to pull as hard without changing your hand grip position? If you have to change your hand grip position, it may slow down your reverse pulling, that will give your opponent more time to react.

When a technique that you have spent so many years to make it work, suddenly it just doesn't work that well any more. Not everybody want to go through that kind of frustration. If you keep moving forward, you will pass your uncomfortable period. If you stop moving forward, you will be stuck there.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Couple of thoughts.  First, no-gi judo is a work in progress.  Rhonday Rousey is probably the most successful, pure example of a judoka in the ring.  There are others, of course, but the lack of grips requires modication to most of the techniques, and makes some impossible to execute.
> 
> Second, regarding compliant drills, every style I can think of, including MMA, BJJ, Boxing and you name it.  If you think that an absence of compliant drills is an essential characteristic of aliveness, then you really don't understand aliveness (or maybe don't understand what a compliant drill is).
> 
> Regarding kata, take it or leave it.  I don't like the idea of kata, but if I trained in karate, I'd do it without complaint.  Sort of like going into an italian restaurant and demanding that they remove the pasta from the menu (or conversely, demanding they serve you kung pao chicken).  Point is, karate is a thing.  It is what it is, and kata is a part of it and always has been.  As a consumer, you can make a choice, but to presume to tell others that they shouldn't enjoy what they're doing because it's somehow undermining your own personal view makes no sense.  It's a particularly immature and narcissistic perspective to have.
> 
> I know guys that like to go out to the parks and pretend to be knights in the SCA.  I think it's dorky as hell, but they really enjoy it.  They understand why I think it's dorky, and they really don't care.  I would never presume to tell them that they're doing it wrong, even though it's not my bag.



judo are going to do their on version of mma apparently. Now that they have put the sooky ban on judokas competing in other comps.

i have no idea what it is going to look like.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> judo are going to do their on version of mma apparently. Now that they have put the sooky ban on judokas competing in other comps.
> 
> i have no idea what it is going to look like.


I saw that.  Ridiculous, but there you go.  They want to preserve the integrity of their art, I guess. 

I was really thinking back to the Pride FC days, where some judoka were doing okay in Japan, but not really executing a lot of the high amplitude throws typically associated with judo.  Karo Parysian was pretty solid for his time, but by today's standards, his MMA Judo was pretty simplistic.  Rousey's worked it out, though.


----------



## Cirdan

HankSchrader said:


> Welcome to the real world of stressful jobs and kids you big cry baby. If you don't like your job man up and change it. Stop changing the topic to being about yourself. I have followed my own path. My problem is with the bullshido culture in Karate and how it weakens the Martial Art (I'm passionate about martial arts) for your information I dropped Karate like the bad habit it was. I
> 
> Lol @don't understand, my whole point is noone understands the martial art any more. Not going to bother replying to your comments any more. Hope you're okay today after a "stressful" day at work. *big hugs*



So glad you decided to drop Karate, the average quality of students just improved noticeably


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I saw that.  Ridiculous, but there you go.  They want to preserve the integrity of their art, I guess.
> 
> I was really thinking back to the Pride FC days, where some judoka were doing okay in Japan, but not really executing a lot of the high amplitude throws typically associated with judo.  Karo Parysian was pretty solid for his time, but by today's standards, his MMA Judo was pretty simplistic.  Rousey's worked it out, though.


I know some bjj guys who are cross training in judo on the grounds that if you really smash a guy with a throw it makes your beej easier.

kudo. One of the few Japanese wins against Russia was a judo champion. According to my coach he didn't look to pretty afterwards though


----------



## Flying Crane

HankSchrader said:


> Welcome to the real world of stressful jobs and kids you big cry baby. If you don't like your job man up and change it. Stop changing the topic to being about yourself. I have followed my own path. My problem is with the bullshido culture in Karate and how it weakens the Martial Art (I'm passionate about martial arts) for your information I dropped Karate like the bad habit it was. I
> 
> Lol @don't understand, my whole point is noone understands the martial art any more. Not going to bother replying to your comments any more. Hope you're okay today after a "stressful" day at work. *big hugs*


Wow, that was just bizarre.  Okay then.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

HankSchrader said:


> Have you ever studied a fully alive martial art? (one without compliant partner drills, full contact sparring and no kata)



I train BJJ and Muay Thai. We have compliant partner drills as well as full-contact sparring and a batch of exercises that fall somewhere between those extremes. They all have their place.



HankSchrader said:


> for your information I dropped Karate like the bad habit it was.



So you quit training Karate in the last couple of months? There you go. Your problem is solved. You don't have to practice kata any more. You can devote your time to aspects of training that you appreciate more.



HankSchrader said:


> My problem is with the bullshido culture in Karate and how it weakens the Martial Art



Well, if that's your crusade, I wouldn't waste time with us nobodies on this forum. You should track down a really prominent karateka who practices kata and inform him that he's doing bullshido. That'll straighten him out. Might I suggest Lyoto Machida? I'm sure he would appreciate the education.  (Be sure to talk to him in person so you can demonstrate how his kata has destroyed his fighting ability. 

Seriously, though. I'm not a big fan of kata myself, so I don't practice it. Other people do, and that's great. We don't all have to practice the same thing in the same way. I might not see the value in kata, but there are people who do find value in it who are ten times the martial artist and ten times the fighter that I am. Maybe they'd be just as good or better without spending time on their kata. Maybe they wouldn't. All I know is it would be pretty stupid of me to go lecture them on how they were ruining the martial arts with their approach to training.


----------

