# why do people hate kata



## brandon

i am a blue belt in go-ju ryu and i always read articles that are so anti-kata.What is with you people kata have been preformed since the begining and they trained for real combat not like us who mostly do it for sport .What makes these  so called reality based martial arts think they have it figured out .Kata are not preformed to teach self defense,but are used as a conditioning tool.Also to fine tune technique,teach accuracy and control.After all these methods have been used for hunderds of years and we dismiss them because we think we know it all.I think its a shame to see a black  who does not teach kata ,but a guess i am a traditionalist . please fell free to give tour thoughts


----------



## tshadowchaser

I for one like doing kata, forms, or whatever someone wants to call them.
I feel they teach a person the basics of stance, movement, and strikes. Are they the only thing someone should train in, no. Are they a good way to learn how to move your body and to learn certian combinations of moves, yes.
 They are one of the baics by which the arts have been past down for many, many years. And yes, there are schools/systems that did or do not use them but I sometime wonder if techniques will be lost in those schools over time and have to be "rediscoverd" down the line.


----------



## TigerWoman

All the women I know, LIKE kata.  Maybe its because of flexibility or other physical differences.  But flexibility is not a given, we all have to work on it unless we happened to be a gymnast in our teens.  So is it just a man thing, that they would rather leave kata, poomse, or forms, than take it and embrace it?

I learned so much from forms.  Strength, balance, agility, and I learned how my body moved and what it took to get better.  I learned to become much more aware of the right way to do techniques before I got into sparring. Doing those kicks, blocks and punches over and over and over builds strength too and you are concentrating so much on what it should look like that you tend to strive for that goal. I think it is a wonderful way to get the feel down.  

Just because its difficult doesn't mean it should go.  After all, I think breaking for women as compared to men's musculature and weight is more difficult for them.  But we still have to do it. And its hard. But I wouldn't have not wanted to do it, because now I know I can. So men have to focus on what forms is supposed to teach them.  Patience maybe?  Then all the other stuff. :asian:


----------



## Storm

I too love Kata (forms) for the same reasons that the others have put down however I do not feel its a female thing.

I strive to do it as well (haha) as my Instructors, both male.  The other person who I love to watch and would love to have half of his talent is a huge 6 foot something 120kg + guy who is so light on his feet yet you know every move he moves has the power to take out what is in his path.

The "form" to me is also the "Art" part of MA which is really important. Kata is meant to look good IMO.  It is also the area that I love to try and perfect.  Everytime I do it, I find something different to correct, work on something to make it look and work better.  Even Short form one which is the first one I ever learnt.

Forms are what you make them, you get out what you put in.


----------



## TigerWoman

Storm said:
			
		

> I too love Kata (forms) for the same reasons that the others have put down however I do not feel its a female thing.
> 
> Forms are what you make them, you get out what you put in.



I too, love to watch my instructor (5th dan) do form.  And I have seen some teens do it really well.  But most of the guys that I have seen in tournaments do Karate forms and its seems powerful but not as artistic. I have never been impressed as a judge by all the hissing and gutteral noises.  I am more impressed by balance and lightness as you said, power shown with high held kicks, jumping and landing perfectly etc.  But again, those are the few guys who obviously love it and put their all into perfecting it.  I was speaking generally, of course.  I hear alot of guys grumble but no women.  As you said, whether its a man or a woman, the hours and work shows in properly executed form. :asian:


----------



## Storm

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> I too, love to watch my instructor (5th dan) do form.  And I have seen some teens do it really well.  But most of the guys that I have seen in tournaments do Karate forms and its seems powerful but not as artistic. . :asian:



You are most likely correct, I probably spend alot of time being involved myself and concerning myself with my mentors rather than looking at the ovrall picture.

I havent had the benifit of seeing alot of Forms first hand in tournaments nor with judging.  Have started within our club judging the children in thier competitions but only twice so far and have been once again more concerned whether Im choosing right or not. (still alot of learning needed on my part).

I will definitely take a good look the next time forms are performed to get a better over all view.   :asian: 

Cheers


----------



## goju.glenn

Kata would be my favourite aspect of my karate.

It is a conditioning tool for the body as well as the mind. Because it takes a long time "learn" a kata, I find it a great "place" to put your mind. All the basics of karate in the kata, so by focusing your mind on either the whole kata or one part is a great training tool.  :asian:


----------



## Han-Mi

My impression of why some schools advertise "modern day" MA without forms, is so that lazy people who want to learn how to fight, and only fight, can do so. Takes all the the real mental aspect out of the art though, it becomes completely physical.  That's only half the battle, and that's being generous.


----------



## goju.glenn

Han-Mi said:
			
		

> Takes all the the real mental aspect out of the art though, it becomes completely physical.  That's only half the battle, and that's being generous.



I agree 100%. The physcial side of he MA is a small portion. One's mental attitude is extremeley important.  :asian:


----------



## MJS

brandon said:
			
		

> i am a blue belt in go-ju ryu and i always read articles that are so anti-kata.What is with you people kata have been preformed since the begining and they trained for real combat not like us who mostly do it for sport .What makes these  so called reality based martial arts think they have it figured out .Kata are not preformed to teach self defense,but are used as a conditioning tool.Also to fine tune technique,teach accuracy and control.After all these methods have been used for hunderds of years and we dismiss them because we think we know it all.I think its a shame to see a black  who does not teach kata ,but a guess i am a traditionalist . please fell free to give tour thoughts



Here is a quote of mine from a post that I responded to in the Gen. MA section under the topic 'Reality'  I hope that this is a help to you and answers your questions.  In it, I'm addressing Kata as well as the RBSD (Reality Based Self Defense) arts that are out there.





> Good question. Back when I first started training, I'd always hear people talking about the RBSD (reality based self defense) and I'd sit here thinking, "Gee, well I'm training to defend myself, so yeah, I must be training for that reality also." If you look at some of the RBSD instructors that you have out there such as Peyton Quinn, Sammy Franco, Marc MacYoung, Geoff Thompson, you'll notice a slightly different approach to their training.
> 
> One thing is that many of them seem to incorporate different training/aliveness drills. Peyton Quinn uses his adrenal stress classes, to prepare the student mentally and physically for a confrontation. Many of them also take out the fancy, flashy stuff that you find in many arts. Like I said in a previous post, I dont want to turn this into yet another bashing of arts session, but take a look at some of the arts out there. It shouldnt be too hard to figure out. Yet another thing that they've removed is the kata. If you really stop and think about it, what is it doing to help you fight?? IMO, nothing! Now, I've been doing kata for a long time, and still do them. And yes, they do contain hidden applications. Look at Dillman. Hes great at showing what the moves in kata can be used for. However, during the course of my training, I've come across few inst. that can actually tell you what you're doing in the kata. The typical conversation goes like this.
> 
> Me- "Can you tell me why we are doing this move and what its doing?"
> 
> Instructor- "Well,..........because thats the way its done."
> 
> Gee, doesnt sound like a good answer to me. So, I tried to figure it out myself, and fortuantely, by me doing that, and with the help of a few other instructors who also relized the benefits of knowing what you're doing, I was able to finally understand.
> 
> Now, back to the kata. Most of the RBSD teachers find that spending more time doing sparring and more alive training, they get more out of it, instead of standing there doing a dead pattern in the air, with no attacker, no resistance, etc.
> 
> In addition, many of them have taken the time and have really done their homework researching street fights, assaults, weapon attacks, etc, and base their training/instruction off of what they've found.



Mike


----------



## oldnewbie

I too love kata. If in fact they are what I like best. I find I can "center" my self after doing several kata. I was told once that Kata were a "collection" of moves, kinda of a visual encylopedia of moves, that by doing kata, you were "study-ing"...

Anyway, just thought I add my 2 cents..


----------



## kroh

I have seen the argument from both sides of the tracks on this issue.  But the core reason that people in this country (America) do not like kata, is the people who are teaching the kata do not understand them. I am not saying that all who teach kata do not understand them.  But because many martial arts studios have strayed from their sources over the years due to many reasons, the arts they teach have been americanized and they have lost sights of many aspects of their original training.  Kata is one of these precepts.

 Kata is like a lesson plan for the martial art you are doing.  It should contain the main defining principles for the system.  Each Kata should contain four distinct aspects.  The form ( the choreographed series of movements), the interpretations of each movement, the applications of each movement and lastly and most importantly, the controlling principle behind each movement (some of you might know the japanese words for these componenets but i am going to give them in english for those on the board who don't "spreken").  

Most instructors only know the form itself and then they teach a bunch of defense scenarios and some other combination work that have nothing to do with the lesson plan (form) of the system.  IMHO, they should drop the kata in that case as they are not realling using them as intended anyway.  They should just use the short combo's that they have constructed to teach and work their system.  And in many cases these worked up combo's are serving their teaching audience better than the kata would.  ( I have seen some schools who work these combo's to devestating effect...the stuff they are doing is really tight! :asian: )

The real question this all brings up should be why don't people like "Traditional" Forms?  If ya think about it, lets take a JKD class from today.  Jkd advocates no forms what so ever...or so the story goes.  When working the pads ( lets say focus mits ), the pair starts working a jab, cross, hook combo.  The pair then adds a round kick and a knee after every one.  Then they start to mix things up. They add incomming attacks to break up the rythm.  The drill becomes some what free form based around those frist three punches.  So what do you have?  You have a combination of movements designed to illustrate a principle (kata = jab, cross, hook).  You have it's interpretation against the pads( pads acting as targets for the real thing ), and then its application against a live excersize.  Lastly you have the overiding principle ( striking to the face to distract followed by a powerfull circular strike to knock down or out).  

So do all these systems use kata...yes....do they call it that or lend the mystery to their forms as the traditionalists do...no.

Why do the people who do reality self defense hate kata...they do not understand them.  But that is why forums like this are so good.  Maybe a RSD practictioner will see this thread and read about forms and think " Hey, I could use this in my training."  It's all good

Train well, play hard and have fun
WalT


----------



## BushidoUK

In the freestyle system of Karate I was taught, katas were always very important.
They teach balance, co-ordination, timing etc.
Also I have always found great satisfaction in asking someone who has just learnt a kata..."Now show me what all those moves mean to you"
then once they have figured out some meaning behind the moves asking...
"Now show me what else they could mean".
For each kata move we can interpret them in so many ways.
e.g. a downward block could be just that, or breaking someones grip on your wrist by hitting it with a hammerfist. or breaking someones arm by pulling it straight with the reaction arm and striking with the blocking arm or even attacking the atemi points. the possibilities are infinite, yet we must all work harder and harder to find more meanings..... and that's what puts a lot of people off.... they want to be shown, they dont want to discover.

BTW for every grading we hold, its usually the kata that seals the fate.
From a kata you can see good technique, it cant be hidden.


----------



## Trent

I think that "kata, djurus, langkas, kuen or forms" greatly assist with placing the "art" in the martial.  Some folks just wish to get down to business.  And that's cool, but they are missing out on something that will refine them physically and mentally for later years, not to mention much of the system is usually contained in the forms but is not revealed until more understanding of movement is gained.


----------



## Rick Wade

I am going to only speak from experience I was originally in American Kenpo and then moved to Hawaii where I couldn't find an AK school.  So I took up Okinawan Kenpo.  We met Mmonday Wednesday and Friday.  I was told Monday Kata, Wednesday Kobudo, and Friday Sparring.  I'm thinking cool works for me Monday 2 hours of Kata (not my favorite but I will hang in there) Wednesday more empty hand Kata (wait were's the Kobudo) ok Friday I like me some sparring (1 1/2 Kata and 1/2 sparring). As far as sparring goes NONE of them could hold a candle for most AK stylist thay I have seen.  Now I am not saying AK is better than OK.  I am saying that sometimes we loose sight on what we like and we as instructors can lean to heavy to that side (whether it be Kata, sparringor even self defense) it takesa a really good Instructor to get a good balance in class and those are the true Masters.

Rrespectfully
Rick 

P.S. 
I didn't try the school for a week and then leave I was with the school for a year.

They wanted to teach me all 54 Katas to black belt and then let me help instruct.

Respectfully


----------



## Trent

I think you are correct Rick.  It is difficult to maintain that balance.  Sparring, and yes, hard sparring, are also necessary for higher level activity.  It should be done often as well especially if you wish to learn how to use all those form movements properly in a dynamic environment.  As it's been said in the past, you should especially work on the things you don't like.


----------



## WildCater

I really enjoy katas, but I think the reason why people hate katas is, because they over look there true power. I hold a 1st Dan in Shotokan Karate, and there are lots of katas. Just as in Tea Kwon Do. They think that since there are lots of them, there hard to learn. And in actual life, if you had directions on how to do one it wouldnt take but 2 hours, to over half way, or get the feel of the kata. The thing is that a Karateka will come and expect to learn how to fight. Wich totaly throghs off Karate philosophey. And if they have no "martial intelligence," then they expect to get a black belt in 1-2 years or less. The sad truth is they inrole in a class and expect to do nothing but self defence, and Kihon. They never think about katas. But you can also use katas as a self defence advantage, by taking out moves and techniques of Katas, and learn how to make it into a self defence rutine. I belive this is why people hate katas.


----------



## MJS

WildCater said:
			
		

> I really enjoy katas, but I think the reason why people hate katas is, because they over look there true power. I hold a 1st Dan in Shotokan Karate, and there are lots of katas. Just as in Tea Kwon Do. They think that since there are lots of them, there hard to learn. And in actual life, if you had directions on how to do one it wouldnt take but 2 hours, to over half way, or get the feel of the kata. The thing is that a Karateka will come and expect to learn how to fight. Wich totaly throghs off Karate philosophey. And if they have no "martial intelligence," then they expect to get a black belt in 1-2 years or less. The sad truth is they inrole in a class and expect to do nothing but self defence, and Kihon. They never think about katas. But you can also use katas as a self defence advantage, by taking out moves and techniques of Katas, and learn how to make it into a self defence rutine. I belive this is why people hate katas.



Yes!!! And this is exactly what Dillman does!!  When it comes to breaking down a kata and showing application, he's an expert!  Now, dont take this as a 'plug' for Dillman, because its not.  All I'm saying is, and I addressed it in my post, is that there are many times when the student does not know what they're doing in the kata, and neither does the instructor.  The Inst. needs to guide the student, and by not knowing themselves...well, IMO, they are not guiding them too well.  

Self Defense techs. do play a part in the learning process, but when it comes down to the meat of it, you need to be able to apply your skills against an alive opponent in the ring.  Its easy to do something when someone is standing there, but add a little movement and it all changes.

Mike


----------



## Cthulhu

Most people who are against kata either never did them or never did them _correctly_.

Cthulhu


----------



## brandon

thanks for all the feed back i really enjoyed to read them .but i was very suprised to see so may people for katas.it is very nice to see as i hope we never lose the tradittion of passing on kata and forms as i one day hope to open a school,and pass on all my knowledge .i would just like to add that you should not limit yourself to one style at my dojo for aech grading you must learn one kata from a different style wich is very fun.


----------



## hedgehogey

Matt thornton, of the straight blast gym, on kata: 



> Why are forms not 'Alive'?
> 
> Believe it or not, there are still a few people out there that feel 'form', kata, or djuru training have some place for an athlete interested in performance. Why this belief still persists is a mystery, but lets see if we can lay the dead patterns to rest.
> The main reason people falsely believe forms have some sort of value is usually listed as "muscle memory". The idea that a move repeated enough times, becomes smoother, or more accessible during an altercation. Repeating a move over and over again in the air will do absolutely nothing for your reflexes or so called 'muscle memory'. In fact, repeating a move or series of moves over and over again in the same pattern and sequence will actually be counter productive to your bodies ability to respond quickly.
> First, there is no TIMING, without a resisting opponent in front of you. Since there is no timing to be had, your reflexes, or response time against a resisting opponent, will not change, increase, or be helped in the least.
> Second, there is no impact, as there is against a heavy bag. So there will be no benefit to your strength, body mechanics, or conditioning. In fact, your body mechanics may become altered in correctly due to the fact that you are not making impact against anything, but merely striking 'air'.
> Thirdly, even when shadowboxing (another comparison morticians like to make when making zombies), you never want to repeat the same series of movements to many times in a row! This is a basic rule all boxing coaches are very familiar with. Go to the well to many times and your opponent becomes 'wise' to your arsenal. An example would be a boxer whom always hooked off the jab. After the second attempt he becomes predictable, and easy to set up for a counter attack or knockout. This is why it's important to make sure your athletes shadowbox fluidly. Watch them to insure that they are NOT repeating the same sequence of movements, in the same order, over and over again.
> One basic difference that can be seen between a JKD Concepts Instructor, and a performance orientated Coach, is the difference in patterns. JKD Concepts Instructors, and indeed most 'traditional' Martial Artists, are consistently looking to learn, memorize, and repeat more and more patterns. A performance orientated Coach is always looking to break patterns, and movements that are repeated in the same order. A Coach should instead be watching his athlete to insure that when shadowboxing, working the heavybag, or any other piece of equipment,  that athlete is not always repeating the same route of movements or combinations. This makes a fighter robotic, stiff, predictable, and creates bad habits. There really is no justification for maintaining the antiquated bad methodology of 'form' training.
> 
> What about solo training?
> 
> That's a good question and one I get asked allot. If you are blessed to have enough extra time after working your stand up, clinch and ground games against resisting opponents, then you should be concentrating on conditioning. Endurance training, resistance exercises, and stretching would all rank high on the list. Even reading a book would be a much better use of your time the memorizing and repeating a dead pattern. If you are grossly overweight then you should be working that endurance training daily.  If you lack a good muscular physique, then you should be weight training correctly in order to avoid injury.There is always plenty for us to be working on!
> 
> Throw all the patterns and forms away. Stay fluid, and stay 'ALIVE'.
> 
> -Matt (Mono Loco) Thornton


----------



## goju.glenn

hedgehogey said:
			
		

> Matt thornton, of the straight blast gym, on kata:
> 
> *Throw all the patterns and forms away. Stay fluid, and stay 'ALIVE'.*




I read what Matt has to say. The point I think he is missing is not all people train in the MA for "combat".

For people like myself, training is more a way for excercise of the body and mind - trying to obtain "perfection" in movements whether they be kata, kihon or bunkai etc.

Secondly, would anyone agree that "muscle memory" when training IS important? When you train, you are practicing your technqiues in preperation if you ever have to use your skills in self defence. You want to be able to strike an area without "concious" thought. By practicing your tecnhqiues repeatibly, aren't you building up your ability to strike with efficency?

Make sense?  :idunno:


----------



## MJS

goju.glenn said:
			
		

> I read what Matt has to say. The point I think he is missing is not all people train in the MA for "combat".
> 
> For people like myself, training is more a way for excercise of the body and mind - trying to obtain "perfection" in movements whether they be kata, kihon or bunkai etc.



I agree and I've said the same things many times myself.  Some people train for SD, some for weight loss, an activity outside of work, etc.  



> Secondly, would anyone agree that "muscle memory" when training IS important? When you train, you are practicing your technqiues in preperation if you ever have to use your skills in self defence. You want to be able to strike an area without "concious" thought. By practicing your tecnhqiues repeatibly, aren't you building up your ability to strike with efficency?



If you read further you'll notice that expands on that.



> *Repeating a move over and over again in the air will do absolutely nothing for your reflexes or so called 'muscle memory'*




If you really read into what hes saying, hes pretty much stating that by not having the partner IFO you to give you that resistance will effect your reaction time.  How can you learn timing if nobody is standing there? You can do a tech. 1,000 times, but if you never train it with someone really trying to hit you, you'll never know if you actually got out of the way of that punch!   Sure, boxers shadow box, but they also get into the ring.  

Mike


----------



## OC Kid

Kata puts the Art into Martial Art, other wise it is just brawling. The kempo stylist who post here says his school does a lot of kata. Kempo has "Forms" but kata shouldnt be the main stay of training. It does however develope

Discipline
Concentration
Respect
Self Confidence
Sense of achievement.

I came out of a japanese system (shodan) and the system I trained in was a electic system of what ever works use it. But it had the Japanese forms and basics.

Why keep the forms, well it was the identity of the system. No matter what we learned where it came from, the katas kept and continue to keep the system together. All our instructor teach different, different backgrounds experiances. Some are fighters first, some are forms first some are weapons, self defense or a mixture of all those things....but what holds the system together is the kata.

Example I started teaching disadvantaged kids. I am also teaching my son. My son like fighting so I was pushing his fighting training highly disciplined, hard fast work outs ( he did learn the basics and forms hes up to pinion 4 now) . the rest of the kids didnt like that, they just wanted to learn self defense so,  II lost some students do to the rigorous training after talking to them I now teach the kids  basic stances punches and self defense at a slower speed "the art" so to speak. I now teach the fighting class one day a week straight fighting thai, with american kick boxing foot work and kempo angles and blitzes bag work focus gloves/thai pads/heavy/double ended bags ect. My schedule is ;
Mon; fighting training
Tues/Thurs; Straight traditional karate
Sat; individual fighting training avail to the students

But they all need the forms to increase in rank period.


----------



## kroh

Hey there All...

I thought the Thornton reply was very well put and convincing...but let me ask you this... if repetative action is not an important part of training...does he just do conditioning and then practice each move once so as not to be repetative?

I disagree with  Mr. Thorntons reply on several levels because based on his post, I feel he has never truly understood what kata is.  And how can you comment on something you only understand in part.   

There is also another point to be made here that some of the New Age Kung FU-ligans are missing.  People have trained using these methods for centuries to teach people how to fight durring wartime.  All these people who say that it doesn't work...How many of them have gone to war with just their bare hands or a big knife or sword in their belt?  And what about military units of today.  When they know what their objective is...they practice in a scenario setting over and over again on what they are going to do to take down the target.  Room clearing, trench fighting, armored moving formations...they train these "patterned" responses and when things do not fit the pattern, they brake from the pattern and react on instinct based on what they have done before.  

Point is...kata is not dancing...it is a lesson plan.  You are meant to combine different parts of the lesson in various orders to train various responses using *TWO* people ;after you are comfortable with the basic pattern.  
Consider this... You were taught the alphabet using that stupid song.  However ...you do not repeat the song with each letter until you get to the letter you want to make a full word.  The pattern teaches a concept.  Once you understand the concepts the pattern becomes unnecessary for the action that it once represented.  The only reason to keep singing that stupid song is so that later we can "pass on" the lesson to others.  

So is kata useless...not at all.  Do I expect everyone to agree with me on that fact...not at all. The only way to truely show them it's value is to show it to them on their terms.  Besides...in an age where everything is "new this and new that", the people who cut on kata for favor of new techniques will not take our word for it.  

However...everything they think they have ever thought of as a "new way" of doing things... somebody already probably figured out and have used it before.  Consider the fact that in japan...before the age of defined styles...the soldiers of the day did whatever worked to win the battle.  A few centuries later, some Lee character comes along and says it like no one ever thought of it before.  JKD becomes a new way to look at martial arts.  But did he enlighten us or just remind us....

Thanks for the minute...
WalT


----------



## MJS

OC Kid said:
			
		

> Kata puts the Art into Martial Art, other wise it is just brawling. The kempo stylist who post here says his school does a lot of kata. Kempo has "Forms" but kata shouldnt be the main stay of training. It does however develope



I have to disagree with that.  Its only brawling as you call it, if 2 students get into the ring and just start throwing crazy, sloppy punches, with no technique.  Boxing has no kata, but they get into the ring and work drills, which in a way, is their kata.  You need someone who can guide the student to properly execute the strikes.  Without that, then yes, its brawling.  

Again, I've done forms/kata for a long time and still do them.  As for holding the system together...I'd say that they play a part in holding it, but I wouldnt say that they are the main support.  Again, as its been said before, everybody trains for a different reason.  Kata are not a bad thing, but if your goal of the arts was self defense rather than just an activity to do after work, then getting that hands on training in the ring, and having a live person IFO you to train your techs. is the best way to go.

Mike


----------



## MJS

kroh said:
			
		

> Hey there All...
> 
> I thought the Thornton reply was very well put and convincing...but let me ask you this... if repetative action is not an important part of training...does he just do conditioning and then practice each move once so as not to be repetative?



Like I said before...if you read into what he's saying, hes saying that repetative training *without * a live partner is not going to help you.  



> I disagree with  Mr. Thorntons reply on several levels because based on his post, I feel he has never truly understood what kata is.  And how can you comment on something you only understand in part.



I'm sure he has seen kata.  He has commented on some of the patters in the FMA as well and compared them to kata.  Again, nothing wrong with a drill, but if you're not applying it 'live' then what good is it doing you???  



> There is also another point to be made here that some of the New Age Kung FU-ligans are missing.  People have trained using these methods for centuries to teach people how to fight durring wartime.  All these people who say that it doesn't work...How many of them have gone to war with just their bare hands or a big knife or sword in their belt?  And what about military units of today.  When they know what their objective is...they practice in a scenario setting over and over again on what they are going to do to take down the target.  Room clearing, trench fighting, armored moving formations...they train these "patterned" responses and when things do not fit the pattern, they brake from the pattern and react on instinct based on what they have done before.



So we're comparing the fights of the past to today???  I dont think that people dress the same way today as the warriors back then.  As for the military of today....the senario training that they do is the same as the 'alive' training that Thorton is talking about. 



> Point is...kata is not dancing...it is a lesson plan.  You are meant to combine different parts of the lesson in various orders to train various responses using *TWO* people ;after you are comfortable with the basic pattern.
> Consider this... You were taught the alphabet using that stupid song.  However ...you do not repeat the song with each letter until you get to the letter you want to make a full word.  The pattern teaches a concept.  Once you understand the concepts the pattern becomes unnecessary for the action that it once represented.  The only reason to keep singing that stupid song is so that later we can "pass on" the lesson to others.



Kata is teaching you moves in a preset fashion.  While doing the kata, we are assuming the attackers are going to be in a certain spot, doing a certain move.  Even if you did a kata with someone attacking you, you are still placing the people in just the right spot and having them throw just the right attack and giving no resistance.  Now, if you took a tech., did it slow, and then had your partner add resistance, movement, etc. dont you think you'd get better results??  Again, hes not saying that being repetitive is bad, but just make sure you do it with someone. 



> So is kata useless...not at all.  Do I expect everyone to agree with me on that fact...not at all. The only way to truely show them it's value is to show it to them on their terms.  Besides...in an age where everything is "new this and new that", the people who cut on kata for favor of new techniques will not take our word for it.



So you're saying that 'new' is a bad thing???  Things change and improve all the time.  Cars, medicine, computers, technology, etc. has all changed and still does.  If someone has a better way of doing something, or can make an improvement on something old that I've been doing, then I'm all for it!!!



> However...everything they think they have ever thought of as a "new way" of doing things... somebody already probably figured out and have used it before.  Consider the fact that in japan...before the age of defined styles...the soldiers of the day did whatever worked to win the battle.  A few centuries later, some Lee character comes along and says it like no one ever thought of it before.  JKD becomes a new way to look at martial arts.  But did he enlighten us or just remind us....



You're right.  There have always been punches and kicks, but like I said above, there is always a way to improve on something.  

Mike


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

Why do people hate Kata was the topic of this thread...

Two reasons for two types of people:

1)  Martial Artists who do Kata and hate Kata feel that way because... they have to spend time memorizing and practicing preset movements which have nothing to do with sparring, self-defense, or combat.  People not interested in actual combat do not mind practicing these preset moves and do not hate Kata.

2)  Fighters who do not practice kata and hate Kata feel that way because...they realize that practicing movements in a preset fashion does not preapre a person for sparring, combat or self-defense and they are embarrassed to be classified as "Martial Artists" along with those who learn Katas.  Fighters who understand the difference between training to fight and training for health/self-improvement do not hate Kata--they just know it won't help them meet their goals.


----------



## tshadowchaser

Old Fat Kenpoka what you have said might be correct if the student had never been shown or just did not understand the self defence moves with in a kata.
 As for being ahamed of being a martial artest because you do kata i would have to say the person had little understaning of what they studied and might do better studying knitting .
 True timeing and the reaction to pain is not learned in kata (unless you are being tested doing Sanchin) but one can take varrious movemnts out of a kata and usethem while fighting.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> Old Fat Kenpoka what you have said might be correct if the student had never been shown or just did not understand the self defence moves with in a kata.
> As for being ahamed of being a martial artest because you do kata i would have to say the person had little understaning of what they studied and might do better studying knitting .
> True timeing and the reaction to pain is not learned in kata (unless you are being tested doing Sanchin) but one can take varrious movemnts out of a kata and usethem while fighting.



Sorry TS:  I disagree.

The argument that people do not understand the self-defense application of Kata movements is perhaps the strongest argument for not doing Kata.  Why not just skip the kata memorization and dance practice and work on  understanding, applying, and improving those techniques upon a resisting opponent?  

Fighters who practice technique are embarrassed to be grouped with Kata practitioners who suffer from the error you highlighted:  not understanding and being able to apply their system's techniques.

You've got it backwards here.  Techniques do not come from Katas.  Katas come by stringing techniques together.  If an art has to teach Katas in order to teach the techniques then they are teaching things in reverse order.  Teach the basics, then teach the techniques.  If you want to teach fighting, teach fighting and skip the katas.  If you want to teach dancing, teach the katas.


----------



## OC Kid

MJS said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with that. Its only brawling as you call it, if 2 students get into the ring and just start throwing crazy, sloppy punches, with no technique. Boxing has no kata, but they get into the ring and work drills, which in a way, is their kata. You need someone who can guide the student to properly execute the strikes. Without that, then yes, its brawling.
> 
> Again, I've done forms/kata for a long time and still do them. As for holding the system together...I'd say that they play a part in holding it, but I wouldnt say that they are the main support. Again, as its been said before, everybody trains for a different reason. Kata are not a bad thing, but if your goal of the arts was self defense rather than just an activity to do after work, then getting that hands on training in the ring, and having a live person IFO you to train your techs. is the best way to go.
> 
> Mike


I have trained TMA / fought Muay Thai in the ring competitively as a amature as well as American Kickboxing and Point fighting.
You took just one portion of my thread. You need to read and think about the rest of it also. If the kata dont hold a loose system together what does?


----------



## kroh

> Like I said before...if you read into what he's saying, hes saying that repetative training without a live partner is not going to help you.



My point exactly sir...




> I'm sure he has seen kata. He has commented on some of the patters in the FMA as well and compared them to kata. Again, nothing wrong with a drill, but if you're not applying it 'live' then what good is it doing you???



Again..Yessir ...in that we agree...



> So we're comparing the fights of the past to today??? I dont think that people dress the same way today as the warriors back then. As for the military of today....the senario training that they do is the same as the 'alive' training that Thorton is talking about.



The fights of today and yesterday are nothing more than two people who can't talk out a problem...whether it be two people or a hundred thousand in an army.  In the form of HTH...we still fight basically the same... AS for the alive trining...What is it...a series of movements used to train an action which they use for a time and then discard in order to create a new sequence...Kata ...throw away kata...very inovative...still kata though...



> Kata is teaching you moves in a preset fashion. While doing the kata, we are assuming the attackers are going to be in a certain spot, doing a certain move. Even if you did a kata with someone attacking you, you are still placing the people in just the right spot and having them throw just the right attack and giving no resistance. Now, if you took a tech., did it slow, and then had your partner add resistance, movement, etc. dont you think you'd get better results?? Again, hes not saying that being repetitive is bad, but just make sure you do it with someone


. 

Actually, The kata training many have recieved in their training includes principles for the "alive " aspect of training...including resistance and other principles...real kata is not a series of moves for one person...That is the tournament circuit in this country altering the way we train.  Kata should be used, not demonstrated, and if you are applying it correctly...there are tangible results.  The point I am trying to make is that because of a lack of understanding of Japanese teaching methodology in this country, we loose sight of the correct way to use this teaching tool. This often prompts us to seek out something that is less evasive...something we can more readily get our head around.  



> So you're saying that 'new' is a bad thing??? Things change and improve all the time. Cars, medicine, computers, technology, etc. has all changed and still does. If someone has a better way of doing something, or can make an improvement on something old that I've been doing, then I'm all for it!!!



Actually, I am a firm believer in the statement that tradition is resistance to change.  One seeks out tradition in order to live within a frozen period in time.  Tradtion to a point is good because it shows us how things were built from an older form.  However, tradition without inovation is tanamount to being a dinosaur...you were mighty in your time but when it came time to adapt, you couldn't handle it and you either ended up dead or in a museum.  I am all for the better way to do something and when it comes along I analyze it, and if valid, embrace it. In that we also agree...



> You're right. There have always been punches and kicks, but like I said above, there is always a way to improve on something.



I absolutely agree...

Thank you for your insights Mike, I look forward to your next post on this subject Sir.

All quotes were from a message written by MJS in response to one of my messages.  Please take the time to read MJS' insights on this subject if you haven't done so.  A very good read and full of good ideas that got me thinking...

Sincerely,
WalT


----------



## MJS

OC Kid said:
			
		

> I have trained TMA / fought Muay Thai in the ring competitively as a amature as well as American Kickboxing and Point fighting.
> You took just one portion of my thread. You need to read and think about the rest of it also. If the kata dont hold a loose system together what does?



Kata is not the only thing in a system.  You have kata, SD, punches, kicks, footwork, etc.  Everything has its place.  I really dont think that an art is gonna die w/o the kata.

Mike


----------



## MJS

kroh said:
			
		

> The fights of today and yesterday are nothing more than two people who can't talk out a problem...whether it be two people or a hundred thousand in an army.  In the form of HTH...we still fight basically the same... AS for the alive trining...What is it...a series of movements used to train an action which they use for a time and then discard in order to create a new sequence...Kata ...throw away kata...very inovative...still kata though...



Alive training....Often when I talk about that, I always hear people say that they are doing it to.  That may very well be possible.  To give another example.  Someone grabbing your lapel.  Now, to start off doing that tech. its best to go slow and get the fine points down.  Gradually begin to add resistance and movement.  If someone was grabbing you, chances are they'll be attempting to move you, slam you into a wall, etc.  If someone always does the tech. w/o that movement, whats gonna happen when someone actually starts to move them.  After I posted earlier today, I was thinking of more examples.  Take boxing combos.  You have a jab, cross, bob/weave, and hook.  Now, during shadowboxing, the boxer does that drill over and over.  He could do it 1,000 times, but if he never does it on the pads or against another person, how is he ever going to know if its gonna work?  In a sense, those combos are his kata.  In a kata, you need to do the moves exactly in the same fashion, thereby making it a preset series of movements.  How can we predict what our opp. is going to do in a fight? We can't.  Now, if you took a part of the kata, and used it as a SD tech, thats fine, but it needs to be done on someone to get the feel if its really going to work.  Another example.  In my BJJ class, we'll take techs. such as an armbar.  We work them slow to get the fine points down and then we have our opp. resist and try to prevent us from getting that armbar.  That is alive training!!!  We are testing ourselves to see if we can get it or not. 

. 



> Actually, The kata training many have recieved in their training includes principles for the "alive " aspect of training...including resistance and other principles...real kata is not a series of moves for one person...That is the tournament circuit in this country altering the way we train.  Kata should be used, not demonstrated, and if you are applying it correctly...there are tangible results.  The point I am trying to make is that because of a lack of understanding of Japanese teaching methodology in this country, we loose sight of the correct way to use this teaching tool. This often prompts us to seek out something that is less evasive...something we can more readily get our head around.



Good point!!!  However, as I stated in a past post regarding kata, and some of my exp. with them, I've found very few who actually understand what the moves are.  Simply saying, "Well, its done that way...........well, because it is." is not a very good answer IMO.   





> Actually, I am a firm believer in the statement that tradition is resistance to change.  One seeks out tradition in order to live within a frozen period in time.  Tradtion to a point is good because it shows us how things were built from an older form.  However, tradition without inovation is tanamount to being a dinosaur...you were mighty in your time but when it came time to adapt, you couldn't handle it and you either ended up dead or in a museum.  I am all for the better way to do something and when it comes along I analyze it, and if valid, embrace it. In that we also agree...



Good point!





> Thank you for your insights Mike, I look forward to your next post on this subject Sir.
> 
> All quotes were from a message written by MJS in response to one of my messages.  Please take the time to read MJS' insights on this subject if you haven't done so.  A very good read and full of good ideas that got me thinking...



You're quite welcome!  I'm glad that I could offer the ideas that I did.  I also feel that you brought up many good points as well, and I thank you for that.  Again, I'm not against kata, though my posts may sound that way.  I just feel that relying on them to learn practical fighting is not the key.  Will they help? Sure, but only, as we both said, if the person doing them has an understanding of what they are doing.  Having that, as well as adding some alive training to your routine will most likely produce some excellent results.

Mike


----------



## kroh

> I've found very few who actually understand what the moves are. Simply saying, "Well, its done that way...........well, because it is." is not a very good answer IMO.




Individuals who teach this way are actually derelect in their duties as teachers and should not be educating anyone in matters they do not understand.  People exposed to these kind of answers should take this as a huge warning bell and find some where else to train.  The Japanese actually have a good system regarding instructors.  You get a black belt and that certifies you in that system, but to teach you need to receive another certification that licenses you as a teacher.  IN the JKD program where I train, you need a seperate license to teach...that way it is kind of like quality control for the head honcho.  Good stuff.



> You're quite welcome! I'm glad that I could offer the ideas that I did. I also feel that you brought up many good points as well, and I thank you for that. Again, I'm not against kata, though my posts may sound that way. I just feel that relying on them to learn practical fighting is not the key.



Thank you for your insights, Sir...I am really enjoying the conversation.  Have a great day...
Regards
WalT :asian:


----------



## Chizikunbo

brandon said:
			
		

> i am a blue belt in go-ju ryu and i always read articles that are so anti-kata.What is with you people kata have been preformed since the begining and they trained for real combat not like us who mostly do it for sport .What makes these so called reality based martial arts think they have it figured out .Kata are not preformed to teach self defense,but are used as a conditioning tool.Also to fine tune technique,teach accuracy and control.After all these methods have been used for hunderds of years and we dismiss them because we think we know it all.I think its a shame to see a black who does not teach kata ,but a guess i am a traditionalist . please fell free to give tour thoughts


Kata are the backbone of traditional martial arts, they contain all of the self defense techniques as well as serving as conditioning tools, withought kata there would be no Goju or Shotokan, oroTE in general, the kata were passed down from the masters of old for a reason for the purpoe of them being analyzed, to find the bunkai, that is the true art. But some people like Gichen Funakoshi dilluted the kata to where you may if you are lucky find a bunkai technique in one of them so I quote Choki Motobu:
"Funakoshi had great teachers but only learned the outside of karate...He is just a Shamisen player...hes a confindence trickster with a silver tounge...If he fought me I would kick his a** all of the way back to Okinawa..." 
--Choki Motobu
Conversely, Motobu referred to Funakoshis karate as a Shamisen (3 stringed Okinawan guitar), beautiful on the outside but hollow on the inside.

Kata is karate itself...


----------



## hippy

few people hate kata forever. we all go through cyles.

u may start an art, with the idea of simply learning to fight. so u learn the techniques, then the combos, then u spar, completely ignoring the kata, and barely touching the self-defence aspects.
then something as simple as injury could put a stop to the sparring, so u go back to non-contact technique, up and down the room. as you're no longer spending the majority of your time sparring, a student can now approach, and ask for help with their defences (one step sparring, locks, chokes etc)when u have run out of the defences u had been taught, u try to 'make-up' easy ones, by stripping the basic kata the student knows, and putting a more practical spin on them. when u have done many of these, and realised there are far more than the student needs for his next few gradings, u actually start to do the katas more and more. now u are doing nothing but kata, analising each few moves. asking yourself "what am i doing here?" "what could i turn this into?". eventually u could over train in kata, to the point that u are sick of them, and go back to sparring. and the cyle continues....

now you understand that it is important to learn all the disciplines of the style, kata included, just because u dont specialise in kata, does not mean it should just be dismissed. those that say they hate kata, usually means they dont understand them. but something will happen to them, the day will come when they start training in nothing but kata, if only to catch up on their own learning and understanding of the art.


----------



## DeLamar.J

brandon said:
			
		

> i am a blue belt in go-ju ryu and i always read articles that are so anti-kata.What is with you people kata have been preformed since the begining and they trained for real combat not like us who mostly do it for sport .What makes these  so called reality based martial arts think they have it figured out .Kata are not preformed to teach self defense,but are used as a conditioning tool.Also to fine tune technique,teach accuracy and control.After all these methods have been used for hunderds of years and we dismiss them because we think we know it all.I think its a shame to see a black  who does not teach kata ,but a guess i am a traditionalist . please fell free to give tour thoughts


People are impatient and want quick results, and should go to the local boxing gym until they want to become more technical and refine and perfect there technique. We teach karate one class and boxing the next so we normally dont loose students for this reason. I think it is very important to add some practical training that will give the student some feeling of accomplishment so they dont quit. Some people just get discouraged to easy and think they are not tough enough or smart enough, its up to the instructor to keep them comming back for more.


----------



## gyaku-zuki queen

brandon said:
			
		

> .Kata are not preformed to teach self defense,but are used as a conditioning tool.Also to fine tune technique,teach accuracy and control.After all these methods have been used for hunderds of years and we dismiss them because we think we know it all.I think its a shame to see a black who does not teach kata ,but a guess i am a traditionalist .


a black belt who does not teach kata? wow, and i thought i seen everythin...

i like kata.. even though i'm a kumite person, i dont (no offence to you people who do)  like the views of the people who say kata is stupid and you would rather learn to spend all of your time fighting. for one, i know kata really helps out your kumite, give you better form etc. and one thing, i would like to say, it is WAY harder and takes much more training to be a National kata champion than a Kumite champion. I (yes i do) admire those kata people who are really good. i get more tired doing a long kata then i do in my heaviest fight. everything has to be perfect when you are competing in kata. one little slip, break of the concentration, anything, and you lose the match. for kumite, if your letting out a bit, you can always recover. but with kata, everything has to be perfect. ..*my 2 cents..


----------



## jakmak52

I used to despise kata, just a sparring fool I was. Then I saw some grandmasters at tournaments performing and my jaw dropped. Ever since then I've been hooked. My primary tournament kata is Bassai Dai (Major) which traditionally a Shotokan form, even though ITF Tae Kwon Do is my main style.

Do the kata.


----------



## GAB

Hi all,

Kata... Good stuff.

Regards, Gary


----------



## BlackCatBonz

well first off......anyone that thinks that going into a fight and using the preset sequence of moves in a kata as a method of self defense is out to lunch.
secondly, the majority of martial "artists" out there that practice and teach kata simply do not understand what it is they are teaching. it goes way beyond a preset group of movements. a simple kata like heian shodan has more in it than most of the syllabus' of most modern systems. people dont know what they are looking at or for.
would someone take a technique they have learned and use it as a sole basis for self defense?
they are training tools......and damn good ones.
on other threads i have mentioned that i do not train in or teach from a technique standpoint, but i do teach kata and i do teach breakdowns of the individual movements, and not just the obvious.
they are about teaching proper form through movement. people get to hung up on stances......karate is not about standing still, its all about movement.....when i see someone doing a kata and it looks like im watching a filmstrip presentation, i know they are missing the boat.
any technique that describes a series of movements IS a kata whether you like that description or not.......but if you cant see past the obvious, what are you learning?

shawn


----------



## punisher73

I agree with some of what has been said on both sides of the issue concerning kata.  But, like most things many people take a pendulum view where they are at one side of the arc and the only other view is the other extreme of the arc.

I have read the Matt Thornton article many times and he has many valid points, but he also misses some important points.  He asserts that he is a coach and coaches his athletes on the best methods. But, he ignores alot of the research from sports psychology that support the use of kata.  Visualization is a main key in the top athletes, when you don't have anyone around you go through the kata and visualize the attacks (this is assuming you have practiced to know what the moves are for) and your response.  He must realize that not everyone has a dojo/gym that they can ALWAYS practice with other people and using kata helps to supplement that part of training if the dojo time is done correctly.

Also, there is alot in sports psychology for practicing the movements WITHOUT doing the actual activity as a part to work the movement and working it slow and relaxed. Things like practicing shooting a free throw and the mechanics of throwing and running.

The other criticism about kata is that it is based on a preset action and response. Yes, I agree but if you don't practice a plan as perfect you won't know when things aren't going according to plan and make the necessary adjustments.  Musicians practice music scales over and over and then they learn to be spontaneous in their music, same as with MA's.


----------



## Darksoul

-Interesting thread here. I guess it comes down to whether or not kata works for you, how you spend your time in class and what you're training for. Some martial artists really hate spending time doing things they don't like. It could be a lack of understanding, and it could be other things as well. Right now I'm much more interested in the health/conditioning aspects of martial arts training, so I don't mind doing the forms at all. Doing them really slow is a good workout. Later I may switch and focus on chi sau/sticky hands for the combat applications. Each has its place and its nice to be able to concentrate on one of the other. But thats how things are done at my school, we train based on who shows up any given night, usually by splitting into groups. And if you have to do them, regardless of emotion, make the best of them and push yourself, as you would in your favorite aspect of training. Just my $0.02.

A---)


----------



## IMAA

Hi, I have just read through all 3 sections of this post.  It is quite interesting to see some of the answers concerning kata.  
I agree with what the one gentlemen said about people going through stages of either liking or disliking kata.  It being something that will grow on you.  I've been involved in KARA TE for around 19 or 20years.  When I was younger and growing up, Kata was what my instructor would make us do when he just didnt feel much like teaching class.  He got into this kick near my end of taking lessons there. He didn't teach us any defense or anything out of the kata we would just run them over, and over and over again for months in class.  So to my demise I grew to absolutley HATE or be BORED with the kata.  In fact I actually left the school because for around 4 months straight all we done was come to class and run kata.  My father got upset and said " Im not forking out x amount of  cash to run you to class 2 to 3 times a week for you to just run kata over and over and no one show anyting from that" So you can see how I grew to not care for KATA.  However, since then I have found "truth" in kata.  It came from a couple of people that opened my eyes.  They shown me "real-world" combat and practical application from Kata that you would not see in the normal DOJO.  One thing that I still see is this traditional excuse for what each technique is for multi attackers in kata.  I was watching a set of series of the Heian kata performed by Master Kenneth Funokoshi, during his bunkai method of the video he shares a brief description of what the "typical" movements of each kata represent.  I FOR ONE however, have to disagree with alot of those techniques.  I began training in the art of Ryu Kyu Kempo and Kyusho arts under one of George Dillman protoge's and found that these methods of KATA really opened my eyes.  Not to mention that when I started learning Indonesian Pentjak Silat through the explanation of Djurus I was able to begin picking up teachniques in Karate Kata that most people don't actually see.  Kata has now become one of my favorite things to do, and to teach however I would never make kata as boring as my Sensei done to me those many years ago.  And although I still respect him for his skill and knowledge he had in other areas I for one teach the bunkai that can appeal to us all to keep kata interesting and keep others from "hating" them.  

 As I heard another gentlemen speak in this topic thread was "kata is the backbone of the traditional arts"  This is the truth, Kata is what seperates each system from one another, as well as how they are performed and taught.

 Thanks

 IMAA


----------



## AnimEdge

I kinda wish my Ninjutsu had some Kata, manly so it gives me more to practice alone, you can only go through the punches and kicks and such so many times 

One of our Black Belts goes to a TKD school latly and we egt some interesting stories about Kata on how when he was there when doing 2 people practice your oponite had to wait untill you where allready in a block before kicking, interesting stuff like that


----------



## Patrick Skerry

The individuals I have met who hated kata were the young, brash, impatient, individuals who see martial arts only for their immediate pragmatic value. The instant gratification, immediate results view on life. To these practical individuals I would suggest plumbing, carpentry, and the rest of the trade vocations as occupations; and BJJ, and MMA as the martial arts they should study (I realize this is pandering to a stereotype).

But it seems the young dislike kata, while the older learned respect for it.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

well patrick........i would say that i dont entirely agree with your assesment of instant gratification and recommending trade vocations. as most skilled trades require a 5000 to 6000 hour apprenticeship, there is nothing instant about them. 
patience is a virtue that most people have to work on........its not natural for humans to be patient. 
as for young people disliking kata and older people respecting it......i think you will find young and old alike here with differing opinions. there are lots of young people out there who are excellent at it and love it. there are a few guys here who've been practicing the arts for years that have a dislike for kata.
it also seems that you're intimating that MMA and BJJ somehow require less training in order to achieve results, which i do not think is true either. 
i think its up to the teacher to develop a curriculum to teach what is both practical and practicable, whether it includes kata or not.

shawn


----------



## Patrick Skerry

Hi BlackCatBonz,

I'm no expert, but its been my observation that the people who told me they don't like or respect kata is because they want to go directly to the practical aspect of the style, they don't even want to learn the basics, just straight to the technique.  As an example: There are guys who want to learn nothing but throwing in Judo and skip learning how to fall.  Just teach me how to throw and choke they say.

And I have communicated with BJJ and MMA practitioners who have bragged that those styles take the shortest time to learn.

To me, kata is very refined, and people who have expressed the patience to learn and perfect a kata, have seem to be as different from the people who hate it as an audience to a Symphony is from an audience to the World Series.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

like i said in my previous post.......its up to the teacher to develop a curriculum that will teach either fast or slow. i can have a student walk away from a class in one night with something that will help them.
as far as "learning a system or style.......i think you can teach anyone the "basics" in a short amount of time that they can apply, but i dont think they have come remotely close to "learning" the "style".
just because you taught someone how to change the oil in their car, it doesnt make them a mechanic.

shawn


----------



## Patrick Skerry

Just curious, are you saying that an instructor has license to develop his own style?  And that kata is just optional?





			
				BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> like i said in my previous post.......its up to the teacher to develop a curriculum that will teach either fast or slow. i can have a student walk away from a class in one night with something that will help them.
> as far as "learning a system or style.......i think you can teach anyone the "basics" in a short amount of time that they can apply, but i dont think they have come remotely close to "learning" the "style".
> just because you taught someone how to change the oil in their car, it doesnt make them a mechanic.
> 
> shawn


----------



## RRouuselot

brandon said:
			
		

> i am a blue belt in go-ju ryu and i always read articles that are so anti-kata.What is with you people kata have been preformed since the begining and they trained for real combat not like us who mostly do it for sport .What makes these  so called reality based martial arts think they have it figured out ._*1) Kata are not preformed to teach self defense,but are used as a conditioning tool.*_Also to fine tune technique,teach accuracy and control.After all these methods have been used for hunderds of years and we dismiss them because we think we know it all.I think its a shame to see a black  who does not teach kata ,but a guess i am a traditionalist . please fell free to give tour thoughts




1) Uhhhh not sure why you would make this statement since kata *ARE* a collection of self-defense techniques the conditioning and other benifits are just a bonus.


----------



## BlackCatBonz

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Just curious, are you saying that an instructor has license to develop his own style? And that kata is just optional?


im not saying that at all..........but that doesnt stop people from getting a black belt, thinking they know it all and decide to rewrite the book on self defense. but if you could have 2 different shotokan instructors with an entirely different approach to teaching shotokan karate. one might focus on kata and bunkai, for the purpose of learning application timing, distance and application, while another might teach the basics from a different standpoint and use kata for form development.
i think that when people go off and start something on their own, its usually because they didnt stay long enough to see what it was they were learning or they want some kind of recognition without putting in the time. 

shawn


----------



## RRouuselot

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> im not saying that at all..........but that doesnt stop people from getting a black belt, thinking they know it all and decide to rewrite the book on self defense. *but if you could have 2 different shotokan instructors with an entirely different approach to teaching shotokan karate. one might focus on kata and bunkai, for the purpose of learning application timing, distance and application, while another might teach the basics from a different standpoint and use kata for form development.*
> i think that when people go off and start something on their own, its usually because they didnt stay long enough to see what it was they were learning or they want some kind of recognition without putting in the time.
> 
> shawn



Just as a side note: 
I know people that train at and have also have visited both honbu dojo for shotokan in Tokyo and believe me neither focus on bunkai, they both focus on kicks, punches, and blocks with a major emphasis on kata for show and tippy-tap sparring.


----------



## Hwoarang_tkd26

I personaly have learned to love doing forms, but in the beginings of my training I used to hate it, it just took time and patience for me to understand the perpose of them better.

Now I find forms very interesting, because it shows you the roots of your martial art that you study. From what I can see the forms tend to not evolve nearly as fast as the art itself, for example: TaeKwonDo has evolved so much with in the last 50 or even 20 years with its strong emphasis on kicks, that it now looks very little to the primery art that it derived from (Okinawin Shotokan Karate),
But when you go through the Poomses of TKD, you can see that most of the techniques done in them are almost identicle when comeparing them to the Shotokan Karate's Katas. There are a lot of similarities.

To me thats very amusing, I am noticing this more and more with the forms all the time, and the more I notice the more amused I get.

So if you are interested in the history of your art, the forms are a history lesson of there own.
Anyways I guess that Im just trying to say that I like forms.

- Hwoarang_tkd26


----------



## MJS

Well, I've said this many times before, so I might as well say it again.  We all train for * different ]/b] reasons.  That being said, I wouldn't sterotype people by age, because I've seen people who are "older", as they're being called, also dismiss kata.  I'll also say again, that everything has it time and place.  One thing that is important to remember, is that alot of times, things are dismissed because people do not understand what they're doing.  Regardless if its a SD tech. a kick, a punch, or a kata....if the person doing it does NOT know what they are doing, they will never understand the finer points.  

I'll also add, that there are many arts out there that do not have kata but are still very effective.  Patrick, let me ask you this.  You state that you know Judo.  Does Judo have kata?  Does it make it any less effective because it does not?  The same can be said for BJJ.  Highly effective, but it doesn't have kata.  

Mike*


----------



## RRouuselot

MJS said:
			
		

> I'll also add, that there are many arts out there that do not have kata but are still very effective.  Patrick, let me ask you this.  You state that you know Judo.  1) Does Judo have kata?  Does it make it any less effective because it does not?  The same can be said for BJJ.  Highly effective, but it doesn't have kata.
> 
> Mike



Yes Judo has kata. ( found here http://www.busenjudo.com/judokata.html  and  here:  http://www.judoinfo.com/katamenu.htm  ) 

They are not like karate kata per say but they are called "kata" none the less. 

Judo and BBJJ are good examples of what I was talking about earlier.
Although they do not have kata like Karate or kung fu they do have formal practice techniques which formulate into a group.......
Personally speaking I think karate techniques are easier to remember because they are practiced as a dance as well as man to man.


----------



## RRouuselot

Judo Randori No Kata and Ju No Kata
by Donn F. Draeger
PART 1: NAGE NO KATA and KATAME NO KATA
Donn Draeger

Donn F. Draeger is well qualified to write about this subject. A scholar of oriental history and philosophy, he has done considerable academic and practical research on the oriental martial arts; and as a jujitsu historian, Mr. Draeger is currently engaged in kata research, including the major fighting arts of Japan. As an instructor in the Kodokan's foreign section, he has specialized in the study and teaching of Kodokan Judo kata. He is the only foreigner to have been awarded the official kata teaching licenses by Kodokan, holding licenses in six of the seven recognized kata. His knowledge and skill are attested to by the decision of the All-Japan Judo Federation to permit him to become the first foreigner to perform nage no kata (as tori) at an All-Japan National Judo Championship (1961). He was further selected by the Kodokan to be the first foreigner permitted to perform high-grade kata (uke for goshin jutsu and kime no kata) at the annual Kagami Biraki ceremony in 1963 and 1965 respectively. He was again nominated by the All-Japan Judo Federation to perform nage no kata (as tori) at the 1964 Olympiad -- the only foreigner accorded this honor.

.....Editor
_*
Kata? Not in this dojo. We only do fightin' Judo here. It's bad enough you have to learn some of it just before ya' wanna pass your Dan exam; but after that.....forget it!

The intent and meaning of these and similar opinions about kata having rung out in scores of dojos throughout the country. Unfortunately, it has been relatively easy for a novice judoist to overhear such opinions; and it is still easier for the novice to condition his training by the blind acceptance of such poor advice.

All of us, without exception, have at one time or another harbored such misconceptions about kata. This is due principally to two reasons. First, it is a natural consequence of our lack of familiarity with the intended wholeness of Judo. This natural consequence, in itself, cannot be condemned; but as a prevailing attitude, it becomes an evil which adversely affects the maturation of one's Judo. Secondly, the truth about kata, its intent and purpose as well as training applications, is generally unavailable. It is only through correct Judo education that one may come to understand and appreciate the importance of kata and apply it intelligently to his training and secure it benefits.
*_
Unfortunately, this article cannot give you specific technical advice or discussions about kata because of the space limitations. Such information, correctly written, would require a comprehensive book. It may be more important and appropriate to simply convince you of the importance of kata. This article, therefore, will deal with a "sales talk" about kata, with the hope that it will provoke and "awaken" you to discover the technical truth about it and bring new, vital life to your training. If it can accomplish this, you will reap many benefits. What is referred to as kata applies in principle to all kata. But for the purpose of this article, the interpretation of kata refers to the nage and katame no kata.

Since you are expecting a "sales talk," it may be best to start with something practical about kata. Just who in the Judo world uses kata? Speaking on a top-level international basis, you should first know that there aren't any champions who cannot perform kata; all champions perform it well. While kata alone has not made them champions, the very fact that they can do it expertly means that somewhere along their long, hard training road they have employed it in their training. Their expertise with kata did not come by a process of osmosis.

In terms with which you are at least geographically familiar, few of you will disagree that the competitive style and effect of, say James Bregman is currently the most dynamic and is the best in the USA. Bregman's Judo history and contest record dates back many years; but he may be best known to you as the 1964 National AAU Middleweight champion, the 1964 Olympiad Middleweight 3rd place winner, the 1965 Maccabiah Games Middleweight champion. Having had a large share in Bregman's early years of Judo training, personally designing and directing all of his training schedules during those formative years, I can assure you that he literally "grew up" on large doses of throwing and grappling kata, the nage and katame no kata respectively.

Another national case in point lies with the current National AAU Grand Champion, Hayward Nishioka (Nanka), who also exhibits a tremendously effective and stylish Judo which is outstanding among American Judoists. Nishioka's skill with kata is also remarkable; and, together with Bregman, they were chosen by the All-Japan Judo Federation to perform nage no kata at the 1962 All-Japan National Championship - the second foreigners accorded this honor. Their splendid performance is well remembered in Japan.

Past champions in our national Judo scene include Ben Campbell (Hokka) and, further back, John Osako (Konan). Campbell will be remembered for National AAU weight titles and Pan American titles, and Osako for AAU Grand National Championships and two Pan American Grand Championships. Both of these competitors possess excellent skills with kata.

Currently aboard -- starting with World and Olympic champion Anton Geesink of the Netherlands down through such famous champions as Japan's winning Olympic trio Iasso Inokuma, I. Okano, and Nakatani, as well as Japan's three-time all-Japan champion A. Kaminaga and the currently reigning All-Japan titlist S. Sakaguchi, Canada's Douglas Rogers, and A. Kiknadze of the USSR -- all are, without exception, kata experts. As a sidenote of interest, All-Japan championships on a truly national basis began in 1948; all winners -- two of whom have been world champions -- were and are kata experts.

European past international "greats" who were and still masters with kata include France's B. Pariset and H. Courtine; Belgium's H. Outlet; and Great Britian's C. Palmer, G. Gleeson, and G. Keer.

So much for who does kata in expert fashion; let's see what kata is.

Finding out what kata really is, its purposes, and how to employ it in training is not as easy as you might imagine. But one fact is sure; merely turning to the average daily Judo scene for this information will not produce the answer. Kata as practiced today (perhaps with rare exception) is not the kata intended by the founder, Jigoro Kano, and is not giving optimum benefit to Judoists who perform it. Just why this is a fact requires some discussion.

In my own experience, as I saw more and more kata, I knew that something was amiss; just what that "something" was, however, eluded me. All I could see -- and what you too will see if you take time to look around -- was a meaningless, arid "dance of shadows" in each kata performance. Largely, kata was an exhibition; there was no modern-day training application for it. I became suspicious and immensely intrigued; for, knowing full well the practical and efficient mind of Jigoro Kano, the designer of Kodokan Judo, I knew that he would not give kata such weak intention. Kata for him must have had an efficient function and a definite role to play for judo.

I began with a comprehensive survey of all Judo books published. Every major work on kata ever published, including those in Japanese language, was included. They brought absolutely little or no help for, at best, they are all incomplete, being filled with technical gaps that leave many major issues unanswered. The only exception, in my opinion, was found in the two works of T.P Leggett, The Demonstration of Throws and the Demonstration of Holds, and one Japanese classic. While giving thorough technical details, they however lacked the practical application of kata to training.

Still perplexed, I fell upon the idea of interviewing the oldest and most experienced sensei I could find in Japan. Surely, if this information was unrecorded, it must be in the minds of the oldsters. I was only partially right in this thought. In the interviews, all sensei spoke of modern-day kata as being far off the track. They pointed out technical discrepancies on the current mat-scene which convinced me more than ever that the real truth about kata was not getting out to the modern Judoist, not even from those who knew. The reasons for this apparent laxness will not be discussed in this article. It is sufficient for our purpose to know that it is fact.

In one of my interviews I had the good fortune to meet with the former secretary of Jigoro Kano, who told me that I would find interesting and complete information on kata among the founder's personal technical notes and diaries. These sources, plus the classic work on kata written by Yamashita and Nagaoka (now out of print) and edited by Jigoro Kano himself, were filled with the original concepts of kata. Since he was in possession of those documents, he offered to let me peruse them. I jumped at the chance and found exactly what I had been looking for all these years. I want now to pass on to you some of the information that I discovered, limiting it for the sake of brevity to discussions other than pertinent to specific techniques.

First of all, the great fighting systems of Japan, the bugei, were made effective and were actually constructed from kata. Whether systems of "empty-hand" fighting like jujitsu, bladed-weapon systems like kendo (formerly kenjutsu), or stick systems such as embodied in jodo (formerly jojutsu), all of them became "fighting" systems because of kata. Under no circumstances did these great systems get strong simply by having various combatants getting in and "mixing" it. It was a normal process of "walking before running" in which efficient movements and technique was first designed, tested, improved, and finally standardized through the media of kata. Kata always preceded randori and the true combative test, the shinken shobu. Jigoro Kano, in his synthesis of Kodokan Judo from jujitsu and other combative systems, recognized this necessity and did not build his famous Judo system in a free "hammer-and-tongs" type of training.

In practical terms, translated for your training, this means that unless you have technique built and working for you, you cannot hope to compete effectively on sporting contests because you will not have the proper skills. You too must learn to "walk before you run." The difference between great champion Judoists and those who just putter around and never make it is largely due to the amount of time spent in developing tools to work with -- techniques and a strong body. There is no better way of achieving this than by a balanced use of kata study as a regular supplement to training. Each technique of kata has a basic principle which, if understood and mastered in kata form, can easily be applied to variations which will broaden and strengthen Judo performance in general.

It is also significant that you know that Jigoro Kano thought highly of nage and katame no kata and referred to them under the combined title of randori no kata. His insistence on this term should tell you immediately that they are inseparably linked to randori. The founder thought of these two kata as the basic foundations to every Judoist's skill -- fundamental building blocks by which a Judoist might develop his techniques as broadly as possible. He expected all Judoists to make a regular study of kata.

Still another important issue about kata is that the founder did not want kata to be purely a ceremony. In all his technical notes, the underlying idea is "take the ceremony out of kata." What this implies is that, while kata is an excellent manner by which to display or exhibit Judo, this should not become the fundamental purpose of kata. Kata properly applied belongs in the training of all Judoists; kata is a training method, a "tool," if you will. By the founder's thought, full Judo maturity cannot be achieved without substantial doses of kata applied throughout the Judo life of each Judoist.

Kata is an intrinsic training method of Kodokan Judo, and it has two distinct developmental stages. The first of these is the "doing" stage -- a time when we must study and practice it so that we can gain a mechanical understanding of it. It is a time when we are concerned with each and every technical detail. At this stage, kata is of little training value as a completed training tool; we are simply shaping this tool for later use. After we have a rather good technical basis for kata and can give a rather polished performance of it, then we can put it to use and find answers to technical problems about the various techniques it embodies. This is what can be referred to as the "using" stage. Then and only then will kata become truly useful. Each Judoist differs in his learning ability, and it is difficult to generalize about when to begin kata study and when to expect that a Judoist can attain the "using" stage. Though kata can be begun at almost any level of Judo experience, it is perhaps best started at the sankyu level; and with constant study and practice, allowing two or three years in which to complete the "doing" stage, a Judoist can, after that, put it to optimum use.

Inherent in each technique of kata are "lessons" essential to an understanding of that technique, basic and variation factors which enhance the polished performance of the technique for randori and shiai. In direct practical terms for training, this means that kata can teach the reasons why a technique will succeed or fail in randori or shiai application. However, in order to be able to find those "lessons" in the kata, the Judoist must have developed his kata out of the "doing" stage into the "using" stage.

That kata is a prearranged exercise is perhaps the source of the biggest misunderstanding. To most Judoists and many inexperienced instructors, this "cooperation" has come to mean that tori is always a "winner," uke going down to a well-deserved "defeat." It also comes to mean that uke, in his cooperation, must "jump" for tori, trying his best to make the whole performance look good. Nothing could be more erroneous or injurious to the use of kata as a training tool. To see this, let us turn back to the two developmental levels of kata, the "doing" and "using" stages discussed earlier.

Kata performed as an exhibition or demonstration is largely a "doing" type of kata. By the nature of demonstration, kata used in this fashion always sees tori emerge victorious to graphically show technical aspects about Judo in informing or entertaining an audience. Ukes cooperation here, however, must not be one of "jump" for tori, in spite of the predetermined condition of "losing" to tori. Kata, as a demonstration, is but a shallow and limited usage of kata; it is not the primary purpose of kata, though most tendencies in modern Judo restrict it to this role. But, even here, if correctly performed as the founder intended, it is a beneficial performance.

Kata, performed as a "using" type of exercise, will see the failure of many attempts by tori to apply his techniques; tori will not always "win."

This is as it should be, if kata is being used correctly. The kata is thus an evaluation device with registers incorrectly applied technique and can reveal the reasons why tori is failing to produce the correct results. In nage no kata, uke makes only predetermined efforts to foil, and tori beforehand realizes these actions are to come. In spite of this knowledge, should the technique not come off well, it is a very definite sign tori is not applying his technique properly. How can he, under failure with a cooperative uke, expect to "defeat" a non-cooperative uke in randori or shiai? In katame no kata, after certain preliminaries, uke is free to actively, and in an undetermined way, extricate himself from toris technique. Ukes escape actions are not prearranged, except to the extend of utilizing legitimate Judo methods. If, with this "perfect" chance to immobilize uke, tori fails, how can he ever hope to immobilize a uke who, from the beginning, is struggling to defeat him?

Cooperation in kata is only a limited one which requires uke to be in a certain position at a certain time so that tori can apply the required technique. This arbitrary preparation does not include the "jumping" of uke or feeble attempts to grapple with tori. In nage no kata, uke is thrown down and thrown hard! In katame no kata, uke is held, choked, or arm-locked effectively, or uke is at liberty to escape. This is the founders intended "use" of kata; nothing less an interpretation has optimum value.

When speaking of the prearranged nature of kata, I found something in Jigoro Kanos technical notes which was a "bombshell" to me -- at least until I thought it out. I pass it on to you. How many times have you heard a Judoist say, "kata.....nah. Never use it for training. Im a believer in uchikomi as the best way to learn a technique"? Heres the "bombshell": In the founders mind, uchikomi is kata. Think about it. In uchikomi we have nothing more than a prearranged method of working with our uke. We repeat certain actions against his more-or-less cooperative self. We both know what is going to happen.

I am rapidly exceeding the space allotted to me, and so I cannot give you much more data; but I do want to leave you with two more important aspects about kata. The first of these is that from the onset, as you study and practice kata, you must have a thorough understanding of the basic roles of tori and uke from the standpoint of who is attacking. On the surface, this sounds like a silly statement; but since the essence of the kata is here, let us take only a brief general look at it.

Generally, it can be seen that uke attacks tori and by skillful, correct maneuvering, tori manages to overcome uke. This is not always the case! In nage no kata, there are certain techniques where uke only wishes to attack; he "thinks" about attacking and has the attack initiative "stolen" from him by tori. Still another, uke attacks, loses the attack initiative, regains it, and loses if finally. The technical explanation here is involved and is related to what is known as different stages or sen or "initiative": we cannot delve into this here. I merely wish to alert you to the fact that, unless you know each and every technique from the standpoint of who attacks and defends and the interchange of attack initiative, you cannot hope to perform kata correctly. Only competent instruction can guide you here; seek it out.

Finally, many Judoists complain that kata is subject to instructor interpretations, "How can I do kata when one teacher says one thing and another says something else?" The question is pertinent and so important that I want to squeeze it in here. Kodokan kata is standardized. There is a technically "right" way (only one); but you must bear in mind that, by natural evolution, Kodokan kata has changed over the years. From the founders time, there have been modifications -- even the actual changing of techniques. In 1960, the Kodokan sought and got the agreement of all master Judoists in Japan, formulating a standard method of kata. Therefore, Judo instructors who are not up to date on this standardization may be using older concepts no longer in vogue. Other variations in teaching are usually the result of personalized versions or lack of knowledge about kata. Thus, the selection of a qualified up-to-date instructor is vital to your getting the truth about kata for your training.

Along these lines, you should also know that Kodokan kata, while standardized, is not the only Judo kata existent. There have been various attempts by high-grade Judo instructors from Japan to establish private kata or interpretations of Kodokan kata. The matter becomes not so much a matter of which kata are "right" and which are "wrong" as understanding that this divergence exists. But the thing you can be sure of is that a standardized Kodokan kata exists; and if you are interested in it (and you should be), you will perhaps have to search it out from quite a variety of kata styles.

Kata is vital to Judo maturation -- both to the Judo as a system, and to you as an individual Judoist. It must be emphasized as a training method, not a demonstration. The truth about kata is not currently being placed before the Judoists of the world, and they have every right to label what they now see being passed off as kata, as something weak and almost useless. They are right about true kata. It is a case of the singer, not the song.
PART 2: JU NO KATA
Donn Draeger

So-called "Forms of Gentleness," as the ju no kata is referred to, is a grossly misinterpreted standard of Kodokan. As performed in modern-day judo, it contributes little more than restricted and token help to judo training. Ill begin by qualifying this statement.

The Japanese ideogram ju coincides in form and meaning with its Chinese prototype, though not taken from Chinese conceptual sources. it was merely adopted as a Chinese ideogram for phonetic purposes. Ju denotes various meanings in the Oriental mind which, in the English language, can be approximated only by concepts including: gentleness, softness, pliancy, yielding, tractibility, submissiveness, weakness, harmoniousness, as well as a state of being at ease. All of these denotations involve philosophical complexities of absoluteness and are not relative or practical connotations. Herein lies the source of the error.

The usual word selected for the international interpretation of the ideogram ju is "gentleness." This, however, is compounded and confused by the fact that the Japanese, including Jigoro Kano, endorsed it. But the word gentleness had a different meaning to Jigoro Kano than it had for the westerner.

Not only has the interpretations of the ju no kata been undermined, but the very principle of judo has become warped and distorted from the original Kanoian thinking.

Westerners have accepted the Japanese selection of the word "gentleness" and have, arbitrarily, without familiarity or regard for the founders intentions, taken the word in its absolute denotation. By this absoluteness, "gentleness" has come to imply only soft, prissy, almost mamby-pamby sort of action or the "la-de-dah" type of movement which admits to no great application of muscle strength. Under this interpretation of "gentleness," judo is all yield. To yield is esteemed, while hardness is shunned. Thus armed with this conceptual error, western Judo instructors are developing a "soft" Judo, thinking it to be in line with the founders ideas. Persistence in this type of thinking is doing great damage to western Judo (just as it did to jujitsu in Japan) and is certainly not in concept with the intention of the founder, Jigoro Kano, who always took exception to the abstract philosophical view and insisted on the narrower, but relative and practical outlook.

There is a large amount of documentation to support the Kanoian thought; but somehow it isnt being seen, or if it is, it is not being correctly read or understood. In Jigoro Kanos own writings we find:

    ... by giving way, a contestant may defeat his opponent; and as there are so many instances in Jujutsu (Judo) contests where this principle is applied, the name Jujutsu (Judo), the "gentle" or " giving way" art, became the name of the whole art.

Such is the principle of ju. But, strictly speaking, real Jujutsu (Judo) is something more. The way of gaining victory over an opponent by Jujutsu (Judo) is not confined to gaining victory only by giving way.

Here it is evident that the founder did not consider "gentleness" to be "softness" or "yielding" as the entire makeup of the principle of Judo. He indicates that still another facet is inherent, by continuing:

    Sometimes a person takes hold of his opponents wrist. How can someone possibly release himself without using strength against his opponents grip? The same thing can be asked when somebody is seized from behind around his shoulders by an assailant. If thus, the principle of giving way cannot cover all the methods used in Jujutsu (Judo) contests, is there any principle which really covers the whole field? Yes, there is; there is one principle which consistently emerges: In any form of attack, to attain our objective we must make the best use of our mental energy and physical strength. This is also true in defense.

It is now clear that the founder recognized the necessity of using strength to overcome some forms of resistance and included resistance itself within the principle of Judo. It is not the factor of strength that Dr. Kano opposed, but its misuse. Ju, in the principle of Judo, stresses flexibility in change or the adapting to any situation and economizing mental and physical energies

Perhaps a better interpretation of ju would have been "flexible" or "flexibility"; although these too, tend to narrow the tone. Yet, they seem to approach more closely the founders idea of ju.

The ju no kata is an exercise making use of the practical interpretation of "gentleness" -- not its idealistic, absolute, and impractical meaning which most westerners attribute to it. As a kata, it is really not "gentle" at all. In the absolute sense. As a properly performed exercise, it is a smooth, efficient application of mental and physical strengths, a harmony of movement combining hardness and softness in economic balance, making the kata completely functional. In this kata there are moments of yielding and resisting in both roles of tori and uke; never is there a yielding action solely.

This fact provides an interesting test to its effect on Judoists who think it a useless exercise. If any well-conditioned Judoist will perform this kata correctly with a master performer, first as uke then as tori, he will find that no matter how well conditioned he may be, this kata will cause him to be covered with perspiration; his body muscles will "scream" in protest under the contractions and extensions imposed on them. To permit him to take each situation correctly, he would experience the actual moments of "softness" and "hardness" and the necessity for flexibility, both mental and physical. He would come away from this experience with a new and deep respect for ju no kata.

Figure 1. shows a correctly executed ukigoshi movement of the kata as its moment of climax. Compare its technical correctness of almost hyper-extended legs, lowered head, and flattened back with a pronounced lean to the right side, to the same movement being incorrectly performed in Figures 2 and 3.

Those Judoists unfamiliar with correct ju no kata technique might arbitrarily approve of the form in Figures 2 and 3. However, this form is filled with technical errors. Primarily, it is incorrect because the knees remain bent. They have not been fully extended. The upper body of tori is inclining instead of declining and has no lean to the right. Toris head is being dropped. This fact tends to round or hump the back, and make it impossible to "table" for ukes use. Only a very skillful uke shown in these photos would have been able to salvage some exercise benefit for herself. Tori gets no real exercise benefit from the form shown, and perhaps comes away discouraged with the whole thing.

Todays concept that ju not kata is not functional and that it is fit only for girls training as a dance or game is entirely wrong. Speaking with Professor Aida, the leading Kodokan authority on ju no kata, I found that the Professor had learned directly from Jigoro Kano. He proved to be a wealth of information.

While ju no kata may be ideally adapted to womens training, it was not the founders idea to restrict this kata to the womens dojo. In order to understand this better, let us take a brief but important look into the historical foundation of Judo.

In developing his Kodokan Judo system, Jigoro Kano was aware that a still older judo system existed, the Jikishin school. It represented a practical approach to combative exercises by being a synthesis of jujutsu systems. In one sense, it was a challenge to the Kodokan system. However, with jujutsu on the decline in the Meiji Period (1868 - 1912), anything similar in nature had little chance of survival. Professor Kano thus labored under terrific handicaps in bringing about a national interest and governmental recognition for his Kodokan system. By his tremendous foresight and his experience as an educator, he knew that unless his Judo system could obtain official governmental sanction, it too, was doomed along with jujutsu systems.

To achieve this sanction, he appealed to the Ministry of Education. Before he could do this, however, he had to show that Kodokan Judo differed from jujutsu as an educative entity in accord with the modern democratic society. One of the ways by which Professor Kano obtained approval for Kodokan Judo was through the ju no kata. It helped bring Judo into the educative sphere and meet the requirements and criteria characteristic of modern societys educational needs.

When properly performed, ju no kata gives a balanced exercise for the whole body. Constant use of this kata over an extended time period results in a harmoniously developed, flexible, and strong body, as well as giving the user the fundamental mechanics for sport and self defense Judo applications.

Professor Kanos original idea was for all Judoists, regardless of age or sex, to study and practice ju no kata. Ideally, it was to begin at an early age. Through constant practice, sound bodies could develop which might otherwise be less harmoniously developed by randori alone. Ju no kata was to be continued during adult training too, but with lesser need for body development. The higher skill of the adults with this kata permitted them to study applications of Judo mechanics and self-defense. A Judoist who might start late in life would be given ju no kata practice in order to bring his body condition to a more suitable level for randori.

The tendency to let girls "take over" ju no kata has, in the opinion of many Judo experts, seriously weakened its intrinsic values. This parallels one other such case in Japanese martial arts history. Originally, the naginata, a long halberd-type of bladed weapon, was a formidable weapon in combat. It remained in male samurai hands until the Tokugawa Period (1614 - 1867). As an effective weapon requiring perhaps the least amount of physical strength to make it combatively effective, the weapon was given to samurai women as their combative "baby." Their consequent development of it has brought the naginata jutsu to todays level of combative degeneration, and it has become largely an aesthetic practice. The nature of women making physical exercise beautiful, graceful, and the like, is similarly affecting the Kodokan ju no kata. even in Japan it has deservedly gained the appellation of odori no kata, or "dance forms," and is the subject of ridicule by most young male Judoists who have never had sufficient experience to realize that this is not true ju no kata.

It is another case of the singer, not the song. The ju no kata of today can qualify only as a moderately good exercise, but it falls far short of the original Kanoian form. If efforts were to be made to recover the original form and if Judoists were to study and practice this kata as part of their normal training, all would benefit. Apparently, the limiting factor is the inability to find instructors who know and are able to teach the original form. Until this adjustment is made, Judoists will go on referring to it as "useless" and a waste of training time, and something which should be restricted to female trainees.

Judo instructors charged with placing and maintaining Kodokan Judo within educational institutions should realize that unless ju no kata is included as a regular part of Judo training, Judo is narrowed. It will not meet the criteria required of the Principle of Judo applied to self-defense situations; and unless the instructors are qualified through experience with this kata, he cannot hope to understand these elements. Nor can he teach this kata properly. The present day deficiencies in applying this kata to training can only be remedied by instructors who take the initiative to restore the Kano form.
Kodokan emblem
While the old form, jujutsu, was studied solely for fighting purposes, Kano's new system is found to promote the mental as well as the physical faculties. While the old schools taught nothing but practice, the modern Judo gives the theoretical explanation of the doctrine, at the same time giving the practical a no less important place.
.....T. Shidachi, 1892


----------



## MJS

RRouuselot said:
			
		

> Yes Judo has kata. ( found here http://www.busenjudo.com/judokata.html  and  here:  http://www.judoinfo.com/katamenu.htm  )
> 
> They are not like karate kata per say but they are called "kata" none the less.
> 
> Judo and BBJJ are good examples of what I was talking about earlier.
> Although they do not have kata like Karate or kung fu they do have formal practice techniques which formulate into a group.......
> Personally speaking I think karate techniques are easier to remember because they are practiced as a dance as well as man to man.



My appologies Sir, I should have been more specific.  I was making a ref. to kata as you'd see done in TKD, Shotokan, Kenpo, etc.  Thanks for posting the links! :asian:   That being said, we could even say that boxing has 'kata'.  The combos that are thrown, jab cross, jab cross hook, etc. are preset moves or combos that are put together in a certain way.  However, when stepping into the ring, they are not always put together in that way..hence, being able to have an understanding of whats being done.

Mike


----------



## RRouuselot

MJS said:
			
		

> My appologies Sir, I should have been more specific.  I was making a ref. to kata as you'd see done in TKD, Shotokan, Kenpo, etc.  Thanks for posting the links! :asian:   That being said, we could even say that boxing has 'kata'.  The combos that are thrown, jab cross, jab cross hook, etc. are preset moves or combos that are put together in a certain way.  However, when stepping into the ring, they are not always put together in that way..hence, being able to have an understanding of whats being done.
> 
> Mike



Exactly!
Kata in Karate are the same. In a kata techniques are "strung" together for the sake of memory.....not because that is the way they will happen in a real fight. Nobody knows what will happen in a real fight. 
Basically I think the problem with kata is that most non-Japanese users of the word don't know what the word kata really means and therefore don't understand what they think they dislike or like as the case may be.


----------



## OC Kid

I personally like kata. Why because of its traditions perfecting the basics. Does it make you a better fighter. No. Ive been told over and over coming up through the ranks that great kata people make great fighters. I havent found that to be true.I maybe mistaken here but all systems have kata of some type. It may not be the trad katas but it will be the fav fighting techniques of the instructor. For example a yellow belt may have to learn a front kick /backfist /body punch  combo for that rank. Is it a trad kata no but is it a "kata" I think so.


----------



## Patrick Skerry

That being said, we could even say that boxing has 'kata'. The combos that are thrown, jab cross, jab cross hook, etc. are preset moves or combos that are put together in a certain way. 



O.K. it seems to have gone full circle, in my former post I had asked when does kata become KATA, and the good explanation was to just look up the definition - Kata is a set of _PREARRANGED_ forms!  Prearranged being the operant term in the definition.

So according to this accepted definition, neither boxing nor wrestling contain Kata!


----------



## RRouuselot

To each his own........


----------



## BlackCatBonz

thank you robert......whether people like it or not, you are a pool of knowledge on these subjects.
thumbs up!

shawn


----------



## RRouuselot

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> thank you robert......whether people like it or not, you are a pool of knowledge on these subjects.
> thumbs up!
> 
> shawn




Thanks, but it is actually easier for me to apply what I am talking about face to face rather than to put it into words on a forum. I can see sometimes what I am writing doesn't always come out so clearly on these threads. So I guess what they say is true......."martial arts are for doing not, talking about"


----------



## NoSword

Thanks RRouuselot for posting that :boing1: I've heard and read a lot of arguments for and against forms in the martial arts but its rare to come across one that is so insightful. In some of the books I've read Draeger is referenced but so far I haven't read anything by him other than the article that was just posted. Does anyone have anyone have any titles by him that they would recommend?


----------



## RRouuselot

NoSword said:
			
		

> ........ Does anyone have anyone have any titles by him that they would recommend?




Most of his stuff is pretty good. I was lucky enough to get him actually training katori shinto ryu on several video tapes. He was pretty good.


----------



## thepanjr

Karate is not bad beacuse it has katas. Each kata is much harder and more enjoyable then the last. Karate teaches you about life too. Usually i get mad sometimes but when i think of karate i dont get mad. IT helps me so i will never thinks it is bad or even hate it. So don't critize it. People who hate karate are possibly slakers or their parents are forcing them to go to karate. i allways practice at home. So pracyice made perfect. Before iwould slack off and i never passed for 3 years to the next bely until i wanted tom get better at karate.


----------



## relytjj

The reason I personally don't like kata is that I believe that I can spend that time on activities more beneficial to my fighting ability. I do think that doing kata does improve my ability to fight but nowhere near to what some other activities can (sparring, conditioning, etc...). My primary purpose in doing martial arts from the beginning has been to improve conditioning, and learn how to fight (not just a brawler). The kata just doesn't help me advance towards my goals.


----------



## thepanjr

lol katas are the best


----------



## Master Jay S. Penfil

It has been my experience that when ever I meet with a practitioner that doesnt like forms/hyung/kata/poomsee, it is because they have never been taught application, or application that makes sense and can be applied in a real situation.



Forms are what makes each system unique, and give each system its identity. I have cross-trained for the last 33 years in several systems. I have trained in Korean, Japanese, Okinawan and Chinese systems. I have trained with different instructors and different organizations that teach the same systems, but teach them in very different ways.



I will use the Japanese terms to explain myself here.



The vast majority of Korean practitioners that I have met and trained with over the years have never been taught anything more the block, kick & punch/strike applications, with general targets for each technique. They have a very rudimentary understanding of application and usually, regardless of rank, have never been taken any deeper in application then the beginners in their system.



In Okinawan and Japanese systems the principles and philosophies get in to deeper detail. The Okinawan systems get deeper then the Japanese systems. Why is this? The answer is that KARATE systems originated in Okinawa. The principles of Bunkai, Henka and Oyo are best understood by those that originated them. 



My primary system is Tang Soo Do. The forms incorporated by Hwang Kee in the beginning all came from Okinawa, via Funakoshis book, Karate Jutsu. Hwang Kee did not learn the Bunkai, Henka and Oyo, as they were not present in this text. It was explained by Shigiru Egami, one of Funikoshis senior most students in his book; Karate-Beyond Technique, that Funakoshi had not taught Bunkai, as he had not learned it prior to teaching in Japan. This is Egamis statement, not mine.



I studied Isshinryu and Shotokan prior to Tang Soo Do. When I began learning Tang Soo Do I already had a clear understanding of the principles of Bunkai, Henka and Oyo. As I have continued to cross-train I have brought in to Tang Soo Do these principles as they have been taught and understood from older systems that based their training on them.



I was introduced to Kyusho Jutsu and Tuite Jitsu in 1986 by an instructor here in Michigan, Sensei Bob White. Since that time, I have trained with many instructors that understand and use Kyusho and Tuite in their teaching. I am now teaching seminars on the use of these principles in forms across the country.



When you learn these principles, you develop a much higher level of understanding and appreciation for your forms. These principles can be applied to the forms of EVERY Karate system that I have ever seen. 



There are many books and tapes on the market by instructor such as: George Dillman and Vince Morris. Without these reference materials to study and learn from, I would not have the depth of understanding that I do. I have also had the opportunity to participate in seminars given by Sensei Vince Morris. He is an excellent instructor. I have never met Sensei George Dillman.



If you or someone that you know doesnt enjoy training their forms, it may be that they dont understand them



Take the time to learn Kyusho and Tuite, and implement them in to your forms. They will make sense once you do.



It is important to work with a qualified instructor on these principles

For guidance, anyone can contact me at any time. ..

Master Jay S. Penfil
7th Degree Black Belt
Tang Soo Do

International Association of Korean Martial Arts
Grand Master Chung Il Kim-President (MDK Pin #475)
3250 West Big Beaver Rd., Suite 110
Troy, MI 48084

jaypenfil@sbcglobal.net
248-614-3934, ext. 209-office
248-561-5700-cell
Yours in Tang Soo Do,


----------



## eyebeams

I'll take a crack at why:

 1) Bad Bunkai. There are really, really terrible interpretations of kata movements out there. When some schools teach scenario-based self-defense, they try to get the situation to conform to the kata rather than the other way around.

 What seems to be in vogue lately are very loose interpretations of movements. This is derided as well. Sometimes I feel like if I stylized the movements used to take out the trash in the morning or eat a sandwich, then said it was a kata, somebody would come up with hidden bunkai for it.

 2) Kata substituted for basic fighting skills. This is my own bias: I didn't learn any kata for 5 years. I ran, drilled, grappled and sparred with hard to full contact. Many of these drills were *from* kata, but kata as a sequence weren't taught. The Goju dojo in my area seems to have a similar philosophy: they do kihon and hojo-undo, but little kata until relatively later than most mainstream schools.

 I suspect that this is what folks mean when they hear that such and such a person trained for many years but only learned one kata. I bet you that their time was filled up learning how to *fight*, not just do Naihanchi a zillion times.

 In any event, I'm convinced that kata cannot really make you a good fighter. Thay can make you a better fighter if you have the base attributes of a fighter. Lots of kata-intensive places don't pass on basic fighting skills before kata, and as kata are among the most rigorously judged parts of a belt test for many schools, they get disproportionate attention.

 3) Performance to the point of parody. Many people like to rag on performance oriented martial arts (competition wushu, trickin', XMA), but I have to laud them for being honest. Some of the simple coaching for traditional forms has been exaggerated to the point where a kata just can't work right. The other night on TV I saw a movie about an MA competition where, during trad forms, the competitor dropped into an incredibly low shikko-dachi. Yeah -- everybody normally tries to go low with it, but as impressive as it may be, past a certain point you've destroyed the body mechanics that made it make sense in the first place. Sure enough, this guy couldn't sink his transitions as well as he could those stances (Not because he lacked skill -- it may have been physically impossible) and his low posture required excessive drag from his lead foot. It was pretty -- and totally missed the point of a fighting routine.

 4) Poor application drilling: 90% of schools teach bunkai like this:

 "OK folks, if someone were to grab you by your throat, you would use this from kata X. Lemme demonstrate and we'll all partner up."

 No good. You need to be able to work kata-derived movements just like kihon: on the heavy bag, mitts and pads, against live opponents and with loose shadowboxing. For example, it's fatuous to claim that a "block is a strike" when you've never trained it *as* a strike.


----------



## eyebeams

> The tendency to let girls "take over" ju no kata has, in the opinion of many Judo experts, seriously weakened its intrinsic values. This parallels one other such case in Japanese martial arts history. Originally, the naginata, a long halberd-type of bladed weapon, was a formidable weapon in combat. It remained in male samurai hands until the Tokugawa Period (1614 - 1867). As an effective weapon requiring perhaps the least amount of physical strength to make it combatively effective, the weapon was given to samurai women as their combative "baby." Their consequent development of it has brought the naginata jutsu to todays level of combative degeneration, and it has become largely an aesthetic practice. The nature of women making physical exercise beautiful, graceful, and the like, is similarly affecting the Kodokan ju no kata. even in Japan it has deservedly gained the appellation of odori no kata, or "dance forms," and is the subject of ridicule by most young male Judoists who have never had sufficient experience to realize that this is not true ju no kata.


 Sexist idiocy.


----------



## searcher

I personnaly happen to rely on kata in my training.   While my wife is at work and I am training they are a critical part of my workouts. along with kihon and bag work.   I have actually increased my understanding of fighting by my training in kata.   They may or may not have directly effected my fighting abilities, but they have given me a better understanding of it.   My techniques have also gotten better by training kata as well.   

Kata has its good points and bad points just like everything else in this world.   We have and always will have disagreement on what they are or how many good or bad, but such is life.


----------



## Gene Williams

People don't like kata because they don't understand it and, in many cases, have never been exposed to an instructor who understood it and knew how to teach it. Other types see MA as all about fighting and competition and so are very "technique" oriented. They are generally too impatient to learn kata. I suppose it isn't for everyone, but if you are training in a kata based art you should be doing a lot of it.


----------



## Andrew Green

Personally I find the "Everyone that doesn't like it doesn't understand it" defense rather silly.  No one that puts it forward ever backs this in any way.

 The truth is kata applications are readily available to anyone that wants to look for them through the interenet, books, videos, etc.

 And most of them are still silly, but that is not the point.

 An argument has no value if it doesn't matter how much research someone does into a subject "they obviously still don't get it"

 Truth is there are a lot of people that can readily pull out applications for kata and make them work, but still don't like kata.  

 As for the argument that kata have been being practiced for 100's of years for combat, how can we know better?  Well once again, this is silly, Kata have not been getting practiced in a very large chunk of the martial arts systems in the world.  Never have been.  Yet these systems have generated many very good fighters.

 Some people are very vocal against kata because other people treat it as a magic pill that will teach you how to be a super-warrior without ever having to spar hard.  "Practice it every day and you will be able to beat up the big mean jocks that picked on you in school" they say.

 And that is just nonsense.  Kata alone will not teach you how to fight anymore then playing air guitar will make you a rock star.  ANd it doesn't matter how precise your air guitar movements are, it's just not going to happen.

 Does it have kata have value?  Yes, of course it does.  

 Does what it has to offer interest everyone?  Nope.

 Does its benefits often get greatly exagerrated?  Yup, all the time.


----------



## Gene Williams

Well, Andrew, you must know what you are talking about...after all, you have created your own style...artyon:


----------



## Sapper6

ahh crap, the infamous kata talk again.

@ andrew

it's not about if kata should be the only fundamental that exists in the MA.  kata is only a small portion of the equation.

@ gene

i echo your thoughts.  most of the folks who disagree with it, simply won't & never will understand it's value.

point being, you like kata, do it and do it alot.  you don't like kata...?  who cares.


----------



## Andrew Green

Gene Williams said:
			
		

> Well, Andrew, you must know what you are talking about...after all, you have created your own style...artyon:


 Did no such thing.


----------



## Gene Williams

:moon: Did,too!:boxing:


----------



## Andrew Green

Wow... See I didn't even know that.  What did I name my new style?  What rank do I have in it?  Can I be a Soke?


----------



## Gene Williams

We could call it "Andrew ryu." It rhymes, it identifies your style as personal, and would make for great marketing: " Feeling blue? Nothing to do? Bullies and muggers picking on you? What you need is "Andrew ryu." We can show you what to do, just write a check and mail it to all of us at "Andrew ryu." 
You could become a Professor of MA and start a school called Andrew U. Where, of course, they teach...Andrew Ryu.:ultracool


----------



## Andrew Green

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> @ andrew
> 
> it's not about if kata should be the only fundamental that exists in the MA.  kata is only a small portion of the equation.


 I quite agree, but it is the extremists on each end that make things look bad.  Those are the views that get hammered on forums, the people that think kata is the key to fighting, that not doing kata makes yo ua brawler, etc.

 Not everything has to make you a better fighter to be useful, and not everything that can make you a better fighter is needed.

 Kata is an optional thing, and for those that are looking at competitive fighting (kickboxing/mma/etc) it is not a good option as the movements it teaches are different then from what is required to be successful in those sports.


----------



## kodo

Unfortunately, kata is not at all what it was when it was first used.  Many kata have been generalized,(eye gouges and stuff taken out).  Many kata don't even portray the situation that they were originally developed for.  There is a great article about this in Classical Fighting Arts magazine #9 by Charles C. Goodin, J.D.
If people see kata as just a bunch of frames, I don't blame them for lost interest.
I like it for the technique honing of my basics.


----------



## Andrew Green

kodo said:
			
		

> If people see kata as just a bunch of frames, I don't blame them for lost interest.



I think that is a bit of a over simplification.

Doesn't matter what you see in them, or can convince people is in them, some people are just not going to like them.  Same as some people don't like math, or weight training, or running, or eating healthy, or any number of other things that have good reasons to be done.

It is also true that a person can become a very good martial artist without ever doign a kata.

So it all comes down to preference, and perhaps learning styles.


----------



## kroh

Holy Resurrected Thread!

I was talking to a friend about this the other day.  I really liked the question he asked in response to my answer which was very similar to the one above.  

_*Me*:... So do you see my point...?_
_*Friend*: Yeah.  Very interesting.  My question is, if there are so many people who know that most Kata are taught incorrectly why don't these people come forward and fix the problem?_
_*Me*: They are too busy hiding what they do for fear of being lumped in with those that are part of the problem.  _
_*Friend*: Why would they do that?_
_*Me*: I can't speak for any one else.  For myself, I wouldn't want some one to confuse me for the type that holds Krotty Birthday parties, wears more patches than fabric on my jacket, or feel the need to separate classes into different clubs to extort more money.  When people ask me if I do martial arts...I tell them no, I knit._

Disclaimer:  If you were affended by the above statement for any reason, that is all on you.  It is my personal opinion and as a cantankerous bum I am entitled to it.  I would rather have some one call me a pr!ck than call me a slacker.


----------



## Flying Crane

kroh said:
			
		

> _Krotty Birthday parties_


 
:rofl:


----------



## Kensai

MJS said:
			
		

> I agree and I've said the same things many times myself.  Some people train for SD, some for weight loss, an activity outside of work, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> If you read further you'll notice that expands on that.
> 
> [/b]
> 
> If you really read into what hes saying, hes pretty much stating that by not having the partner IFO you to give you that resistance will effect your reaction time.  How can you learn timing if nobody is standing there? You can do a tech. 1,000 times, but if you never train it with someone really trying to hit you, you'll never know if you actually got out of the way of that punch!   _*Sure, boxers shadow box, but they also get into the ring.*_
> 
> Mike



We do "forms", but go after each other with pads, and sometimes, very rarely, we'll go about 70% without them. Forms, kata = Western MA shadow boxing, or the equivalent if you will.


----------



## Kensai

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I think that is a bit of a over simplification.
> 
> Doesn't matter what you see in them, or can convince people is in them, some people are just not going to like them.  Same as some people don't like math, or weight training, or running, or eating healthy, or any number of other things that have good reasons to be done.
> 
> It is also true that a person can become a very good martial artist without ever doign a kata.
> 
> * So it all comes down to preference, and perhaps learning styles*.



Bottom line stuff. Great point Andrew. :asian:


----------



## kodo

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I think that is a bit of a over simplification.
> 
> Doesn't matter what you see in them, or can convince people is in them, some people are just not going to like them. Same as some people don't like math, or weight training, or running, or eating healthy, or any number of other things that have good reasons to be done.
> 
> It is also true that a person can become a very good martial artist without ever doign a kata.
> 
> So it all comes down to preference, and perhaps learning styles.


 
I'm not trying to make an easy group of people.  I'm just saying that many people might be more interested if they new more about kata.  I'm a musician, and it was required by my college to take intro to music.  If I wasn't already a musician, this class would have turned me off of it for good.  I'm just saying that things can be more interesting when they're understood, sometimes.  Your point is good, however my statement wasn't quite as bold as you think.  Sorry for the miscommunication.


----------



## green meanie

kroh said:
			
		

> _When people ask me if I do martial arts...I tell them no, I knit._


 
:rofl:


----------



## green meanie

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Doesn't matter what you see in them, or can convince people is in them, some people are just not going to like them. Same as some people don't like math, or weight training, or running, or eating healthy, or any number of other things that have good reasons to be done.
> 
> It is also true that a person can become a very good martial artist without ever doign a kata.
> 
> So it all comes down to preference, and perhaps learning styles.


 
I share Andrew's sentiment in this. A person can fully appreciate the value of learning how to swim and still hate going in the water. True?
I understand what kata is and I can fully appreciate the value of it. _BUT..._ I still don't enjoy doing it no matter how valuable a teaching and training tool it might be. That's why wrestle.


----------



## karateka

kata is a very important part of karate-do. it demonstrates technique and timing. the people who do not like kata think that its a sequence of moves that is not applicable to practical situations, however as you go into the black belt ranks you will learn to do the applications instead of the same repetitive moves.

people who are bored by katas my advice to you is: empty your mind, visualize yourself in complete darkness. then visualise a floor. if you understood your applications, visualise your opponent attacking you and with practice your kata will seem much more practical


----------



## icp1775

i think people should be open, because one style is not right for everyone. everyone is very diffrent, and will like many diffrent styles


----------



## Shaun

In any traditional art, kata is possibly the most important aspect. The arts have remained and passed down through generations as these "boring" forms. It is true many people do not study them or wish to; but they should be respected for the knowledge they contain. Just my opinion.


----------



## green meanie

karateka said:
			
		

> kata is a very important part of karate-do. it demonstrates technique and timing. the people who do not like kata think that its a sequence of moves that is not applicable to practical situations, however as you go into the black belt ranks you will learn to do the applications instead of the same repetitive moves.
> 
> people who are bored by katas my advice to you is: empty your mind, visualize yourself in complete darkness. then visualise a floor. if you understood your applications, visualise your opponent attacking you and with practice your kata will seem much more practical


 
Again, I disagree. Why is it that when someone dislikes something it _must_ be because they simply don't understand it and if only they could see the value of it they would suddenly love it? I don't enjoy practicing kata. I repeat, I know what it's for. I repeat, I fully appreciate the value of it. It is the heart and soul of Karate. I get it. I still don't like doing it and I study Jujutsu instead because of it.

And with that in mind, people who are bored by katas _my_ advice to you is: consider the possibility that Karate just isn't for you and perhaps you'll find what you're looking for in another art. :asian:


----------



## tshadowchaser

Understanding a form (kata) is way more important then liking to do it


----------



## Christina05

I kinda have mixed feelings for katas, I used to think they were a waste of time but now that I dont use them I miss doing them.You could learn alot from katas believe it or not I guess you have to take them for what they are. so I would have to agree empty your mind, then and only then might you have a deeper understanding of why they are practical.


----------



## Grenadier

In my opinion, kata provide a way to learn the techniques, and to apply them in a controlled manner where the pace is dictated by the practitioner in an orderly manner.  By learning the oyo / bunkai (interpretation), and carrying out the performance with attackers, this can provide a valuable insight for the Karate-ka.  

In many (if not most) traditional systems, the kata is taught first, and once the Karate-ka has a decent level of proficiency with his techniques, then he can be trusted to apply those techniques in a different manner.  Someone who has acquired this level of proficiency will generally be a cleaner fighter in the ring (from a technique standpoint).  At the same time, once someone applies the techniques in kumite, then his kata get sharper as a result.  

It's like a well-balanced diet; each faction compliments each other, and works together to make the other better.


----------



## melj7077

Usually because there is no percieved relevance to kata. When I first started out in martial arts I trained in a system of kenpo that had 11 forms. We also trained in specific self-defense techniques. One thing I noticed when I got more experience is that only one technique was directly related to a particular form and it was so unlikely to work that I couldn't understand its utility.

But I like kata so I explored more. 

Kata is like doing your multiplication tables. You have to do them so often that eventually you can multiply numbers given to you immediately. The same is true of kata. Kata is part of what I call the Iron Triangle of basics, forms, and application/fighting. The base of the triangle is your basics and the kata or forms is one side of the traingle with application being the other side. Take any one side away and the triangle collapses.

I teach 9 kata in my system of kenpo; Pinan 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Bassai Dai, Naihanchi, Rohai, and Saifa. All techniques that you learn for each rank directly relates to the katas you are learning at the time. I try to teach the students kata in such a way that it is relavent to their attempts to defend themselves. So far its working.

People will put up with any what as long as they know why. Instructors should keep this in mind when teaching form and maybe the hate will go away.


----------



## exile

Is anyone interested in pursuing this thread a bit further?


----------



## twendkata71

* What do you mean?  A bit further. *







exile said:


> Is anyone interested in pursuing this thread a bit further?


----------



## exile

twendkata71 said:


> * What do you mean?  A bit further. *



What I mean is, the thread seems to have gone cold. But there has been a lot of recent work on using kata as the basis for practical fighting systems that still emphasize the striking strategy of Okinawan/Japanese and Korean karate (= TKD), but use locks, throws, entrapment and so on to set up the strike. Most people who complain about kata do so because of its supposed combat inapplicability, but with the recent high-quality work on combat applications, e.g. Abernethy's `bunkai-jutsu' stuff, you would think that people looking for a  practical side to kata would have plenty to keep them happy. So if people still dislike kata, is it because they haven't encountered this line of analysis, or is there something _else_ that they object to. I'm just curious...


----------



## twendkata71

*Many martial artist were never taught any kata  bunkai. Most were only taught kata for competition and belt tests.  Many kata have many joint locks,throws, and nerve strikes. Many do not have the patience to study kata. Many of the hidden applications were never taught to the Americans bringing the arts back to the states. Many Japanese were never taught by the Okinawans (because the Okinawans didn't want them to know many of their secrets), The Japanese not knowing these secrets or unwilling to pass them on did not teach the Koreans that were studying in Japan and eventually went back to Korea to teach what they were taught, mixing it with the indigenous korean arts. Many of the US servicemen that started learning karate,taekwondo,etc. back in the 50's and 60's also wanted to learn the fighting, but did not see all of the value of kata. Mainly because they were not taught what secrets that the kata held. Remember we has for the most part just beaten them in the war and were gaijin (outsiders). I think that the Japanese and Okinawans were affraid that these much larger people might use their secrets back on them. Only a select few were taught any real secrets. At least that is my take on it  from my research.*


----------



## exile

twendkata71 said:


> *Many martial artist were never taught any kata  bunkai. Most were only taught kata for competition and belt tests.  Many kata have many joint locks,throws, and nerve strikes. Many do not have the patience to study kata. Many of the hidden applications were never taught to the Americans bringing the arts back to the states. Many Japanese were never taught by the Okinawans (because the Okinawans didn't want them to know many of their secrets), The Japanese not knowing these secrets or unwilling to pass them on did not teach the Koreans that were studying in Japan and eventually went back to Korea to teach what they were taught, mixing it with the indigenous korean arts. Many of the US servicemen that started learning karate,taekwondo,etc. back in the 50's and 60's also wanted to learn the fighting, but did not see all of the value of kata. Mainly because they were not taught what secrets that the kata held. Remember we has for the most part just beaten them in the war and were gaijin (outsiders). I think that the Japanese and Okinawans were affraid that these much larger people might use their secrets back on them. Only a select few were taught any real secrets. At least that is my take on it  from my research.*



Yes, this is exactly my understanding of what happened, from everything I've seen. But there does seem to be a real resurgence of interest among certain parts of the `striking arts' scene---Abernethy's work and Kane & Wilder's in Japanese/Okinawan, and Simon O' Neil's in TKD. What I was wondering was, whether a lot of people who vies katas as routine drudgery to be gotten through asap for rank testing, or as pretty but useless choreography using MA moves, would change their views if they saw the kinds of results these guys have come up with in their bunkai analyses---especially now that there are some excellent DVDs showing the combat effectiveness of e.g. the Pinans and so on. 

I just wonder how well known the existence of this work is in the Okinawan/Japanse MA community---on the Korean side, I don't think it's very well known at all. There was a very good article by O'Neil introducinng this kind of analysis in TKD Times last year, and making the `heretical' claim that if you want to use TKD for self defense you should limit kicks to set-up or finishing roles, and keep them _low_---that the frequency of kicking moves in the hyungs should be an indication of how the orignal kwan masters viewed them as combat techniques, and that even in the Taegeuks, that frequency is low compared with hand techniques. For a lot of TKDers. this is crazy talk, and many of them have no idea of the new bunkai analyses in Okinawan/Japanese karate that brings in grappling/locking/throwing, even groundfighting, as part of kata interpretation, and how much carryover there is to TKD forms.


----------



## JasonASmith

I LOVE kata.
Apparently I am also at a good school, because as soon as they started teaching kata to me there was bunkai included...
I say that because I have read on countless sites that bunkai is usually NOT included, because of a lack of understanding or just shear negligence...
All that I can say is this:  Thank God that I found a Dojo and a Sensei that care...
MORE KATA, MORE BUNKAI! Give it to me!


----------



## eyebeams

The idea that kata contains groundfighting is quite a stretch. I have never seen it demonstrated from an Okinawan source, it is not present in the known precursor Chinese arts and Okinawans martial artists already practiced a separate grappling style that is now called "Okinawan sumo," but used to be called Tegumi. Kata contain standing holds, but that's not the same thing.

If you want to be a traditional karateka, study wrestling, as it's quite similar in intent and practice. I think 3-5 years of fighting is good preparation for learning a kata. Without free-fighting experience you'll interpret it badly.


----------



## exile

eyebeams said:


> The idea that kata contains groundfighting is quite a stretch. I have never seen it demonstrated from an Okinawan source, it is not present in the known precursor Chinese arts and Okinawans martial artists already practiced a separate grappling style that is now called "Okinawan sumo," but used to be called Tegumi. Kata contain standing holds, but that's not the same thing.



You're right, there's a distinction. But as Abernethy points out in his book on bunkai jutsu, it's a distinction that may not make a difference if it turns out that here are horizontal applications of techniques presented vertically in the kata. IA gives an example from Pinan Godan and comments that

_In the [standing] choking technique [illustrated], the opponent is unable to breath because the airway is restricted due to pressure from the forearm. On the ground-fighting technique, the opponent is also unable to breathe because the airway is restricted due to pressure from the forearm. The principles being applied are identical, even when the physical position of the combatants is not. So whilst the principles can be applied vertically or horizontally, the kata prefers to show them vertically to encourage the karateka to remain vertical_

He gives an illustration of this same point from Wanshu where the movement to a Crane stance, presented vertically in the kata, has a straightforward, essentially identical horizontal bunkai yielding a knee press on the down's attacker's head. 

The crucial point that IA makes here and elsewhere is that there is a strategic difference in terms of ground fighting between karate and the spectrum of UFC styles---namely, kareteka will, given their core fighting strategies, want not only to avoid at all costs getting to the ground but also, if they do find themselves there, want to get vertical again as quickly as possible. So the adaptations to the ground he suggests from the standing kata forms, Ne Waza, are those which either conform to the one strke/one kill strategic principle while on the ground, or give you the best chance of getting to your feet quickly (in contrast to the approach in BJJ/wrestling/etc., where the fighter needs to _stay_ on the ground to apply the system). In his book on kata-based grappling methods, IA gives many more examples.

I do TKD, which (so far as I can tell, anyway) is way, _way_ behind karate in terms of sytematic, detailed analyses of the bunkai for individual hyungs; I only know of one person who is publishing results in this area. But Abernethy's take on ground fighting seems to me to make a good deal of sense...


----------



## Explorer

I've seen a number of forms broken down for ground fighting.  It might be somewhat rare ... but I don't think it's a stretch at all.  Oyo would allow for such interpretation.

I agree that karateka for the most part want to spend as little time on the ground as possible.  Here's what I tell my students ... bad guys run in packs.  If you spend any time on the ground, especially if you're winning, you will catch a boot to the head from one of your opponent's buddies.


----------



## Hand Sword

Very good advice!


----------



## eyebeams

exile said:


> You're right, there's a distinction. But as Abernethy points out in his book on bunkai jutsu, it's a distinction that may not make a difference if it turns out that here are horizontal applications of techniques presented vertically in the kata. IA gives an example from Pinan Godan and comments that
> 
> _In the [standing] choking technique [illustrated], the opponent is unable to breath because the airway is restricted due to pressure from the forearm. On the ground-fighting technique, the opponent is also unable to breathe because the airway is restricted due to pressure from the forearm. The principles being applied are identical, even when the physical position of the combatants is not. So whilst the principles can be applied vertically or horizontally, the kata prefers to show them vertically to encourage the karateka to remain vertical_
> 
> He gives an illustration of this same point from Wanshu where the movement to a Crane stance, presented vertically in the kata, has a straightforward, essentially identical horizontal bunkai yielding a knee press on the down's attacker's head.
> 
> The crucial point that IA makes here and elsewhere is that there is a strategic difference in terms of ground fighting between karate and the spectrum of UFC styles---namely, kareteka will, given their core fighting strategies, want not only to avoid at all costs getting to the ground but also, if they do find themselves there, want to get vertical again as quickly as possible. So the adaptations to the ground he suggests from the standing kata forms, Ne Waza, are those which either conform to the one strke/one kill strategic principle while on the ground, or give you the best chance of getting to your feet quickly (in contrast to the approach in BJJ/wrestling/etc., where the fighter needs to _stay_ on the ground to apply the system). In his book on kata-based grappling methods, IA gives many more examples.
> 
> I do TKD, which (so far as I can tell, anyway) is way, _way_ behind karate in terms of sytematic, detailed analyses of the bunkai for individual hyungs; I only know of one person who is publishing results in this area. But Abernethy's take on ground fighting seems to me to make a good deal of sense...



The thing is that this isn't really interpreting the *intent* of the kata. It's grafting on something new. And you have to ask yourself if that isn't better served by learning to grapple directly, the way Okinawans did (and do; tegumi is not dead, but it's very obscure. I read an article about marines in an "Okinawan sumo" match not too long ago).

Kata do include standing grappling and throws, but the strategy is meant to be supported with wrestling. Tegumi's rules set is excellent for this, because it's a kind of halfway point between freestyle and sumo. It's intended to help you keep on your feet.


----------



## exile

eyebeams said:


> The thing is that this isn't really interpreting the *intent* of the kata. It's grafting on something new. And you have to ask yourself if that isn't better served by learning to grapple directly, the way Okinawans did (and do; tegumi is not dead, but it's very obscure. I read an article about marines in an "Okinawan sumo" match not too long ago).
> 
> Kata do include standing grappling and throws, but the strategy is meant to be supported with wrestling. Tegumi's rules set is excellent for this, because it's a kind of halfway point between freestyle and sumo. It's intended to help you keep on your feet.



I suppose that one reasonable conclusion from this would be, if you learn effective bunkai from the katas that you can apply to the ground if necessary, and if you add tegumi (which Abernethy does give a lot of attention to in his books), then you've got a great set of resources to both keep you off the ground and, if things go wrong, get you up off the ground if you find yourself there.

What I still find mysterious is that someone who was seriously interested in a striking-oriented combat-ready art would find anything hateful about kata. What's not to like? I can't help thinking that most of the problem has been the kind of approach to kata/hyungs that takes them to be aggressive-looking choreography or whatever. If the combat applications of the katas were instead emphasized, probably a lot fewer people would dislike them...?


----------



## kingkong89

even in the begining of martial arts there were people who have hated kata. the main reason, they want to fight and not practice on their katas to improve the things they need to fight.HICH


----------



## Hand Sword

kingkong89 said:


> even in the begining of martial arts there were people who have hated kata. the main reason, they want to fight and not practice on their katas to improve the things they need to fight.HICH


 

LOL! That's what I was going to say! I always used to hear, "I just want to learn how kick some but!"


----------



## matt.m

Hand Sword said:


> LOL! That's what I was going to say! I always used to hear, "I just want to learn how kick some but!"


 
It is funny, I believe that practicing poomse(tkd) or kata(karate) often actually makes you a better fighter.  While you practice forms you are perfecting technique, you perfect technique then you have a better arsenal.


----------



## exile

matt.m said:


> It is funny, I believe that practicing poomse(tkd) or kata(karate) often actually makes you a better fighter.  While you practice forms you are perfecting technique, you perfect technique then you have a better arsenal.



The thing is, there are so _many_ good books and articles available now which show in detail the effectiveness of the combat applications hidden---but not always terribly deeply---within kata and hyungs. I just learned about a new book, by Stuart Anslow, which has already come out on the fighting techniques implicit in the ITF Ch'ang Hon forms, and Simon O' Neil's book on TKD bunkai (boon hae, I guess we should start calling it, since it's the Korean analogue) will be out next year. And there's a ton of stuff on karate bunkai that's come out during the past five years or so. If anyone genuinely wants to find out just what specific techniques and tactical approaches the katas/hyungs can contribute to their combat training, the resources they need are all over the place out there.


----------



## Rook

Hand Sword said:


> LOL! That's what I was going to say! I always used to hear, "I just want to learn how kick some but!"


 
This has alot to do with schools adopting modernized techniques while retaining the kata from the past.  When your sparring is kickboxing (or, in lesser schools, point fighting) you have to ask why are you practicing something that isn't like the sparring.  The answer is ussually an evasive comment that alludes to hard work and tradition.  

There are lots of other ways to practice techniques besides kata.


----------



## Hand Sword

I hear Ya! I've never been a Kata fan, but, I don't hate them either. I feel that they have a place.


----------



## exile

Rook said:


> There are lots of other ways to practice techniques besides kata.



I don't think the purpose of kata is to practice technique---though remember, for guys like Matusmura, Itosu, Funikoshi, and other master karateka of that era, kata were the primary training tool---it's gotten to be a tired old chestnut, but true, that Funikoshi studied and practiced the Naihanchi kata exlcusively, for nine years, as his primary training tool. But on the whole, I don't think kata are there for practicing fighting technique---they are the _record_ of the fighting techniques. They contain all of the crystallized nastiness of the most hard-core attacking techniques in karate, but once you've studied the kata and extracted the combat methods embedded in them along the lines of guys like Abernethy, Martinez, Wilder and Kane, Rick Clark and so on, you need some way to train yourself to carry out those techniques automatically. Abernethy, in his book _Bunkai-Jutsu: the Practical Application of Karate Kata_, devotes his final chapter to a detailed description of his method of training the highly effective fighting methods embedded in the kata by realistic application of these methods to _non-compliant_ opponents in a variety of scenarios, at all combat ranges. I would urge anyone interested in how kata can benefit the martial artist's effectiveness in real-world violent conflicts to read IA's book and to consider the training method he outlines for programming oneself to use kata-based methods in real fights.

There has been I think a lot of misunderstanding of kata due to the tradition, started by Itosu, of simplifying their interpretation to dilute what is, when you look at it, an extremely violent content based on a very sincere belief in the `one-strike/one-kill' approach to combat management. If Abernethy is correct---and I think his arguments for the plausibility of his kata interpretations are extremely persuasive---kata are a record of fighting systems with damage potential that I myself find kind of unpleasant to contemplate. But that's all they are---catalogues of systematic fighting methods. To be able to use them on the fly, to make them immediately available combat tools, you have to train the moves (and responses to moves) that they conceal by simulating actual combat as closely as possible, as frequently as possible. Those training methods aren't the kata themselves. 

What I guess I'm saying is, you can simultaneously believe that the kata are very important to the combat effectiveness of karate (as a repertoire of tactical scenarios, i.e., blueprints for counterattacking in the face of a variety of aggressive moves by an assailant), on the one hand, but that they aren't themselves very as real-time training procedures. Abernethy has some very interesting ideas about the latter---his website is a very good place to check out, because he thinks a lot about this sort of thing himself  (and does a lot of `experimental' work on kata interpretation and training to base his ideas on), but also has guest columnists and MAists from an extremely wide variety of MAs, from Okinawan karate and TKD to BJJ, MMA and various RBSD systems. The man is nothing if not open-minded, and I think a lot of people in that `movement'---I think it's not out of line to think of it that way---are of the same mind.


----------



## IWishToLearn

My only issue with Kata is the reinforcement of the "one hit, one kill" methodology. That's a VERY large gamble with a VERY large downside if you bet wrong.


----------



## TaiChiTJ

I am still mulling over comments Tony Annesi 
makes on his site: 

Shihan Tony Annesi reveals how kata is misunderstood by most practitioners, both modern eclecticists and traditionalists. There are two ideographs for kata. One implies a rigid mold, the other suggests a general shape --"the mold filled with gelatin." *As a beginner you were instructed to follow the rigid mold, but did you learn how that rigidity becomes softened by interpretation and personal sensibilities in more senior practice?* 

I like the applications he gives. You can see alot of clips of applicaitons of Karate on his site: 

http://www.bushido-kai.net/budoya/video_karate_list.html 

:ultracool


----------



## exile

IWishToLearn said:


> My only issue with Kata is the reinforcement of the "one hit, one kill" methodology. That's a VERY large gamble with a VERY large downside if you bet wrong.



Hi Steve---good to see this thread still has some life in it! So my question (obviously, there has to be one! :wink1: ) is, what should a striking art take as its guiding strategic principle if one one strike/one kill is too extreme a position---how would you modify it so as to be more combat-useful?


----------



## Hand Sword

I would like to point out that the one strike/one kill was valid back when the Kata were created, and practiced in the early days. The Karateka of the time constantly trained and conditioned the body parts, and their skill to accomplish that skill. Not so much anymore, while the same kata are practiced. So, maybe it is a good question about changes needed to make them more effective for today's practioners.


----------



## eyebeams

As I've mentioned before. ikken hisatsu "one strike one kill" is not traditional in Okinawan karate. Japanese karate borrows it from kendo.


----------



## Rook

"One strike kill" is an ideal, and it was never consistantly achieved.  (It might also have been borrowed from kendo, as Eyebeams has pointed out - I've heard that before.)


----------



## exile

Hand Sword said:


> I would like to point out that the one strike/one kill was valid back when the Kata were created, and practiced in the early days. The Karateka of the time constantly trained and conditioned the body parts, and their skill to accomplish that skill. Not so much anymore, while the same kata are practiced. So, maybe it is a good question about changes needed to make them more effective for today's practioners.





eyebeams said:


> As I've mentioned before. ikken hisatsu "one strike one kill" is not traditional in Okinawan karate. Japanese karate borrows it from kendo.



OK. The idea in kendo was that the ideal the swordsman was aiming at was a literal kill with the first strike of the blade. Given what a katana can do if properly handled, the idea of `kill' in `one strike, one kill' is literal. But it doesn't have to be interpreted that way. In _The Way of Kata_, Kane & Wilder paraphrase the idea as their second principle of kata application as `Every technique should be able to end the fight immediately'. Given a set of interpretations for a kata move, pick the one which has the greatest odds of putting the attacker out of action. In last month's _Black Belt_ , there's a long article on the `modern' sense of one strike/one kill which pretty much comes to the same conclusions. Given what is described as a `block-block-punch' sequence, look for the interpretation of the moves which has the most damaging effect on the attacker.

Now, if you say that you don't accept one strike/one kill on _that_ interpretation of the saying, what would you suggest to make the kata applications `more effective for today's practitioners'?  The ethic of 1S/1K already seems to be, find the most destructive application you can. If you give up 1S/1K, it seems as though you'd be taking the position that you shouldn't seek the kata interpretation which caused, or allowed you to set up as soon as possible, the most damaging interpretation. Wouldn't this then be a _retreat_ from maximum effectiveness?

I can imagine that two people could disagree over what the most damaging application was. But if 1S/1K means, use the technique which is most likely to disable the attacker most severely, then the two people who are arguing are both accepting 1S/1K; they just have different ideas about which way of implementing is the best in practical terms. That's not the same as rejecting it in favor of a different strategic approach to the fight.

The question of body conditioning is relevent here, because a kareteka who's done a lot of that sort of thing may be in a position to make a given move (not necessarily a strike) `lethal' in the 1S/1K sense, whereas practitioners who haven't might not. For the latter, a different move might be more effective. But again, the question wouldn't be 1S/1K itself, but how best to implement it given the capabilities of the fighter in question. For both the conditioned and unconditioned fighter,  1S/1K means that those two `blocks' in sequence had better not correspond to a sequence of defensive deflections in a fight---there is presumably a better, more destructive interpretation of the motions described as `block-block', and your job in working out the bunkai is to find it (or several, and decide which is the most damaging one in terms of your own physical capabilities and fighting strengths)...


----------



## exile

Rook said:


> "One strike kill" is an ideal, and it was never consistantly achieved.  (It might also have been borrowed from kendo, as Eyebeams has pointed out - I've heard that before.)



Rook---I think what I've said in my previous post speaks to your point here. 
The strategy of the karate-based MAs seeks out the move that in any given situation has the best chance of terminating the fight in your favor, right then, right there. Of course things may not go as planned; you need backup strategies, and on some people's interpretation of the kata, these are supplied as well. It's this _intention_ that guides the interpretation of kata on the 1S/1K view---take advantage of openings to strike, of muchimi to impose locks and controlling moves that force a striking opening, of sweeps that take your opponent to the ground while you stay upright and strike from above to disable him. 

So far as the relevance of Okinawan kenjutsu that Eyebeams mentioned is concerned, the case may not be as clear as all that. Abernethy's observation in _Bunkai Jutsu_ is relevant here:

_The bujitsu of the Minamoto samurai had a large influence on the 
        fighting methods employed by the Okinawan nobles. One part of 
        Minamoto bujitsu that had an influence on the development of kar-
        ate was the idea that all motion is essentially the same. Whether 
        striking, grappling or wielding a weaponn, the Minamoto samurai 
        taught that all combative methods relied upon similar physical
        movements. An individual would be taught a particular physical     
        movement and then shown how that movement could be adapted to
        achieve varying goals._

This strongly suggests that strategies for use of the katana and those of the body limbs were not, in the aftermath of the 19th c. Japanse overlordship of the Okinawan islands, radically separated, which would naturally lead to the extension of 1K/1S from kenjutsu to Okinawa-te, and then on to the Japanese and Korean developments of the Okinawan arts. One might be skeptical in advance that the Satsuma would share their fighting systems with Okinawans, except for the fact that, as Abernethy further notes, `many of the Minamoto samurai took Okinawan wives and remained upon the island for the rest of their days'. It seems plausible then that the Satsuma's kenjutsu technique, incorporating 1K/1S at its core, did diffuse into the practice of empty-hand combat in the Okinawan aristocracy, from whose ranks the bodyguards of the King of Okinawa---including Matsumura and Itosu themselves---were recruited. So I'm not convinced that1K/1S to Japanese swordsmanship was really restricted to Japanese swordsmanship...


----------



## chinto

TigerWoman said:


> I too, love to watch my instructor (5th dan) do form. And I have seen some teens do it really well. But most of the guys that I have seen in tournaments do Karate forms and its seems powerful but not as artistic. I have never been impressed as a judge by all the hissing and gutteral noises. I am more impressed by balance and lightness as you said, power shown with high held kicks, jumping and landing perfectly etc. But again, those are the few guys who obviously love it and put their all into perfecting it. I was speaking generally, of course. I hear alot of guys grumble but no women. As you said, whether its a man or a woman, the hours and work shows in properly executed form. :asian:


 
I like kata, and am a male.
I have seen kata done well by men and women, just as done badly.  but the hissing and butteral noises if done right are like the kiai about tensioning the body and gerneration of focious as well.  not all people realize what its for or are not tought about tensioning the body and things that are part of kata and a very real part of combat when if you loose you die.  kata was developed to teach you the art and save your life! its all there if you are willing to put the effort and time and practice into it and use your mind to see what is under the serfice.


----------



## chinto

goju.glenn said:


> Kata would be my favourite aspect of my karate.
> 
> It is a conditioning tool for the body as well as the mind. Because it takes a long time "learn" a kata, I find it a great "place" to put your mind. All the basics of karate in the kata, so by focusing your mind on either the whole kata or one part is a great training tool. :asian:


 

the basics are there yes, and so very much more if you put the effort into looking into the 'hidden' techniques and principles there to be found.


----------



## chinto

Old Fat Kenpoka said:


> Why do people hate Kata was the topic of this thread...
> 
> Two reasons for two types of people:
> 
> 1) Martial Artists who do Kata and hate Kata feel that way because... they have to spend time memorizing and practicing preset movements which have nothing to do with sparring, self-defense, or combat. People not interested in actual combat do not mind practicing these preset moves and do not hate Kata.
> 
> 2) Fighters who do not practice kata and hate Kata feel that way because...they realize that practicing movements in a preset fashion does not preapre a person for sparring, combat or self-defense and they are embarrassed to be classified as "Martial Artists" along with those who learn Katas. Fighters who understand the difference between training to fight and training for health/self-improvement do not hate Kata--they just know it won't help them meet their goals.


 

I have to disigree with your premiss. I study for self defence and becouse i enjoy it. but if you are interested in real ability in combat, as in when its not in a ring but on the street, then kata does teach reality combat! 

The kata were developed by men who fought for thier survival, as in the looser of a fight usualy was dead. they included in the kata the lessons of life and death combat that they learned the hard way.  they didnt want to just hand even their students and especialy their enemys all their techniques, besides which for hundreds of years it was illegal to study any martial art on okinawa (where karate originaly came from). so to some how say to study the kata is useless, or does not help with your ability to fight is ludicriss!  
Yes sparring helps with some things like timeing and distance, but if you study and really look deeply at what the kata is trying to teach you, a month of hard work on kata will improve your ability as much as the same amount of sparring, and often more.

I find myself laughing at the idea that some how Karate is not a system for realistic combat.


----------



## cstanley

People who do not like kata do not understand it and probably had instructors that did not like or understand kata, either. You cannot study traditional karate and not like or practice kata. It is like being in the army and not wanting to march. If you find yourself in a traditional karate class and you are not comfortable with kata as the basis for everything, get out now and find an art that fits you better. If you are mainly interested in learning to fight quickly, then I would suggest boxing or Brazilian Jujutsu or some kind of MMA. If you like competition fighting, those same arts are good for that, as well.


----------



## chinto

Good point!!! However, as I stated in a past post regarding kata, and some of my exp. with them, I've found very few who actually understand what the moves are. Simply saying, "Well, its done that way...........well, because it is." is not a very good answer IMO. 


Mike[/quote]

Yes that is a lousy answer, and some people who do not know about kata will give that answer. but a knowledgeble and properly trained instructor will show you 3 or 5 or perhaps more aplications for that movement in the kata. that comes down to an instructor who does not understand the kata and was not trained in bunkai.  and some times you do kata bunkai by having others attack you as you do the kata ( from the directions used in the kata) and they you aply first the kihon aplications, and as you attain skill and rank  the more advanced responses to the initial techniques and others that are used at that point. so there is 'alive' training as you called it  traditiolnaly used in TMA.  please remember that the systems that have survived for centurys are systems that have been tried and used in real combat.  Combat that was to the death, and not for points or for a title, or a belt. so to some how say that a tool that has been used for centurys to train for life and death combat is some how not effective or even usless is rediculess and usualy the product of ignorance about kata.


----------



## chinto

MJS said:


> My appologies Sir, I should have been more specific. I was making a ref. to kata as you'd see done in TKD, Shotokan, Kenpo, etc. Thanks for posting the links! :asian: That being said, we could even say that boxing has 'kata'. The combos that are thrown, jab cross, jab cross hook, etc. are preset moves or combos that are put together in a certain way. However, when stepping into the ring, they are not always put together in that way..hence, being able to have an understanding of whats being done.
> 
> Mike


 
OK, so do you expect if you attack me that I will begain to preform a kata to defend myself??  if so you have no clue at all, even less then most who know nothing about kata.  kata teaches you a lot of things, but when you are attacked, if you have practiced and trained hard in kata and all, and your instructor was compatent, you will find yourself reacting with out thought really.  the block just seems to happen as does the evasion and trap, or throw, or brake or strike or lock. that is what kata helps to teach. but you do not some how become a robot that can not do the techniques in any order other then in that of the kata!


----------



## chinto

RRouuselot said:


> Exactly!
> Kata in Karate are the same. In a kata techniques are "strung" together for the sake of memory.....not because that is the way they will happen in a real fight. Nobody knows what will happen in a real fight.
> Basically I think the problem with kata is that most non-Japanese users of the word don't know what the word kata really means and therefore don't understand what they think they dislike or like as the case may be.


 

I agree !!!


----------



## chinto

relytjj said:


> The reason I personally don't like kata is that I believe that I can spend that time on activities more beneficial to my fighting ability. I do think that doing kata does improve my ability to fight but nowhere near to what some other activities can (sparring, conditioning, etc...). My primary purpose in doing martial arts from the beginning has been to improve conditioning, and learn how to fight (not just a brawler). The kata just doesn't help me advance towards my goals.


 

I will say it again, Look beyond the very obvouse use of each movement in a kata. think about how it might be modified slightly and what that would result in agenst a jab, or a hook or a reverse punch or a kick.  think about what the men who put together that kata were trying to teach you! put some effert into that annalisses ( called bunkai) and you will find it will do wonders for your ability in sparring or in a real world altercation. 

but remember, the best defence, and the best fighting ability is to not be there.


----------



## chinto

eyebeams said:


> As I've mentioned before. ikken hisatsu "one strike one kill" is not traditional in Okinawan karate. Japanese karate borrows it from kendo.


 

Yep that is true.


----------



## TheOriginalName

I'm just going to throw my 2cents in here. 

I'm a newbie to the art - only been training for a couple of weeks now. 
So i've been spending a lot of time working on my individual moves, mainly a number of blocks and punches. 
Once a week i get to train with the higher belts - and as such i usually end up getting a bit of a lesson in either some "basic" kata or in a new "advanced" one they are learning. 

My opinion is the kata are extremely important - mainly they teach how your body works and how the individual motions can be combined. From my time learning a "basic" blocking kata my blocks have become 10 times better - each motion now has a purpose that is clear and well defined. 

I also think that learning how to "fight" without kata is also highly valuable - it is important to know how to use our skills in a real world situation. 

Well i'm not sure if that all makes sense but thats what i think so far - i love my kata - learn them, get forms right and then the real world will be easier to combat.

Cheers all

Remember: Practice makes permanent - not perfect. So get those forms right!!


----------



## Chizikunbo

brandon said:


> i am a blue belt in go-ju ryu and i always read articles that are so anti-kata.What is with you people kata have been preformed since the begining and they trained for real combat not like us who mostly do it for sport .What makes these  so called reality based martial arts think they have it figured out .Kata are not preformed to teach self defense,but are used as a conditioning tool.Also to fine tune technique,teach accuracy and control.After all these methods have been used for hunderds of years and we dismiss them because we think we know it all.I think its a shame to see a black  who does not teach kata ,but a guess i am a traditionalist . please fell free to give tour thoughts


Kata is widely misunderstood, and misinterpreted. It has been this way since the first westerners began learning oriental martial arts. The interesting part is that so called REALITY martial practicioner use kata, any drill, striking combination, disarms etc. are all Kata. 
As far as traditional kata, the efforts of such men as Seiyu Oyata Taika, have really brought a group of practicioners into the light about the subject, and as wel learn more and progress it is natural that our understanding will increase with continued study and research...
Our society has a problem with the HERE and NOW, they want to develop pugilism in a quick manner, but in reality you only develop skill through long hours of dedicated practice, research, and study. Effective technique comes from effective training...Kata was the ancient way of to transmit the knowledge of the ancient warriors to future generations, they were not meant to be easily understood, as to give the inner secrets of jutsu to anyone, but only to those with the correct mindset and will to learn and develop the knowledge with the right purpose. So when you look at people downtalking kata, just remember you need to train harder, and try to understand and preserve the knowledge, because the folks who avoid it, talk down about it simply dont understand it, and are thus being weeded out of the access to the ancients knowledge, just as planned ;-)
On a closing note, look at the words Gongfu, a common term for CMA's, it actually means "skill developed through time and effort" ;-) Interesting, yes?
--josh


----------



## Em MacIntosh

Kata is good for the mind, but without bunkai, you're left with your own imagination as to what to do.  I feel that bunkai adds more of a self-defense aspect to the kata, however, I feel that the attacker would not use oi-zuki, mae geri or san-ren zuki.  More likely to be deceptive or overpowering like a fake or a tackle.  I'd like to see more realistic bunkai.  I think it would add to the self defense aspect.  In order for kata to be effective you gotta have proper frame of mind, kime and sanchin.  I can see how many people just won't have it (practice kata).  They are also good at defending themselves.  What works for one might not work for another.  I, for one, love kata.


----------



## MMAfighter

i don't have anything against kata...but i find it useless when it comes to training for self defense and whatnot....i mean if you wanna do it for forms and stuff, go right ahead , nothing wrong with that...but if your goal is to compete in a full contact sport or self defense, then what you need to do is more pad/bagwork and sparring and less forms and kata....i mean it sure is good for working your technique, but worthless if you wanna be ready to defend yourself fomr some punk who's gonna come swinging at you...I don't mind kata...but it really depends what your goal is..


----------



## exile

MMAfighter said:


> i don't have anything against kata...but i find it useless when it comes to training for self defense and whatnot....i mean if you wanna do it for forms and stuff, go right ahead , nothing wrong with that...but if your goal is to compete in a full contact sport or self defense, then what you need to do is more pad/bagwork and sparring and less forms and kata....i mean it sure is good for working your technique, but worthless if you wanna be ready to defend yourself fomr some punk who's gonna come swinging at you...I don't mind kata...but it really depends what your goal is..



So the fact that the movements in kata were specifically designed to be used as CQ self-defense techs in the face of typical violent attack initiations (grabs from front or behind, head-butts, haymakers) is irrelevant? Karateka like Iain Abernethy, Bill Burgar, Stuart Anslow and many others who are concerned with the hardest reality-based self-defense techniques, have written detailed analyses of kata showing exactly how the traps, throws, locks and followup finishing strike encoded in the kata work in street combat _and how those techs should be *trained* for street combat_. Are you familiar with any of this work? If not, you ought to look at it before making statements like 

_it sure is good for working your technique, but worthless if you wanna be ready to defend yourself fomr some punk who's gonna come swinging at you_, 

since the work of that group makes it clear that kata-based SD techs are anything _but_ worthless. If you _have_ read it, and you want your comments to have any kind of weight, you're going to have to explain just how the specific technical CQ applications that Abernethy, Kane & Wilder, McCarthy, Martinez, Clark or a dozen others have provided, in as many books, for a number of the great classic kata, still fail as effective responses to the particular threats they were designed to counter. As it stands, I have the impression from your comments that you _aren't_ familiar with this work... in which case the problem isn't with _kata_, eh?

Geoff Thompson, the UK karateka who has come out on top in something like 200 documented streetfights during his career as a bouncer/club doorman, has gone out of his way to emphasize the combat effectiveness of kata-based CQ applications in what he calls `the pavement arena'. Not in some artificial sport context governed by one set of rules or another, but in streetfights where you'll get your eyes gouged out or your teeth kicked literally down your throat if you don't defend yourself effectively. He too is part of that group I mentioned above. If he thinks (as the various material on his website and the stuff he's authored for the British Combat Association makes clear he does, and _why_) that kata, correctly understood and trained, are complete self-defense systems on their own, then I think the odds are pretty good that there's something to kata that you need to take another look at before coming up with the kind of judgment you posted about `forms and stuff'.


----------



## Em MacIntosh

I second that, exile.  Karate was designed to kill.  Kata were the method of passing on that skill.


----------



## exile

Em MacIntosh said:


> I second that, exile.  Karate was designed to kill.  Kata were the method of passing on that skill.



Well put, Em! Short and sweet... and exactly right. 

I understand people not `getting' kata... they were designed not just to convey combat information but to do so in a covert way, so that only those who the master instructor wanted to have that information would know how to read them. But by now, there's been so much attention in the karate/TKD-TSD world focused on bunkai, and how to do it, and realistic vs. unrealistic bunkai, and how to train it so it really works in real-time combat, that there's no excuse for recycling the same old underinformed view of kata that led people to nod sagely in agreement when Bruce Lee dismissed kata as part of what he called `the classical mess.' Here's something that's really interesting and which bears on the point: Combat Hapkido is a totally SD-oriented system that has no forms; it has techniques explicitly designed to combine a deflection with a joint lock followed up with a throw or a strike while the assailant's head or throat is vulnerable to a knifehand, an elbow or whatever. Gm. Pellegrini emphasizes that he wanted a stripped-down version of Hapkido whose sole purpose was street defense. But when you look at the explicit Combat Hapkido techs, and how they're drilled, an awful lot of them look like nothing other than the kind of realistic bunkai Abernethy and others have shown to be right there just under the surface of classic kata! The versatility, mobility and range of resources in Combat-Hapkido conforms very nicely to the kind of desiderata that Lee wanted for MA, and which he argued were seriously lacking in traditional karateand yet the techs of on the one hand, purely fighting-oriented CH, and on the other those recoverable from the Pinans/Pyung-Ahns, or Bassai, Naihanchi, Gojushio and various others that have been subject to detailed analysis for combat use, turn out to look in an awful lot of cases extremely similar! So it looks to me as if there wasn't anything particular messy about `the classical mess'. 

One of the important uses of history is that it allows us to correct current misunderstandings. With hindsight, we can see that in transmitting karate from the Okinawan to the Japanese context, masters such as Funikoshi, Motobu, and Mabuni wound up adapting what they had learned from their homeland instructors to vastly different uses and attitudes in Japan, resulting in a serious dilution of both training methods and combative content associated with kata. The kata themselves were transmitted, but not the keys to unlocking them and extracting the moves which their movements alluded to. The conventional labels for these movements, developed by Itosu for domestic consumption in the Okinawan schools, became identified with the moves themselves. All of this is extremely well-documented, and anyone who wants to understand what kata is good for first has to understand this history, because the result of such understand will be the realization that the kata originally devised by the Okinawan masters have way more combative content than has usually been taught, ever since the art was exported by its famous expatriate Okinawan practitioners.

Ignore this history, though, and you wind up seeing kata as nothing but the same series of dance-like movement that outsiders were originally intended to see by those who had no wish to share their actual combat use. By this point there's been enough work on the big recovery projectsfor karate and the KMA striking artsthat no one has any excuse to perpetuate the same misunderstandings...


----------



## Em MacIntosh

Bruce was right when he said not to fall into patterns.  Too many people are doing kata "comfortably".  When doing a kata, it's like shadow boxing.  When performing kata, you are trying to mimic the psychology of combat.  If someone was to sucker punch you while doing kata, I would hope the readiness and awareness to be there, not just the concentration.  I can't stress it enough, sanchin and kime.  Logical bravery.


----------



## exile

Em MacIntosh said:


> Bruce was right when he said not to fall into patterns.  Too many people are doing kata "comfortably".  When doing a kata, it's like shadow boxing.  When performing kata, you are trying to mimic the psychology of combat.



Abernethy in fact emphasizes this point: you shouldn't be doing kata, under normal conditions, to look pretty (training for tournament competition is a different story, and raises some interesting but off-topic questions about what the value of kata competition actually is). As he puts it, you should be practicing, not the performance of the kata but the _application_ of the katai.e., for a thirty-some move kata, you should be practicing something like six or seven distinct attack-initiation-to-successful defense scenarios, because that's typically what a kata of that length would contain. Each begins with a particular aggressive technique aimed at the defender and ends with the application of a finishing move by the defender which puts the attacker on the ground. You have to visualize this attack as vividly as possible, and execute the combat moves implicit in the kata with something very much like the intensity that would be demanded of you if the attack were real. 

In other words, every kata practice should involve two participants: you and and a _single_ imagined attacker. Burgar in his book also stresses how much more important function is over form. Matsumura or Itosu probably couldn't have cared less how balletic you looked performing their kata, as long as you understood just how to use the moves they contained to flatten an assailant.


----------



## MMAfighter

exile said:


> So the fact that the movements in kata were specifically designed to be used as CQ self-defense techs in the face of typical violent attack initiations (grabs from front or behind, head-butts, haymakers) is irrelevant? Karateka like Iain Abernethy, Bill Burgar, Stuart Anslow and many others who are concerned with the hardest reality-based self-defense techniques, have written detailed analyses of kata showing exactly how the traps, throws, locks and followup finishing strike encoded in the kata work in street combat _and how those techs should be *trained* for street combat_. Are you familiar with any of this work? If not, you ought to look at it before making statements like
> 
> _it sure is good for working your technique, but worthless if you wanna be ready to defend yourself fomr some punk who's gonna come swinging at you_,
> 
> since the work of that group makes it clear that kata-based SD techs are anything _but_ worthless. If you _have_ read it, and you want your comments to have any kind of weight, you're going to have to explain just how the specific technical CQ applications that Abernethy, Kane & Wilder, McCarthy, Martinez, Clark or a dozen others have provided, in as many books, for a number of the great classic kata, still fail as effective responses to the particular threats they were designed to counter. As it stands, I have the impression from your comments that you _aren't_ familiar with this work... in which case the problem isn't with _kata_, eh?
> 
> Geoff Thompson, the UK karateka who has come out on top in something like 200 documented streetfights during his career as a bouncer/club doorman, has gone out of his way to emphasize the combat effectiveness of kata-based CQ applications in what he calls `the pavement arena'. Not in some artificial sport context governed by one set of rules or another, but in streetfights where you'll get your eyes gouged out or your teeth kicked literally down your throat if you don't defend yourself effectively. He too is part of that group I mentioned above. If he thinks (as the various material on his website and the stuff he's authored for the British Combat Association makes clear he does, and _why_) that kata, correctly understood and trained, are complete self-defense systems on their own, then I think the odds are pretty good that there's something to kata that you need to take another look at before coming up with the kind of judgment you posted about `forms and stuff'.


i dunno if you see where ii was coming from...what i meant was punching air isn't gonna prepare to to hit back, cover up, or do whatever is needed in when doing kata....it's like if you took up boxing and did nothing but shadowbox all the time....doens't matte rhow much you shadow box, chances ar eif you ge titno a fight, you'll be swinging like a moron....obviously the techniques used in the kata will be useful...but i'm saying it should be less focused on just practicing it in the air and used on a partner and such, like i stated above, more pad/bagwork and sparring, less air attacks. My intention here is not to insult the style or anyone, just staing what i think...this is one of the reasons why i got so into MMA, muay thai, boxing, all these combat sports, because i saw the way they were used....I mean obviously we have all these full contact karateka(ashihara, kyokushin, seido kaiken, enshin, ect.) that do that too...but i'm just saying, kata will help you get your technique improved but how does it compare to get you ready for a fight liek sparring with someone or doing some bag/padwork will?? Get where i'm comin from?


----------



## MJS

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding of words.  IMHO, I agree with both Exile and MMAfighter.  Shadowboxing was mentioned.  Yes, if that is all thats done, no sparring, no bagwork, nothing, then yes, getting into the ring and trying to apply technique, may prove pointless.  Whats needed is a mixture of both.

Now we move onto kata.  I personally can't see how kata, in and of itself, will help someone fight.  However, if the kata is broken down, the moves are extracted, and worked live, on a partner, then that is a much different case and yes, then it would be more apt to work.

If we really look at kata, to me, it seems like a bunch of SD moves compiled together in one long series of movements.  As I said, its up to the student to extract the moves.  

I may be totally off base with my assumption of your posts.  My appologies if thats the case.  I'm just trying to put down what I think you're both trying to say. 

Mike


----------



## Xue Sheng

why do people hate kata?

Because they do not understand them and/or understand what they are for.


----------



## MMAfighter

MJS said:


> Perhaps there was a misunderstanding of words.  IMHO, I agree with both Exile and MMAfighter.  Shadowboxing was mentioned.  Yes, if that is all thats done, no sparring, no bagwork, nothing, then yes, getting into the ring and trying to apply technique, may prove pointless.  Whats needed is a mixture of both.
> 
> Now we move onto kata.  I personally can't see how kata, in and of itself, will help someone fight.  However, if the kata is broken down, the moves are extracted, and worked live, on a partner, then that is a much different case and yes, then it would be more apt to work.
> 
> If we really look at kata, to me, it seems like a bunch of SD moves compiled together in one long series of movements.  As I said, its up to the student to extract the moves.
> 
> I may be totally off base with my assumption of your posts.  My appologies if thats the case.  I'm just trying to put down what I think you're both trying to say.
> 
> Mike


in a nutshell hahaha....but i hope everyone understands that i don't hate kata....just don't find it too realistic if you're gonna train just that for a street defense situation....i mean puncing air all day ain't gonna help you too much...anyone who's gotten into a fight should know that


----------



## Flying Crane

MMAfighter said:


> in a nutshell hahaha....but i hope everyone understands that i don't hate kata....just don't find it too realistic if you're gonna train just that for a street defense situation....i mean puncing air all day ain't gonna help you too much...anyone who's gotten into a fight should know that


 

It sounds to me like you don't really understand how kata fits into the bigger picture of training.  

Kata is like a catalogue of the techniques contained within the system.  It is a way to transmit the knowledge to the student, a way to work on improving the techniques in the ideal and abstract level, and it is a way to practice WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A PARTNER TO PRACTICE WITH.  However, as Exile has pointed out, you need to have an understanding of what the kata contains in order for the information to be valuable to you.

But kata is only one part of the training regimine.  Application (bunkai) of the movements found within the kata MUST be practiced on a training partner, in a realistic simulation of combat.  Keep in mind, ALL training is nothing more than a simulation of combat.  If you had real combat in your training, then someone would go to the hospital or the morgue every training session.  So once you understand what the movement in the Kata are teaching you, you must train to apply that teaching on a resisting partner, so that you can actually use your knowledge.

In addition, you must spend some time conditioning your body and developing your power on things like heavybags, wooden dummys, sandbags, or whatever else your art uses.  And sparring, if done in a qualitative way, can also be a useful tool, but in my opinion is not the pinnacle of training that many people believe it is.

So if all you ever do is kata, never condition your body by striking something solid, and never train your application on a resisting training partner, then yes, your fighting skills will probably be lacking.  But when used as a part of a larger training regimine, kata is one of many extremely valuable tool in passing on and training the material contained in your system.


----------



## jks9199

MMAfighter said:


> in a nutshell hahaha....but i hope everyone understands that i don't hate kata....just don't find it too realistic if you're gonna train just that for a street defense situation....i mean puncing air all day ain't gonna help you too much...anyone who's gotten into a fight should know that


As you train, do you shadowbox?  Do you throw combinations in the air to develop fluidity and skill in throwing them and to examine your footwork?

That's "kata training", you just don't call it that.

Is practicing kata alone enough?  Not for a beginner.  Beginners need to condition their body and eyes in various ways, such as partner drills or bag work.  But, for more advanced practitioners?  Yes.  Kata becomes something of a "Cliff's Notes for fighting" because the kata contain the instructions and the methods of combining techniques or movements of the style.  Kata can also be good conditioning training; if you do some kata full power, you're pretty darn exhausted at the end.  Do 'em twice in a row... and you're beat.  Do 'em 6 to 10 times...  You scare me!


----------



## exile

MMAfighter said:


> but i'm just saying, kata will help you get your technique improved but how does it compare to get you ready for a fight liek sparring with someone or doing some bag/padwork will?? Get where i'm comin from?



I do see where you're coming from, but the problem is something like, you're equating the _score_ of a musical composition with the _performance_ of that composition. If all you do is study the score and try to visualize what the notes would sound like if someone played them, then sure, no music. But if you think of the kata as a series of instructions on how to respond to specific attacks, then it's up to you to actually `perfrm the score'&#8212;in other words, to carry out those instructions. That means: realistic training with noncompliant opponents who do their best to simulate a violent, dangerous attacker who doesn't have MA training but uses the standard streetfighter's bag of tricks to hurt you as badly as possible. The final chapter in Abernethy's masterpiece, _Bunkai-Jutsu: the Practical Application of Karate Kata_, gives a detailed plan for how to do this realistic simulated street combat&#8212;it's not conventional sparring, you can bank on that!&#8212;so that the moves extracted from careful study of the kata and experimentation with them can be field tested in a down and dirty way that no ring sport can match. Abernethy himself has had bones broken doing this, even though his group try to adhere to the training format he outlines&#8212;it's rough, and you can get hurt (but not nearly as badly hurt as if you get into a real streetfight with no preparation). 

That's I think the main point at issue here: whether kata _by themselves_ are sufficient to ensure that you'll walk away in one piece. Clearly, no&#8212;any more than the musical score for the concert, or the script for the play, are in themselves a night's entertainment. You need musicians and actors; but they themselves are useless without a score or a script that they can perform. That's what kata are: a score or script for response to a variety of nasty street attacking moves. It's up to you to train their performance. And no one is more insistent on that than the `realistic bunkai' crowd&#8212;people like Abernethy, Burgar, Anslow, O'Neil etc.&#8212;themselves.



MJS said:


> Perhaps there was a misunderstanding of words.  IMHO, I agree with both Exile and MMAfighter.  Shadowboxing was mentioned.  Yes, if that is all thats done, no sparring, no bagwork, nothing, then yes, getting into the ring and trying to apply technique, may prove pointless.  Whats needed is a mixture of both.
> 
> Now we move onto kata.  I personally can't see how kata, in and of itself, will help someone fight.  However, if the kata is broken down, the moves are extracted, and worked live, on a partner, then that is a much different case and yes, then it would be more apt to work.
> 
> *If we really look at kata, to me, it seems like a bunch of SD moves compiled together in one long series of movements.  As I said, its up to the student to extract the moves.  *
> I may be totally off base with my assumption of your posts.  My appologies if thats the case.  I'm just trying to p
> ut down what I think you're both trying to say.
> 
> Mike



You are not only not off base, you are in the dead center of the bullseye. Your observations&#8212;expecially the part I've bolded&#8212;are exactly right so far as what kata, hyungs and other TMA patterns are. That's what struck me about the Combat Hapkido stuff&#8212;each of the drills was like a single subsequence of some kata or hyung. The reasons for putting a bunch of them together in a single form was to have at least one technique for each of the small number of major attack moves you're likely to encounter. Two or three kata would cover just about anything you were going to encounter, which is why, back the day&#8212;_way_ back&#8212;the great Okinawan masters only focused on a few kata, and studied them with a doggedness and intensity almost unknown today. Those two or three kata constituted pretty a whole comprehensive martial art in themselves&#8212;something some of the earlier Okinawan masters were quite upfront about.



			
				jks said:
			
		

> As you train, do you shadowbox?  Do you throw combinations in the air to develop fluidity and skill in throwing them and to examine your footwork?
> 
> That's "kata training", you just don't call it that.
> 
> Is practicing kata alone enough?  Not for a beginner.  Beginners need to condition their body and eyes in various ways, such as partner drills or bag work.  But, for more advanced practitioners?  Yes.  Kata becomes something of a "Cliff's Notes for fighting" because the kata contain the instructions and the methods of combining techniques or movements of the style.



Another bullseye, jks. You and Mike have pretty much nailed the whole story. Unfortunately it's still an unfamiliar story to a lot of MAists...



Flying Crane said:


> It sounds to me like you don't really understand how kata fits into the bigger picture of training.
> 
> Kata is like a catalogue of the techniques contained within the system.  It is a way to transmit the knowledge to the student, a way to work on improving the techniques in the ideal and abstract level, and it is a way to practice WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A PARTNER TO PRACTICE WITH.  However, as Exile has pointed out, you need to have an understanding of what the kata contains in order for the information to be valuable to you.
> 
> But kata is only one part of the training regimine.  Application (bunkai) of the movements found within the kata MUST be practiced on a training partner, in a realistic simulation of combat.  Keep in mind, ALL training is nothing more than a simulation of combat.  If you had real combat in your training, then someone would go to the hospital or the morgue every training session.  So once you understand what the movement in the Kata are teaching you, you must train to apply that teaching on a resisting partner, so that you can actually use your knowledge.
> 
> In addition, you must spend some time conditioning your body and developing your power on things like heavybags, wooden dummys, sandbags, or whatever else your art uses.  And sparring, if done in a qualitative way, can also be a useful tool, but in my opinion is not the pinnacle of training that many people believe it is.
> 
> So if all you ever do is kata, never condition your body by striking something solid, and never train your application on a resisting training partner, then yes, your fighting skills will probably be lacking.  But when used as a part of a larger training regimine, kata is one of many extremely valuable tool in passing on and training the material contained in your system.



And a third bullseye for FC's post. The points raised here were well understood by the karateka of a century ago. The idea of a resisting opponent, and of hard conditioning, would have been taken for granted by them. That was something which was lost when the line-drill approach to training, the kihon method that Funakoshi pioneered in Japan, became the norm. But the kata weren't designed for that kind of approach, which turned a fighting art into a kind of martial calisthenics. If you want to know what kata are really good for, you have to go back to the source, which is what the modern realistic applications people have done...


----------



## cstanley

But, all the explanation and "apologetics" for kata will not convince those who do not understand or enjoy kata. I quit trying to proselytize that crowd long ago. If you don't like to march, don't join the Marines. If you don't like kata, don't do karate.


----------



## exile

cstanley said:


> But, all the explanation and "apologetics" for kata will not convince those who do not understand or enjoy kata. I quit trying to proselytize that crowd long ago. If you don't like to march, don't join the Marines. If you don't like kata, don't do karate.



It's true, you aren't going to convince people who have made up their mind that there's nothing useful or applicable in kata, regardless of what the evidence is. But there are still those who are undecided, who might or might not take the trouble to find out what careful practice and study of kata might give them. _That's_ really the audience that these kinds of discussions can benefit....


----------



## seasoned

What does kata teach us? Once we get past the solo aspect of kata , that is thinking past the solo moves and not thinking of the moves we are doing, but what we are accomplishing with the techniques, then we can begin to understand. Once we can see that imaginary opponent in front of us, then and only then does our kata come alive. My instructor always told me that when someone watches you doing a kata it is one thing to see you doing it, but as you bring life into the kata, they should be able to see through your eyes the opponent you are at war with. At this point your kata switches from a robotic bunch of moves to the moving meditation it has been described as by many old masters. Can we achieve a degree of timing in regards to technique in kata practice, but of course you can, after all we are not just striking air are we? With every punch hitting its mark, every block precisely meeting the incoming arm or leg, every one of our kicks making it past our opponents blocks, what a wonderful way to spend a few hours in the cellar with just you and them. The warrior can only come out when needed, if we have spent the time to cultivate that spirit within us. Kata is just one aspect of our training, like a puzzle piece it needs to be put together with other pieces to get the whole picture. A good dojo motto (gotta kata).


----------



## Callandor

I don't know why some people hate kata but I don't care. I keep on practicing my poomse every time I get the chance. I don't have the time and energy to convince them. I'd rather do my poomse.


----------



## MMAfighter

jks9199 said:


> As you train, do you shadowbox?  Do you throw combinations in the air to develop fluidity and skill in throwing them and to examine your footwork?
> 
> That's "kata training", you just don't call it that.
> 
> Is practicing kata alone enough?  Not for a beginner.  Beginners need to condition their body and eyes in various ways, such as partner drills or bag work.  But, for more advanced practitioners?  Yes.  Kata becomes something of a "Cliff's Notes for fighting" because the kata contain the instructions and the methods of combining techniques or movements of the style.  Kata can also be good conditioning training; if you do some kata full power, you're pretty darn exhausted at the end.  Do 'em twice in a row... and you're beat.  Do 'em 6 to 10 times...  You scare me!


Well the difference is that Kata is a pattern and shadowboxing is more improvised....and we don't do it as much as some karatekas might train kata. When you shadow boxig it might be 1-2 low kick then move around jab-jab-shot, then move around again throwing that jab then sprawl, get up knee-1-2....as in kata...you have a certain pattern to follow...down block, frint kick, punch, turn 180 degrees, downblock, frontkick, punch, turn 90 degrees, punch3 times, then another 90 degrees and repeat the process....get where i'm comin from? I mean i undertsand your point, shadowboxing and Kata are almsot identical...but i'm just saying that there's a difference...not saying that one is better than the other...


----------



## jks9199

MMAfighter said:


> Well the difference is that Kata is a pattern and shadowboxing is more improvised....and we don't do it as much as some karatekas might train kata. When you shadow boxig it might be 1-2 low kick then move around jab-jab-shot, then move around again throwing that jab then sprawl, get up knee-1-2....as in kata...you have a certain pattern to follow...down block, frint kick, punch, turn 180 degrees, downblock, frontkick, punch, turn 90 degrees, punch3 times, then another 90 degrees and repeat the process....get where i'm comin from? I mean i undertsand your point, shadowboxing and Kata are almsot identical...but i'm just saying that there's a difference...not saying that one is better than the other...


You're making a difference without a distinction.

You can shadowbox with more or less pattern or "scripting"; it all depends onw what you're working on, and how much skill you have.  You can do "kata" with more or less organization as well.  You can do very rigid, precise, and dead kata; your results will be very rigid, very precise, and dead.  Or -- you can take that kata, visualize an opponent, and FIGHT him.  _Quick, now... that guy's punching at me -- move, block, punch!  Oh, no, there's another one!..._

Let's be really honest.  Kata _in some form _or another have been found in almost every martial discipline around the world.  Some have been hidden in dance or ritual, others are practiced daily as exercise.  Either the masters of old were just loonies who are having a hell of laugh from the grave -- or there's something to kata training.  Personally -- I think there's a reason that kata were developed and maintained.  Personally, I practice and examine and train kata and drills and many other "outmoded" ways of practice.  It works for me -- and it's faced the test of reality for me.  Not competing in a ring -- but facing someone who truly means to hurt me, and overcoming them to achieve my goal.

I think that "what kata is" has been more than adequately covered at this point; people either get it already, or they simply aren't going to.

I wish you luck with your training.


----------



## Cirdan

I think people hate Kata because they do not understand the concept. Can`t really blame them, it took me about two years of banging my head against the wall to _get_ it even when repeatedly being told what to search for. It is not primarily about the techniques, it is the principles! Principles of movement, rooting, generating power, evasion, superior angles etc. These are what makes your skill flow from the Kata.

Those arguing that Kata alone will not prepare you for a real confrontation are probably right, but who the heck practice _only_ Kata? By using different tools in the training all of them multiply their worth. Used like this Kata is an EXTREMELY useful tool.


----------



## MJS

MMAfighter said:


> in a nutshell hahaha....but i hope everyone understands that i don't hate kata....just don't find it too realistic if you're gonna train just that for a street defense situation....i mean puncing air all day ain't gonna help you too much...anyone who's gotten into a fight should know that


 
Kata, just like a punch, kick, joint lock, submission, etc., are all pieces of the puzzle.  Kata can be found in many arts, even those such as BJJ.  Just because it doesn't look like a TKD or Kenpo kata, doesn't mean that its not a preset series of moves, because afterall, thats what a kata is.  One of my grappling instructors has me go thru a pin flow series.  Basically, I transition from one move to the next.  Its teaching me how to transition from one to the next smoothly, to make sure that the position is tight and to make sure I'm doing it properly.  Resistance is not given during the flow, but once each position is attained, my 'form' is checked, so at that time, resistance is given.  When we begin to roll, more resistance is offered and of course, it makes it more real.  

So, in a sense, its a kata.  Just because I'm not standing, I'm still going thru a set of moves.  During free rolling, its up to me to take things from that pin flow, and apply it. 

Mike


----------



## Em MacIntosh

What a great site this is.  

When I do kata, my state of mind is that my blocks must be fast, or I die.  Every strike must make it's mark and kill my opponent, or I die.  Every step must be crisp and quick, every movement as if I meant it for real.  Nobody who does kata would defend themselves with a kata, they would defend themselves with the attitude they are supposed to cultivate, the conditioning of their body and the techniques they practice religiously.
Kata is not essential.  I enjoy it.  I feel I understand it.  Something to do in the mountains after I grow a beard and become a hermit.  Try doing bunkai with bricks to break.  You get what you put in only if you understand why you do it.  If you don't get it, your time would be better spent working on just technique, conditioning and full-contact sparring.


----------



## chinto

Em MacIntosh said:


> What a great site this is.
> 
> When I do kata, my state of mind is that my blocks must be fast, or I die. Every strike must make it's mark and kill my opponent, or I die. Every step must be crisp and quick, every movement as if I meant it for real. Nobody who does kata would defend themselves with a kata, they would defend themselves with the attitude they are supposed to cultivate, the conditioning of their body and the techniques they practice religiously.
> Kata is not essential. I enjoy it. I feel I understand it. Something to do in the mountains after I grow a beard and become a hermit. Try doing bunkai with bricks to break. You get what you put in only if you understand why you do it. If you don't get it, your time would be better spent working on just technique, conditioning and full-contact sparring.


 

I think I would have to agree with you in most reaspects. the other thing that kata teaches is the mental mind set as you said, and it also teaches you to react with calm. If you practice the responces in kata with speed and power and good form, and then on top of that you practice the other aspects of kata such as combinations and "tiger eye" and other aspects that teach more then just basic movement and technique.

aspects of kata being :
pattern
form
combinations
breathing
tight- no tight
tiger eye
kiai


----------



## chinto

cstanley said:


> But, all the explanation and "apologetics" for kata will not convince those who do not understand or enjoy kata. I quit trying to proselytize that crowd long ago. If you don't like to march, don't join the Marines. If you don't like kata, don't do karate.


 

LOL yep that is provably a very good way to put it.


----------



## truth_seeker87

Because they are

1: Taught the form incorrectly so it makes no sense.

2: Taught in a manner that does not promote the right behavior and attitude in practising

3: Not taught that the Kata is meant to be broken down piece by piece to represent life protection techniques.


fairly simplistic but thats how I have seen it.


----------



## chinto

truth_seeker87 said:


> Because they are
> 
> 1: Taught the form incorrectly so it makes no sense.
> 
> 2: Taught in a manner that does not promote the right behavior and attitude in practising
> 
> 3: Not taught that the Kata is meant to be broken down piece by piece to represent life protection techniques.
> 
> 
> fairly simplistic but thats how I have seen it.


 

yep that is a true thing, and a mojor factor in the problem.


----------



## jtreid_1999

Patrick Skerry said:


> Hi BlackCatBonz,
> 
> 
> "And I have communicated with BJJ and MMA practitioners who have bragged that those styles take the shortest time to learn."
> 
> Ooh man, anyone who has trained BJJ under a good instructor for even a short period of time will tell you that the typical path to BJJ black belt is around ten years and you actually have to be able to *perform* at a very high level in order to progress in rank. And while I certainly understand that MMA is not the be-all-and-end-all of martial arts, it requires competence in, if not near mastery of, many types of martial arts: boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, grappling, etc. as well as the conditioning of a professional athlete. Anyone who claims that BJJ and MMA are easier to learn that traditional martial arts simply does not know what they're talking about.
> 
> I found this thread on katas because I'm considering starting a shotokan class because the martial arts in my area are "limited" to trad martial arts. I am not belittling trad martials arts by using the term "limited", merely pointing out that there are no non-traditional MA schools in my area. I have very limited experience with trad martial arts and katas and, yes, I am skeptical about training in a martial art that focuses on katas. But, what the heck--I'm not a highly accomplished martial artist (the highest rank I have is a green belt) and I don't plan on cage fighting since I'm 42 years old and have only been doing martial arts for about 5 years, but since the vast majority of my training has been in RBSD (krav maga and haganah) as well as in JKD, muay thai, BJJ, and boxing I'm not sure how I will respond to a traditional martial art. But, as long as the training is hard and I feel like I'm improving my self defense skills, sparring skills, conditioning, flexibility, and knowledge then I'm all for it.
> 
> I took about a month of kenpo and really liked the instructor--he's a very high black belt in Ed Parker's American Kenpo Karate and an extremely nice guy--but I was just used to a different type of training that focused more on bag work, RBSD, sparring, and conditioning. Nothing against that school or style--just a question of what I am interested in training. Plus, I really want to train in an art/system/whatever that incorporates a lot of ground fighting/grappling because I think it's important to have those skills and because I enjoy training it. I've ruled out judo and Japanese JJ, however, because I really don't want to spend the next several years getting thrown on my back (or head!)
> 
> Anyway, I'll stop rambling now and, if anyone's interested in my unsolicited opinion, I will post again once I've taken some shotokan classes just to share my experience with the forum.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> TR


----------



## Omar B

I've got a unique take on Kata because I've been a guitar player since I was a child.  You practise your instrument for hours every day to build muscle memory in your fingers, to make your playing natural, effortless, thoughtless.  Now I just thing "ok, I gotta play now" and it happens.

I see Kata the same, you do it over and over, just like in music you do everything perfect every time and eventually it's engrained in you just like playing an instrument.  It's about muscle memory and having something happen naturally without thought.

After all, we had to learn then practise how to talk, walk, run, jump ... why do peopel think that karate is any different?


----------



## setboy

Omar B said:


> I've got a unique take on Kata because I've been a guitar player since I was a child.  You practise your instrument for hours every day to build muscle memory in your fingers, to make your playing natural, effortless, thoughtless.  Now I just thing "ok, I gotta play now" and it happens.
> 
> I see Kata the same, you do it over and over, just like in music you do everything perfect every time and eventually it's engrained in you just like playing an instrument.  It's about muscle memory and having something happen naturally without thought.
> 
> After all, we had to learn then practise how to talk, walk, run, jump ... why do peopel think that karate is any different?




this is how i see it too. must have something to do with playing the guitar as well


----------



## Omar B

I hear ya man.  It's not just the repetition that works but how you practice.  You've gotta do it perfect, with perfect form every time or it does not get written in your muscle memory.


----------



## dancingalone

> And I have communicated with BJJ and MMA practitioners who have bragged that those styles take the shortest time to learn.



BJJ/MMA takes a long time to master, but you can become a competent fighter quickly if you are reasonably athletic.  That's because all the conditioning and drills focus directly to success in the ring.  You can definitely learn to fight with the traditional martial arts as well, but I just don't think it is as fast.


----------



## chinto

dancingalone said:


> BJJ/MMA takes a long time to master, but you can become a competent fighter quickly if you are reasonably athletic.  That's because all the conditioning and drills focus directly to success in the ring.  You can definitely learn to fight with the traditional martial arts as well, but I just don't think it is as fast.



hmm in the ring.. yep that is what MMA and BJJ is about. the traditional martial arts are when properly done and trained in not for the ring, but for self defense.


----------



## IWishToLearn

brandon said:


> i am a blue belt in go-ju ryu and i always read articles that are so anti-kata.What is with you people kata have been preformed since the begining and they trained for real combat not like us who mostly do it for sport .What makes these  so called reality based martial arts think they have it figured out .Kata are not preformed to teach self defense,but are used as a conditioning tool.Also to fine tune technique,teach accuracy and control.After all these methods have been used for hunderds of years and we dismiss them because we think we know it all.I think its a shame to see a black  who does not teach kata ,but a guess i am a traditionalist . please fell free to give tour thoughts



I no longer practice traditional kata, but in my experience most people hate kata because they either do not understand what they're doing...period.


----------



## IWishToLearn

dancingalone said:


> BJJ/MMA takes a long time to master, but you can become a competent fighter quickly if you are reasonably athletic.  That's because all the conditioning and drills focus directly to success in the ring.  You can definitely learn to fight with the traditional martial arts as well, but I just don't think it is as fast.


*Stricken from the record cause I felt it was a knee jerk response when I thought about it.*


----------



## jim777

I love kata


----------



## twendkata71

I have found that he more you study and practice your kata the more you learn about your art. And your movements become more fluid in their execution. You no longer have to think about your counters to attacks. Which is the way it should be.  It works for me.


----------



## Grenadier

To me, the three "K's" of Kata, Kumite, and Kihon, all serve to help each other.  By improving on one particular aspect, you can improve on the other two.  

Thus, someone who works hard on his kata, is going to have a better understanding of the application of the technique in kumite.  Someone who strengthens his kihon (basic techniques) will end up strengthening his kata performance as well as his kumite performance.  Someone who improves his kumite will have a better understanding of the kata, if he chooses to look at it with an open mind.  

These are all pieces of the puzzle, and each piece put in its place, makes it easier to put the other pieces in place, with the ultimate goal being the completion of the puzzle.  

It's no surprise to me, that those who place highly in kata competition tend to place highly in kumite as well, and vice versa.


----------



## chinto

twendkata71 said:


> I have found that he more you study and practice your kata the more you learn about your art. And your movements become more fluid in their execution. You no longer have to think about your counters to attacks. Which is the way it should be.  It works for me.




I agree, that has been my experience as well. you improve on your basics and your technique and footwork and movement and also begin to understand more of what that kata istrying to teach you... and then if you need the technique it seems to just happen when you need it.


----------



## kroh

Many arts have kata (by the same or another name) and kata should be used as a step to better performance.  Those who do Kata for kata's sake are sadly missing the point.  It is a lesson plan for developing the building blocks of an art.  Whether it is combinations from the basics of boxing, to the self defense techniches of kempo, or the flow drills of the arts of the Philipine Islands, a patterned lesson plan designed to teach, ingraine, and pass on combative discipline should be used for those reasons.  

There are jewls in those lesson plans, things one can take away and use to great effect once practiced.  The lesson plan allows you to remember the lessons for the future.  But like any good lesson plan, once you understand what to do... the lesson isn't necessary to the person who has figured out what is trying to be taught.  They just need to remember how to pass it on should that become necessary.  

A good teacher will remember and practice how to convey the "lesson plan" when necessary.  If you are just in the arts because your life depends on it... then like the song that teaches the English alphabet, once it is learned and understood, you no longer need it (although it is very hard to forget).

Best regards, 
Walt


----------



## chinto

kroh said:


> Many arts have kata (by the same or another name) and kata should be used as a step to better performance.  Those who do Kata for kata's sake are sadly missing the point.  It is a lesson plan for developing the building blocks of an art.  Whether it is combinations from the basics of boxing, to the self defense techniches of kempo, or the flow drills of the arts of the Philipine Islands, a patterned lesson plan designed to teach, ingraine, and pass on combative discipline should be used for those reasons.
> 
> There are jewls in those lesson plans, things one can take away and use to great effect once practiced.  The lesson plan allows you to remember the lessons for the future.  But like any good lesson plan, once you understand what to do... the lesson isn't necessary to the person who has figured out what is trying to be taught.  They just need to remember how to pass it on should that become necessary.
> 
> A good teacher will remember and practice how to convey the "lesson plan" when necessary.  If you are just in the arts because your life depends on it... then like the song that teaches the English alphabet, once it is learned and understood, you no longer need it (although it is very hard to forget).
> 
> Best regards,
> Walt




yes, in that Kata is there to teach you the system, but even after you have learned the Kata and practiced it for years there is still more hidden there then you have found so far...  there are a minumum of 5 techniques 'hidden'  in each and every movement of the Kata in the system I study..  My Sensei has studied the kata of the system for more then 30 years and is still seeing things he did not before here and there.  there are the combined learning and combat experience of some incredibly skilled and talented  fighters  that have been distilled over time into the Kata. Do not under estimate what is there if you look hard enough.


----------



## twendkata71

I believe that kata were meant to be the text books of karate that the masters handed down for the students. They are also a puzzle for the student to unlock through constant practice and dedication. And kata incourages self discovery and deep thought.


----------



## chinto

twendkata71 said:


> I believe that kata were meant to be the text books of karate that the masters handed down for the students. They are also a puzzle for the student to unlock through constant practice and dedication. And kata incourages self discovery and deep thought.




ABSOLUTELY!!!  I totally agree!!


----------



## onibaku

I dont really hate kata its just that I dont enjoy doing it. I practice it just because my art includes it. I like sparring better


----------



## arnisador

I always enjoyed it...but then, part of why I always liked the martial arts is that I'm not a team sports person, and this was the ultimate for me--a one-person activity!


----------



## sensei lengyel 4th don

people hate kata because they dont understand what they are doing. they are not getting tough the bunkai. kata has self defence. they are called wazas. its were you break down the kata... I have been doing shuri-te karate for about 16 yrs now. All of my students love kata because i teach them the bunkai.. this is what i think.


----------



## exile

sensei lengyel 4th don said:


> people hate kata because they dont understand what they are doing. they are not getting tough the bunkai. kata has self defence. they are called wazas. its were you break down the kata... I have been doing shuri-te karate for about 16 yrs now. All of my students love kata because i teach them the bunkai.. this is what i think.



And I think you're dead right: if you took a group of 100 people who say that they hate kata, I'd be willing to bet that not more than one or two of them would turn out to have been shown what the oyo associated with the various subcomponents of the kata they had learned were. 

People need to first learn that there's such a thing as bunkai, yielding effective applications that they can then train with partners, and they need to be shown what some of the bunkai are for the kata they learn. But the best thing at all to change their attitude would be to show them how to _decode_ those applications, based on general rules of kata decipherment. That way, they can test their own ingenuity and imagination on new forms, and get that same kind of satisfaction that people always get when confronted with a puzzle that they're able to crack open, finally.

The problem is getting instructors to make this aspect of the karate-based arts more central to the curriculum. I've actually had arguments with people who told me, with a good deal of impatience, that bunkai is 'too cerebral', that people want to block, punch and kick and don't want to solve problems, that you'll lose students if you try to teach them that there's a world of combat-ready applications in kata that have to be discovered by shrewd analysis. I think they're wrong about that... but that might be my own preferences speaking. I don't think so, thoughI've seen student's eyes light up when you show them what a hikite chambering is really all about, or what that 'down block' is actually doing to an assailant's throat or temple. So I think it makes sense, even in terms of the business realities of MA instruction, to provide students with this kind of analytic skill.


----------



## green meanie

sensei lengyel 4th don said:


> people hate kata because they dont understand what they are doing. they are not getting tough the bunkai. kata has self defence. they are called wazas. its were you break down the kata... I have been doing shuri-te karate for about 16 yrs now. All of my students love kata because i teach them the bunkai.. this is what i think.


 
One the other hand some students would simply prefer to spend their time working on the bunkai and don't want to spend time learning kata just to get to it. I could fully understand and appreciate the purpose of kata and the bunkai contained within it and still not enjoy doing it. If I had my choice between learning a kata and then breaking it down to find the bunkai within or just learning the bunkai, I would prefer the later. No kata may = no karate but it's still the kind of class I'd prefer to be in.


----------



## exile

green meanie said:


> One the other hand some students would simply prefer to spend their time working on the bunkai and don't want to spend time learning kata just to get to it. I could fully understand and appreciate the purpose of kata and the bunkai contained within it and still not enjoy doing it. If I had my choice between learning a kata and then breaking it down to find the bunkai within or just learning the bunkai, I would prefer the later. No kata may = no karate but it's still the kind of class I'd prefer to be in.



And that's exactly how it works in Combat Hapkido, a lean-mean art aimed specifically at street use which has no forms. What it does have are dozens of separate drills, which give you multiple techs to handle virtually any CQ attack. The thing is, an awful lot of those drills look like subparts of familiar TKD hyungs. Take any five CHKD drills, put them together according to the 'composition rules' of karate-style patterns (embusen symmetry, etc) and you're likely to wind up with something that looks very much like a TKD form. So you could say it's a matter of preference with respect to three separate questions:


(1) Do you like (a) learning combat-effective techniques individually, or (b) learning a single set of _movements_ which can be 'compiled out' into a (large) number of separate _moves_, each of which represents a somewhat different application of the same movements?

(2) Do you like (a) learning combat-effective techniques individually, or (b) learning a set of them at once as subparts of single 20&#8211;40 move sequence (on average) which you then parse into separate subsequences?

(3) Do you prefer (a) learning and training applications based on exactly what your instructor teaches you, or (b) taking your teacher's instructions about what a given kata subsequence is telling you to do in a certain situation, and using it as a model for discovering, on your own, other applications of the same subsequence which you can then test out for effectiveness?​
If someone answers (a) in all of (1)&#8211;(3) above, then the kind of thing you say you like better, GM, is probably going to suit that person fine. And if someone else answers (b) for these three questions, then they're probably going to enjoy the kata/hyung/hsing-based curriculum more than the CHKD style of curriculum. I myself go with (b) in all three&#8212;I like the mnemonic convenience and problem-solving/code-deciperhing challenge of forms&#8212;but I can easily imagine someone preferring the (a) choices. However, I think there's another dimension to the issue that arises from what is arguably a misuse of kata as a belt-promotion criterion, greatly interfering with its original and far deeper role as a source of effective combat methods.

The problem is that, as Bill Burgar and others familiar with the Okinawan/Japanese transition in the dissemination of karate have emphasized, when Funakoshi took Okinawin karate to Japan and changed the curriculum from detailed study and training of applications of a very small number of kata per instructor to mass-class kihon line drills with minimum exposition of bunkai, the role of kata changed almost totally. Funakoshi's introduction of the Kano-style judoka multiple belt/rank system meant that there had to be specific milestones for what was now a relatively large number of promotions. His solution was to substitute kata performance skill for kata bunkai understanding, so that at every rank level there was a specific kata you needed to master to advance to that level, a practice carried over with a vengeance into the Korean striking arts. 

The upshot is that while in the early days of karate a kata was regarded as a complete martial art on its own, and the original masters only learned, and taught, a small number of them (Funakoshi is famous for having studied essentially nothing but Naihanchi for the major part of his formal training), we now have people drowning in excess kata exposure who don't really know how to do anything with them except _perform_ them, with no idea of how to extract their combat information. (Burgar's and Abernethy's books provide documentation for both these points). Too many kata, too little understanding of how they're to be used; and, used correctly, you don't _need_ a huge number of kata&#8212;Choki Motobu, one of the most respected   of the Okinawan expat instructors, with a reputation as a formidable fighter (he was bounced out of Itosu's classes because he would deliberately seek out aggressive street types and provoke them into attacking him so that he could try out his latest ideas on combat applications on them) was a Naihanchi freak, and believed that essentially anything you could ever need in the way of self-defense information was to be found in it. Naihanchi seems to have been his core, home-base kata his whole MA life. And he was probably much more typical in that respect than otherwise of the early pioneer masters. Less was more, back then.

So one thing that would help is for people who are kata/bunkai advocates to rethink the karate curriculum in a way that doesn't introduce superfluous material, requiring students to be able to flawlessly perform twelve to fifteen kata by the time they're ready to test for shodan. If you're getting real depth-applications from your kata, then three of the classic biggies, along maybe with a couple of the Taikyoku set to get you started, is probably more than enough. People's appreciation for kata would probably increase dramatically  if their instructors showed them how to get a lot _more_ combat guidance out of a lot _fewer_ of them...


----------



## dancingalone

> People's appreciation for kata would probably increase dramatically  if their instructors showed them how to get a lot _more_ combat guidance out of a lot _fewer_ of them...



This thread is so long, I'm sure someone has observed before that the old practice among Okinawans was to only learn a handful of kata and learn them well.  Patience and endurance form their own rewards eventually.  I believe Choki Motobu practiced primarily Naihanchi, and he's had a fearsome reputation indeed.

Karate curricula are pretty crazy these days.  Way too many forms across the board and that's true for TKD, Shotokan, shito-ryu, and even the shorin-ryu guys.  Check out the many branches of choy lay fut people for the CMA equivalents of kata collectors.


----------



## exile

dancingalone said:


> This thread is so long, *I'm sure someone has observed before that the old practice among Okinawans was to only learn a handful of kata and learn them well.*  Patience and endurance form their own rewards eventually.  I believe *Choki Motobu practiced primarily Naihanchi, and he's had a fearsome reputation indeed.*



Actually, both those points are in the post you're quoting from! 



dancingalone said:


> Karate curricula are pretty crazy these days.  Way too many forms across the board and that's true for TKD, Shotokan, shito-ryu, and even the shorin-ryu guys.  Check out the many branches of choy lay fut people for the CMA equivalents of kata collectors.



This is something the kata-centered movement is going to have to come to grips with.

Bill Burgar spent _five years_ studying Gojushiho exclusively, and published his findings in his book. So far, though, most of the bunkai-jutsu people have focused largely on advocating the reexamination of kata from the point of view of realistic combat. Eventually, we're going to arrive at the point where enough people are convinced that that's really the point of kata that we then have to face the next phase: how do you reformulate the karate/TKD/curriculum to reflect that new approach? 

There actually has been some discussion of this before on MT, but the conversation never achieved much detail.... I think it's a difficult thing to visualize seriously, at this point, because the revised curriculum would look so radically different from what we have now...


----------



## dancingalone

> Actually, both those points are in the post you're quoting from!



LOL!  That's what I get for skimming through your post.  Your posts are uniformly excellent, but they do take some time to digest.  I should have at least read the last three posts before replying, eh?  Sounds like we're on the same page on many things though, Exile.  We probably have the same reading material at home.  




> There actually has been some discussion of this before on MT, but the conversation never achieved much detail



Well, the American kenpo people do it correctly in my opinion, but they too suffer from too much material.  For those who don't know, many of the kenpo forms are actually their self-defense techs strung together to create a kata.  The applications are obvious since the form and the technique is taught together hand in hand.  It's well thought out since the self-defense techs teach various martial concepts as you advance through the kenpo material.  

At the risk of offending any Ed Parker system people out there, however, there really seems to be a lot of material to wade through.  Too much IMO.  I've read some of their manuals and I thought if you could master even their yellow through purple belt material backwards and forwards, you'd be an excellent martial artist.  It's really a rich system, but like many other striking arts, I don't think there's much exposure to takedowns and grappling early on (if ever?).


----------



## exile

dancingalone said:


> Sounds like we're on the same page on many things though, Exile.  We probably have the same reading material at home.



I wouldn't be surprised at all, DA. Thanks for the kind words :asian: There's some terrific work out there, if people would take the time to read it and think it through... but then they'd have to do some major revision of their standard practice, and that's an unwelcome prospect for a lot of people.

It's the same old story, in a way&#8212;we all want change for the better, but no one really wants to actually _change_ the way they do things...



dancingalone said:


> Well, the American kenpo people do it correctly in my opinion, but they too suffer from too much material.  For those who don't know, many of the kenpo forms are actually their self-defense techs strung together to create a kata. * The applications are obvious since the form and the technique is taught together hand in hand.*  It's well thought out since the self-defense techs teach various martial concepts as you advance through the kenpo material.



This is one of the things I've always found interesting about Kenpo, and in a way marks it out as the product of contemporary Western culture in spite of its deep technical roots in the Asian TMAs: _the element of concealment is gone_. The techs are right there in front of you. Combat Hapkido has the same quality: nothing is encoded (obviously, since there are no kata per se), and you drill the applications, along the lines that Green Meanie said he prefers. In a really good kata-based art  you learn to 'read' the kata and then drill the apps also, but it's dicey, in most TMA schools, whether things get to that point. 



dancingalone said:


> At the risk of offending any Ed Parker system people out there, however, there really seems to be a lot of material to wade through.  Too much IMO.  I've read some of their manuals and I thought if you could master even their yellow through purple belt material backwards and forwards, you'd be an excellent martial artist.  It's really a rich system, but like many other striking arts, I don't think there's much exposure to takedowns and grappling early on (if ever?).



There are a lot of systems in which there's almost _too_ much good stuff out there. Probably one of the things you have to learn to do is to work through the techs, find what works for you, and then focus on perfecting those. I always think of Aesop's fable about the hedgehog and the fox: the fox knows many tricks, the hedgehog only one, but when a pack of dogs attacks, the hedgehog finds a hollow niche in a wall, curls up into a ball and can't be dislodged, while the fox, trying to decide what would be best to do, takes too long and gets caught and killed by the pack. An early version of Hick's Law. Ideally, you devote a certain amount of time winnowing and refining... but the temptation to accumulate techs at the expense of practicality and depth of understanding how to use what you know is a trap that probably faces a _lot_ of practitioners across the MA spectrum...


----------



## dancingalone

> There are a lot of systems in which there's almost _too_ much good stuff out there. Probably one of the things you have to learn to do is to work through the techs, find what works for you, and then focus on perfecting those. I always think of Aesop's fable about the hedgehog and the fox: the fox knows many tricks, the hedgehog only one, but when a pack of dogs attacks, the hedgehog finds a hollow niche in a wall, curls up into a ball and can't be dislodged, while the fox, trying to decide what would be best to do, takes too long and gets caught and killed by the pack. An early version of Hick's Law. Ideally, you devote a certain amount of time winnowing and refining... but the temptation to accumulate techs at the expense of practicality and depth of understanding how to use what you know is a trap that probably faces a _lot_ of practitioners across the MA spectrum...




I've read a story about a young Joe Lewis who earned his black belt in something like 18 months.  He didn't know much about philosophy or form bunkai or anything eosterical at the time.  But his sidekick was deadly and he could and did trample over all his opponents with just the sidekick and reverse punch.

If I were to start my own system (never happen, this is just a what if), I'd be sorely tempted to teach exclusively basics for the first six months.  No forms, no bunkai, no controls or locks or pins.  Just how to strike correctly.  In the air, against a heavy bag, with a partner using focus mitts, against a padded up moving partner.  Lots of combinations with an emphasis on _efficient motion_ to teach the student what will allow him best to land a *SERIES* of *heavy*, damaging blows against targets like the groin, knees, jaw, nose, throat, neck, and temples.


----------



## exile

dancingalone said:


> I've read a story about a young Joe Lewis who earned his black belt in something like 18 months.  He didn't know much about philosophy or form bunkai or anything eosterical at the time.  But his sidekick was deadly and he could and did trample over all his opponents with just the sidekick and reverse punch.



Yes, he was stationed with the military over there, was a very quick study, and got his BB in a ridiculously short timeprobably was at it seven days a week, eight hours a day in between his duties. That whole crowd was _dedicated!_



dancingalone said:


> If I were to start my own system (never happen, this is just a what if), I'd be sorely tempted to teach exclusively basics for the first six months.  No forms, no bunkai, no controls or locks or pins.  Just how to strike correctly.  In the air, against a heavy bag, with a partner using focus mitts, against a padded up moving partner.  Lots of combinations with an emphasis on _efficient motion_ to teach the student what will allow him best to land a *SERIES* of *heavy*, damaging blows against targets like the groin, knees, jaw, nose, throat, neck, and temples.



That seems to be what a lot of the old, much respected-and-feared karateka legends were particularly good at, and it's something that I think Kenpo (from what I've seen of it) seems to be especially strong in so far as training emphsis goes. The other stuff, the controlling moves and locks and pins and so on, can indeed come later (though I wouldn't put it off for years), once they learn how to deliver force effectively. It's like what they say about scouting talent in baseball: you look for the kid with the blazing fastball. The more complex stuff can come later, but the fastball has got to be there.


----------



## IWishToLearn

exile said:


> Yes, he was stationed with the military over there, was a very quick study, and got his BB in a ridiculously short timeprobably was at it seven days a week, eight hours a day in between his duties. That whole crowd was _dedicated!_
> 
> 
> 
> That seems to be what a lot of the old, much respected-and-feared karateka legends were particularly good at, and it's something that I think Kenpo (from what I've seen of it) seems to be especially strong in so far as training emphsis goes. The other stuff, the controlling moves and locks and pins and so on, can indeed come later (though I wouldn't put it off for years), once they learn how to deliver force effectively. It's like what they say about scouting talent in baseball: you look for the kid with the blazing fastball. The more complex stuff can come later, but the fastball has got to be there.


I had a long post written then I realized Ex already said it for me.


----------



## rock_chick1991

I personally like kata i find it interesting how all the applications can be used and how complex they can become. Leanring a new kata to me is like opneing up a new world, i know a lot of different kata and i find them even more intriguing than the last. Tha applications are just immense to me i love performing the kata as well and perfecting kata.


----------



## HankinSalem

The thing about kata is that many Japanese and Korean styles have forgotten what kata are supposed to be for:

They are a hologramatic visual database of techniques.

Many, if not most of the martial arts masters were illiterate. Kata were a way of catalogueing and remembering techinques, principles, power development methods and other stuff.

One of my best memories was an afternoon I spent with three senior students: black and brown belts, all engineers doing a two hour analysis of the first three moves of Pinan Shodan/Heian Nidan, the one that goes:

1. Simultaneous Outside block Up block (soto uke, age uke) 

2. Inside block, low punch, thumb up

3.Shuffle in, Side Hammer and pull (hikite)

In two hours of talk about engineering terms as applied to human body movements, we hadn't run out of ways of applying those three moves.

That is what kata is SUPPOSED to be all about.


----------



## Andrew Green

HankinSalem said:


> That is what kata is SUPPOSED to be all about.



Is it?  Can you cite multiple primary sources on this from pre-meiji restoration days of karate?

It might be, but then again it might not.  We really have no way of knowing, history tells us very little, oral history conflicts and is unreliable, the "true intent" is really lost.  

That is if there was one, maybe everyone was supposed to find meaning that suited themselves.  Maybe it was just a fitness routine, let's be honest, much of the posturing used is very poor for a fight (hands down, feet planted, etc.)

Maybe it was about learning precision in movement, with a focus on movements that while combat related, where more based on proper posture for circulatory and meridian reasons?

Maybe it was just a fitness variation people practiced to stay in shape, a feudal version of Tae Bo?

Maybe the reason was purely cultural, and was recognized as such.  Sort of like Civil War reenactors, to tell a story of history, rather then to really fight.

Truth is we got very little to go one when it comes to the original goal behind Kata, there are too many stories, and thats all that they are, stories.


----------



## chinto01

HankinSalem said:


> Many, if not most of the martial arts masters were illiterate.



I find this comment interesting as it is my understanding that karate on Okinawa was learned and taught mainly to the "upper class" who would have had access to some sort of education. I have read that Matsumura Sensei, as well as Kyan Sensei were both well schooled in some Chinese literature of sorts. Please elaborate if you can on this. 

In the spirit of bushido!

Rob


----------



## cstanley

chinto01 said:


> I find this comment interesting as it is my understanding that karate on Okinawa was learned and taught mainly to the "upper class" who would have had access to some sort of education. I have read that Matsumura Sensei, as well as Kyan Sensei were both well schooled in some Chinese literature of sorts. Please elaborate if you can on this.
> 
> In the spirit of bushido!
> 
> Rob


 
I agree. That statement is without historical basis.


----------



## exile

Andrew Green said:


> Is it?  Can you cite multiple primary sources on this from pre-meiji restoration days of karate?
> 
> It might be, but then again it might not.  We really have no way of knowing, history tells us very little, oral history conflicts and is unreliable, the "true intent" is really lost.
> 
> That is if there was one, maybe everyone was supposed to find meaning that suited themselves.  Maybe it was just a fitness routine, let's be honest, much of the posturing used is very poor for a fight (hands down, feet planted, etc.)
> 
> Maybe it was about learning precision in movement, with a focus on movements that while combat related, where more based on proper posture for circulatory and meridian reasons?
> 
> Maybe it was just a fitness variation people practiced to stay in shape, a feudal version of Tae Bo?
> 
> Maybe the reason was purely cultural, and was recognized as such.  Sort of like Civil War reenactors, to tell a story of history, rather then to really fight.
> 
> Truth is we got very little to go one when it comes to the original goal behind Kata, there are too many stories, and thats all that they are, stories.



Andrew, I think you're mistaken here. There is evidence, cited by both Iain Abernethy (in _Bunkai-Jutsu: the Practical Application of Karate Kata_) and Bill Burgar (_Five Years, One Kata_) that kata were not originally regarded as _parts_ of martial arts, but rather as martial arts _themselves_. Choki Motobu, maybe the most technically gifted (and almost certainly physically toughest) of the Okinawan expats to teach karate in Japan, made it clear in his writing that different kata were regarded as different styles of karate, sub-arts in their own right; it's also clear that the training of the early MAs masters consisted in persistent study of a single kata, or at most a few, over many years. Funakoshi's training consisted, pretty much entirely, of Naihanchi, as did Motobu's. The kata were the _source_ of the techs they practiced, and guys like Itosu and Motobu were fighters, first and foremost. Literate, yes; upper crust, yes&#8212;but they were scrappers. And the weapons they brought to their many, many brawling fights were what they got out of their kata training. It's a serious mistake to think that these guys received a separate technical training in elementary techniques and then practiced kata on top of that. We know that that came later, and was a teaching method introduced by Funakoshi in Japan in the 1920s. Prior to that, however, kata _were_ the textbook on which the combat training of these guys&#8212;many of them very formidable fighters, make no mistake!&#8212;was based. Kihon line-drills were introduced in Tokyo in the 20s and 30s; the earlier Okinawan training method was centered entirely around kata, and how kata techs could be recruited for hard combat use.


----------



## cstanley

"Karate is kata; kata is karate."  Kuniba


----------



## chinto

most people who "hate kata"  have not been properly trained in kata and do not understand kata. that is the whole thing in a nutshell.  if you have been properly trained in kata and bunkai and understand what kata is and is there for you will like kata.


----------



## chinto01

chinto said:


> most people who "hate kata"  have not been properly trained in kata and do not understand kata. that is the whole thing in a nutshell.  if you have been properly trained in kata and bunkai and understand what kata is and is there for you will like kata.



Not sure if I totally agree with you on this. Just because someone is shown the kata and bunkai does not mean they will automatically like kata. What about the people who have been guided down this path and still prefer kumite or self defense over kata?

In the spirit of bushido!

Rob


----------



## jim777

I was honestly surprised when this thread started that anyone hated kata. It hadn't actually occured to me that there were folks out there that hated it.


----------



## chinto

chinto01 said:


> Not sure if I totally agree with you on this. Just because someone is shown the kata and bunkai does not mean they will automatically like kata. What about the people who have been guided down this path and still prefer kumite or self defense over kata?
> 
> In the spirit of bushido!
> 
> Rob



all the self defense and other techniques are in the kata... so why would one be preferred over the other.  your  kumite will improve more from a month of hard work on your kata then a month of sparring.
once you see this you will find it hard to dislike kata. some things at times are nice as a change .. to vary the training time. but Kata is where its at!!


----------



## chinto01

chinto said:


> all the self defense and other techniques are in the kata... so why would one be preferred over the other.  your  kumite will improve more from a month of hard work on your kata then a month of sparring.
> once you see this you will find it hard to dislike kata. some things at times are nice as a change .. to vary the training time. but Kata is where its at!!



I will once again disagree with you. You can explain to people over and over again the things you mentioned above but they just may not like the repetition  of kata, they may find it actually boring. The old saying goes "you can bring a horse to water, but you cannot force him to drink." To think that just because you take the time to show people what the bunkai to the form is, and then how they can be applied in different situations is going to make them automatically love kata you may be in for a little disappointment. You may open the door to kata for them but they need to step inside the room for themselves to find out what it is truly about. 

In the spirit of bushido!

Rob


----------



## kailat

OH HOLY WOW!  Where to even begin!  I've spent the later part of an hour sifting through and reading the past 14pages of this topic.  MAN MY HEAD HURTS!!  I've read some very fine points and some great post on this subject.  However overall unless I just missed it in the middle of skimming through I didn't see this one valid point discussed.  So with that being said Im going to add my OWN 2cents worth here.  

 Okay I started training Karate way back when around 85' and we studied the forms: Basic 1, 2, 3 I've heard many more traditional names for them but for lack of time I am not going to dig them up.  And then we moved into the Chongi / Dosan forms and then the Pinan 1-5 and our advanced forms were Naihanchisho and Bassai-sho and Bassai-dai forms.  OKAY now we were a typical modern midwestern karate school mostly into it for the flash and tournament reasons.  We had a great base. But that was it.  We never were taught the BUNKAI purposes behind the kata. We were taught them for rank requirements and for purpose of competition *point blank*

 It wasn't until many years later I joined a TKD club and we studied the Palgwe Forms and I was introduced to DILLMAN (i know hold the remarks) but nonetheless he was the one who opened my eyes on KATA.  Up that point I absolutly despised KATA.  TO ME "what was the purpose?"  Learn em for a promotion, as a structure and then to compete!  I had no idea the understanding and principle that went behind them.  WOW!  So since that day I've had a whole new found respect for traditional KATA. 

Nowadays my focus has been on FMA so we dont have perse' KATA but like ANYOS' / Djuru's or Some drilling methods they serve the same purpose as KATA.  So on to what i was initially going to write about.. I think for the most part many people get overwhelemed w/ KATA. in some systems i've seen as many as 40 and MORE kata one needs to learn!  

 I know some masters who know and can perform "every single kata known to man"  LOL Im like WHY?   isn't it just as well to stick w/ a few kata the basic ones etc.. maybe a handfull meaning 10 or less kata to study a lifetime?  WHO NEEDS 100's and 100's of kata in thier aresenal?  

 This could be partial claim to the "burnout" or STRESS of joining a new style to learn and relearn and master and remaster new forms?  I know today if i were to start Karate again i'd probably be honored my rank as where I left off but I'd have to learn new kata all over again.. The ones I once was taught are no longer even taught anymore... What was wrong w/t them?   Why discard them for something new?  MORE FLASHY?  So for my own personal opinion many change the forms for competiton purposes because the older forms no longer has that edge or cannot be reformed to catch the judges eyes anymore so they come up w/ new and improved kata always trying to get one that outdoes the next opponent.  

U have Student X who enters every single tournament within a 300mile radius and does the same forms for the past 20+yrs  and the judges knows him and he's a common sight.  U get a new STUDENT Y who comes in w/ a flashy uniform and a new kata that has all kinds of pretty movements and just wipes your old kata clean..  THEN WHAT?  does Student X say its time to give up those kata and just learn new ones for competion to stay w/ the joneses?  Or does he just continue to throw away his money for competion performing outdated kata?

 PLEASE for those that can answer or help me more understannd this madness please do!!  

WHEW!

  Coming back a few more thoughts here.   One thing we also have to consider today vs. 100+years ago for what KATA was about.  
   We need to consider this day and age vs. the day and age when many of these great MA masters who created the kata wer in.

 Some who really enjoy martial arts may not have the much of an all day to study and train KATA due to FAMILY, FULL TIME JOBS, and the hustle and bustle of everyday life.  As sad as it is in American culture compared to the culture of the Asian areas our lifestyles are so much more fast paced and people want to get further quicker.  If someone wants to learn to fight or defend themselves why study an ancient art who is based on studying kata and it takes 10 to 20yrs to understand it and pay $100 a month to a school for that loyalty.   Then you have the opportunity for less money to get in a reality based MA (RBMA) for less the money and half ifnot less that person can learn to fight and defend themselves.  This is not the fault of the System rather the fault of our NATION and sign of the times..  But we already knew that right?  Im interested on hearing response on what i had to say for sure.


----------



## exile

kailat said:


> OH HOLY WOW!  Where to even begin!  I've spent the later part of an hour sifting through and reading the past 14pages of this topic.  MAN MY HEAD HURTS!!  I've read some very fine points and some great post on this subject.  However overall unless I just missed it in the middle of skimming through I didn't see this one valid point discussed.  So with that being said Im going to add my OWN 2cents worth here.
> 
> Okay I started training Karate way back when around 85' and we studied the forms: Basic 1, 2, 3 I've heard many more traditional names for them but for lack of time I am not going to dig them up.  And then we moved into the Chongi / Dosan forms and then the Pinan 1-5 and our advanced forms were Naihanchisho and Bassai-sho and Bassai-dai forms.  OKAY now we were a typical modern midwestern karate school mostly into it for the flash and tournament reasons.  We had a great base. But that was it.  We never were taught the BUNKAI purposes behind the kata. We were taught them for rank requirements and for purpose of competition *point blank*
> 
> It wasn't until many years later I joined a TKD club and we studied the Palgwe Forms and I was introduced to DILLMAN (i know hold the remarks) but nonetheless he was the one who opened my eyes on KATA.  Up that point I absolutly despised KATA.  TO ME "what was the purpose?"  Learn em for a promotion, as a structure and then to compete!  I had no idea the understanding and principle that went behind them.  WOW!  So since that day I've had a whole new found respect for traditional KATA.
> 
> Nowadays my focus has been on FMA so we dont have perse' KATA but like ANYOS' / Djuru's or Some drilling methods they serve the same purpose as KATA.  So on to what i was initially going to write about.. I think for the most part many people get overwhelemed w/ KATA. in some systems i've seen as many as 40 and MORE kata one needs to learn!
> 
> I know some masters who know and can perform "every single kata known to man"  LOL Im like WHY?   isn't it just as well to stick w/ a few kata the basic ones etc.. maybe a handfull meaning 10 or less kata to study a lifetime?  WHO NEEDS 100's and 100's of kata in thier aresenal?



Hi kailat, welcome to the discussion! 

What you're describing appears to have been a radical revision of the role of kata that began when Funakoshi and the other Okinawan expatriates who took karate to Japan were setting up shop in the Japanese university system. Remember, the Japanese education and military ministries were the ones who GF 'sold' on karate, packaging  it as a group activity for installation of discipline and esprit de corps amongst young men of military age who were already slated to be the cannon fodder for the de-facto military regime's emerging dreams and plans for the conquest of Asia. Having defeated Russia in the previous half-century, the Japanese figured that they had what it took to defeat major Western powers, and karate fit into their plans as a kind of martial calisthenics. Funakoshi obliged them&#8212;he was very happy to abet Japanese imperial expansion in any way he could(see Rob Redmond's cold-eyed assessment of GF and his chameleon-like ethics here)&#8212;by devising large classes at the University of Tokyo offering mass instruction based on basic kihon performed in large groups and mass line drills (Bill Burgar, in _Five Years, One Kata_ gives more details on how this worked). The problem with kata training in large groups is that you _can't_ do the one-on-one bunkai instruction and training that the Okinawan masters did with _their_ students (the way both GF and Choki Motobu trained for years using just Naihanchi as their curriculum&#8212;impossible in the Japanese class situation). Furthermore, as Gennosuke Higaki mentions in his book on the Pinan/Heian kata set and their bunkai, the Okinawans didn't really want to teach the Japanese the deeper applications, and had a kind of gentleman's agreement not to. Rather, they adopted Kano's progressive belt system and recycled the kata as advancement criteria, rather than as applicable combat guides. Many belts, many kata; and by doing that, they in effect revised the 'culture' of karate so that knowledge of kata performance, rather than skill in kata application, became the core of perceived 'expertise' in karate. That seems to be where the 'the more kata you can perform on cue, the better you are' ethic came from. When the Koreans who learned karate in the 1930s in Japan took it back to Korea where it became Taekwondo, they brought home with them the same view of kata that they had been instructed in. It's taken a long time for Japanese karate styles, and even longer for the Korean karate development that goes by the names Taekwondo and Tangsoodo, to recover the Okinawan perspective on kata, and when they did, it happened _outside_ Japan&#8212;principally in the UK.



kailat said:


> This could be partial claim to the "burnout" or STRESS of joining a new style to learn and relearn and master and remaster new forms?  I know today if i were to start Karate again i'd probably be honored my rank as where I left off but I'd have to learn new kata all over again.. The ones I once was taught are no longer even taught anymore... What was wrong w/t them?   Why discard them for something new?  MORE FLASHY?  So for my own personal opinion many change the forms for competiton purposes because the older forms no longer has that edge or cannot be reformed to catch the judges eyes anymore so they come up w/ new and improved kata always trying to get one that outdoes the next opponent.
> 
> U have Student X who enters every single tournament within a 300mile radius and does the same forms for the past 20+yrs  and the judges knows him and he's a common sight.  U get a new STUDENT Y who comes in w/ a flashy uniform and a new kata that has all kinds of pretty movements and just wipes your old kata clean..  THEN WHAT?  does Student X say its time to give up those kata and just learn new ones for competion to stay w/ the joneses?  Or does he just continue to throw away his money for competion performing outdated kata?



Well, everything you're asking about is the clear next step, in terms of what I was saying before. Kata analysis and application for combat training becomes kata performance for rank promotion becomes... kata spectacle for tournament competition (take a look at that awful XMA special about Matt Mullins that the Discovery Channel did a couple of years ago; it's very instructive about how kata performance, and the MAs in general, have become this kind of weird baroque acrobatics in the wake of their decoupling from fighting application). 

And then, of course, when people study karate because they are looking for an effective fighting system, kata look utterly pointless and they hate it... but largely, I believe, because they never learn the whole point of kata, its combat-instruction aspect. 



kailat said:


> PLEASE for those that can answer or help me more understannd this madness please do!!
> 
> WHEW!



Well, it seems to me that the history of kata in its post-Okinawan phase makes it pretty clear why kata have&#8212;or _had_, at least&#8212;become so suspect in people's attitudes. I think that is definitely changing, because of the reemergence of the attitude that karate is first and foremost a combat system. That's even happening in Taekwondo, lumbered as it is with its Olympic foot-tag image...



kailat said:


> Coming back a few more thoughts here.   One thing we also have to consider today vs. 100+years ago for what KATA was about.
> We need to consider this day and age vs. the day and age when many of these great MA masters who created the kata wer in.
> 
> Some who really enjoy martial arts may not have the much of an all day to study and train KATA due to FAMILY, FULL TIME JOBS, and the hustle and bustle of everyday life.  As sad as it is in American culture compared to the culture of the Asian areas our lifestyles are so much more fast paced and people want to get further quicker.  If someone wants to learn to fight or defend themselves why study an ancient art who is based on studying kata and it takes 10 to 20yrs to understand it and pay $100 a month to a school for that loyalty.   Then you have the opportunity for less money to get in a reality based MA (RBMA) for less the money and half ifnot less that person can learn to fight and defend themselves.  This is not the fault of the System rather the fault of our NATION and sign of the times..  But we already knew that right?  Im interested on hearing response on what i had to say for sure.



I personally believe that a realistic kata-centered curriculum could be put together which would equip people with both the understanding and the non-compliant training (the other half of the equation&#8212;it's not enough to know, you have to _do_ as well!) to turn out street-competent karateka in a lot less than 100 years. I think this will happen in Japanese karate and, eventually, in its Korean offshoots that I referred to earlier. But there was a long period in which the situation we're talking about came into being, and it's not going be reversed overnight, is the thing... 

Meanwhile, for a very optimistic, informative view of the resurgence of the bunkai-based view of kata, check out Iain Abernethy's site (and especially the very high quality, free, downloadable articles here.) Happy reading!


----------



## Fiendlover

i agree with you.  everyone thinks that they teach what we really need in real life because they think that katas ARE the self defense when they are like u said about technique, accuracy, control, etc.


----------



## Hand Sword

Why? Because they just want to learn techniques, and what to do for this and that in order to just KICK BUTT!!! WOOOHOOOO!!!! :headbangin:


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

I'm in way late on this one.

I enjoy doing kata and always have.  It's both a practice and, after time, a meditation.  It's training and it's art.


----------



## Grenadier

I was at the regional championships for a recent USA-NKF tournament. 

Again, it was not surprising, that the people who did well in their kata competition, (especially those who placed 1st through 3rd) ended up doing just as well in the kumite divisions.  If anything, those who placed well in kata, also demonstrated cleaner sparring techniques, while also have a good understanding of body control.


----------



## Bodhisattva

brandon said:


> i am a blue belt in go-ju ryu and i always read articles that are so anti-kata.What is with you people kata have been preformed since the begining and they trained for real combat not like us who mostly do it for sport .What makes these so called reality based martial arts think they have it figured out .Kata are not preformed to teach self defense,but are used as a conditioning tool.Also to fine tune technique,teach accuracy and control.After all these methods have been used for hunderds of years and we dismiss them because we think we know it all.I think its a shame to see a black who does not teach kata ,but a guess i am a traditionalist . please fell free to give tour thoughts


 
Kata are a very inefficient method of training, IMO.  That's why i am personally anti-kata.  I never saw a point, personally speaking.


----------



## fuyugoshi

Bodhisattva said:


> Kata are a very inefficient method of training, IMO.  That's why i am personally anti-kata.  I never saw a point, personally speaking.



There are very different ways to understand how to use kata in martial arts training. Perhaps you refer to one of them, and not to all of them. I -and other members of this forum- would appreciate if you explain your point of view in more detail.


----------



## fuyugoshi

Bodhisattva said:


> Kata are a very inefficient method of training, IMO.  That's why i am personally anti-kata.  I never saw a point, personally speaking.




Hi again

Actually, Bodhisattva, if for "kata" you understand Brandon's ideas about kata, I totally agree with you.

Brandon said:

Kata are not performed to teach self defense
Kata are used as a conditioning tool.
Kata are used to fine tune technique,
Kata are used to teach accuracy
Kata are used to teach control
According to Brandon, these beliefs make him a traditionalist

Well, traditional martial arts ("traditional" in the sense of old pre-20th century) is about real fight and self defense. Kata was performed for self defense and was studied for self defense (not just "performed" as an aerobic routine). Nowadays, the so called "traditionalists" merely follow the sport karate founded in mid 20th, and yes, for sport karate, kata makes no sense unless you start believing the five statements listed before, and against those five statements, your criticism is valid.


----------



## exile

fuyugoshi said:


> Well, traditional martial arts ("traditional" in the sense of old pre-20th century) is about real fight and self defense. Kata was performed for self defense and was studied for self defense (not just "performed" as an aerobic routine). Nowadays, the so called "traditionalists" merely follow the sport karate founded in mid 20th, and yes, for sport karate, kata makes no sense unless you start believing the five statements listed before, and against those five statements, your criticism is valid.



One of the things which overwhelmingly supports your point here, f., is that, as people have repeatedly brought up in these threads about kata, originally kata were regarded not as components of martial arts, but as martial arts, or styles of martial art, _in themselves._ Choki Motobu in his writings was very clear and explicit on this point. And for the karate pioneers, karate was for _fighting_ (Motobu himself, Chotoku Kyan and a few others being infamous examples of masters who might have carried this tendency to extremes...) So for them, kata were handbooks of _fighting_ methods: they _were_ the style, not merely part of the style. Geoff Thomspon, the legendary English bouncer/club security expert, with a decade of work in some of Britain's toughest clubs to his credit (as well as being a 6th Dan in Shotokan, dojo owner/operater/chief instructor and cofounder of the British Combat Association), puts it beautifully in his modern classic on street defense, _The Pavement Arena_:

_... for the karateka wishing to pursue knowledge of self-defense, kata are a treasure trove of hidden techniques that can be adapted directly to a street situation... All of the skills developed by kata are necessary when street defense is called for.... It's a matter of perspective&#8212;if you want to see them as unrealistic  and impractical you will. If however you are perceptive enough to see, you will find that they offer enormous benefits to the street-oriented.​_
(p.62). This from someone with several hundred documented violent encounters in the course of his decade as doorman/bouncer at clubs in the notoriously violent nightclub scene in Coventry. I'm inclined to believe what he has to say about the relationship between kata techniques, as revealed by careful bunkai, and street violence.


----------



## hapkenkido

i love forms and am alway trying to learn a new form. weather it is from  tae kwon do, karate or kung fu. the reason for my love of forms is the style i started out in did not have what i would consider real forms. they were basicaly the same combo in 4 directions. however i cannot stand the forms that are being done in competition today. it to me is not martial art at all. it is gymnastics with martial arts thrown. don't get me wrong the people that do those type of forms have alot of physical conditioning. i just don,t like those type of forms. sorry if have made people mad with that little rant on current forms, it is just mpo.


----------



## jkembry

Hate Kata????  This does not make sense to me.  Kata in and of itself, is time that I get to work on my form and in some cases it becomes somewhat spiritual for me.  Most of the kata I have learned so far in my style (Uechi-ryu) have bunkai associated with them so that there is a practical application that they represent.

So both for the spiritual side and practical side I feel that kata is important and as a side note, I actually enjoy them.  I also enjoy watching them performed.  When done correctly...they are quite beautiful.

- Jeff -


----------



## harlan

I don't hate kata...just hate doing kata because it's never right. :wink:

It's always an exercise where I come away knowing how much more I need to work on.


----------



## Tez3

harlan said:


> I don't hate kata...just hate doing kata because it's never right. :wink:
> 
> It's always an exercise where I come away knowing how much more I need to work on.


 
If it's any consolation everything I do in martial arts feels like that!


----------



## Sukerkin

You're far from alone, my friends, in feeling that way.  I could almost list on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've performed a kata satisfactorily.  That's why the sword is a lifetimes commitment.


----------



## SageGhost83

jkembry said:


> Hate Kata???? This does not make sense to me. Kata in and of itself, is time that I get to work on my form and in some cases it becomes somewhat spiritual for me. Most of the kata I have learned so far in my style (Uechi-ryu) have bunkai associated with them so that there is a practical application that they represent.
> 
> So both for the spiritual side and practical side I feel that kata is important and as a side note, I actually enjoy them. I also enjoy watching them performed. When done correctly...they are quite beautiful.
> 
> - Jeff -


 
A lot of people hate kata because they don't understand them and they don't teach people how to 'kick butt' from the very beginning. It takes time to learn them and understand them and let's face it - people do not like to put in the time and hard work to do anything these days. I deeply value kata because it is a valuable training tool in the ole' toolbox and it allows me to work techs and principles when I don't have a training partner around. It is also a form of moving meditation that just makes the stress melt away after a long day. Yes, they are beautiful when done right and they offer far more than just fighting utility. It is nice to see someone appreciate Kata :asian:.


----------



## Xue Sheng

SageGhost83 said:


> A lot of people hate kata because they don't understand them and they don't teach people how to 'kick butt' from the very beginning. It takes time to learn them and understand them and let's face it - people do not like to put in the time and hard work to do anything these days. I deeply value kata because it is a valuable training tool in the ole' toolbox and it allows me to work techs and principles when I don't have a training partner around. It is also a form of moving meditation that just makes the stress melt away after a long day. Yes, they are beautiful when done right and they offer far more than just fighting utility. It is nice to see someone appreciate Kata :asian:.


 
Question, in Taiji when you do the form you are suppose to visualize an opponent, most don't, most just use it for moving mediation. Is there any part of Kata that is similar?

Note: There is no thought that in any fight that you will go through the form as it is practiced that is not what the visualization is for. It is for learning the internal however


----------



## Sukerkin

Visualisation and the accurate physical response to your visualisation is absolutely key to kata.  

It is said that you know when your visualisation is good when someone watching you can see your opponent as well.  I don't know if I'm that good yet but I do know that I can tell when someone is not visualising during their kata.

Another key and often misunderstood facet of kata is that part of what it is demonstrating is your ability to precisely target.  The kata delineates where and when you are to move and strike for a given bunkai and you train to be able to do that.  

People often say that "you fight what you train" and that is true.  So if you perform kata to 'regulation' and do not visualise then you learn rote moves and this is what so many of the nay-sayers of kata-training latch onto in their criticism.

If you train with visualisation, then you are training to strike when and where you wish for your actions follow what you see in your mind's eye rather than a prescribed set of moves.  Learn to do that properly and translating your mind's eye to your actual ones is simplicity itself.

EDIT: Just for clarification, the art I study is Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaido rather than karate (I just noted what forum this is in) but the principles are the same.


----------



## chinto

exile said:


> One of the things which overwhelmingly supports your point here, f., is that, as people have repeatedly brought up in these threads about kata, originally kata were regarded not as components of martial arts, but as martial arts, or styles of martial art, _in themselves._ Choki Motobu in his writings was very clear and explicit on this point. And for the karate pioneers, karate was for _fighting_ (Motobu himself, Chotoku Kyan and a few others being infamous examples of masters who might have carried this tendency to extremes...) So for them, kata were handbooks of _fighting_ methods: they _were_ the style, not merely part of the style. Geoff Thomspon, the legendary English bouncer/club security expert, with a decade of work in some of Britain's toughest clubs to his credit (as well as being a 6th Dan in Shotokan, dojo owner/operater/chief instructor and cofounder of the British Combat Association), puts it beautifully in his modern classic on street defense, _The Pavement Arena_:
> 
> _... for the karateka wishing to pursue knowledge of self-defense, kata are a treasure trove of hidden techniques that can be adapted directly to a street situation... All of the skills developed by kata are necessary when street defense is called for.... It's a matter of perspectiveif you want to see them as unrealistic  and impractical you will. If however you are perceptive enough to see, you will find that they offer enormous benefits to the street-oriented.​_
> (p.62). This from someone with several hundred documented violent encounters in the course of his decade as doorman/bouncer at clubs in the notoriously violent nightclub scene in Coventry. I'm inclined to believe what he has to say about the relationship between kata techniques, as revealed by careful bunkai, and street violence.



yep, the people who say kata is some how useless or not applicable to self defense in the modern world, just have no clue what kata is and how it should be used.
The men who developed the traditional kata of the traditional systems like Master Chotoku Kyan, were training themselves and others for real encounters that had the possibility of costing the persons life if they lost! Karate was not developed or intended for sport. If you work on kata with the intent and take the time to develop the insight to see what is hidden there, you will learn a lot of things that are extremely efficient and effective in real hand to hand combat on the street or where ever you are attacked.  

that folks is not conjecture but fact backed up by history then and people who have been attacked today.


----------



## Karatekid990

I train in Shorin- Ryu.
I don''t know why some people hate kata, but I personally love it. Some of the katas I don't personally favor but I don't hate them.


----------



## chinto

Karatekid990 said:


> I train in Shorin- Ryu.
> I don''t know why some people hate kata, but I personally love it. Some of the katas I don't personally favor but I don't hate them.




out of curiosity which style of Shorin Ryu do you train in?


----------



## nathanwc

I think part of it is time. As a school manager, to get kids as students I don't compete with other schools but with other activities such as soccer, basketball, football, etc. With adults its work, family, etc. While people love the beauty they see in forms, they don't have the time to devote to learning and drilling the application of the form, much less remembering the movements and trying to look competent at them. 
For example, I teach at the local community college where I have around 150 students each semester with forty or so repeaters. My students there love the forms and want more of them. These are all kids with time and there hands and it gets them out of studying and work (they still get credit for my class so its a college class they tell work they need off for).
At my studios we are blessed to have a wide range of programs due to a great deal of talent amongst the instructors. By far the most popular classes are Krav Maga. We have outstanding karateka instructing but the adults all basically say the same two things. "KM is easier to get with less work and still get a better work out then at the gym" and "I would love to learn karate but I don't have the time to learn all that traditional stuff." 
Out of over 375 Black Belts we have, maybe 40 earned it as an adult, the others are or were junior rank BB when they earned it and have either continued on as they reached adulthood or left over time.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan

brandon said:


> i am a blue belt in go-ju ryu and i always read articles that are so anti-kata.What is with you people kata have been preformed since the begining and they trained for real combat not like us who mostly do it for sport .What makes these so called reality based martial arts think they have it figured out .Kata are not preformed to teach self defense,but are used as a conditioning tool.Also to fine tune technique,teach accuracy and control.After all these methods have been used for hunderds of years and we dismiss them because we think we know it all.I think its a shame to see a black who does not teach kata ,but a guess i am a traditionalist . please fell free to give tour thoughts


Very few people that I know who hate kata have anything more than a superficial exposure to the martial arts; perhaps a colored belt rank and then quit or has a friend who may or may not be a dedicated martial artist.  Generally, the arguements against kata are uninformed or immature.

I love kata.  I consider kata.  Kata are like scales in music; each scale contains notes in specific steps and in different combinations depending upon what note the scale is played in.  Different scales lend themselves to different types of music because they contain combinations of notes that are applicable to different styles of music or for setting a certain mood, depending upon the piece.  Nobody plays a scale from top to bottom and calls it a piece of music; they learn the scale and then can improvise from it.  Mastering several scales allows a musician to improvise or write with greater color and versatility.

Likewise, kata provide the foundation for combinations of stances, blocks and strikes that can be applied to any situation, and thus are a valuable asset to the martial artist.

Daniel


----------



## fuyugoshi

Celtic Tiger said:


> I love kata.  I consider kata.  Kata are like scales in music; each scale contains notes in specific steps and in different combinations depending upon what note the scale is played in.  [...] Mastering several scales allows a musician to improvise or write with greater color and versatility.
> 
> Likewise, kata provide the foundation for combinations of stances, blocks and strikes that can be applied to any situation, and thus are a valuable asset to the martial artist.



Hi Daniel

I got lost


----------



## echelon

My instructor  (T. Alan Kelly) started TKD (Olympic then traditional) which is kata oriented.  In the '70s he and guys like his instructor Dale "Apollo" Cook decided to forget about forms.  They went PKA and started American Kick boxing.  They "made" a bunch of fighting guys.  Then came back to katas later in their MA lives.  They decided their guys started getting sloppy...good fighters but sloppy.


----------



## echelon

that is...started IN TKD.


----------



## Kwanjang

brandon said:


> i am a blue belt in go-ju ryu and i always read articles that are so anti-kata.What is with you people kata have been preformed since the begining and they trained for real combat not like us who mostly do it for sport .What makes these so called reality based martial arts think they have it figured out .Kata are not preformed to teach self defense,but are used as a conditioning tool.Also to fine tune technique,teach accuracy and control.After all these methods have been used for hunderds of years and we dismiss them because we think we know it all.I think its a shame to see a black who does not teach kata ,but a guess i am a traditionalist . please fell free to give tour thoughts


 
Kata or poomse is the essecnce of the art. To know ones form(s) is to know ones self.


----------

