# Kata Postures and the importance of the "intermediate" position



## Makalakumu (Mar 28, 2007)

Sensei Robert M. Rivers, of Motobu Ha Shito Ryu, has taken the time to make this video regarding Kata Postures.  Please take the time to view it and let us know what you think.

http://www.virginiakempo.com/Martial Minute Posture.mov


----------



## robertmrivers (Mar 29, 2007)

All

I posted the video page...but forgot to post the page about our free educational classes.

http://www.virginiakempo.com/bridging_the_gap.htm

Check it out. It would be an easy way for us to get together.

Regards

Rob


----------



## tellner (Mar 29, 2007)

Honestly? I'd say it shows a poor level of understanding by someone who didn't have good training and is trying to make sense of things he was taught as rote. He admits that the movements taught as sequence don't represent a fight. So he guesses that katas are really a series of static positions. Actual dynamic movement doesn't enter into it. You go from position to position, and what lies in the middle is inchoate and subject to vigorous handwaving. 

What does this mean? He still thinks of kata as moving from static position to static position. The motion in between isn't part of it. It betokens a mind which thinks of things in easily digestible static chunks and will be uncomfortable with dynamic let alone chaotic situations. This is also evident in his emphasis on unstoppable techniques delivered from unassailable positions. He's building up to a point where he can take a static position and not have to deal with all that confusing movement because the opponent is also reduced to a static position.

Take a look at the stuff in the middle. He allows himself five or six unanswered beats to the other guy's one. That's not the sign of someone who is comfortable with reaslistic timing or the principle that (given good structure, timing, distance, etc.) it's the person who's _understands the positional aspects better_ who has the advantage.

A fight is about movement. You may be in a position for a time, but it's somewhere you are on your way to somewhere else, a point of reference at most. A beginner moves from point to point because that's how we learn these things. We went to the Barnum and Bailey circus a few years back. It was one of Gunther Gable Williams' final performances. He rode in on a beautiful African(!) elephant followed by the rest of the elephants who went through their routine. There was a calf there. He was very young and didn't know the whole act. So he'd get into a position he knew. Then he'd look confused and watch the wise old cow next to him. When he saw a position he recognized he'd light up and hurry into it, like a climber going from safe point to safe point on a rock.

Once the positions are comfortable and the sequence is mastered it's the quality of movement between these positions that's vital. Eventually one is aware and comfortable at any point in his movement and can fight from wherever he happens to be. As Debussy said "Music is the space between the notes". Rubenstein said "The notes many can play as well as I. But the space between the notes, ahh, that is where the mastery is." If kata are at all useful they can't teach static positions. Real life isn't static. They have to teach you how to move and give references to the root motions of the system. 

So yes, I believe he's on the wrong track. It's pretty obvious that he's trying to reverse engineer things he wasn't taught. The effort is worthy of praise. The result is still fumbling around. With luck and work he should get past that. The fact that he has to do this is a poor reflection on his teachers.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 29, 2007)

tellner said:


> Honestly? I'd say it shows a poor level of understanding by someone who didn't have good training and is trying to make sense of things he was taught as rote. He admits that the movements taught as sequence don't represent a fight. So he guesses that katas are really a series of static positions. Actual dynamic movement doesn't enter into it. You go from position to position, and what lies in the middle is inchoate and subject to vigorous handwaving.
> 
> What does this mean? He still thinks of kata as moving from static position to static position. The motion in between isn't part of it. It betokens a mind which thinks of things in easily digestible static chunks and will be uncomfortable with dynamic let alone chaotic situations. This is also evident in his emphasis on unstoppable techniques delivered from unassailable positions. He's building up to a point where he can take a static position and not have to deal with all that confusing movement because the opponent is also reduced to a static position.
> 
> ...


 
Tellner - I think that you are making alot of assumptions about kata and their uses and that you don't understand what the actual purpose or context of actual kata practice was.  

In a different thread, I posted this...



> Secondly, you have to understand how kata were created. I want you to imagine a jujutsu two person kata list with 20 effective self defense techniques. Now imagine doing those techniques back to back, in the air, by yourself. Now take the movements that are the same and condense them into one movement. Now change some of the more obvious martial movements to something less threatening in order to hide the knowledge.
> 
> And there you have it, a kata.
> 
> A kata is NOT going to reflect actual combative movements and help you practice them because that isn't its purpose. A kata is a syllabus. It is a memnotic device. It is a historical document that records self defense techniques.


 
With that being said, now go back and take a look at what Mr. Rivers is trying to show.  The movement in a kata isn't neccessarily a reflection of what actually happens in real life.


----------

