Just wondering, how many strategies has been recorded into the Karate forms?
Do We Make Too Much of Kata?
- Thread starter isshinryuronin
- Start date
Solo drill training with left and right is better than the solo form training. Not only you concentrate in 1 combo (or 1 technique) at a time, but you also make your training to be balanced on both left and right.
Last edited:
Prince_Alarming
Brown Belt
I think it's largely because kata are not considered 'alive' in the Matt Thornton sense. Also, there's a difference in thinking. Robert Redmond, in 'kata; the folk dances of shotokan' draws attention to the difference between 'cowboys' in the west and martial artists in the east, and characterises the kata as 'empty' and no longer containing function. I beg to differ. John Titchen and Ian Aberthy have pressure tested and elucidated many potential real world applications. I might appreciate them largely as performance art, but there are lots of viable, even dangerous, techniques to be found. Personally, I think one has to go beyond 'techniques' and think in terms of 'patterns of movement', and indeed 'principles of movement'. I've heard kata described in the dojo as 'the dictionary of karate'. There's a serious point there, besides the usual 'empty' practices at the end of a karate session. I don't regard them as useless, and whatever their merits or demerits as a tool for combat training, they are an excellent way of entertaining small children.
skribs
Grandmaster
Look at drilling vs. eco in BJJ. Same bidirectional vitriol.
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
This is 100% true. The following is also 100% true: "If there is no kata there is no karate, just kicking and punching...Kata is karate." (Nagamine Shoshin, founder of Matsubayashi Shorinryu). Yes, you can have martial skills without kata, but it won't be "real"/complete karate, just effective use of kicking and punching. This is because real karate (as originally designed) is more than kicking and punching. The "more" is contained in kata.
As I mentioned in another post, as much as 30% or more of traditional historical kata involves grabbing, twisting, takedowns, pulling, joint locks and breaks and takedowns. As such, these techniques are an integral part of karate and reflect the original combat methodology: Striking and standup grappling used in conjunction with each other. These roots of karate are contained in kata.
It seems by my observation, those styles/schools that do not stress kata (and many that do, but don't understand them) rely on kicking and punching almost exclusively. They may be very proficient in this, but it's not karate in its entirety. They are missing that valuable third that exists in kata.
There are different karate's these days: Competitive, acrobatic performance, non-traditional modern, and the original traditional with kata. Only the latter represents the complete version of karate, incorporating the striking/grappling fighting style that was once the only karate.
Last edited:
I trained karate Shotokan for about 3.5 years. I practised in 2 dojos (each having several trainers) and went to quite a few seminars from many different trainers. I dropped Shotokan because it was waaaay too artistic to me. I had some growing bad feeling about it but when I gave Muay Thai a shot I knew my feeling was spot on. Muay Thai cut the BS of Shotokan, was more intuitive, more effective. I practised it in 3 clubs (because I moved) for roughly 3 years. I also gave Kickboxing a try and found it pretty ok.
At the moment I am not in a club: We have 2 young kids and I wanna be there for them and to help my wife. But I haven't dropped martial arts / martial sport: I train on my own in the morning (I usually wake up between 4 and 5 a.m., which leaves me some time to practise) but not every day. I've been considering going back to a club, I still hesitate whether it should be Muay Thai or Kickboxing. I'll try both and will see.
I know, training on my own I can't practise with a partner but that's better than nothing. And I find great explanations in the net. I am also not getting any feedback but that was the case with most trainers anyway.
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
I can now understand your low opinion of kata. It stems from your not understanding what kata is, although from the posts in this thread you should be getting a better idea - unless your mind is completely closed to the true concept of kata that has been explained here and other threads in detail.
You should be aware that Shotokan, almost from its start, was an institutionalized style that largely developed in the school system where the goals for the art diverged from the combat-oriented Okinawan art. More stress was put on personal development, exercise and competition. Also, most of the grappling techniques were taken out so as not to compete with judo/jiu-jitsu which were already established arts in Japan.
Although the kata still have remnants of these techniques embedded in them, teaching their application (for the most part, there are definitely some exceptions) have not been a priority (and this is not restricted to just Shotokan). Unfortunately, it seems that what you were looking for was not present in the Shotokan schools you attended. This does not mean there aren't other schools/styles of karate that have more of what it seems you're looking for (combat application). But it's great that muy thai fits your interests.
Just don't knock something that due to your limited knowledge and experience you do not completely understand.
Last edited:
Many years ago, I gave a Kung Fu demo in Austin TV station. After the demo, the reporter said, "Kung Fu is like dancing". After that day, I no longer demo any solo form and I only demo application.
It's our fault to make people to believe that Kung Fu (or Karate) is like dancing. I don't know about others, but that comment was a insult to me big time.
This was the form I did that day.
Last edited:
I like 2 men form better than solo form. The 1st 1/2 of the form can match to the 2nd 1/2 of the form.
A 2 men form can also be trained as 1 man form too. It meets the requirement that
solo drills = partner drills without partner
A 2 men form can also be trained as 1 man form too. It meets the requirement that
solo drills = partner drills without partner
Prince_Alarming
Brown Belt
Sheesh, what have you guys got against dancing? The dancers I know are mentally very tough and accomplished athletes. I know of one who did a marathon, straight off, without any additional training other than his dance routines, and finished in not an amazing but a respectable time.
HighKick
Master Black Belt
Nothing at all against dancers. I sublet space to a dance school and regularly have kids/adults go back and forth. Advanced dancers are Tough. Extremely fit and flexible. 'Nuff said.
Fungus
Black Belt
Believe it or not I actually did take "modern dance" classes for 2-3 years 30+ years ago, until where i had to get a partner and start competitive dancing, but then i quit. What I learn was "rythm" in movement and stepping on the balls of your foot, and some of the rythm still is there.
But these days I prefer "full contact dancing".
But these days I prefer "full contact dancing".
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Well, you can go back and re-read my post number 101 in this thread. Dancers, especially those who are performing on a professional level, are certainly tough, strong individuals and most definitely worthy of respect. But dance is not martial arts, and even movements that look the same on the surface, are not done in the same way. The rooting is different, the kinetic chain and body connection are different, which result in a different production of power (or lack thereof), etc., which is appropriate of course because the purpose is different. But letās be honest: when someone compares kata with dance, it is not meant as a compliment.
Prince_Alarming
Brown Belt
This seems short-sighted if it isn't meant as a compliment is my point- many cultures transmit important information and ideas through the medium of dance, it just seems to be something that the Western world has either never embraced or lost. That said, kata is uniquely its own thing. Something not everybody appreciates is that they figure in many other areas of japanese life other than martial arts- there are kata for letter writing, flower arranging, etc.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I think you make some good points here, but at the end of the day I would say that the general population in western cultures do not give dance the respect that it deserves and do not understand the level of hard work that dancers put into their craft and art. So the comparison is used negatively. Comments like āhe does not really understand his martial art; itās clear there is no meaning in his kata, it is empty, he may as well just be dancing.ā As if ājust be dancingā isnāt a gross misunderstanding of dance itself, fails to recognize the hard work that goes into ājust dancingā. Sure, anybody can turn on some music and thrash about and have some fun dancing. But I am talking about trained dancers doing higher level performances.
I recognize that some schools have developed kata that are meant to be performance. Some of these also produce excellent athletes. XMA and Modern Wushu are two examples. The kata/forms in these methods are meant to be performance inspired by martial arts, but are not meant to be viable tools for training functional combat methods. In that context, because the kata is intended to be performance art, a comparison with dance would be more appropriate. I would actually compare them more with a gymnastics floor routine, which is also amazing and requires tremendous training and athleticism, but also is not martial arts. But for the older, combat methods kata is intended to be a viable training tool that aids in the development of functional combat skills. It is not meant to be performance art and is not meant to be put on display for the uneducated public to gawk at and give applause. I understand that they often get used that way, but that was not their original purpose. Nobody was meant to see them other than your teacher who taught them to you, your classmates with whom you train, and your students to whom you teach it. Other than those, to put your kata on display is turning it into performance art devoid of meaningful context. The audience marvels at the athleticism and the martial spirit, but has no concept of what the movement is. In my opinion, it cheapens the training and devalues the kata.
Going back to my earlier post #101 in this thread, I will try to give an example of the issues that I saw when my then-girlfriend was training capoeira. Dancers often carry themselves in a way to make themselves light, so they can move and spin smoothly and quickly and effortlessly. Martial artists look for ways to root into the ground to create a strong foundation and base, from which to launch powerful techniques. In capoeira, we have a technique called āarmadaā, which is similar to what others might call as spinning outward crescent kick. Throwing this kick well includes planting and rooting the first foot so that the kicking foot can whip around powerfully and you donāt fall down if you land the target. When she would throw an armada, she would make herself light, be up on her toes, and she looked like she was doing a pirouette with her leg extended. If she landed the kick, it looked like she would fall over, or at the least she would severely lack power. That was her dance training bleeding into her martial arts, and that is an example of why I would not look to dance as an avenue to understand martial arts or kata. She could do an armada and it definitely looked like an armada, but it was heavily dysfunctional because she was doing it like a dancer and not like a capoeirista. Dance and martial arts are both disciplines that require long and extensive and intensive training to reach the higher levels of skill. But while they have some similarities in that they both involve lots of athletic movement, they are distinct and develop in very different ways. They both ingrain strong habits in how one moves, and those habits that serve the one very well often interfere with the other. It is one of those things that might seem very similar, but in reality do not automatically cross over into the other.
Prince_Alarming
Brown Belt
I'd agree with you- I'm fortunate to have trained at a dojo that does a lot of bunkai, but a lot aren't. But when I say performance art, what I mean to imply is that experiencing them as works of art can deepen one's understanding, because works of art are capable of myriads of interpretations- Pierre Bourdieu said that a work of art is remade by every single viewer, and this is a deeper level of appreciation- from my point of view- than just seeing them as a list of blocks and punches interpreted one particular way. This should, in my view, lead towards an appreciation of the principles of movement transmitted, not simply 'He does this, you do that'.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I believe I understand what you are getting at and I agree with you but would like to make a couple distinctions. First, when I think of performance art, to me, that term implies performance for the enjoyment of an audience. If the exercise is done for your own growth and not for an audience, I do not see that as performance art. In my opinion, that is using the movement as a training tool and not as an artistic movement. So my comments on this topic are made with that assumption and if we are each defining these terms in different ways, we might end up misunderstanding each otherās messages. So I just wanted to define what my terms are.
I agree with what you are saying about there being more to the movement in a kata than simply āblock this punch and counter with technique Aā¦ā. That level of understanding can be very useful and functional, and often it is the simple, straight-forward stuff that is most functional. But yes, that movement can often be interpreted in multiple ways to answer different problems. That requires a deeper level of understanding of the movement, and often cannot be recognized without a good teacher to guide you. Those who are at a higher level of skill and already understand these things more deeply may be able to delve more deeply on their own, to discover some of these deeper possibilities. That is where I see martial training as an excellent form of physical education, yielding in some cases an unusual level of knowledge of human movement.
I also want to point out something that might be relevant here, and that is how the term āartā is being used. It seems to me that people fixate on this term within the context of martial arts, and take it to mean art in the sense of artistic/creative expression of beauty. This would be consistent with the notion of performance art, or fine arts like a beautiful painting or a beautifully executed sculpture. So people take that to mean the martial arts are meant to be beautiful and therefore exercises like kata must be some kind of performance art, meant to be an expression of beautiful movement, and they try to reconcile that idea with their practice of kata. Well, kata is often not beautiful. Take a look at wing Chun forms for example. They are squatty, odd, ugly forms, not beautiful to look at. Some of the forms found in American Kenpo are strange looking. Sanchin, a kata common to many Okinawan methods and probably originating with Fujian crane is not, in my opinion, a beautiful kata.
āMartial artā is an English term and we have adopted that in reference to fighting methods from all over the world. This may or may not be an appropriate way to translate the native terms used to describe these methods. But at the end of the day, that is an English term we are using, and I think people often confuse what it means. I do not believe the āartā in martial arts means artistic and creatively beautiful in the sense of the fine arts and performance art. There is another definition of the English term art, that means skill acquired by experience, study, or observation, and a branch of study. It does not imply aesthetic beauty. I believe that is the proper definition of āartā in the context of martial arts. Once that is understood, the notion that any of this needs to be beautiful, or is meant to be performance art, dissipates. It does not matter if the kata is ugly or strange looking. What matters is if it can be a functional tool in the process of training.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
If I had to guess, the response appears intense to strong proponents of kata specifically because they over value it. Itās not that folks who donāt value kata hate it with intensity. In fact, most of the posts that are perceived as hating on Kata range from reasonable skepticism at some of the claims, tempered with indifference.
I think, instead, itās that folks who make too much of Kata add a lot of negative energy themselves.
Itās like aikido. A lot of aggressive energy comes from the pro-kata side of the house. You can see this clearly in several posts in this thread.
For my part, I do think some people make too much of kata. And they get very prickly at the very idea. Not all though. Fortunately, most of the people around here are pretty practical.
That said, the other truth about Kata is that no one can really decide what it is and is not. Ask a dozen traditional martial artists and you will get at least 10 different, fundamental explanations of what kata is good for and what it is not.
Ultimately, though, as long as you are getting what you want out of it, and not misleading people as an instructor, who cares? Do what you want and enjoy it how you like.
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
I believe there is room for both definitions to co-exist. As in the art of war, there is skill in logistics, employment of weapons, battle order, maintaining morale and health of the soldiers, intel and so on, achieved by experience and study as you say. These are basic skills, functional arts, any competent general should have.
Then there are "masters" of the art that transform this into the "creatively beautiful" definition of the word. By effortless execution and seamless merging of the separate elements listed above, all coming together like instruments in a symphony orchestra, we have some something approaching fine art.
To make karate into a true art (encompassing both definitions) the practitioner has to make it his own, putting his own personal stamp on it. The way he moves, the rhythm, the way he composes the basics. The employment of technique that reflects him as an individual. This, as in painting or writing, is what makes him an artist; in this case, a martial artist.
The two types of art are not mutually exclusive. Just look at a jet fighter or Ferrari. The are beautiful and functional. And both these qualities add to the other. But this in no way turns it into "performance art." It is not done for the pleasure of others - though others may appreciate it. It is done for the one doing it, for accomplishing the functional goal of self-defense in a manner that reflects his artistic individuality.
The "art" part.....I view this the same way as any other activity where someone has reached a very high level of proficiency - that guy over there is so good at carpentry he raises it to an art form. That guy over there is so dang good at fishing he raises it to an art form. You hear people say this kind of thing all the time. That's how it's simplified in my head at least. It's probably a gross oversimplification, but I'm not a very smart guy lol
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
-
éåæ ZhĆ²ngxÄ«n center of gravity
- Latest: Wing Woo Gar
-