Flashy, Stylized and Useless

[Bill Mattocks]

Just in general, this applies to all of the guitar analogies, as well. Conditioning is critical. I appreciate and agree with that.

Guess we have to agree to disagree, then. I'm 180 degrees from where you are in terms of what I believe kata does for me. I get conditioning from doing situps and jumping jacks. I get muscle memory from doing reps of kata correctly. Well, I do, anyway.

And yes, I do need more sparring. All in time. I'm not in a rush.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi,

Just to put this "kata vs no kata" thing to bed, this may help those that think they don't train in it (from another of my posts in a different thread):

Well, kata is a Japanese term that literally means "form", or "shape". The method of training refered to as kata training is what NLP practitioners refer to as "modeling". In this method, the student repeats the same movements and actions over and over without changing them, in order to instill the basic strategies and concepts of a martial system. As a result, you could even say that BJJ uses a kata method, in that you constantly repeat the same action (a particular sweep, for example) over and over in order to be able to use it at any time. The term used would probably simply be "drill", though.

In old Japanese arts, known as koryu (old styles), kata training often refers to paired combat exercises, with a specific attack and response scenario. This is applied to unarmed and weapon schools alike, with different schools having longer or shorter kata depending on the school in question. This type of kata training exists even in more modern systems such as BJJ and Judo.

In more modern arts (such as karate, tae kwon do, various kung fu systems), the kata/form/poomse approach is far more often a long string of movements practiced solo. This is, as stated, not the only definition of "kata".

Okay, hopefully that helps...

As for whether or not there is too much "flash" in TMA systems, which is useless, I would want to break that down a bit first. To begin with, how are we defining Traditional Martial Arts? There are some (probably quite a few here, actually) who will happily clsas Tae Kwon Do, Aikido, Karate (most Japanese based systems I am refering to here...)and various other quite modern creations as TMA. Some will even give Krav Maga that title. So it's going to come down to how you define "Traditional".

Then, we need to understand what is meant by "useless". Training with a sword (Kendo, Iaido, Taiji etc) is not really immediately applicable to a real-world self defence scenario, so could be taken as "useless" if that is the criteria. By the same token, certain training drills and practices, flashy or not, are not exactly very good representations of the realities that could be faced. Again, we would refer to these as "useless".

Finally, how are we defining "flashy"? Show a boxer a high-level limb control or throw/immobilisation combination, and they could consider that quite flashy, and ask why you don't simply hit the guy? By the same token, a Judoka may consider a leaping spinning kick from Tae Kwon Do to be very flashy and impractical.

From my perspective, yes, there are some overly flashy aspects in some TMA systems which is not particularly useful in a modern assault scenario, but that is hardly anything new. And in those systems, I'm sure you will find that there is a reason for those flashy movements, which may even include simply looking impressive to score more points in a competition, or to generate awe-inspired students (wow, can't wait til I can do that!).

Earlier, someone was asked for examples of flashy movements and unrealistic training exercises. Okay, here you go: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1749038/context/tag:martial-arts/

This clip was taken as an advertisement for the club, but has been re-edited for humour (and schadenfreude, I feel...), but shows the flashy-style movements as well as an unrealistic training habit (the attacker launching a single attack, then just waiting for the response). Other dangerous habits I commonly see (most ofte in Karate and Tae Kwon Do schools... not trying to pick on you guys, but this type of drill is what you guys do most) are after the single attack, the defender responds with a series of strikes and kicks, and the attacker simply stands in place. There is no reaction to the effect such strikes and kicks would have, so no realistic openings are created, no realistic body shapes are presented, and the defender (unconsciously, at least) gets the message that their strikes and kicks don't move the opponent. Not flashy, but not particularly realistic either.

 

[Flying Crane]

Not quite. I said that there are solo drills. But that they are a poor substitute for more than sport/activity specific conditioning. They're important, particularly as a warmup, but aren't going to help you in a technical sense. Take the shrimping drill, done in probably every BJJ school in the world. As I said earlier, they're great for a warmup but really only teach you the basic motion. In order to actually hip escape under pressure, no amount of shrimping down the mat will help.

It's as I said before, a learning model I personally like lists 4 stages of adult learning: knowledge -> comprehension -> application -> synthesis. Kata, like a solo drill such as the hip escape drill, is really only good for teaching to a knowledge level... the most rudimentary understanding. Better than nothing? I'd argue that, beyond some conditioning benefit, probably not.

Does that make sense?

Edit to add: Just to be clear. This is just my opinion.

I understand what you are saying, and I have just enough JJ experience to understand your shrimping example.

I think solo practice in a grappling art may be less useful than solo practice in a striking art. I think the very nature of the methods creates this discrepancy.

Likewise, grappling arts have a certain advantage in training, in that you can more easily control the escalation of the encounter, and therefor make the training more alive and more realistic, while still keeping enough control to avoid injury to the participants.

This is a handicap that striking arts have. If I don't hit my training partner hard enough to injure him, then he can ignore my strike and hit me back. But my art counts on my strikes being effective. Techniques are applied with the understanding that those strikes are landing with effect, and this is often what makes the follow-ups possible. But if I injure my training partner, I don't have someone to train with. It's a catch-22, if I don't hit hard enough then my strikes are ignored, but if I hit hard enough then my partner gets injured and won't train with me anymore. So we try to find a reasonable middle-ground where the strikes land with reasonable authority, and the training partner agrees to respect them, for the sake of having a productive training session.

With a striking art, it is more difficult to raise the level of realism, while maintaining safety of the participants. I think that grappling methods have an easier time of managing these issues.

But I think maybe striking arts have an easier time with solo practice, and for a striker, solo practice is more beneficial than solo practice would be for a grappler. We can punch and kick, and practice more complex combinations such as kata. Even tho it is done in the air, without a partner, we still benefit from the muscle memory that is being established. In addition, we can strike things like the heavy bag, in order to develop the conditioning and power in delivering strikes. Then, when we have a partner to work with, we can bring those elements together and develop real useage ability with our techniques. But the ability to train effectively when a partner is not available is an important part of the picture. Hence, kata practice among other things.

 

[Stac3y]

So we try to find a reasonable middle-ground where the strikes land with reasonable authority, and the training partner agrees to respect them, for the sake of having a productive training session.

In the study of literature, this is called "willing suspension of disbelief." :wink2:

 

[Archangel M]

I think that some people also overestimate just how "effective" their strikes will be in "real life". Some people wind up in the unfortunate position of figuring that out when they get in a "real fight" and the opponent doesnt react to getting hit the way they thought they would. IMO that is the danger in "willing suspension of disbelief" in training vs. REALLY hitting and getting hit.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think that some people also overestimate just how "effective" their strikes will be in "real life". Some people wind up in the unfortunate position of figuring that out when they get in a "real fight" and the opponent doesnt react to getting hit the way they thought they would. IMO that is the danger in "willing suspension of disbelief" in training vs. REALLY hitting and getting hit.

That's a valid point, but I don't see much of a way around it. You simply can't send someone to the hospital every time you get together to train.

This is why I feel it's important to hit something like a heavybag, so you do develop that power and you do know what it's like to hit something for real. But yes, there is still a gap between training and fighting for real, and you've got to be able to cross that gap when you really need it. That's more of a mental thing, I think. I don't know of any training that can completely bridge that gap 100%, without being dangerous. You can train with significant contact, and you can take safety precautions like wearing padding, but if you actually cross the line of injuring someone, it's not gonna last long.

 

[tallgeese]

Ok, I don't misunderstand training methods, I've heard those things time and again. I just think it's not needed, and therefore perhaps getting to the core of the OP's question.

If you want to practice grabbing and pulling something, then practice it. Don't hide it and make it interpretive. Or make what you're working on over complex by stacking things up on a two for one drill.

As to kata being more fluid than striking any sort of bag, I'd disagree. Any prearranged pattern will condition your body to think that way. Better to keep moving and differ each time. Again, more akin to fight conditions.

 

[Archangel M]

That's a valid point, but I don't see much of a way around it. You simply can't send someone to the hospital every time you get together to train.

This is why I feel it's important to hit something like a heavybag, so you do develop that power and you do know what it's like to hit something for real. But yes, there is still a gap between training and fighting for real, and you've got to be able to cross that gap when you really need it. That's more of a mental thing, I think. I don't know of any training that can completely bridge that gap 100%, without being dangerous. You can train with significant contact, and you can take safety precautions like wearing padding, but if you actually cross the line of injuring someone, it's not gonna last long.

I think every serious martial artist would benefit in putting on the boxing gear and REALLY take and give a round or 3 of punches. At least once in their lives.

It will open your eyes a bit.

THAT is the real benefit that boxers/MMA types have over other arts in my opinion.

 

[sgtmac_46]

One of which is a TMA and the other solidly based in TMA. Does anyone complain about 'flashy' techniques when a Muay Thai fighter throws a head kick, or a spin kick, or a leaping technique? All impractical and 'flashy' by the standards of most critics of TMAs, but not included as equal criticisms of Muay Thai. Having experience in Kyokushin full contact training and fighting and having seen some of the approaches (not all, but some) put forward as inherently superior to TMA, but having seen the evident weakness in them, should I relegate all RBSD or Muay Thai or BJJ people to the irrelevency pile? Or would that just be ignorant?

Despite how I think I come across on here a lot of the time, I'm equally critical of weak traditional training practices, but I also find more overwhelming the critique by those who want to broadly label any and everything that could be considered TMA as weak, useless, irrelevant, or at the very least out of date. And IMHO this notion is often based on either a lack of experience, or a lack of patience.

And there's that self-serving vague definition of 'TMA' again.........so using that logic, EVERYTHING is a 'TMA'......even MMA, since it's made up of TMA's..........lets just drop the TMA thing........quite frankly folks here aren't arguing that it's BJJ and Muay Thai that is getting short shift.......generally it's Chinese and Korean styles, to be blunt and honest, that we are calling TMA's for the narrower purpose.......and the issue, style to style, is how do we know a particular style is effective?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yup, this got old fast.

All the new stuff is great and all the old stuff sucks

now wait I will sum ever siingle post form this point onward
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
No it doesn't yes it does
But I got proof you know a small group of people fought a couple of guys so that proves ever single person simply sucks

I'm still confused about which is the 'Old stuff' and which is the 'New stuff'?

 

[sgtmac_46]

This is such a foreign idea to me. How is kata like learning to play the guitar? It would seem to me that it would be like learning to play the trumpet without a mouthpiece, or guitar by just fingering the notes without strumming the strings.

Xue Sheng, I'm really disappointed in you. Two people post any kind of disagreement and since the lovefest is over, you'll simply dismiss the points with a childish temper tantrum, take your keyboard and go home. Seriously. I'm genuinely sorry I wasted my time typing up my earlier response.

I'll admit that feigning the movements will enhance guitar playing........but it sure as heck, as you point out, doesn't take the place of having your hands on the guitar.

 

[jarrod]

I'm still confused about which is the 'Old stuff' and which is the 'New stuff'?

old stuff is when your method of hurting people is enmeshed with tradition or pre-modern rituals. new stuff is when you hurt people without as much of that.

jf

 

[sgtmac_46]

IMO...a good western boxer will kick the *** of most "solo"/kata/1-step sparring/"semi-contact" sparring practitioner.

I've seen that with my own eyes many, many times.

 

[sgtmac_46]

boxer's get brought up a lot as an example of efficient training (i've used the example myself). yet not all boxing training methods are efficient. for instance, i've boxed for years & i loath working the speed bag. i can barely move the thing & find it dull, & unrelated to actual boxing. sure, it helps your timing, but it is not the most efficient way to train.

the only difference is that speed bag training isn't wrapped up in tradition. if someone really, really loves training the speed bag to the extent that it gets them training more, more power to them. but it's not essential. same with kata. if you dig it & interests you enough to train more than you would otherwise, cool. if you don't want to do it, cool. IT IS JUST A TRAINING TOOL, USE IT AS YOU SEE FIT.

jf

Good point.

 

[Kacey]

In addition to some of the excellent remarks made in this thread, especially those by punisher and Chris Parker, there is something I've not seen discussed - and that is the assumption that all people training in all styles of MA have the same primary goal: fighting proficiency. And while there are a quite a few people who do, indeed, have that primary goal, there are quite a few people who don't. For people who are training in MA primarily for fitness, mental stimulation, weight loss, for an activity shared with friends/family, or any reason other than fighting proficiency, kata are looked at from an entirely different perspective.

Remember, too, that historically, few people learned to read until about a century ago, and books were rare, expensive, and generally hand-written - kata are a mnemonic device, an aid to memorization; remembering 10 sequences, each made of 10 movements, is easier for most people than remembering 100 seperate movements. That the movements are, at least theoretically, combined in sequences that could be used as learned, is an additional aid to memorization and understanding.

In the end, it boils down to the same set of choices as many other activities: if you don't believe it is important, don't do it... but don't try to convince me that, just because you find it unimportant for you, that it must be equally unimportant for me. Many people feel passionately about this issue, and therefore feel that it is necessary to convince others of the correctness of their opinion - but there's room for those who perform kata as their primary training method, for those who never perform kata, and the entire range of those in between.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Once again, and I hate to sound like a broken record, but any of these activities remain useful as conditioning tools. The mistake, IMO, is in trying to make them more than they are. Kata is, IMO, a simple conditioning tool that some have elevated out of proportion to any potential gain. The difference between a speed bag workout and kata is that no one claims to be learning any deeper or more technical understanding of the lexicon of boxing by working the speed bag. The same can't be said for kata.

Exactly....Well, conditioning and muscle memory.......the problem with some Kata, however, is that the muscle memory being taught are the motions, but not the dynamic motions as they'll be applied against a resisting opponent.

Hitting a heavy bag and speed bag instills conditioning and muscle memory, but getting in the ring is where you learn to hit a resisting opponent.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Guess we have to agree to disagree, then. I'm 180 degrees from where you are in terms of what I believe kata does for me. I get conditioning from doing situps and jumping jacks. I get muscle memory from doing reps of kata correctly. Well, I do, anyway.

And yes, I do need more sparring. All in time. I'm not in a rush.

The kata serves the purpose of instilling the motion in the muscle memory.......that is true, and I am not really opposed to kata per se........it's useful so long as it's combined with realistic sparring.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think that some people also overestimate just how "effective" their strikes will be in "real life". Some people wind up in the unfortunate position of figuring that out when they get in a "real fight" and the opponent doesnt react to getting hit the way they thought they would. IMO that is the danger in "willing suspension of disbelief" in training vs. REALLY hitting and getting hit.

BINGO! A lot of false beliefs are propagated in such a manner.

 

[sgtmac_46]

That's a valid point, but I don't see much of a way around it. You simply can't send someone to the hospital every time you get together to train.

This is why I feel it's important to hit something like a heavybag, so you do develop that power and you do know what it's like to hit something for real. But yes, there is still a gap between training and fighting for real, and you've got to be able to cross that gap when you really need it. That's more of a mental thing, I think. I don't know of any training that can completely bridge that gap 100%, without being dangerous. You can train with significant contact, and you can take safety precautions like wearing padding, but if you actually cross the line of injuring someone, it's not gonna last long.

Yes, but boxers and muay thai practioners have managed to pretty successfully translate hard sparring to a high level of competence on the street.......when boxer or muay thai practioner hits someone on the street, they usually render them unconcious.

The only issue with boxers hitting people on the street is they have a tendency to break their hand, owing to training with gloves.

 

[sgtmac_46]

old stuff is when your method of hurting people is enmeshed with tradition or pre-modern rituals. new stuff is when you hurt people without as much of that.

jf

That seems to be the general consensus.......however.......Pankration is 4,000 years old and predates all modern 'TMA's.........it's also devoid of ritual beyond it's physical techniques.

Seems some confusion about whether it's the hurting people without ceremony is really 'new' or if it's the original 'TMA'.