# Ambiguity in kata



## Zepp (Nov 3, 2004)

Just so you know where I'm coming from in asking this, I train in a style of Tae Kwon Do that still uses some of the Okinawan/Japanese forms.  As most of you probably know, our focus when we practice these forms is primarily in the striking/blocking techniques.  The grabs and grappling techniques contained in these forms are taught as alternatives (usually after we ask about it).

(Please try to not turn this into a let's-bash-Korean-arts thread.)

Often when I see karate practitoners demonstrate their forms, whether in person or on video, I notice that some of the techniques with which I am familiar seem to be less clearly defined as to whether they are intended to be strikes/blocks or grappling techniques.  I'm curious to know if this is common in karate.  Also, is there a particular advantage to having a certain a amount of ambiguity when practicing forms?  Or are these techniques actually well-defined, and I just don't realize what they're actually meant to be?  I know some of you would like me to give specific examples, but I'd like to talk about this in general terms first, if possible.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 4, 2004)

We have a saying in reguards to this, localy, and that is,"Its all got to feel the same or its never going to work for you." Of course multiple applications are possible and I think that is what training in Kata is really all about. When you start focusing on principles of motion while practicing. Breaking a wrist grab is the same basic motion as an upper cutt / Downward block but you refine the downward block motion to perhaps maintain contact and negate your opponent from gaining a positional advantage / and or from striking you by simply holding his wrist an yanking him against his weakest base of support. 
Anywhoo, focusing a bit on multiple applications will teach you more and more about the basic motion you a performing, and Kata is a great place to play with your basic motion. If you are doing it right it should all look the same, and hopefully "feel" the same. :jedi1:
Sean


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 4, 2004)

Zepp said:
			
		

> Just so you know where I'm coming from in asking this, I train in a style of Tae Kwon Do that still uses some of the Okinawan/Japanese forms. As most of you probably know, our focus when we practice these forms is primarily in the striking/blocking techniques. The grabs and grappling techniques contained in these forms are taught as alternatives (usually after we ask about it).
> 
> (Please try to not turn this into a let's-bash-Korean-arts thread.)
> 
> Often when I see karate practitoners demonstrate their forms, whether in person or on video, I notice that some of the techniques with which I am familiar seem to be less clearly defined as to whether they are intended to be strikes/blocks or grappling techniques. I'm curious to know if this is common in karate. Also, is there a particular advantage to having a certain a amount of ambiguity when practicing forms? Or are these techniques actually well-defined, and I just don't realize what they're actually meant to be? I know some of you would like me to give specific examples, but I'd like to talk about this in general terms first, if possible.


There are levels of perspective for forms.

1.  Mechanical/technical:  A series of movements that are to be done with a certain level of balance, power, endurance, coordination - strictly biomechanical.

2.  Contextual/application:  "Imagine that you are blocking/striking/throwing...xyz attacker at this point" which helps give you a focus to visualize and apply some "UMPH" to the performance of the form.

3.  Conceptual/Tactical:  Take into account the mechanical motions, the one application that you visualize when you perform it and then imagine what other situations/contexts that a particular motion can be used in (hard blocks become forearm strikes, chambering becomes locks....).

So, basically it depends on what you are looking to get out of your forms training at a particular moment that dictates whether something is ambiguous or evident.


----------

