# Kataless Karate Pros & Cons



## Dark (Jun 27, 2006)

Sport or SD based it doesn't matter, but what are the pros and cons of free style (no kata) karate styles?


----------



## pstarr (Jun 27, 2006)

I was brought up in the old school.  

My teacher always said the the forms of a system contain all relevant information about that system.  They're like the textbooks of a system.
If individual techniques are words and combinations are phrases and paragraphs, forms are books.

It often requires a great deal of training and study to learn how to read these books, however.  But once you learn how, the information they contain is invaluable.


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 27, 2006)

For simplicity's sake, when I speak of "kumite" in this post, we'll simply assume I'm referring to jiyu kumite (free sparring).  

When it comes to the martial arts, there are multiple ways to accomplish one's goals, and using kata in a particular system is but one way to do so.  

I would argue, that having kata in a system is quite beneficial, since it can help someone refine their techniques, understand sequence, and once they learn the oyo / bunkai, application.  In turn, they develop their techniques quite nicely, and if someone has good technique, then their kumite is generally going to be decent as well.  As a result of their kumite getting better, they will have a better understanding of the techniques as they would be applied in "real time," resulting in their kata getting better, and so forth.  

The way I see it, the kata and kumite compliment each other, and improvement in one area carries over to an improvement in the other area to a certain extent.  

Now, can a system that uses few or even no kata survive?  Of course.  If you look at the Kyokushin-kai, they do not use that many kata, compared to the other traditional Karate systems, instead, focussing more on the kumite aspect.  Even if I don't agree with their methods, I will certainly agree that they are a very successful (and thriving) system.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 27, 2006)

Well let's start with the obvious con, if there aren't any Kata it's not karate anymore. Which should pretty much end the discussion right there...

One kataless offshoot is American Kickboxing though.

There are lots of kataless systems that get on just fine, but they are not karate.  It's like boxing without the jab...  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a kata fan, but kata is the heart of karate, you can't just cut it out and still have "karate".  You might have something good, but you don't have "karate".


----------



## Robert Lee (Jun 27, 2006)

With the key found in the old Kata You can still break it down train it and it still be Karate. The newer kata can be fogotten The old if you wish break it down. Most people never get there art . They leave the tools in the kata Never breaking them down training there seperated use of application.. So its catch 22. It is more how you train and understand. A person that can only do kata and not the seperated aspects can not use there given arts training. Then a person not useing kata. And can not get there training beyond controled responces drill prearranged drill are in the same boat. You have to go beyond Kata and drills to get application of your own use.


----------



## green meanie (Jun 27, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Well let's start with the obvious con, if there aren't any Kata it's not karate anymore. Which should pretty much end the discussion right there...
> 
> One kataless offshoot is American Kickboxing though.
> 
> ...


 
Agreed.


----------



## Dark (Jun 27, 2006)

See it one thing to define Karate by techniques, training (kata or the mount of training no longer practiced), or philosophy. I'm playing devils advicate here, but what makes karate defined only by kata?


----------



## Robert Lee (Jun 27, 2006)

Its not The key to different Karate arts were found in the old kata. But releaseing that key the person has to move away from Katas to really apply what they have learned. The answer is outside of Kata. Kata is just the book you learn by.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 27, 2006)

A person may learn to fight ( kick-punch-whatever) with out kata but as has been said already it will be something different from Karate and should have a different name
What they learn may save them from harm and they may be great fighters but they are not Karate masters or students


----------



## Dark (Jun 27, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> A person may learn to fight ( kick-punch-whatever) with out kata but as has been said already it will be something different from Karate and should have a different name
> What they learn may save them from harm and they may be great fighters but they are not Karate masters or students


 
Then what are they? And why?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 27, 2006)

Same reason you don't call football "football" when you recreate it without a ball...


----------



## pstarr (Jun 27, 2006)

Agreed.


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Jun 28, 2006)

My few is and this my have been said but I didn't read the whole thread.  A karate system without kata is not karate it is nothing but streetfighting.  Kata contains everything karate has to offer.  It is the encyclopedia of ones system.


----------



## Dark (Jun 28, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Same reason you don't call football "football" when you recreate it without a ball...


 
What is the "ball" of karate? Kata or Philosophy or all of the above?


----------



## Dark (Jun 28, 2006)

Brandon Fisher said:
			
		

> My few is and this my have been said but I didn't read the whole thread. A karate system without kata is not karate it is nothing but streetfighting. Kata contains everything karate has to offer. It is the encyclopedia of ones system.


 
Only on the surface, technique and application in method yes thats definately in kata. But what about the -do, the higher philosophical aspects of karate? Is that not as important as the ability to dislocate a shoulder with a blocking technique?

I been checking out the local free style group, they had me rethink some classical ideas but I still haven't bought completely into it.


----------



## Eviscerate (Jun 28, 2006)

Guys they have kataless karate, its called hapkido.


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Jun 28, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> Only on the surface, technique and application in method yes thats definately in kata. But what about the -do, the higher philosophical aspects of karate? Is that not as important as the ability to dislocate a shoulder with a blocking technique?
> 
> I been checking out the local free style group, they had me rethink some classical ideas but I still haven't bought completely into it.


The philoosphical side of karate is very important but it to is in kata.  The depth of understanding of each kata is what brings it out.  Its up to you the student to learn and understand.  There is not a sensei that can teach you the complete depth of kata.


----------



## Dark (Jun 28, 2006)

Brandon Fisher said:
			
		

> The philoosphical side of karate is very important but it to is in kata. The depth of understanding of each kata is what brings it out. Its up to you the student to learn and understand. There is not a sensei that can teach you the complete depth of kata.


 
I have never seen philosophy displayed in kata, so I have to ask how is it displayed in forms?


----------



## Robert Lee (Jun 28, 2006)

Kata OLD kata is the core of the different Karate ryus. BUT if you look  for your karate only in the kata you will miss all the karate that is being taught to you. Kata is the key only. A key unlocks a door that door is your freedom to be able to truely perform your chosen path. To many keep the key never unlock the door They just think that they now know karate Each move in kata must be broken down outside of the kata to find its uses aginst different selfdefence aspects. NOT just bunki of kata. That demonstartes the attack defence motion of set appllications. explore what kata shows youthen Karate  of your Ryu style will become yours aNd then it can work. Hold onto only the key and never use it to understand It is no longer karate Its is but a robot to a fixed motion of dance. Ask any old timer about Kata The answer is outside of that kata to find your way your use. Now far as if Karate can be that without Kata. Well if you broke that kata down To show and learn more about applications. I would still think it is Karate. Because karate came many years after The art was here. And when Karate came so much was added to modern katas. Tiguchi said The old kata is what makes Karate do not change those leave them the same. But he said to you will not find the answer looking only iside at the kata. you must leave that kata to learn to use Karate. No different then judo you must learn its training but must learn how to use that training or you never do judo Or any art for that fact.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2006)

It could be done. The role of kata is really to provide a base for self-discovery. The derived elements that are fundamental can be taught without the kata quite effectively.

Kata do not provide the knowledge by themselves. I've seen enough people with more kata under their belt than me (I only know* three -- four if you count a certain exercise) who do not know how to make fundamentals functional to give kata the credit for that.

If you find yourself applying a kata movement in free-fighting effectively you know that movement far better than someone who can just dance through the set.

* Of course, by "know" I mean I've studied each of them for about one or two years apiece on their own after five years of basics and sparring, and they often "knew" them by drilling them to basic comprehension to get their next belt.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2006)

Eviscerate said:
			
		

> Guys they have kataless karate, its called hapkido.



Hapkido's basics do not resemble karate's very much.


----------



## Eviscerate (Jun 28, 2006)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Hapkido's basics do not resemble karate's very much.


 
I'd disagree, but ok.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2006)

Eviscerate said:
			
		

> I'd disagree, but ok.



I suppose if it the TKD+jujutsu half-formulation of Hapkido it would, but the two lines of Hapkido I trained in used totally different methods and techniques for elementary striking.


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Jun 28, 2006)

Dark,
You need to break the kata down more and look into it deeper and more philosophical manner.  I do not know how long you have been training or what your background is so its hard to know if you have looked that deep.


----------



## Eviscerate (Jun 28, 2006)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I suppose if it the TKD+jujutsu half-formulation of Hapkido it would, but the two lines of Hapkido I trained in used totally different methods and techniques for elementary striking.


 
You said basics, so lets talk basics. All the kicks are the same, except that some chamber, retract or use a wheel effect from system to system differently. All the punches are the same, theres no getting past the universal principles and mechanics involved unless you're trying to train energy such as in WC but lets not get into that. Strikes, same, same reasoning behind them as punches. Those are basics. Locks, twists, throws etc. aside hapkidos basics are very similar to karates, they are simply often prescribed in a different manner, ie. head high kicks vs. low kicks...


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 28, 2006)

Eviscerate said:
			
		

> You said basics, so lets talk basics. All the kicks are the same, except that some chamber, retract or use a wheel effect from system to system differently. All the punches are the same, theres no getting past the universal principles and mechanics involved unless you're trying to train energy such as in WC but lets not get into that. Strikes, same, same reasoning behind them as punches. Those are basics. Locks, twists, throws etc. aside hapkidos basics are very similar to karates, they are simply often prescribed in a different manner, ie. head high kicks vs. low kicks...



Hapkido kicks use a relaxed circular motion with no kime. Hapkido punches lean and agle the torso. Karate kicks and punches train with chambering motions and an upright posture. There are exceptions on both sides, but their progressive training is, in my experience, much different.


----------



## Eviscerate (Jun 28, 2006)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Hapkido kicks use a relaxed circular motion with no kime. Hapkido punches lean and agle the torso. Karate kicks and punches train with chambering motions and an upright posture. There are exceptions on both sides, but their progressive training is, in my experience, much different.


 
  Theres no real exxageration between a front snap kick (karate) and a front thrust kick (hapkido) save that the japanese try to telegraph less by controlling their hip displacement during its excecution (in kata). Side kick is basically the same as well, except that yhe japanese will try to position more before the kick than position with the kick, still its the same technique save for the blade/heel thing. A reverse punch is a reverse punch unless you dont know how to do it, theres only one proper way to generate its full power and it has more to do with hip rotation and loading and springing with the quads than retraction of the arm. 
  I think whats happening is you and i are looking at it from different angles of observation. However, the mechanics in the techniques hold true for everyone with two arms and two legs, at least as far as the kicking, punching and striking goes.


----------



## Dark (Jun 29, 2006)

Brandon Fisher said:
			
		

> Dark,
> You need to break the kata down more and look into it deeper and more philosophical manner. I do not know how long you have been training or what your background is so its hard to know if you have looked that deep.


 
I hold a shodan in Shotokan and a Nidan in Goju-Ryu karate. I also have an unoffical Sandan in Shotokan, its unoffical because my Sensei had a falling out with the JKA and they disowned each other...

I've been taught philosophy in the dojo, but never seen it expressed in kata. So if you could please explain it to me I'd be happy to listen. 

Now all kata, forms in Karate and Kung-fu can be traced to the Da Mo series which was an exercise Bodhiharma taught the Chinese monks on his journey from India. Later the modifications were used by martial artist to strengthen the muscles used for the execution of fighting techniques, each exerise or combination of exercises represented a particular "style or system." This I know, but I have never heard of philosophy being taught. Tactics, strategies and principles yes but not philosophy.


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Jun 29, 2006)

Dark,
Thanks for giving me some background on you.  Sorry to hear about the falling out with the JKA.  This kind of thing happens to much.

I think anyway that viewing the philosophy in kata you have to look deep and study it.  Think hard about the bunkai learn it so well that you can do it in your sleep.  Ponder the application, its purpose and how it fits to your training regimen.  I feel this is where the philosophical aspect of kata is.  Not in the movement so much but your interpertation and and application.  Plus the way you practice and perform kata.

I hope that helps a little.


----------



## Akashiro Tamaya (Jun 29, 2006)

Brandon Fisher said:
			
		

> Dark,
> Thanks for giving me some background on you. Sorry to hear about the falling out with the JKA. This kind of thing happens to much.
> 
> I think anyway that viewing the philosophy in kata you have to look deep and study it. Think hard about the bunkai learn it so well that you can do it in your sleep. Ponder the application, its purpose and how it fits to your training regimen. I feel this is where the philosophical aspect of kata is. Not in the movement so much but your interpertation and and application. Plus the way you practice and perform kata.
> ...



You seem knowlegeble in Kata, could you tell us about your background. I see that your involved with a lot of orgaizations and awards.


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Jun 29, 2006)

Akashiro Tamaya said:
			
		

> You seem knowlegeble in Kata, could you tell us about your background. I see that your involved with a lot of orgaizations and awards.


Thank you for your compliments.  I try to convey good information the best I can.  However sometimes its not very clear by typing it.

I will try to at least answer your question about my background. I hate talking about myself though.

This year is my 22nd year in martial arts and I am ranked as a godan in Seijitsu Shin Do of which I founded based on my Ju Jitsu and karate background.  I have truly been a student of the martial arts researching and studing the the history, philosophy, and applications of both Okinawan and Japanese karate and ju jitsu systems for the past 15 years intensively.

My original system was Tai Shin Doh but do to some things I am unaware of my instructor gave me and my family the boot in February.  Long story to say the least.  However I have also been a student of Okinawan Shorin Ryu-Shorinkan while I was in Indiana and that is where I picked up my kata for the most part.

I have been very privledged to recieve the awards I have but, really they are just that awards.  To me the best part of the martial arts is training and teaching quality martial arts both spiritual and physical but very thought provoking karate.  Its like I tell my students I may be Sensei to them but I am first and foremost a student for life.

As far as the assocications I do belong to a few but only support one that I am currently a member of.  I do not have ties to past organizations due partly to my instructor and I parting ways and other because of poor practices on the associations part.  I mainly support PKC (Professional Karate Commission) and if I am lucky enough to have my application accepted by the United States Karate Alliance I will support them.

Hope that helps answer your question.


----------



## Dark (Jun 29, 2006)

Brandon Fisher said:
			
		

> I think anyway that viewing the philosophy in kata you have to look deep and study it. Think hard about the bunkai learn it so well that you can do it in your sleep. Ponder the application, its purpose and how it fits to your training regimen. I feel this is where the philosophical aspect of kata is. Not in the movement so much but your interpertation and and application. Plus the way you practice and perform kata.


 
It may be semantics but what does my personal "philosophy" of action have to do with transmitting an ethical philosophy? I'm trying to grasp this concept, can you give me an example to get me started in the right direction?

Thanks, in adavance...


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Jun 29, 2006)

I must have missed something where did ethical philosophy come into play? I re-read the thread you never mentioned ethical anything.  Please clarify for me.

Thanks!!


----------



## Dark (Jun 29, 2006)

Brandon Fisher said:
			
		

> I must have missed something where did ethical philosophy come into play? I re-read the thread you never mentioned ethical anything. Please clarify for me.
> 
> Thanks!!


 
The Dojo Kun of most Okinawan and Japanese MA where influenced by the ethical philosophy of their religions. The Okinawans had a heavier "zen" concept from Chinese influence, and the Japanese art where heavily influenced by Bushido, Taoist philosophy, Buddist Philosophy and Shinto philosophy. Which is what I was refering to with the philosophy word in general, when you said philosphy I was thinking of that. What over philosophy are you speaking of?


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Jun 30, 2006)

Ok then we just were on 2 different pages.  I have seen many people have very philosophical approaches to kata and its applications in some ways I do also.

You are very correct in the zen influence in Okinawan karate.  Nagamine Sensei used zen extensively in his training and teaching methods by what my reasearch as said but I am not exactly sure how it was applied.  I would need to refer back to his book again.


----------



## Dark (Jun 30, 2006)

The freestyle karate dojo is was checking out was pretty cool, they teach the core techniques and have dropped kata, in favor of a more scientific view point, they have a pretty nice set up, they also teach the philosophy aspect as well. I was actually surprised they went back to the old, trap-lock-break methods from a block as well.


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Jun 30, 2006)

I teach a lot of the trapping and breaking aspects of kata some kuzushi but mainly bunkai and oyo except the higher levels.  I also teach a lot of self defense waza and not strictly preset because I believe in being fluid and being able to adapt to the situation and when the situation changes.


----------



## Silly Limey (Jul 5, 2006)

The pro to not having kata in karate is that it helps a karateka focus on more practical aspects, such as what to do in a real-life situation and whatnot. The con is that kata greatly help with techniques, and taking kata out may make room for sloppy strikes. If you practice a kata correctly, with each technique being right, it will help you do that technique correctly and more powerfully when you need it. Personally, I think kata are incredibly important to karate.


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 7, 2006)

*karate without kata is not karate. It may still be a fighting art, but not karate. Then again people call a lot of systems karate when it is not really karate. Karate without kata is better called freestyle kickboxing. Which there is nothing wrong with, but I just have problem with people calling something karate when it really isn't karate.*


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Oct 7, 2006)

twendkata71 said:


> *I just have problem with people calling something karate when it really isn't karate.*


So do I


----------



## exile (Oct 7, 2006)

Silly Limey frames the issue nicely in his post:



Silly Limey said:


> The pro to not having kata in karate is that it helps a karateka focus on more practical aspects, such as what to do in a real-life situation and whatnot. The con is that kata greatly help with techniques, and taking kata out may make room for sloppy strikes. If you practice a kata correctly, with each technique being right, it will help you do that technique correctly and more powerfully when you need it. Personally, I think kata are incredibly important to karate.



I agree with his last statement, but I have one caveat: it's a mistake to think that, as the first sentence here implies, kata are an obstacle to practical application in realistic combat situations. That's what kata are all about, and what Brandon in his previous post, Twendkata in several of his posts and many other MT people have written about. The problem with practical application isn't the kata, it's that people are often taught to perform kata but not to _study_ them in a way that lets you extract the self-defense methods the kata were designed to make available to you. As has been stated a zillion times before on various MT fora, for the kata to be useful, you have to train in their use; if you do it right---and there's now a huge pool of resources to help you, including some excellent books and videos devoted to the decoding of kata into street-useful bunkai---every kata/hyung/form can be decoded to reveal hard (and often grotesquely brutal) self-defense methods.  

The techniques behind the kata work beautifully---just ask (in your mind, anyway) anyone who ever tried to mix it up with Matsumoto or Itosu or any of those guys, the masters who codified the kata we've all learned.


----------



## still learning (Oct 7, 2006)

Hello, There is a place for Kata's in the martial arts as a training tool

Keep in mind all the other street fighters and boxes, thai boxes,kick boxing ,mix martial arts,do not do Kata's.

Yet all are successful!  Why?  because actully sponstanous fighting works better.

If Kata's were successful all sports would have Kata's!

Kata's were develop because a few students couldn't understand there training for.  Steps were made to offer students movement and proper stance and punching/kicking skills plus others. Predetermine steps.

For Actully fighting (anything goes)....Kata's do not work well here...some of the best Kata's competation guys..usually do not well in sparring!

There is a place for Kata's as training tool...not the ALL answer for martial art training.

To be a good fighter...one needs to sparr alot....just my thoughts here...Aloha


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 7, 2006)

*I personally never said that kata were or should be the total focus  of your training. I am not talking about the sport applications here. The kata were not developed for sport( at least the original kata),  They were developed to be sort of a text book for karateka, a means of praticing their techniques without a partner. Also it is a form of mental training. A fact that most freestylist do not get. Mainly because they do  not have the patience to learn and break them down. Too much work for them. I said that karate without kata is not karate. Kihon,kata and jiyu kumite,yaksoku kumite. That is the foundation of karate. And the cultivation of your own creative efforts to discover the limitless techniques found within the kata. *
*If you understand kata, then you understand its importance. When I starting training I didn't get the kata thing either. I just wanted to spar. Once I learned more about kata and what they could offer , then I found an encyclopedia(of sorts) of techniques.*


----------



## exile (Oct 7, 2006)

twendkata71 said:


> *I personally never said that kata were or should be the total focus  of your training. I am not talking about the sport applications here. The kata were not developed for sport( at least the original kata),  They were developed to be sort of a text book for karateka, a means of praticing their techniques without a partner. Also it is a form of mental training. A fact that most freestylist do not get. Mainly because they do  not have the patience to learn and break them down. Too much work for them. I said that karate without kata is not karate. Kihon,kata and jiyu kumite,yaksoku kumite. That is the foundation of karate. And the cultivation of your own creative efforts to discover the limitless techniques found within the kata. *
> *If you understand kata, then you understand its importance. When I starting training I didn't get the kata thing either. I just wanted to spar. Once I learned more about kata and what they could offer , then I found an encyclopedia(of sorts) of techniques.*



Well said, Twendkata!


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Oct 7, 2006)

A textbook is a great example on describing kata.  I say this to my students all the time.

Still Learning,
I don't want to start a your idea is better then mine thing but you can't look at modern kata / kumite competition and base your opinions solely on that aspect.  Its important to see the history of kata and why it was created.  It was not created for a few students who did not understand their training.  Kata was originally used to disguise their training from the samurai who had taken over Okinawa and banned all forms of fighting and weapons.  If you look at Okinawan dances you may see aspects in the dances similar to that in kata.  

Now I agree that to be a good fighter one must fight alot everything practiced solo must be put into application, even basic line drill, bag drills and other types of practice.  But I am pretty good in the kata area and still am able to fight well also.  Practice, application, practice, application and then practice the application.  This so that it all becomes second nature and you can respond out of reaction.


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 7, 2006)

*Yes, I agree that you have to spend a lot of time sparring to develop good fighting skills. Timing,learning to manipulate the opponent, to read their intentions. Kata develops the muscle memory in the techniques. Sparring develops the reflexes and your ability to deal with an actual opponent attacking.  You also learn where your weaknesses are. When you make a mistake or lose focus in sparring you feel where you left an opening or misjudged the distance.*
*Also don't forget your basics. Without strong basics your techniques will be ineffective.*


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Oct 7, 2006)

twendkata71 said:


> *Without strong basics your techniques will be ineffective.*


Without a doubt!!


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 7, 2006)

*The thing that I see a lot at competitions is students and black belts that have weak basics. You see it in their kata,in their technique and their fighting. Then when others see that they make a judgement on the style that that student/or black belt is demonstrating.*
*This is how the people not in the martial arts get a bad impression of the martial arts (karate,Taekwondo,etc.). *
*I also think that is where people get their impression that kata is not useful. If they see someone with weak technique in their kata,which means weak basics or in many cases the person has not practiced the kata thoroughly enough. Then kata looks to be not worth the time. Also much of the meanings of the movements in kata are hidden so the average observer sees the movements as unuseful. Just my observation.*


----------



## exile (Oct 7, 2006)

twendkata71 said:


> Also much of the meanings of the movements in kata are hidden so the average observer sees the movements as unuseful. Just my observation.



Exactly, and this was the point that Brandon was making too. Some of the motivation for that concealment was just as he said---the reluctance of the Okinawans to give away anything to their Satsuma overlords (although it's probably the case that the samurai, with their katanas, could probably not have cared less about the Okinawan's empty-hand techniques). But remember also that Itosu explicitly disguised the system by relabelling locks, throws, sweeps and chokes, throat strikes and all the rest as simple punch-block-kick sequences as part of his campaign to get the Okinawan public schools to incorporated karate into their regular physical training curriculum. You obviously are not going to teach a child a sequence of moves originally intended to immobilize an attacker's arm and use that control to bring his head into position where you can crush his windpipe, and actually _tell_ that child the true purpose of the sequence---it had to be sanitized as block-block-punch or whatever, and that's what Itosu did and _said_ he did. And he was criticized for it at the time. 

The point is, it's no secret that the katas are not what they are described as being in the usual kata sequence description; same for the TDK hyungs. There's a whole program in karate/TKD devoted to recovering the very nasty real-time effective uses of kata sequences for combat use. Sounds to me like Brandon, Twendkata and quite a few other people on MT devote serious teaching time to these apps in their curricula, and I think that any dojo/dojang that wants to offer a high-quality, complete program in their art has to do the same.


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Oct 7, 2006)

I have seen the same thing as Twen.  The way I see it is many times the acrobatics and speed are used to cover up the lack of strong basics.


----------



## kachi (Oct 9, 2006)

twendkata71 said:


> *...Also it is a form of mental training. A fact that most freestylist do not get. Mainly because they do  not have the patience to learn and break them down. Too much work for them...*



That is an extremely ignorant remark. Most freestylists do not train with kata because it's not believed to have much practical value for real life situations. Not because it's too much work or because they don't have patience, that's just petty slander.
I personally do train with kata, not because I want to but mainly because it's part of our curriculum. There is far to much useless and time consuming rubbish in kata and I believe that if you are taught the correct technique to start with and you practise it over and over again then there is no need for kata. As for the spiritual aspect of kata, I just down right don't believe in it so I won't comment on that.


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Oct 9, 2006)

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but sorry thats about as uneducated of a comment as you can get.  True there are parts that are not very useful but again there are many more very useful parts in kata.  But I guess this is a example of whats happening in the world today, so many people want to try and reinvent the wheel.  Simple fact is someone says something is new, don't count on it someone probably thought of it and practiced centuries ago.  They say history repeats itself and thats true.  So learn from the past and keep improving on what the founders created, don't throw it away and try to start from scratch that would just be stupid.

I noticed in your profile that you are a brown belt.  I don't know how long you have been training but my guess is only a few years.  Twendkata and both have been around more than 20 years as have many of the participants on this forum.  Experience brings education normally maybe you should look deeper into kata.  Obviously your sensei has a purpose for it if he is teaching it.  Maybe ask him about it also.  You might learn more about it.


----------



## donald (Oct 9, 2006)

I guess pros would be not having to learn a full "traditional" kata. Although I am for kata training, and would be interested to see the ratios of for, and against.


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 9, 2006)

*Not to sound condisending, but  you are only a brown belt and you have not had enough training to fully see the value of kata. You probably learn kata with out learning the bunkai(hidden meanings of the movement.)*
*Sorry of offend. One more thing. If you are practicing a technique solo, that is kata of sorts, if you are shadow boxing, kata, if you are practicing a technique with a partner that is a two man kata. *
*My point is that kata(literally means exercise). kata are a series of movements practiced solo. Also your view of freestyle karate there in Australia and the one here in the US is probably different. Most freestylist here are more interested in XMA acrobatic tournament martial arts. And in many cases here Freestylist usually means that they broke ties from a style far before they were qualified to start their own style. I have been practicing the martial arts(karate,jujitsu,kobudo,kempo,) for 25 years I think I might have somewhat of an educated opinion.*










kachi said:


> That is an extremely ignorant remark. Most freestylists do not train with kata because it's not believed to have much practical value for real life situations. Not because it's too much work or because they don't have patience, that's just petty slander.
> I personally do train with kata, not because I want to but mainly because it's part of our curriculum. There is far to much useless and time consuming rubbish in kata and I believe that if you are taught the correct technique to start with and you practise it over and over again then there is no need for kata. As for the spiritual aspect of kata, I just down right don't believe in it so I won't comment on that.


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 9, 2006)

*I see where your system is zendo ryu if it is the same zendo ryu that I am thinking of then I knew a guy in HS that practiced that system and he was very good. *
*When I was coming up through the ranks before black belt, I didn't understand the value of kata either. I thought they were just something I had to learn for belt rank and competition.  Many of the movements didn't make sense. Then after shodan I  started learning the bunkai and oyo of the kata and then it made sense. You also have to use your own creative efforts to adjust the movements to your self defense needs. I don't mean change the kata,just change the bunkai and adapt the movements.  The kata should develop your base and muscle memory.  The example of the perfect form of the technique. Which in general does not happen when you are suddenly attacked.  But, a well trained individual has more of a chance that someone who has had little or no training.*


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

kachi said:


> There is far to much useless and time consuming rubbish in kata



Kachi---the reason you're taking all these hits on your post is not because people just don't like what you're saying (as in, e.g., `vanilla is good'/`no, vanilla is awful' type of thing) but because there is a huge amount of serious work out there, by very good, very formidable fighters, on just this issue of the use of kata, that you apparently haven't come in contact with. There's a whole MT thread on why people dislike kata, with a lot of posts that point to the reasons why your comment about `useless and time consuming rubbish' is just factually wrong. If you're doing kata without realizing how those moves are really meant to be applied in combat, then you're overlooking some of the best thinking about MAs that's ever been done. 

It's true that for sport karate and Olympic-style TDK, the katas aren't going to be all that helpful (directly, anyway)---not because they're ineffective, but because they're _too_ effective; they were created to show you how to damage an attacker bent on hurting you---damage him so badly that he basically can't get up again without help, let alone continue fighting. But to understand them, you have to learn how to read them---to understand  that the moves described as punches and blocks aren't necessarily punches and are almost certainly not blocks, and that the kata are trying to show you throws, sweeps, locks and grappling setups for nasty finishing strikes in a variety of fighting situations and ranges. The katas teach you stuff that would get you chucked out of any tournament you applied it in. But that doesn't make them `rubbish'---it just makes tournament rules kind of unrelated to real fights. You need to find out about this way of decoding the katas before you make the kinds of wholesale dismissive statements you've made. Calling other people `ignorant' on the basis of the holes in your own knowledge isn't the way to make your point---especially people who have been in this game a long, long time and know it really well.


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 9, 2006)

*kachi, since you actually live in Australia, if you get the chance sometime go to a Patrick Mcarthy seminar. It will open your eyes on kata. You are lucky. He lives there in Australia. He has done more research on kata that most.*


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Oct 9, 2006)

twendkata71 said:


> *kachi, since you actually live in Australia, if you get the chance sometime go to a Patrick Mcarthy seminar. It will open your eyes on kata. You are lucky. He lives there in Australia. He has done more research on kata that most.*


Good suggestion:asian:


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

twendkata71 said:


> *kachi, since you actually live in Australia, if you get the chance sometime go to a Patrick Mcarthy seminar. It will open your eyes on kata. You are lucky. He lives there in Australia. He has done more research on kata that most.*



Twendkata, has Patrick McCarthy written anything up, or does he have dvd/vids or anything like that?


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

Partially answered my own question---here is a really good URL to see what P. McC. is up to: http://www.society.webcentral.com.au/patrick.htm 

He looks like the real deal---his take on kata interpretation ties in with that of a lot of the most forward-looking research in this area. I can see I'm going to be buying more books soon.


----------



## kachi (Oct 9, 2006)

I see everyone's reasoning and you probably are all right. I have only been training for a few years so I definitely don't have the understanding and knowledge of MA to the extent that you guys have. 
I think your right about the view of freestyle in the 2 countries because we do not train for competition or anything like that, we train for ourselves (I'm strongly opposed to sport and show adaptations of Karate). The term 'freestyle' in Australia means that it's just a more open style and is not bound by traditional rules and technique. We still have the basics of traditional Goju Ryu in our system but we modify moves and incorperate a few techniques from other styles into our curriculum.  
Just to clear it up my Sensei does teach the bunkai behind kata (although we've never used the term 'Bunkai') and he believes in kata quite strongly. 
I would like to go to a Patrick McCarthy seminar but I wouldn't have the first clue as to where to find one. 

Brandon Fisher - I understand now that I don't have enough experience with MA and kata and I will not dismiss kata but instead try to further break down and decipher the deeper meaning behind kata, which I obviously have not done yet.

Exile - I did not call 'twendkata71' ignorant I said his remark about freetylists not learning kata because it's "too much work" was ignorant. I never mentioned sport in any of my posts either.

twendkata71 - You have given me an invaluable insight into kata and I will take everything you said on board. You are obviousy a very knowledgeable and experienced person and I thank you for sharing that with me. Also thanks for your advice and be sure that I will be using it in the near future.


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2006)

Kachi---thanks for your response. First point:



kachi said:


> Exile - I did not call 'twendkata71' ignorant I said his remark about freetylists not learning kata because it's "too much work" was ignorant. I never mentioned sport in any of my posts either.



OK, but look, it's a very fine distinction between calling what someone says ignorant and calling _them_ ignorant. Look up a few dictionary definitions and it'll become pretty clear pretty quickly that a terms like `ignorant' really applies to a person---it identifies a cognitive state deficient in knowlege. If you call a remark ignorant or stupid or something like that, it's hard to see what sense it can make other than `reflecting ignorance or stupidity or...' on the part of the person who made the remark, at least at the moment they made it. It's just best to avoid that kind of dismissive comment---people will focus on it, rather than on the point you're trying to make.  Best to avoid even the appearance of disrespect, eh? 




kachi said:


> I see everyone's reasoning and you probably are all right. I have only been training for a few years so I definitely don't have the understanding and knowledge of MA to the extent that you guys have.
> I think your right about the view of freestyle in the 2 countries because we do not train for competition or anything like that, we train for ourselves (I'm strongly opposed to sport and show adaptations of Karate).



You'll find a lot of people on the MT boards in sympathy with that view. There are quite a few MAist here who don't regard sport competition as the be-all and end-all of the MAs, to put it mildly. 



kachi said:


> The term 'freestyle' in Australia means that it's just a more open style and is not bound by traditional rules and technique. We still have the basics of traditional Goju Ryu in our system but we modify moves and incorperate a few techniques from other styles into our curriculum.
> Just to clear it up my Sensei does teach the bunkai behind kata (although we've never used the term 'Bunkai') and he believes in kata quite strongly.
> I would like to go to a Patrick McCarthy seminar but I wouldn't have the first clue as to where to find one.



Check to see if he has a website, is a good place to start. All you need is an email address for him. Here's a link that can get you started: http://www.society.webcentral.com.au/seminars.htm

Also check out the link I posted previously: http://www.society.webcentral.com.au/patrick.htm

Another good starting point, from one of the greatest masters of kata analysis, is Iain Abernethy's _Bunkai-jutsu: the Practical Application of Karate Kata_. Once you've read his stuff, you won't ever again think of kata as valueless for combat.



kachi said:


> Brandon Fisher - I understand now that I don't have enough experience with MA and kata and I will not dismiss kata but instead try to further break down and decipher the deeper meaning behind kata, which I obviously have not done yet.



Good idea. If you have any taste at all for problem solving or puzzles, kata analysis will really appeal to you---it requires a combination of logical thinking and real-world experience, and the payoff is that something which seemed pointless or wildly impractical suddenly emerges as a seriously effective (sometimes _too_ effective) catalogue of very severe damaging techniques, nothing at all like its kick-strike-block `packaging'. 



kachi said:


> twendkata71 - You have given me an invaluable insight into kata and I will take everything you said on board. You are obviousy a very knowledgeable and experienced person and I thank you for sharing that with me. Also thanks for your advice and be sure that I will be using it in the near future.



What you will probably find, once you see how it's done, is that kata analysis is habit-forming. Remember, the guys who developed the modern kata were bodyguards for the King of Okinawa, and they were forbidden to carry weapons. They had only their bodies. You can bet that they knew how to use them to protect their king, and the kata are the disguised records of their discoveries for that purpose.


----------



## kachi (Oct 10, 2006)

Thanks for your help Exile, i really appreciate it.


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 10, 2006)

*That's ok kachi, I have been called worse. I definetely was talking about many of the freestylist here in the states. Freestyle here usually means a tournament driven school. Creative/musical forms. I do know several freestylist here that are very good as well.*
*Mr.Mcarthy's home dojo is in Brisbane I believe.*









kachi said:


> I see everyone's reasoning and you probably are all right. I have only been training for a few years so I definitely don't have the understanding and knowledge of MA to the extent that you guys have.
> I think your right about the view of freestyle in the 2 countries because we do not train for competition or anything like that, we train for ourselves (I'm strongly opposed to sport and show adaptations of Karate). The term 'freestyle' in Australia means that it's just a more open style and is not bound by traditional rules and technique. We still have the basics of traditional Goju Ryu in our system but we modify moves and incorperate a few techniques from other styles into our curriculum.
> Just to clear it up my Sensei does teach the bunkai behind kata (although we've never used the term 'Bunkai') and he believes in kata quite strongly.
> I would like to go to a Patrick McCarthy seminar but I wouldn't have the first clue as to where to find one.
> ...


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 10, 2006)

*This may be a bit off topic,but The thing that I like about the premise of freestyle is that the freestylist keeps an open mind and tries to learn from other styles and forms of martial arts.*
*And as far as kata not fiting your idea's of practical self defense, try creating your own kata,with techniques that are practical. It is not as easy as it sounds. It takes a lot of work. Peace and good luck in your journey. :asian: *


----------



## shoshinkan (Oct 10, 2006)

Dark said:


> Sport or SD based it doesn't matter, but what are the pros and cons of free style (no kata) karate styles?


 
im sure there are loads of pros and cons, but it simply isn't 'karate' (in the historical sense) if kata is not the core of the training where im form, 

I don't mean simply kata performance - that has very little to do with real karate practise, kata 'study' and application is a different animal. 

Whilst there are other elements to good karate this is the central core if you like that everything else hangs off.


----------



## exile (Oct 10, 2006)

kachi said:


> Thanks for your help Exile, i really appreciate it.



No problem, Kachi.  The great thing about MT is that you have some great resources available that you take advantage of, and the biggest resource is probably the friendliness of the place---people are glad to try to help and there's a huge amount of hard-won experience out there to tap into. This is what I've found with my own questions...


----------



## kachi (Oct 10, 2006)

twendkata71 said:


> *This may be a bit off topic,but The thing that I like about the premise of freestyle is that the freestylist keeps an open mind and tries to learn from other styles and forms of martial arts.*
> *And as far as kata not fiting your idea's of practical self defense, try creating your own kata,with techniques that are practical. It is not as easy as it sounds. It takes a lot of work. Peace and good luck in your journey. :asian: *



Personally, I don't think I'm ready to be going and making up new kata. Maybe I just have to spend more time on the old kata to pull out some more practical techniques more suited to myself. I could also delve into other Martial Arts to pick out their kata and modify and add with my own.


----------



## shoshinkan (Oct 10, 2006)

kachi,

what system of karate and what kata do you work?


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Oct 10, 2006)

Kachi,
I am willing to help if I can.  What kata do you practice now?


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 11, 2006)

*Yes, any kata questions that I can answer I would be happy to. *
*The great thing about disecting kata is that you learn something new each time you work on the kata. It really gets interesting when you learn the vital points and meridians of the body. Some of the hidden strikes are very deadly. That is why they were hidden. And when Itosu adapted the kata for school children he took out  some of the more lethal strikes.Didn't want school kids seriously injuring other children.*


----------



## exile (Oct 11, 2006)

twendkata71 said:


> And when Itosu adapted the kata for school children he took out  some of the more lethal strikes.Didn't want school kids seriously injuring other children.



Yes---Kachi, I don't think it can be stated too many times how much Itosu's strategy of disguising the really severe violent uses built into the kata affected the way later generations of MAists would think abot (and misinterpret) them. Itosu wanted very, very much to get the Okinawan school officials to buy into the use of karate in children's physical education. But as Twendkata says, you can't very well be teaching children to do neck twists, throat strikes and finishes kicks to an `opponent's' lowered head. So the moves were disguised as block-punch-kick. And when Itosu was criticized by his fellow masters for doing this, his response in essence was: look, the combat applications are still there for adult karateka, _if they just look for them_. That's the part that gets left out of many karate/TKD curricula. But it's as true as it ever was: you have to look, and when you do, you _find_.


----------



## JasonASmith (Oct 11, 2006)

I am starting to really analyze the hell out of the movements that I have been performing, and I've come across(by accident, I think) some of those truly nasty moves...I guess that's why I enjoy kata; not just for the prescribed pattern of the movements, but also because they are kind of a puzzle...You know that another piece fits, but you just have to find it...


----------



## exile (Oct 11, 2006)

JasonASmith said:


> I guess that's why I enjoy kata; not just for the prescribed pattern of the movements, but also because they are kind of a puzzle...You know that another piece fits, but you just have to find it...



Exactly---it's a kind of logic problem: it's given that there is a solution, it's given that these are facts, now what is the solution that fits the facts. It's not purely logical of course, because there are certain parts of the solution which depend on things that are not inherently necessary: that the carotid sinus is located where it is and is linked to the maintenance of blood pressure in a particular way which makes it a good target for a finishing strike, and so on. 

The problem I have with working out the solution in TKD kata (= hyungs/poomsae/tul in Korean, depending in part what organization you train in) is that, as a number of people who've been doing TKD way longer than me have pointed out, the original Okinawan forms were to some extent chopped up and `mixmastered' as TKD evolved out of the Kwan era, so it's a bit harder to read them. Fortunately, the internal units of the forms---the two-to-four move sequences that each show a complete tactical combat episode---are usually left intact. But sometimes not, and then it's very hard to see what's going on. I hate to make things up that might be based on preconceptions unrelated to biomechanical or combat reality. That's why it's important to try this stuff out in the doj. on, um, real life experimental subjects who are not going to be 100% cooperative with your techniques:wink1:


----------



## kachi (Oct 11, 2006)

Currently I am practicing Seiyunchin/Seienchin(sp?) and we have broken it down step-by-step, but only a little. I've been learning it for a little under a year so I know the full kata. but kata varies slightly throughout different styles and schools of Karate. I saw some clips of seiyunchin on the net (e.g. http://www.spokanekarate.com/kata/index.php, 



) and they aren't completely the same as what i'm learning because there's a few huge chunks missing but the basics are all there.


----------



## exile (Oct 11, 2006)

kachi said:


> Currently I am practicing Seiyunchin/Seienchin(sp?) and we have broken it down step-by-step, but only a little. I've been learning it for a little under a year so I know the full kata. but kata varies slightly throughout different styles and schools of Karate. I saw some clips of seiyunchin on the net (e.g. http://www.spokanekarate.com/kata/index.php,
> 
> 
> 
> ) and they aren't completely the same as what i'm learning because there's a few huge chunks missing but the basics are all there.



Sounds like your instructors have been talking to you a bit about the bunkai---do you have any examples off the top of your head? Sometime even a simple looking two-move sequence has a whole fight's worth of moves concealed in it...


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Oct 12, 2006)

Seiyunchin is a interesting kata, I began learning a long time ago but never learned the whole thing.  Truly one of my favorite kata to see performed though.  Personally I thought the second version of Seiyunchin was not very good but the first version was not great but it was good.  Always remember different schools have different interperations of each kata even practicing the same kata.  Thats one of the things that intrigues me.


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 12, 2006)

That actually baffles me. You would think that the same schools would teach the same thing, especially with the whole tradition thing. Originally one teacher, would've taught the same thing to a group of students, that would go on to teach. Why should there be different interpretations? The founder had one way... his. That's where the real answers would be. At least you would think so. Truly Baffling.


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Oct 12, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> That actually baffles me. You would think that the same schools would teach the same thing, especially with the whole tradition thing. Originally one teacher, would've taught the same thing to a group of students, that would go on to teach. Why should there be different interpretations? The founder had one way... his. That's where the real answers would be. At least you would think so. Truly Baffling.


I agree..  But truly no one does one kata exactly the same even ones that were trained by the founders they vary slightly.  However from style to style the kata tends to vary alot.  Okinawan systems the kata doesn't vary has much as between okinawan and japanese kata.  Interesting thing is they are pretty much all the same kata.  Its enough to make your head spin. :idunno:


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 12, 2006)

*Seiyunchin is my favorite kata. I know two versions. There are only slight variations.  The one performed on the youtube clip is the WKF Shito ryu version. The other clip from the spokane school is of course Goju ryu.  Usually the reason for so many people performing kata differently is  they changed it to fit their body type. Or they started to forget the kata and then added their own movements in the  kata where they had the blank spaces.*


----------



## JasonASmith (Oct 12, 2006)

I like the stances...
Twend, Sir, is there anything in Shotokan that resembles this?


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Oct 12, 2006)

It looked like a Shito Ryu version but wasn't sure.  Still seen it performed better.    I ahve seen some of Hanshi Glenn Keeney's black belts perform Seiyunchin and it just blew me away.


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 12, 2006)

*Shotokan does not use the Shiko dachi, feet pointed out at 45o angles. The closest stances in Shotokan would be the Sochin dachi,named from the kata. And the Grounded hangetsu dachi.*
*Other that that Kiba dachi and hachijidachi  are the side stances. *
*As far as kata goes Kanazawa's Shotokan international federation teaches a version of Seiyunchin. They use Kiba dachi instead of the Shiko dachi of Goju ryu or Shito ryu. The system that I am studying we use these stances. Our original style was Koei kan, which has many Shito ryu elements. We also have elements of Shotokan,which many of our black belts are Shotokan.  I persononally,now that I am older, favor the Goju ryu, and Shito ryu kata and kihon.  When I was younger I loved training in Shotokan. The kata were powerful and it gave me a strong base for kumite. We would spend an extra hour after class just in kumite. But, sorry got a bit off subject there.*







JasonASmith said:


> I like the stances...
> Twend, Sir, is there anything in Shotokan that resembles this?


----------



## twendkata71 (Oct 12, 2006)

I saw the video. This was the Junior Pan American games in Curacoa. The young man is pretty good.  I used to coach youth teams going to international compeitions on kata.  Back when the USAKF was in charge of the team. I was Madden's dojo and would help the junior team members work on their kata. We used to have a program where the junior team would have a chance to go to Japan every year to study and train at dojo's there. I do not know if that program is still running.









Brandon Fisher said:


> It looked like a Shito Ryu version but wasn't sure. Still seen it performed better.  I ahve seen some of Hanshi Glenn Keeney's black belts perform Seiyunchin and it just blew me away.


----------



## unity (Oct 17, 2006)

I like kata as it helps improve technique.  You can't do much without good technique.  You can argue and say that it wont help you in a defensive situation but I can spur on imagination and means you wont just stick to basic moves.  not only that, there fun!


----------



## kingkong89 (Nov 14, 2006)

there are not really any pros only cons to freestyle karate because kata helps you on your tech. stances and strikes.

Sensei Coleman
        '89


----------



## Martin h (Dec 11, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> That actually baffles me. You would think that the same schools would teach the same thing, especially with the whole tradition thing. Originally one teacher, would've taught the same thing to a group of students, that would go on to teach. Why should there be different interpretations? The founder had one way... his. That's where the real answers would be. At least you would think so. Truly Baffling.



Actually that is a modern way of thinking in karate. The old masters was not that strict about having one "true" way of doing things.
For examle, Chojun Miyagi, the founder of Gojuryu, was known for teaching his students not only different sets of katas but also different versions of the same kata to different students. All depending on what suited that particular student best for physique, mentality and whatever Miyagi used for base of his decisions. 
Now add 20-30 years, bury Miyagi, and have a discussion between a bunch of those students about which of them was taught the "real" version. Good luck getting a concencus.


----------



## exile (Dec 11, 2006)

Martin h said:


> Actually that is a modern way of thinking in karate. The old masters was not that strict about having one "true" way of doing things.
> For examle, Chojun Miyagi, the founder of Gojuryu, was known for teaching his students not only different sets of katas but also different versions of the same kata to different students. All depending on what suited that particular student best for physique, mentality and whatever Miyagi used for base of his decisions.
> Now add 20-30 years, bury Miyagi, and have a discussion between a bunch of those students about which of them was taught the "real" version. Good luck getting a concencus.



Interesting point! You wonder how widespread that kind of deliberate variation was...


----------



## Robert Lee (Dec 11, 2006)

I looked at the Go Ju katas showed  I was not real pleased with the Kata. Not that the kata are bad Just the person performing them needs more work But like it has been said different groups do different. I trained Go Ju for several years. Katas were more defined then what was shown on these clips. As long as a person is taught the movement behind the kata Then they know its application. Kata is but a chapter in a book. solo training Must be broken down to truley understand the moves in seperate action. Bunki works by show attack and defence aspects of the kata. Then on to open training. seyunchin katas has several well hiden moves At one you may be striking the second a block. break holds and such are there also. Be it open NO kata Or kata training As long as you are taught application and train hard you will improve.


----------



## Zero (Dec 12, 2006)

Sure there are pros and cons to kata.  It all depends on what your focus is and what you want out the the discipline you are training in.  If you do not want to focus on actual fighting or compete in that line, then spend your time on kata be it for self development or forms competition.  However, in any decent/high level of contact competition or street confromtation the kata to me have no real appreciable application.

If you want to be a great fighter then focus on your bag work, fight and train with as many sparring partners you can and forgo time doing kata for time in front of the bag or focus pads. Fighting is so dynamic and fluid that there is no point thinking you can string a kata together - sure some good well versed combos can be great but even these can't be counted on in a fight.
I don't see how kata can improve your fighting technique any better or even as good as time spent training with others to learn timing and movement, time hitting the bag to build up power and time on the focus mits/pads to increase speed.
That said I love to watch kata - for a limited time - as I truely appreciate the execution by well honed practitioners - but that is enjoying a form of art - not anything impressive regarding what is going to help you in the ring or on the pavement.


----------



## exile (Dec 12, 2006)

Zero said:


> Sure there are pros and cons to kata.  It all depends on what your focus is and what you want out the the discipline you are training in.  If you do not want to focus on actual fighting or compete in that line, then spend your time on kata be it for self development or forms competition.  However, in any decent/high level of contact competition or street confromtation the kata to me have no real appreciable application.



Before you come to that conclusion, take a look at the applications that people like Iain Abernethy, Rick Clark, and a whole gang of other people who've spent years laying out the fighting applications of the kata have shown to be recoreded in the forms. The techniques that the kata encode are about the nastiest and most street-effective imaginable (not for competion, but for _fighting_---you'd get immediately chucked out of any competition in which you applied the kind of techs these guys are showing). The apps built into, say, the Pinan kata as IA analyzes them in his work involve eye strikes, locks and joint breaks, elbow strikes to the face and throat, and a number of other techniques that you would certainly not want to be hit with, and just as important, the kata show you how to _set up_ those strikes. But you need to learn how to read kata. They were intentially disguised as simple block-punch-kick sequences from the time of Anko Itosu, who made it clear that those were applications for children's use, literally. They weren't the fighting applications he an Matusumura used when they were the unarmed bodyguards of the king of Okinawa, and which were the basis of the kata that Funakoshi took to Japan.



Zero said:


> If you want to be a great fighter then focus on your bag work, fight and train with as many sparring partners you can and forgo time doing kata for time in front of the bag or focus pads. Fighting is so dynamic and fluid that there is no point thinking you can string a kata together - sure some good well versed combos can be great but even these can't be counted on in a fight.
> I don't see how kata can improve your fighting technique any better or even as good as time spent training with others to learn timing and movement, time hitting the bag to build up power and time on the focus mits/pads to increase speed.



The answer to your question is that no matter how good you are at delivering individual strikes, a fight isn't a set individual strikes or other techniques delivered in isolation. So you learn to deliver power on the bag and accuracy via the use of focus mits.... _now_ what? What are you going to _do_ with those techs? The point of the kata is precisely to enable you to `learn timing and movement' in the way that the master fighters who created the kata found to be the most effective for combat. Each kata is a sequence of short (3-4 move) fighting scenarios that are in effect telling you how to move in response to a particular aggressive action by an assailant. Sure, it won't make any sense if you use the most obvious literal translation of the movement in the kata into combat _moves_. But---just taking a typical kata sequence as an example---if you learn to see that chambering retraction  as part of a wrist grab and lock in response to an attacker's grab, the chambering of the followup downblock with the other arm as an elbow strike to the assailant's forearm setting up a lock at the elbow, forcing the assailant's upper body down, and the downward motion of the `blocking' arm as a strike to the opponent's lowered throat, with the followup `middle' lunge punch a finishing strike to the now-lowered neck or temple, then what you have is an efficient and flexible plan for using the various techs in a coherent sequence to end the fight asap. All the practice of individual punches, kicks, blocks and so on in the world isn't going to give you a way to implement the strategy of your art in a real situation, any more than memorizing the dictionary of a foreign language is going to allow you to put sentences together to make yourself understood in that language. Just as you need to know the _syntax_ of that language to be able to speak it, the kata were designed to give you the syntax of combat apps---including sweeps, throws, locks and other grappling moves---for use at all combat ranges.



Zero said:


> That said I love to watch kata - for a limited time - as I truely appreciate the execution by well honed practitioners - but that is enjoying a form of art - not anything impressive regarding what is going to help you in the ring or on the pavement.



But kata weren't originally intended to be pretty dances. That's not why Matsumura, maybe the most intimidating fighter of his time, created kata forms, or Itosu, who was said to have never lost a single one of the many fights he was involved in his lifetime. These guys designed kata to incorporate their hard-earned understanding of how to counter and defeat dangerous attacks. They designed the kata as real-time guidebooks to translating karate/TKD/CMA strategic principles into living tactics, with followups and alternatives if things don't go as planned. 

Before you come to any final conclusions along the lines you've stated, take a look at Abernethy's _Bunkai-jutsu: the Practical Applications of Karate Kata_, especially his final chapter on combat-realistic training based on kata-guided fighting strategies, and consider what kind of effectiveness a fighter well-trained using those methods and tactical resources will have against an untrained aggressor. Like Matusumura, Ikosu, Egami and the  other pioneers, Abernethy isn't interested in `pretty' in the least. He shows you instead how kata-based fighting works under the nastiest conditions anyone is likely to encounter. You don't have to buy his approach, but you're cheating yourself if you come to the kind of conclusions about kata you've stated without at least looking at the huge body of evidence out there that kata are supremely combat-effective.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 13, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> That actually baffles me. You would think that the same schools would teach the same thing, especially with the whole tradition thing. Originally one teacher, would've taught the same thing to a group of students, that would go on to teach. Why should there be different interpretations? The founder had one way... his. That's where the real answers would be. At least you would think so. Truly Baffling.


I'm jumping in on this late...  

There's a story about kata that can help explain why different schools can teach the same kata differently.

It seems that one school taught a particular kata with a backwards hop at one point, before moving into a new set.  As they students advanced in skill, they moved on, and started their own schools -- and they came in contact with people doing that very same kata, but without the backwards hop.  Confusion and chaos resulted...  Which way was right?  Both ways came from recognized, known, and highly respected teachers.  Someone finally asked the teacher who included the hop why it was there.

The answer?  "The dojo wasn't long enough to finish the kata without moving backwards there."  Of course, the students had been teaching it, even in dojos with much more room, with the hop -- because "that's the way the teacher did it!"

Sometimes people also choose to emphasize different things in different kata based on personal preference, as well.  I teach with a woman who may be literally half my size.  When I do some of our forms, I emphasize certain principles and stepping; she emphasizes others.  Our students are lucky; they get both ways!  (It's only confusing when I show one thing and she shows another... and they're just a little different.

A third thing that sometimes happens is teachers changing things for students.  I can trace my lineage directly to the man who introduced my system to the US; I'm fortunate to train under one of his earliest students.  I've seen forms changed because the chief instructor just gave up on getting a principle across to someone...  So that person's students learned the set with this stance instead of that stance.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 13, 2006)

Dark said:


> Now all kata, forms in Karate and Kung-fu can be traced to the Da Mo series which was an exercise Bodhiharma taught the Chinese monks on his journey from India. Later the modifications were used by martial artist to strengthen the muscles used for the execution of fighting techniques, each exerise or combination of exercises represented a particular "style or system." This I know, but I have never heard of philosophy being taught. Tactics, strategies and principles yes but not philosophy.



I have to question this assumption.  I think that if you look across Chinese systems, to Okinawan or Japanese systems, to "modern" systems, you'll find that there is so much variation in forms that you can't say that they all derived from the same source material.  In fact, there are different stories for some systems; some Chinese systems claim to have been inspired by watching certain animals fight, for example.  Even if you limit yourself to the concept of pre-arranged movements for health -- there are yoga systems that predate Bhuddism or are from entirely different philosophical/religious bases.  

And, despite the argument that there aren't "kata" in boxing and many other systems -- there are.  Boxing has a catalog of basic, fundamental techniques and combinations, which are practiced in various ways, including shadow boxing where boxers fight an imaginary opponent.  Fencing has solo exercises to develop technique, speed and accuracy.  Even shooting has it's own "kata" of ways to draw, brace and fire a gun for accuracy.  Many "martial art katas" are catalogs of proven techniques and combinations; others are historical tales that illustrate events and principles of a system.  And some are just ways to practice techniques alone or with a partner.


----------



## twendkata71 (Dec 13, 2006)

*On a side note. The kata with the backward hops is Chinte. I still have no idea why the hops are in the kata and I have been practicing that kata for 10 years. *


----------



## exile (Dec 13, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> I'm jumping in on this late...
> 
> There's a story about kata that can help explain why different schools can teach the same kata differently.
> 
> ...



This is highly reminiscent of material in some earlier threads, in which one poster explained---if I'm recalling this correctly---that the extreme sine wave motion some ITF instructors teach is the result of a misintepretation of one particular teacher's efforts in the early days of ITF (don't recall whether it was Gen. Choi or one of his proteges) to communicate something about stances and movement in a very noisy, disorganized dojang context where several different things were going on at once, and vocal communication was pretty much out of the question. He exaggerated the up-and-down motion deliberately, to try to make clear some small detail that he couldn't make himself heard to explain, and the senior students faithfully copied the exaggeration and started teaching it in their own schools as they reached instructor rank. Kacey also pointed out that the somewhat confined feel of many of the ITF kata reflect the actual confinement of their creator, Gen. Choi, who devised them while imprisoned by the Japanese in an 8'X12' cell. 

There was a thread that ran for a while that spun off the thread I'm alluding to here; the point of the spin-off was to try to assemble some examples of practices in the MA which have attained `traditional' status whose origins were based on essentially chance factors, now largely forgotten, along the lines of the ITF cases I've mentioned. This back-jump move sound like a textbook instance of that kind of thing...


----------



## twendkata71 (Dec 13, 2006)

*Was Gen. Choi imprisoned before or after he studied with Funakoshi at the Shotokan in Japan? He may have modified the forms from the original, but they were not original designs. *


----------



## exile (Dec 13, 2006)

twendkata71 said:


> Was Gen. Choi imprisoned before or after he studied with Funakoshi at the Shotokan in Japan? He may have modified the forms from the original, but they were not original designs.



I think that's the case---he went to Korea in 1937, studied at the Shotokan, and was detained by the Japanese after being identified as a participant in anti-occupation activities while serving as a forced conscript in the north. 

And most definitely the elements in the ITF tuls, like those in the KKW hyungs, are derived from what Gen. Choi learned in his studies at the Shotokan, as I understand it. The revisions were partly intended, so I gather, to make the Korean MA he was trying to synthesize less obviously derived from the templates of GF's kata, as an expression of the General's patriotic zeal...


----------



## twendkata71 (Dec 13, 2006)

*Thank you for the information. I have not done as much research into Taekwondo history as I have the Japanese and Okinawan arts. *
*I will add that info to my collection.*


----------



## exile (Dec 13, 2006)

twendkata71 said:


> *Thank you for the information. I have not done as much research into Taekwondo history as I have the Japanese and Okinawan arts. *
> *I will add that info to my collection.*



My pleasure, Twendkata!


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 13, 2006)

exile said:


> This is highly reminiscent of material in some earlier threads, in which one poster explained---if I'm recalling this correctly---that the extreme sine wave motion some ITF instructors teach is the result of a misintepretation of one particular teacher's efforts in the early days of ITF (don't recall whether it was Gen. Choi or one of his proteges) to communicate something about stances and movement in a very noisy, disorganized dojang context where several different things were going on at once, and vocal communication was pretty much out of the question. He exaggerated the up-and-down motion deliberately, to try to make clear some small detail that he couldn't make himself heard to explain, and the senior students faithfully copied the exaggeration and started teaching it in their own schools as they reached instructor rank. Kacey also pointed out that the somewhat confined feel of many of the ITF kata reflect the actual confinement of their creator, Gen. Choi, who devised them while imprisoned by the Japanese in an 8'X12' cell.


 
I'm sure there are many examples that can be found with a little digging...  We've all probably modified something along the way based on facilities or an injury or just what we like.  What's important is to remember what was modified, and why...  And to remember that some changes were made for reasons with no purpose other than to fit the space available or to please someone's numbering system, or whatever.


----------



## KarateKowboy (Dec 13, 2006)

Dark said:


> Sport or SD based it doesn't matter, but what are the pros and cons of free style (no kata) karate styles?



Kata is is the essence of Karate.
No Kata = No Karate


----------



## exile (Dec 13, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> What's important is to remember what was modified, and why...  And to remember that some changes were made for reasons with no purpose other than to fit the space available or to please someone's numbering system, or whatever.



That's exactly the crucial point---to understand when a given motion is somehow integral to the kata (and therefore has combat applicability), as vs. cases where a motion is basically accidental, an add on or accomodation to something in the training environment that has nothing to do with the combat scenario which that part of the kata is referring to. In the case at hand, imagine how distorted your notion will be of the combat storyline encoded in the kata if you try to work out a combat app for that back-hop.

This is why, if you're going to seek effective bukai for kata in a serious way, you really need to do a certain amount of historical research on each kata to figure out whether that eccentric-looking move is really supposed to be there, or if instead it got there because some famous master who popularized the kata a century always got a cramp as a result of the preceding move and had to stop and stretch his leg out against the cramp at that point... that sort of thing.


----------



## Zero (Dec 17, 2006)

What you say makes sense and perhaps my conclusion is drawn from primarily the schools' aplication of kata (however, this is also drawn from visiting many other schools and competitions also) where I have studied. 

I completely agree that individual actions in a lot of the kata can be used effectively in a fight or defence situation - however, I disagree with your thinking that kata is the most effective way of transmitting these techniques to students. I find that it is best to practice the moves until well honed and then put these to practice in contact fighting/training or competition (with often, but not always, of course the rules negating or hindering certain applications).
However, I will look at the material you have mentioned as it sounds interesting and very good and may perhaps be an eye opener for me.
You seem to think however, that after practicing techniques you should move onto kata (or go full circle back to kata), however I think and have found that it is best to put that into practice in a fluid, dynamic situation and I have never found kata to provide this environment. But thank you for your very informative views and information.


----------



## exile (Dec 17, 2006)

Zero said:


> What you say makes sense and perhaps my conclusion is drawn from primarily the schools' aplication of kata (however, this is also drawn from visiting many other schools and competitions also) where I have studied.



Hi Zerogive some of that stuff I mentioned a go, you won't be disappointedparticularly Iain Abernethy's stuff. He can _write_this is my objection to a lot of the MA literature, it reads terribly and digging the author's point out from under the vague language is like pulling teeth; also, his illustrations and photos are as clear as I've ever seen (another gripe I have with a lot of MA books: the graphics are muddy or badly scaled or both, and this is the kiss of death when the point of the photo sequence is to illustrate some particularly fine point of kata tech application). 



Zero said:


> I completely agree that individual actions in a lot of the kata can be used effectively in a fight or defence situation - however, I disagree with your thinking that kata is the most effective way of transmitting these techniques to students. I find that it is best to practice the moves until well honed and then put these to practice in contact fighting/training or competition (with often, but not always, of course the rules negating or hindering certain applications).



Again, Z, the kata aren't about how to learn individual techs. They are in effect scripts telling you how to set up a sequence of forcing actions that will yield a finishing move in the shortest possible time, _using_ those techs (where the specific application depends on the dynamics of the fight: is the assailant's throat exposed? Is his head high or low? Are you inside or outside? etc). The problem is learning to read them. Here's a trick, for example, that is becoming increasingly well known: katas often start with you facing N(orth), say, and then carrying out a movement so that you're now facing W(est)you know the kind of thing I'm talking about: a down block or rising block or whatever, yes? But if you're actually carrying out a block with that second movementif that movement were a blocking _move_the first kata `position' would mean that you were standing gazing dreamily facing N, noticed (by acute peripheral vision, or mental telepathy, or...?) an attacker advancing on you from W, and then turned to block a punch or kick that the assailant launched while your _side_ was facing him. Pretty lame scenario, eh? 

The problem comes from assuming that you actually begin the fight in the `ready' position facing N wrt an attacker coming at you from W. But Abernethy, Lawrence Kane & Kris Wilder in their book _The Way of Kata_, Rick Clark in his book _75 Down Blocks_ and an increasing number of fighters who are applying the Abernethy et al. model to karate's sibling art TKD argue that this is a serious misunderstanding of what was once a well-known assumption amongst karate masters codifying or devising kata: every fight `scenario' in the kata takes it for granted that the fight begins with you and your assailant _facing_ each other. That means that in the actual fight that the kata is trying to guide you through, you _start_ facing W, because your assailant is coming from there. So the `start' position of the kata can't be how the fight begins; it has to be the result of what you do in response to the attacker's first move as you and he face each other. Thus, the first move you make is a _turn_ to N. And what are you doing turning? Well, in one common kind of tech, the fight starts with your attacker grabbing you (to hold you in place while the other fist delivers a blow to your face or midsection). You countergrab with your `chambering retraction' hand and turn sharply from W to N, imposing an instant wrist/elbow lock. From there, your down block strikes his upper arm or his throat (if you force his head down low as per my first post in response to yours), or your `rising block' drives your forearm and elbow into his larynx or jaw, or your middle outward block participates in a sweep/throw sequence that sends him to the ground, etc. Then you follow up with the next move the kata encodes. 

So your whole way of looking at the kata changes once you know that the kata formally `begins' in a position which you are supposed to understand as the result of a prior move. People like IA and others who've delved deeply into the history of kata formulation have noted that there were certain conventions which were simply assumed amongt the karate masters of a century or morer ago. These conventionstogether with the deliberate concealment that the Okinawans practiced in presenting MAs either to their own school children or to their Japanese overlordsmean that understanding the actual meaning of kata is something akin to decoding a manuscript written in what look like familiar symbols, but which turn out to have very different phonetic values than we usually understand them to. A `block' in a kata is often code for a strike, a `strike' may be code for part of a throw, a change in stance is probably code for a weight shift that anchors a trapped assailant in a position in which you can sweep him or apply some other damaging tech, etc. 



Zero said:


> However, I will look at the material you have mentioned as it sounds interesting and very good and may perhaps be an eye opener for me.



As I say, if you give the stuff I mentioned a try you'll discover a way of seeing kata that's very different from what you've probably concluded about them on the basis of their `exhibition'/competitive treatment in tournaments. The main thing I'd suggest is to start with Abernethy's book, _Bunkai-Jutsu_I got it from Amazon for around $23.00 and it was the single best investment in a martial arts resource I've ever made (Simon O'Neil's Combat-TKD newsletter, which is a very good application of Abernethy-style bunkai analysis to the patterns of TKD, would be a respectably close runner-upbut IA really is the master analyst).



Zero said:


> You seem to think however, that after practicing techniques you should move onto kata (or go full circle back to kata), however I think and have found that it is best to put that into practice in a fluid, dynamic situation and I have never found kata to provide this environment.



Ah, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. Take a look in  particular at the reality-based combat training approach that Abernethy works out so that you can test out the application of the fighting scenarios he's trying to teach readers to uncover for themselves in the kata. The essence of fluidity is that the combat situation is constantly changing, but the same principles that the kata encode are applicable regardless of the situation; the trick is to train your understanding of the opportunities that any given fighting situation presents so that you see just what kinds of possible forced-win solutions (borrowing a term from chess) are possible in that situation. The kata are, in effect, catalogues of `forced wins' based on certain principles that correspond to the martial knowledge these old masters possessed. To actually impose these forced wins, though, requires you to train for them in real time with a seriously noncompliant partner, and in his last chapter IA outlines the training methods he uses for this purpose... very promising, was my first thought when I read it for the first time, though physically pretty intimidating; those guys don't hold much back. One thing is for sure: training for combat using kata-based fighting scenarios is totally different from competitive kata performance as a tournament event... the two have almost nothing in common.



Zero said:


> But thank you for your very informative views and information.



My pleasure, Zero, and I hope you find and enjoy Abernethy's take on the concealed applications to real, serious combat that he identifies in classic Okinawan and Japanese kata forms. I'm not saying you (or anyone) is going to wind up buying everything IA says, but his perspective makes a huge amount of very _practical_ sense out of what at first blush _does_ look like a set of somewhat odd, aggressive looking dance steps... I really would be interested in knowing your response to what IA is suggesting about how to interpret the combat meaning of kata movements, once you've gotten to read him.


----------



## Zero (Dec 20, 2006)

Exile

I must confess I do agree with a lot of what you say and thanks again for the Abernathy heads up - unfortunately I can't locate any free stuff/info regarding the mentioned materials but will have to try a library and hunt it down.

I do think you may be blending what the concept commonly recognised as kata is these days with other things or choosing to call RBT (reality-based training) etc kata. THe adrenalin training has its place for street defence situations etc and is very good, while you can't go past fighting more experienced praticioners for competition. However, even our advanced 2-man kata in goju ryu (whiole great for covering basics) does not offer the dynamic situations in a real life fight or struggle when jumped on the street.  

You are right in that segments of kata - be it in defence or attack - can be taken and referenced from within any part of the overall particular kata and applied to whatever situation you find yourself in.  HOwever surely you must agree that once a fighter has trained to a level that they can execute the core defensive/offensive moves then it is best to move on to applying them in mulitple pressure situations - I just have not seen kata like this and if it is around, I don't think it is correclty referred to if called kata. Question - what is kata?? (is there a define parameter martial artists can recognise kata as coming within - if not, then why bother with the title?


----------



## JackShadow (Dec 20, 2006)

I believe katas form the foundation for most of Karate and for good reason too.   They perfect your technique.  If you jump into fighting and sparring, your never going to learn the proper technique; you'll get into bad habits early that will be very hard to correct later in your training.  

By learning a kata the right way first, you learn how it is performed in a textbook.  From there you develop muscle memory and also learn how to precisely control your movements and develop control.  As you develop these skills, it is reflected in your fighting.  That block you've been doing millions of times in your kata will often translate into a more effective and natural movement in your kumite.

You can also say there is more spiritual development in a kata.  Katas are stylized versions of "real world" techniques yet you have to imagine the fight and think about what exactly each move translates to, what it means, and what it does.  You also look more inward towards yourself when developing your kata skills.  If you mess up or are doing something wrong then the problem lies within yourself and you must find within yourself the solution to the problem.  I truly believe it makes one a much more spiritual being when one is constantly perfecting a kata to get it just right not only on the outside, but on the inside as well.

A kataless form might develop good fighters very quickly, but I believe the hard work, dedication, skill, and spirit of a kata-trained person will make them the better martial artist.  Many people forget that Karate is not just about developing your body, but about developing your mind and spirit as well.  And I do believe there is nothing too spiritual about hitting a punching bag for several hours.


----------



## Haze (Dec 21, 2006)

History tells us that karate was developed by Okinawans that had studied arts from China. They called it Karate (china hand) The Japanese changed it to Empty hand. Now if you take any system of karate that was developed in Okinawa or Japan and change it should you give it a different name as the Okinawans did with what they took from the fighting arts of China? 

IMO - YES

If you develope an art then give it a name but don't call it karate if it does not come from Okinawa. Kick boxing, this is good. American karate? Like saying Polish burritos. 

Karate without kata- You will have techniques from karate, probably add some kicks from MuayTai, some locks/throws from jujutsu, some wrestling moves for ground fighting, some kobudo training, etc, etc, etc.

Kataless karate? It's not karate, it's a system of defensive and offensive fighting techniques. Call it what it is.

Muay Tai Boxing with out knees and elbows is not called Knee and Elbowless Muay Tai? It's kickboxing!


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 21, 2006)

> Kataless karate? It's not karate, it's a system of defensive and offensive fighting techniques. Call it what it is.


 
exactly   well said by the way


----------



## Drag'n (Dec 21, 2006)

You can teach the same techs from the Kata with a partner, without practising in kata form. Still the same techs. Still Karate.
This will be less time consuming. You get a feel of working with a real body and how it reacts. And increase resistance gradually to improve your effectiveness.
There wont have to be anymore guesswork about the possible applications, or years spent "discovering" the techniques.
There would be alot less misinterpretation. I think we've all seen some real bogus applications being taught by ill informed instructors.
The only down side is you always need a willing partner handy.
Kata can be practised without one. That is really one of the few benefits I can think of.
Plus its nice to watch,  is real handy for gradings, and keeps students interested by providing a very tangible new goal with each belt.(sarcasm)
Is it necessary? I dont think so. 
There seem to be more people doing kata without really understanding it than those that do.
I do appreciate those that do understand it. But Karate can still be Karate without it. The same building blocks and concepts can be taught by other methods. Perhaps even more effectively.


----------



## Haze (Dec 21, 2006)

Drag'n

The same techniques could be taught but would it still be karate? I feel that what makes karate karate is that it has kata. Many of the same techniques are found in jujutsu that are in my kata. It's just delivered to the student in a different teaching form. 

I have friends that train in kenpo/kempo and have no kata. But their techniques are not much different than mine. 

Where I train we can look at a section of a particular kata and examine the sequence of movement and see how this could be applied. 

Maybe this is just the textbook (kata) and how we (karateka) keep are techniques organized/memorized. 

I'm just old school. And my mind says "karate has kata"
If I take the techniques that my kata hold and teach them without the kata
I would be teaching "techniques and application of GOJU "

We can agree to disagree and this is why we have these forums>


----------



## matt.m (Dec 21, 2006)

I know I am a bit out of my element here, I have a dan in Judo and participate concurrently in Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido.  But to not do kata in Karate would be like saying you learned a non poomse cirriculum in tae kwon do.  I don't even think that is in the realm of possibility.

Just a thought, considering even judo has kata.  Katas, Forms, Poomse....whatever you wanna call it just helps you build on proper technique.


----------



## Martin h (Jan 8, 2007)

I dont have a problem with kataless karate. Kata is just a method of storing information/tchniques to keep the style intact, and that purpose has almost been forgotten anyway, with the formal kata itself becoming the purpose.
As it is, kata today it usually taught and trained completely separate from the rest of the training, using the kihon, but not adding to it. So nowdays, learning a kata is just combining what you already know.

In the old days it was "3 years for one kata", or learning a kata -which takes a few days of hard training if we are honest, and then spending the rest of the time with bunkai and oyo for the kata. That is just not done anymore.

In kataless karate they could jump the kata and go directly to bunkai/oyo  -although they call it simply combination training.
I still say its karate. What it will be in a few generations without the kata to serve as memory device for its core techniques, is another matter.
But again, since the kata comes after learning the basics today, that could be said for many kata "based" styles aswell.


----------



## twendkata71 (Jan 8, 2007)

I don't think that karate without kata, would not have much substance.  It would be a shell of its former self.


----------



## Brandon Fisher (Jan 8, 2007)

twendkata71 said:


> I don't think that karate without kata, would not have much substance. It would be a shell of its former self.


I think you are correct.


----------



## Iron Leopard (Jan 8, 2007)

Must have kata.  Kata teachs balance, movement, moving hands and feet as one, keeping your back straight and head up, combinations and kicks as well as fighting principles.  Can you teach all of this without kata? Sure! But in my opinion it's not as effective.  Everyone no matter the rank or style or length of study can benefit from kata period.  Even if you are doing a martial art that has no kata...I can teach you a kata and make you better in your art!  

Now even if you don't agree with me on the above paragraph. here's another point. You've all either taught or trained with someone who is NOT a natural fighter and has absolutly no balance or coordination.  In this case kata is a must! and even if you disagree with kata.. this person has probably been given drills that either look like kata or put together kind of form a kata.  

maybe the drill is stepping forward with a punch and repeating this dozens of times. (1 pinan?) maybe it's kicking and steping down facing a different direction on gaurd. (2 kata, 3 kata, 4 kata, etc etc etc).  this is basically learning kata without doing the full form.  

My examples of forms are all from SKK.


----------



## cstanley (Jan 8, 2007)

"Kata is karate; karate is kata." If you aren't doing kata, you aren't doing karate. Call it something else.


----------



## exile (Jan 8, 2007)

I'd like to come back to Drag'n's post and look at it in a little bit more detail, because I think certain important points about kata emerge if we follow him a bit of the way and see where it takes us.



Drag'n said:


> You can teach the same techs from the Kata with a partner, without practising in kata form. Still the same techs. Still Karate.
> This will be less time consuming. You get a feel of working with a real body and how it reacts. And increase resistance gradually to improve your effectiveness.
> There wont have to be anymore guesswork about the possible applications, or years spent "discovering" the techniques.



OKfirst problem: you're already assuming that the problem of bunkai/oyo for a given kata has been solved, so that all the learner learns are the oyo, without the kata. Well, who tells the karateka [?] being taught in this manner what oyo to learn? It's not you, the karateka, applying kaiai no genri to the kata to work out the bunkai, because our starting assumption is that you aren't learning the kata, just the techs, right? So who teaches you the techs? Your instructor? OK, you're going to rely on your instructor to teach you the techs encoded within the katameaning _s/he_ is the one who has to work out the bunkai/oyo; or else his/her instructor had to... but somewhere up the line, someone had to decide what those apps were. And then, if we follow your idea, we simply jettison the kata (which will virtually certainly be forgotten, if it's not practiced... this has probably happened to many kata since time immemorial). So now we have no kata, just a set of techs, which you inherit through your instructional lineage.

_Except..._




Drag'n said:


> There would be alot less misinterpretation. I think we've all seen some real bogus applications being taught by ill informed instructors.



Whoa! What if the techs that were passed down, and taught to you, belonged to this sorry lot that you yourself have brought upbogus applications from higher up in your lineage that you learn without suspecting a thing?! And since we no longer have the original kata to restudy, once we figure the tech is bogus, we're sort of up the creek, eh? If you knew the kata, you could work out some valid apps yourself, with a good bit of effort... but you aren't going to get the chance, because the katas are now all pretty much unrecoverable history.



Drag'n said:


> The only down side is you always need a willing partner handy.
> Kata can be practised without one. That is really one of the few benefits I can think of.
> Plus its nice to watch,  is real handy for gradings, and keeps students interested by providing a very tangible new goal with each belt.(sarcasm)
> Is it necessary? I dont think so.



It's only necessary if you want to have the living source of the techs always available to you, to test out your competence against and see if the techs you practice really do them justice. Iain Abernethy's bunkai and oyo for the Pinans, for example, are, in terms of combat effectiveness, beautiful, in a scary kind of way; but you might not have been taught something nearly so good, by combat standards.  Without the kata to go back to, though, you can only go on with what you've been... well, _spoonfed_,  I guess is the right word.



Drag'n said:


> There seem to be more people doing kata without really understanding it than those that do.
> I do appreciate those that do understand it. But Karate can still be Karate without it.



The implication here is that since so many people do kata without understanding it, the solution is not to get them to understand itas Iain Abernethy, Bill Burgar, Rick Clark, Kris Kane & Lawrence Wilder and a ton of others have tried to do in karate, and Simon O' Neill and Stuart Anslow have in karate's sister art TKD, by writing books, giving demos and seminars, producing videos and so onbut rather to eliminate the kata entirely. The logic here is the same as saying that if there's a really useful tool that most people misapply because the instructions have been left out of the boxes, what you do is stop manufacturing the tool, as vs. making sure that the users' manual gets packaged _along_ with it.  



Drag'n said:


> The same building blocks and concepts can be taught by other methods. Perhaps even more effectively.



See all of the preceding. The kata are time-tested repositories of effective combat techniques, techniques which each generation has the chance to relearn, and extend and find novel applications forunless we follow your suggestion and deep-six the kata once and for all.


----------



## undeadcheese (Mar 28, 2007)

Kata has a few other benefits.  First off you can practice techniques that would be extremely dangerous to apply to a partner no matter how good they are.  Second when you practice kata you have an opportunity to dissect the techniques in a manner that allows you to take not just the application shown in the form but also allows more time for your neurons to build a memory of correct proceedure in your mind.  Third kata practice allows you time to study or feel for useful variations in the fight sequence which may come as unexpected for an assailant. Fourthly kata can be practiced in your imagination if for some reason you are unable to practice physically.  For example: due poor health, a confined space, bad company or too many people watching... etc.


----------



## hrlmonkey (Apr 26, 2007)

having read through this thread with much interest,  i should admit that i am of the kata-less variety.  i have studied shotokan in my youth,  i loved it - kata and all.  but having a black in kickboxing (lets call it ring style for ease of indentification here), and a black in a kata less karate style, i can say that they are two different entities.  its was everything that i know in karate,  there was no boxing in it at all.  the 'shadow boxing' was refered to as free form, and you were expected to show more than punches and kicks.  you also had to show a comprehensive knowledge of all techniques you used.  if you performed a spear hand to the throat height,  you had to be aware of the possible consequences.  in all, you had to have a moral understanding of everything involved.
there was everything from one on one, to multiple attackers. but competition was discouraged, in favour of truth - by which i mean, being punched in the face bloody well hurts,  even after 25 years of martial arts training.

i understand that some people still dont feel its karate,  but i ask then to be a little understanding.  anything that you practice has evolved from another form of karate, to argue that its the original is your love for the art coming to the surface.  well heres my love for what i have learnt - i will refer to it as modern karate and not traditional.  but i will never say that its better,  because i love any form of martial arts, regardless of the origin.  so please lets not argue about whats real and whats not.  lets just get on with enjoying and progressing what we share in common.


----------



## chinto (May 20, 2007)

Dark said:


> The freestyle karate dojo is was checking out was pretty cool, they teach the core techniques and have dropped kata, in favor of a more scientific view point, they have a pretty nice set up, they also teach the philosophy aspect as well. I was actually surprised they went back to the old, trap-lock-break methods from a block as well.


 
If by that you mean that they found themselves basicly where the old kata tought you to be?  well i would not be suprised at all! Please remember the kata came out of the experiances of the old men who had fought for their lives. What they passed on and others had work for them in similer fights where their lives were at stake is what went into the kata.  This includes the principles of movements and techniques and all of the phisical movements that saved their lives when it was for keeps.


----------



## chinto (May 20, 2007)

twendkata71 said:


> *karate without kata is not karate. It may still be a fighting art, but not karate. Then again people call a lot of systems karate when it is not really karate. Karate without kata is better called freestyle kickboxing. Which there is nothing wrong with, but I just have problem with people calling something karate when it really isn't karate.*


 

I would have to agree, and add that it must have a heavy Okinawan influince as well.  after all if it does not have the Okinawan influince from karate how can it be a karate.


----------



## chinto (May 20, 2007)

twendkata71 said:


> *Yes, I agree that you have to spend a lot of time sparring to develop good fighting skills. Timing,learning to manipulate the opponent, to read their intentions. Kata develops the muscle memory in the techniques. Sparring develops the reflexes and your ability to deal with an actual opponent attacking. You also learn where your weaknesses are. When you make a mistake or lose focus in sparring you feel where you left an opening or misjudged the distance.*
> *Also don't forget your basics. Without strong basics your techniques will be ineffective.*


 
absolutly.  the kata teaches a great deal, basics and body machanics and movement. it is up to the karateka to learn to aply them. but if you work hard on understanding and practicing the kata you will find even in sparring when a technique is right it will sometimes just kinda happen. muscle memory and mushin will take over.  its really a great feeling when it does happen.


----------



## chinto (May 20, 2007)

twendkata71 said:


> *The thing that I see a lot at competitions is students and black belts that have weak basics. You see it in their kata,in their technique and their fighting. Then when others see that they make a judgement on the style that that student/or black belt is demonstrating.*
> *This is how the people not in the martial arts get a bad impression of the martial arts (karate,Taekwondo,etc.). *
> *I also think that is where people get their impression that kata is not useful. If they see someone with weak technique in their kata,which means weak basics or in many cases the person has not practiced the kata thoroughly enough. Then kata looks to be not worth the time. Also much of the meanings of the movements in kata are hidden so the average observer sees the movements as unuseful. Just my observation.*


 

Absolutely!! Right on the button!


----------



## chinto (May 20, 2007)

kachi said:


> That is an extremely ignorant remark. Most freestylists do not train with kata because it's not believed to have much practical value for real life situations. Not because it's too much work or because they don't have patience, that's just petty slander.
> I personally do train with kata, not because I want to but mainly because it's part of our curriculum. There is far to much useless and time consuming rubbish in kata and I believe that if you are taught the correct technique to start with and you practise it over and over again then there is no need for kata. As for the spiritual aspect of kata, I just down right don't believe in it so I won't comment on that.


 

No I think most of them are training for turmenments and cage type prize fights. that means the intent is to score points and win, not damage and or criple or even kill an attacker who is intent on taking your life.  learn to look below the surfice and see what is 'hiden' in the kata.  think in terms of what really nasty use or set up for the next movement would be that would result in seriouse injury or set up for that kind of strike, or trap or lock or sweep or throw.  then you will begain to understand what they are teaching you from their experiance in the past.  
Also please remember that a real fight is a real fight in 1000bc or today. enless we grow a new arm or leg or something, a real fight will be the same always. there is a very limited number of ways to efficently use the human body in combat.


----------



## exile (May 20, 2007)

chinto said:


> Dark said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





chinto said:


> No I think most of them are training for turmenments and cage type prize fights. that means the intent is to score points and win, not damage and or criple or even kill an attacker who is intent on taking your life.  learn to look below the surfice and see what is 'hiden' in the kata.  think in terms of what really nasty use or set up for the next movement would be that would result in seriouse injury or set up for that kind of strike, or trap or lock or sweep or throw.  then you will begain to understand what they are teaching you from their experiance in the past.
> Also please remember that a real fight is a real fight in 1000bc or today. enless we grow a new arm or leg or something, a real fight will be the same always. there is a very limited number of ways to efficently use the human body in combat.



Full marks for both points, Chinto. Dismissing kata because you can't `read' them seems to me very much like someone who's never learned to read music saying that a musical score has no information because there is no prose there telling you what notes to play. But let's face it, the kind of `ritual' performance approach to forms is very common in MA instruction, and that, plus the fact that kata performances have become tournament competition items, pretty much guarantee that there will be a lot of people who, like Dark, appear to want karate to be applicable to SD, but who are impatient with kata because there doesn't seem to be anything in them which is usable for that purposejust as it takes a lot of time and careful instruction to learn how to read music, eh?


----------



## chinto (May 21, 2007)

JasonASmith said:


> I am starting to really analyze the hell out of the movements that I have been performing, and I've come across(by accident, I think) some of those truly nasty moves...I guess that's why I enjoy kata; not just for the prescribed pattern of the movements, but also because they are kind of a puzzle...You know that another piece fits, but you just have to find it...


 

absolutly, and some time go though the bunkai slow with some one and pick say 3 or 4 moves, then try and find 3 or even 5 techniques that the movements in the kata teach you.  In the old kata there are usualy even more then 5 techniques in each movement of the kata if you look hard. some times its the one who is not doing the kata that will see it first too.
doing it alone and working on small sections also of course you can see things as well. try both.


----------

