That's semantics. He's referring to fighting ability as the goal - what I (incorrectly) call "combat effectiveness".
High emphasis on katas
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
The point I was trying to make is that certain types of training are often viewed and judged through the lens of one type of desired outcome. Yet desired outcomes vary, so the filter is incorrect.
When you throw a front kick, after that kick, you can
1. pull your kick back, you then drop your foot forward and advance.
2. without pulling your kick back, you drop your foot forward and advance.
For health, performance, self-cultivation, inner peace, ... whether you do 1 or 2 won't make any difference. But if you train "combat effectiveness", 2 will give you a chance to train how to use your kick to
- close distance, and
- set up a punch.
In other words, with "fighting" as your goal, your form will look different from those who only care about "health", ....
Here is an example.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Are they a good testing tool? That's a different thing than saying they're a good training tool. Isn't it? It seems like the original post is more about testing.
Right. See what you are saying.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
If it is part of the training methodology, then it would likely be part of the testing process. A knowledgeable instructor can tell a lot about a students understanding and skill by how the student does kata. And no, it is not kata as performance art.
Personally, I feel that most people do not properly understand, nor practice, kata. That is just my opinion. So by extension, for most people, in my opinion, it is not worth much as part of the test either.
I agree. If it's used properly as a training tool, it can be an effective test for parts of an art. If it's used poorly for training, it becomes a poor tool for testing.
senseiblackbelt
Green Belt
absulotely. Katas teach you self control and descipline, (something you need to earn a black belt in karate) and they teach you a variety of techniques incase you need it in a life and death situation.
Why can't option 2 allow you to close distance, or set up a punch? Or... why can't you punch before you even put the foot down? The rhythm will be different, but that's far from it being ineffective.
Many MA systems perform a kick as:
- lift leg up,
- kick out,
- pull kick back,
- drop down,
as described as option 1. This can demonstrate good single leg balance.
Option 2 may look as if you don't have good balance and may not look as "pretty" as option 1 does, but option 2 is more combat effective than option 1. The original form designer might just design the form as:
- a kick is just a kick.
- a punch is just a punch. .
But
- a kick can be close distance and set up a punch.
- a punch can be a punch followed by a pull.
This is why the way that you train should not be restricted by the original form designer. If you have "fighting" in mind, your form training should look different from those who trains form for health, performance, self-cultivation, inner peace, ...
Last edited:
Somewhat confused by that. Fighting ability is not semantics, just is. Fighting ability is a intangible to most, unless being in the mix.
Taunting option 1 does not preclude option 2; good balance doesn't mean you can't drop the foot without retracting. Training only option 2 will leave you only forward options.
He wasn't saying getting into a fight was the goal. He was saying the ability to handle the fight is the goal.
Then I agree with you on that. The fight is the fight. The ultimate goal is the result that the opponent realises, that some of realises that fighting is nothing trained. We just do it.
You lost me in your language difficulty in that one. Can you say the last part a different way?
The fundamental things apply.
Language difference makes no difference. Well I guess it does. You know or you don't. Was that a subtle dig, then again I don't care either way.
As time goes byyyyyyyyyy.
No, it was a request for clarification. Your statement didn't make sense to me. So yes, language difference does make a difference.
Actually that was a word sandwich, none of which meant the slightest thing that I could decipher. But I thought it was only me. I mean no insult - it just seemed like a whole lot of nonsense words thrown together in a random way, like you were angry with verbs or something.
