Children + Kata = Bad Idea

[pmosiun1]

After much thinking on the subject, countless interviews with children, and and after experimenting with some new ideas, I've come to the conclusion that children really don't get very much from practicing kata. Sure, many of them learn how to do the steps and do them well, but it like a dance to them. They really don't understand the applications or what purpose kata serve. There are some exceptions, for example, I had one student who loved kata, understood how to break them down and could apply the techniques. He was older and very mature for his age, more mature then most teenagers in fact. The bulk of the kids that I've taught and that I've interviewed don't get kata and I'm thinking that they probably aren't ready for them developmentally.

That said, about a year ago, I stopped teaching children kata. I taught them developmentally appropriate applications instead and I showed them how the principles in the kata applied in these applications. In fact, last year, I had a semester where I taught a group of young teenagers one kata for four months. I drilled applications for three and a half of those months and then taught the kata for the last two weeks. The results blew their minds. Kids who have been in karate before suddenly got it and every single kid there understood what that exercise was really meant to do.

From that experience, I think it's safe to draw the following conclusion. Kids don't need to practice the one person kata. It works better to teach them the applications and introduce the kata when they are closer to adulthood. Does anyone else have any experience with this? What do you think? Off base, right on, or missing something?

I remember as a kid, practicing karate kata and enjoying it. Yeah, it was a bit like dancing.

 

[Makalakumu]

I remember as a kid, practicing karate kata and enjoying it. Yeah, it was a bit like dancing.

How long did you stick with karate?

 

[Makalakumu]

There are of course differences between the Kyan derivative traditions but I highly doubt that formal 'bunkai' existed for kata technique beyond guiding beginners to the correct spatial orientiation for a movement.

Some of the traditions do work two person answers to kata, but I believe they are more the students are made to work out their own ways to use the technique, with the guiding principle they must use their current understanding. Say the instructor has 40 years of work on what a section of kata can be used for, those answers may be far above the student's current needs.

First how many answers does anyone need?

My study shows me any movement has dozens of potential answers. Having a formal bunkai or two for each movement is too kindergarden for long term study IMO. The value of kata is much more than bunkai, it allows you to use full force in technique execution that you can never use with a partner. It helps you gain skill in small movement control over the decades. It helps you shift between movements more effectively. Kata is a tool to help you work towards perfection, even if it can't be reached because you keep finding new layers of movement potential.

I have students training with me over 27 years now and their progress still continues.

And my students understand kata potential. They're shown a range of ways a punch stops different attacks the first night, and continually there on. I just don't have them focus on learning all of that until there technique and movement matches the application.

Well as I stated every student I teach is working on building to what they can do 25 years hence. It's fully up to them whether they get to that point, and I have no illusions young people will find karate of that value, unless they're the exception.

I'm not against change of course, where there is valid study. Patrick McCarthy is a great example for developing two person fighting sets working karate's range potential, and everything, even his ground fighting is fully based on kata technique.

There are many answers.

More intreguing is that of Shiroma Shimpan. His examples of how kata technique works isn't 'bunkai' but contains additional technique. For him blocks are designed to take your head off, the extra's are all kata technique too, but not in kata sequence.

Of course all that matters is they strike and correspondingly drop.

Work the possible, develop the not possible, and make the impossible irrelevant.

Victor - I see where you are coming from more clearly now. Formal bunkai sets can be limiting, however, I think this depends more on the teacher and the curriculum. For example, I also train in Dan Zan Ryu Jujutsu and we have formal two person kata in this system. When you work in the concepts of principles and variations, I bet you would come damn close to what you are talking about.

My jujutsu sensei is also a black belt in Uechi Ryu, so we get an interesting mix during class. Essentially, everything in Uechi Ryu is found somewhere in DZR via kata variation...and much much more.

That said, what I'm saying is that children may not be developmentally read to grasp the abstract nature of a one person kata. They do very well, in my experience, in grasping the two person hands on aspects. You can teach this in a non-rigid manner that doesn't inhibit creativity.

Therefore, I would like to put out there the idea that we should wait to teach the kata. Lets children learn learn how to interact with a partner or a group and then show how kata relate to that experience.

 

[Victor Smith]

I suspect the differences of our understanding teaching youth has to do with very different underlying principles of instruction. I’m afraid I don’t accept the purpose of training any kyu student is to build towards creativity at the kyu level.

In fact the most interesting systems I know outside of my own efforts, any student kyu or dan don’t spend one second working on what an application is, instead the entire long range training program is to just teach them how to execute an very large number of applications with skill, and then learn how to select an application when facing an attack.

My own approach is a variation on that theme mostly focusing on both learning the thousands of application possibilities to develop the ability of using any of them to stop any attack.

In this I accept the Okinawan principle that the study of karate is kata first and foremost.
When a student is learning a kata, or having difficulty as time passes I show them a range of basic application possibilities and when they’re having difficulty show them what they can’t do if they don’t get it correct.

Every students first night I show them that stepping in to punch is also an elbow strike to the ribs of someone trying to grab you from behind, Then I show them the same movement that strikes the ribs is also a counter for a grab of their wrist, just pure style Isshinryu.

I’ve trained people for a long time and find little difference in their ability to learn based on age, but rather the tendencies of their nervous system they were born with. The largest difference in the ability of the young is the need to move activity with their attention spans, but I also find that necessary for adults.

The fact that all youth ranks train together, beginners remain examples for seniors, seniors are examples for the newer students. At the same time my focus for all of them is where they’ll be in 10 years, not at the instant. For Shodan, while they must correctly execute everything they’ve studied, I’m only looking for very high level of performance for the first 6 kata, the later kata are still years of work away.

What youth (or not youth) can or cannot do is not a given, rather a dependent of what you’re standards for the students should be. Whether you’re looking for short term goals or long term goals. As the primary purpose of my youth program is to viscerally teach them that they can learn with their own efforts, knowing most of them will leave before the longer time learning scare sets in, kata remains an excellent tool for my program. And forms the groundwork for true long term study.

On the other hand, if the times were truly different, if short term ability was required we would obviously change the program for such reasons, but in that case I would only focus on may be 3 movements, enough to end any attack, but that is an entirely different discussion (and which 3 movements, well any 3 movements is more than adequate).

Kata is such an important long term tool it cannot be started early enough from my perspective. The purpose isn’t to compete, it isn’t to find techniques, it’s to develop the entire body movement potential of the student, and IMO necessary before two person drills are necessary.

Decades ago I used to begin my students with kumite their first night and they did fine. My own research, especially training with an extremely skill instructor who never included kumite in his classes, and was dominate when he did compete ,eventually led me to discontinue kumite until 2 or 3 years of training passed. The time being spent largely on kata, and my results where the student’s ability in kumite was correspondingly greater than previously. (Kumite is only a for older youth development not seriously the study of karate.).

Different assumptions different answers as I see it.

Train hard.

 

[Ojisan]

"I was reading Shoshin Nagamine's book where he described Kyan Chotoku as teaching kata and breaking it down to two person drills. The way Nagamine wrote it, made it sound as if there was no separation. Kata practice took place singly and with other people. This leads me to wonder if the idea of "bunkai" was simply part of kata practice even if they didn't call it that"

I know someone who trained with Kishaba and Nagamine and his explanation was that they spoke in terms of "Like this" and TiChiKi (what the hand is doing) but they didn't use terms like bunkai.

He also said that application study was largely left to the student to figure out.

I know that in "some" Chinese systems (as there are many) and in early Uechi Ryu, certain standard applications were taught and then strung together to form the quan or kata. I know it has been stated that Kanbun Uechi rarely demonstrated a complete form.

This doesn't mean that because they were shown a standard interpretation, that the student was shown all potential applications for a form.

I tend to agree with Victor that ultimately kata teach movement and the appplication of power. That doesn't mean that they don't teach principles or application. It means that solo performance of kata cannot teach what hands on practice with a partner can teach. My understanding is that the original use of "kumite" (crossing hands) was pre-arranged sparing using kata techniques. This was an exploration kata potential.

FWIW

 

[jim777]

That said, about a year ago, I stopped teaching children kata. I taught them developmentally appropriate applications instead and I showed them how the principles in the kata applied in these applications. In fact, last year, I had a semester where I taught a group of young teenagers one kata for four months. I drilled applications for three and a half of those months and then taught the kata for the last two weeks. The results blew their minds. Kids who have been in karate before suddenly got it and every single kid there understood what that exercise was really meant to do.

I find that very interesting I wonder if that might not be a better way to teach the kata to some of today's kids, rather than simply first thing after promotion.