Kata Critique

[Gerry Seymour]

Definitely true in terms of specific, exacting judging on the particular style itself.

Where I diverge is that there are varying stances within a style which accomplish certain & differing objectives. This dimension of stances exists across all styles of karate and among the traditional martial arts as a generalization. There's a horse stance in the fung fu's as a whole; there's a horse stance in Shotokan. There's a front stance in Tang Soo Do and there is a lunge stance in Shotokan. Some particular & specific variations which do exist between style, the are commonalities, common objectives. The later area I can pass some competent judgement on because of my participation and experience in traditional karate and martial arts.

Here’s the first place we can still run into issues. I guarantee the jigotai/horse stance I teach is incorrect in most other styles. It’s not low enough, and usually not wide enough. How can someone from any other style know if that stance is correct or not? If I judged their stance on my teaching criteria...

Sure. Even at the expert level, no one is all knowing. Everyone puzzles over particular kata routines and what the author-masters were seeking to convey. This is the old, anti-karate argument that one really doesn't know what the kata is for or what it's trying to do. Because we are hundreds of years removed, with many interim masters, of course there is truth to that criticism.

Yet, this can be sad to be a criticism of traditional martial arts, traditional karate's as a whole generalization. The answer comes from realizing that the human potential sought to be developed through traditional martial arts training addresses comprehensively the strengths of that human potential. And that's spelled out in the manuals, the curriculum.

The other sport, physically centered methods such as boxing IMO are more integral in their design, they are easier to see how the whole system works and more practical to train. But they don't share the broad based strengths that traditional martial arts does. This TMA character is embodied in the major components of traditional karate training, kihon, kata, kumite. This character is the essence or soul of what we are looking for then, in kata.

Furthermore, the way in which traditional martial arts seeks to develop this broad-based human potential is inherently different that how boxing or wrestling's more physically centered method. The characteristic training form and practice then will also be inherent and expressed in kata.

Traditional karate - whatever the style - becomes powerful & effective when we understand and train to it's universal underlying principle aimed at the above. Hence, our kihon , kumite & kata done properly to form & intent will reflect this essence in our performance.

BTW: My interpretation then, would handle the performance art criticism of kata.

I don’t know that we inTMA have as much more depth than some other sport/hobby activities. If someone trains with a coach long-term in any discipline, that coach can have that kind of lasting impact on character. We occasionally see it from high school sports coaches, when they have some of the same players for 3-4 years. That said, I think we do tend to be more purposeful in that area than many in other disciplines, so maybe we are more generally effective there.

As for the depth of the kata, I’m not convinced. My kata aren’t that deep. They aren’t intended to be. They are physical exercises to engrain some transitions and make solo practice more organized. They are not much more than that. So, the soul of my art isn’t in them. If someone wanted to make them prettier for performance, I don’t think there’s anything to criticize in that pursuit, except maybe their choice of a base to start from. As long as they don’t confuse the performance art practice with martial practice, it’s all good.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think we are heading in the same direction; here's some additional explanation from where I sit.

The kata performances we often see here in the USA, with heavy gymnastic type movement & technique, I would name performance art and NOT kata. Kata is not a physical drill or athletic gym routine. That's the boxing, wrestling mindset. Doing & achieving physical skills. I would say the same for some of what I call the overly forceful physicality & exaggeration in executing technique, along with the screaming at top of one's lungs pretending to be a super kiai. This again, is trying to make kata competition into a contest of physical strength & physical talents, a demonstration of athletics.

This rendition, in actuality, defeats the benefits of kata & undermines it's broad-based traditional martial arts purpose.

I like all of it except the last part. I don’t see dancing as contrary to depth of development, even if the dancing is formed from what used to be a martial practice. So I don’t think the performance art aspect undermines the rest.

 

[Buka]

I'll tell you one thing. I went to a bootlaod of Karate tournaments. Big, open tournaments. And I watched a lot of kata. Some of them were fantastic. The kind that make you push back in your chair and put a cinch in your breath. The kind that stick in your mind for years, the kind that make you say HFS.

 

[Tez3]

I guarantee the jigotai/horse stance I teach is incorrect in most other styles. It’s not low enough, and usually not wide enough. How can someone from any other style know if that stance is correct or not? If I judged their stance on my teaching criteria...

We have three 'horse stances' and a lot of other stances I've not seen used in other karate styles. We also have shorter, shallower stances than others as well it would be hard to judge them against Shotokan for example.

 

[Flying Crane]

We have three 'horse stances' and a lot of other stances I've not seen used in other karate styles. We also have shorter, shallower stances than others as well it would be hard to judge them against Shotokan for example.

Yeah, and it isnt just what the stance looks like or how deep it is. There are also issues about how the stances and stance transitions are used within the training methodology. That can be very different from one system to another.

I can pretty well guarantee that people scratch their head the first time they see my system.

 

[ShotoNoob]

Here’s the first place we can still run into issues. I guarantee the jigotai/horse stance I teach is incorrect in most other styles. It’s not low enough, and usually not wide enough. How can someone from any other style know if that stance is correct or not? If I judged their stance on my teaching criteria...

You are describing physical form differences. Allowing for that, I was looking at functional similarities. For instance, some traditional martial arts styles chamber the hand at the hip. Others post the chambering hand up a notch at the waist. Yet others raise the pullled back fist higher up along the ribs. Which is correct? Well according the particular style, they all are. I have a preference, which I believe is theoretically better or best. The commonality is that many, if not most traditional martial arts styles, certainly the karate style partake / use chambering.

In my mind, then, the question first becomes. "what are we doing functionally by chambering?" What is it's purpose and then later effect? I tend to avoid the endless discussions and opinions on this is the way because I've choosen a style, or this particular form is best because Art Jimmerson is a kick boxing champ. I look for direct reasons. Low stances accomplish certain goals, as does a lunge stance. A higher horse stance functions and is applicable for other reasons. A moderated forward or front stance accomplishes yet different objectives than the deeper, more extended lunge stance.

I don’t know that we inTMA have as much more depth than some other sport/hobby activities. If someone trains with a coach long-term in any discipline, that coach can have that kind of lasting impact on character. We occasionally see it from high school sports coaches, when they have some of the same players for 3-4 years. That said, I think we do tend to be more purposeful in that area than many in other disciplines, so maybe we are more generally effective there.

Certainly this is the perpetual debate about TMA vs. MMA. More traditional theory over more pragmatical physical practice, what we generally see by in large. It's really again, coming to a resolution of exactly what the TMA model is doing versus, say what the boxing model is doing, to develop martial skills. I unequivocally believe the TMA model is superior in potential. Key word = potential.

More often that not, the debate here is colored by the aptitudes and inclinations of the individual practitioner. I look to point to MMA as kind of a testing ground, and we've seen some pretty big upsets because conventional MMA thinking at the time came to assumptions which then became assumptions about 'best' styles for MMA, which a competitor came along and summarily overturned.

As for the depth of the kata, I’m not convinced. My kata aren’t that deep. They aren’t intended to be. They are physical exercises to engrain some transitions and make solo practice more organized. They are not much more than that. So, the soul of my art isn’t in them. If someone wanted to make them prettier for performance, I don’t think there’s anything to criticize in that pursuit, except maybe their choice of a base to start from. As long as they don’t confuse the performance art practice with martial practice, it’s all good.

Here's where we divide. I couldn't disagree more with you bolded statement. Absolutely wrong as a final conclusion. Do kata teach physical conditioning and body mechanics,? absolutely. Physical training is only the initial skill taught by kata, or traditional martial arts in general. The development of mental discipline is what kata is really all about. Later, the spirtual dimension. All three are trained from the start, the emphasis and growth shifts over time.

I'll have lots of disagreement on this, I'm sure. I'll post a video below to explain where I'm coming from. The prettiest aesthetically isn't really in my vocabulary for kata, the beauty is in how well it translates what I have described.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Here's where we divide. I couldn't disagree more with you bolded statement. Absolutely wrong as a final conclusion. Do kata teach physical conditioning and body mechanics,? absolutely. Physical training is only the initial skill taught by kata, or traditional martial arts in general. The development of mental discipline is what kata is really all about. Later, the spirtual dimension. All three are trained from the start, the emphasis and growth shifts over time.

I'll have lots of disagreement on this, I'm sure. I'll post a video below to explain where I'm coming from. The prettiest aesthetically isn't really in my vocabulary for kata, the beauty is in how well it translates what I have described.

When I say "my kata", I'm talking about the ones I actually created. See, that's my point. I know exactly what they were created for, and what their purpose was at that point, yet someone with a different background will expect them to have more to them. We cannot know what the intention was of some kata, because they were created without the creator sharing that information. But I do know that of my own. There's no deeper meaning to them (though I find doing them can be somewhat meditative). They aren't fundamental to the art (they didn't exist until a short time ago). I don't use them or teach them for mental discipline - that comes through the rigor of classes, of going when you don't want to, etc. And there's really nothing spiritual in them, at all.

And all of that applies to the short forms (similar to what most folks call one-steps) that have existed in the art since its inception.

 

[ShotoNoob]

As for the depth of the kata, I’m not convinced. My kata aren’t that deep. They aren’t intended to be. They are physical exercises to engrain some transitions and make solo practice more organized. They are not much more than that. So, the soul of my art isn’t in them. If someone wanted to make them prettier for performance, I don’t think there’s anything to criticize in that pursuit, except maybe their choice of a base to start from. As long as they don’t confuse the performance art practice with martial practice, it’s all good.

I understand. What I'm proposing then your kata is isn't traditional karate kata. What's more, probably the majority of karate practitioners are doing just what your'e doing. So the the value of what they are training by kata really doesn't carry over to kumite, help them there. Thusly, we have all the criticism of kata as not really central to success in martial arts. I say it's the reverse. There isn't any more sophisticated way to train martial arts than through kata. Here's my clip.

MAI SHIINA, PERFECT JODAN TSUKI - JKA ALL JAPAN CHAMPIONSHIP 2015
1,069 views

Arild Damm
Published on Dec 28, 2015

Question. What drives the Shiina's opponent to leap in and attempt her strike? How & when does she know to do so. Same question for Shiina. How and when does she know when to counter strike? Otherwise to do what she does, winning the exchange perfectly?

Two accessory questions. You see testaments to the fact that the kiai is to give confidence. And to scare or startle the opponent? Is that the purpose & effect of Shiina's kiai? Second, Shiina immediately chambers or re-chambers following the counter strike. Is this just some physical movement she learned as white belt for physical conditioning. Some simple beginner mechanics? She's leaving her head wide open boxers & MMA would say. How dumb. What does the re-chamber accomplish exactly? Boxer's hit very hard without re-chambering down at the side.

My global point is that traditional martial arts is a comprehensive system of getting it all to work together. What, is the "it?"

 

[ShotoNoob]

mistake

 

[Tez3]

So the the value of what they are training by kata really doesn't carry over to kumite,

You are assuming traditional kata is for kumite. The general belief I've found about kata is that it's for civilian self defence not kumite.

The applications of kata have their limits and one must come to understand this.

The techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter, in an arena or on the battlefield.

They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behavior.


In spite of a street encounter never being the same, the principles of the kata never vary. One must know how they are applied and how to bend with the winds of adversity.
Choki Motobu

For kumite one trains kumite, I would have thought obviously. For kata use Bunkai.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I understand. What I'm proposing then your kata is isn't traditional karate kata. What's more, probably the majority of karate practitioners are doing just what your'e doing. So the the value of what they are training by kata really doesn't carry over to kumite, help them there.

I don't know that kata can be direct application to kumite. It has some strong benefits when used well (including when used ways I do not use it), but I don't know that development of skill to transition to kumite is its strongest point.

Thusly, we have all the criticism of kata as not really central to success in martial arts. I say it's the reverse. There isn't any more sophisticated way to train martial arts than through kata. Here's my clip.

MAI SHIINA, PERFECT JODAN TSUKI - JKA ALL JAPAN CHAMPIONSHIP 2015
1,069 views

Arild Damm
Published on Dec 28, 2015

Question. What drives the Shiina's opponent to leap in and attempt her strike? How & when does she know to do so. Same question for Shiina. How and when does she know when to counter strike? Otherwise to do what she does, winning the exchange perfectly?

Practice and observation of live use. I don't think kata can develop that. I'm honestly not sure if that's what you're implying or not.

Two accessory questions. You see testaments to the fact that the kiai is to give confidence. And to scare or startle the opponent? Is that the purpose & effect of Shiina's kiai?

My understanding of what kiai does goes well beyond that. I don't know what the purpose of hers is.

Second, Shiina immediately chambers or re-chambers following the counter strike. Is this just some physical movement she learned as white belt for physical conditioning. Some simple beginner mechanics?

I'd say in part it is. That gets refined over time, but it is probably a foundational principle that was started as a beginner, and is a physical skill. It was probably reinforced a lot in sparring.

She's leaving her head wide open boxers & MMA would say. How dumb. What does the re-chamber accomplish exactly? Boxer's hit very hard without re-chambering down at the side.

I agree. I'm not sure the re-chambering is at all necessary. I can hit about 95% as hard without rechambering as I do if I rechamber. Though someone who studies this method more deeply might find a bit more reward for that opening they leave.

My global point is that traditional martial arts is a comprehensive system of getting it all to work together. What, is the "it?"

I don't see traditional arts as more comprehensively "together" than the non-traditional material I've tinkered with. That might be a difference in viewpoint I can't share, not having come through a traditional Karate program (my experience in Karate wasn't deeply traditional), and the approach in NGA is probably significantly different, though it can be as traditionally based.

 

[ShotoNoob]

When I say "my kata", I'm talking about the ones I actually created. See, that's my point. I know exactly what they were created for, and what their purpose was at that point, yet someone with a different background will expect them to have more to them.

IMHO, your kata are how you practice your kata. Kata itself, is defined by the traditional martial arts system of training and what it's trying to accomplish. If you want to make a change to suit your personal objectives that's fine. But it may no longer qualify as "kata."

We cannot know what the intention was of some kata, because they were created without the creator sharing that information. But I do know that of my own. There's no deeper meaning to them (though I find doing them can be somewhat meditative).

Again, I acknowledged this common sense fact, literally speaking. The traditional martial arts, here karate, purpose and effect of kata is, however, what defines it. You find kata somewhat meditative. I can say that too. Yet is our personal knowledge of kata or our understanding personally what defines kata? Kata sets a standard for us to aspire to, and attempt to achieve. You've decided that your meditative, somewhat defines a sorta standard for kata. Are you the best judge of that? Are your conclusions the actual, realistic conclusion?

That's the point of my Shotokan 2015 kumite exhange. Both contestants are not just doing physical stuff. I'll through a nice looking punch and you through one, see what happens. No. More is going on. Decisions have to be made. Cognitive skills come into play. Not just some "drill." Not some physical rehearsal you speak of for kata & 1 steps.

They aren't fundamental to the art (they didn't exist until a short time ago). I don't use them or teach them for mental discipline - that comes through the rigor of classes, of going when you don't want to, etc. And there's really nothing spiritual in them, at all.

Of course not. Because you have created a presumption based on your own thinking which set that presumption. And what you do, your "kata." doesn't qualify as traditional karate kata or 1-steps.

And all of that applies to the short forms (similar to what most folks call one-steps) that have existed in the art since its inception.

As above. Simon recounts in his tournament, how the opponents caught him off guard. Caused Simon to do a lot of flinching. Depart from good technique. The second opponent surprised him by becoming aggressive and bulldozing into him. How did Shiina conduct herself in her tournament? Proper traditional karate practice addresses these deficits not by us just doing physical stuff... but by ascending above & beyond that. That's my opinion. That is also stated in all traditional karate manuals and curriculum's and explicitly set down by the karate masters. Through study and training, I found same to be true. That's were I came out.

I've adjusted or changed some of the forms of the kata I practice. On balance, however, never stray from the underlying principles upon which they are based. My adjustments or some ancillary changes I've personally made aren't critical or fundamental to the overall success of kata training... to add. Some tailoring in certain, limited circumstances. The overall exercise of kata, I've left intact. Same with 1-steps.

 

[ShotoNoob]

I don't know that kata can be direct application to kumite. It has some strong benefits when used well (including when used ways I do not use it), but I don't know that development of skill to transition to kumite is its strongest point.

And you have a lot of company. I'm among a minority for sure.

Practice and observation of live use. I don't think kata can develop that. I'm honestly not sure if that's what you're implying or not.

Kata alone can make one a superior fighter. Not practical for everyone. Is limited by no feed back of pressure testing. Having an actual opponent to train against / with.

Interesting enough in my area, the style(s) those that most often agree with me are the kung fu stylists. And these are the ones I as a group can't defeat in sparring. Instructor wise, the better students. To make a point, one kung fu instructor stated that one of his cohorts spend all of his time practicing one form... and go it down pat. Cleaned up at tournaments time after time. I believe him based upon what I've have witnessed.

My understanding of what kiai does goes well beyond that. I don't know what the purpose of hers is.

We hold common ground here. Yet you will see karate instructors state time after time that the kiai's objectives are to give yourself confidence. To startle the opponent, the later I have seen happen. Only an ancillary impact in my book. These instructors THINK they have the answer. I looked to the teachings of the masters... across karate curriculum's including outside my style to help educate myself.

I'd say in part it is. That gets refined over time, but it is probably a foundational principle that was started as a beginner, and is a physical skill. It was probably reinforced a lot in sparring.

This is what we have to figure out. our karate job.

I agree. I'm not sure the re-chambering is at all necessary. I can hit about 95% as hard without rechambering as I do if I rechamber. Though someone who studies this method more deeply might find a bit more reward for that opening they leave.

So if the chambering isn't necessary, why does Shiina do so? For fun. 'Cause her coach said so? Boxer's Muay Thai are reputed to hit harder, with more physical force than karate. Is karate trying to do that? Is karate trying to maximize physical force? Does karate physical form generate from the same kind of body mechanics boxing and Muay Thai employ? Does karate draw upon different body mechanics on certain ways? Why?

I don't see traditional arts as more comprehensively "together" than the non-traditional material I've tinkered with. That might be a difference in viewpoint I can't share, not having come through a traditional Karate program (my experience in Karate wasn't deeply traditional), and the approach in NGA is probably significantly different, though it can be as traditionally based.

I saw that coming. So there is our divide. And it's a common, perpetual one. We see this with the sporting mentality of MMA. Karate has low, fixed stances. Boxers have more practical, natural stances and active footwork. Better for defense in real fighting, boxing is. And on, and on.

I just put this up as food for thought. No doubts you are effective at your style.

 

[ShotoNoob]

You are assuming traditional kata is for kumite. The general belief I've found about kata is that it's for civilian self defence not kumite.

On the one hand, I can agree. Traditional karate though, isn't trying to make one a self defense expert. Traditional karate is trying to establish a base of skills which then enable one to follow through in those areas with above-average strengths. I don't agree with putting traditional karate in a box for civilian self defense only.

The applications of kata have their limits and one must come to understand this.

True enough. But so does any discipline. You have to start somewhere. Learning to escape from a wrist grap is a start. The better answer though is that kata is not defined by it's applications, but the principle embodied in them. Moreover, by the fundamental human skills developed through kata, sans applications. In the latter sense, kata is unlimited in it's potential and it is the applications which are constrained to a specify technical usage only.

You are assuming traditional kata is for kumite. The general belief I've found The techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter, in an arena or on the battlefield.

Ah no. Silly. An absolute exclusionary mindset. I do agree with you that kata applications aren't the world or specialized for theoretical or hypothetical situations of al kind. Again, kinda commons sense. Don't know how someone professionally fighting is going to uniformly defeat top karate style fighters. Don't get that. Why?

They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behavior.

Sure. And again, the traditional karate curriculum answers the question of self defense by starting out with addressing common situations. Goes from there. The principles of what to do thought carry on to more complicated situations technically. There's a progression.

You are assuming traditional kata is for kumite. The general belief I've found about kata is that it's for civilian self defence not kumite.

On the one hand, I can agree. Traditional karate though, isn't trying to make one a self defense expert. Traditional karate is trying to establish a base of skills which then enable one to follow through in those areas with above-average strengths. I don't agree with putting traditional karate in a box for civilian self defense only.

Kata is kumite, by the Okinawan masters historically. I think I know why. You think otherwise. Shotokan evolved in Japan to include the three pillars of technical karate training. Kihon, kata, kumite, and so in principle the traditional karate curriculum addresses your concern.

The applications of kata have their limits and one must come to understand this.

True enough. But so does any discipline. You have to start somewhere. Learning to escape from a wrist grab is a start. The better answer though is that kata is not defined by it's applications, but the principle embodied by them. Moreover, by the fundamental human skills developed through kata, sans applications. In the latter sense, kata is unlimited in it's potential and it is the particular interpretation of applications which are constrained to a specify technical usage only.

You are assuming traditional kata is for kumite. The general belief I've found The techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter, in an arena or on the battlefield.[/quote]

Ah no. Silly. An absolute exclusionary mindset. I do agree with you that kata applications aren't the world or specialized for theoretical or hypothetical situations of any & all l kind. Warfare on a battle field is an extreme level of conflict. Again, kinda commons sense. Don't know how someone professionally fighting is going to uniformly defeat top karate style fighters. Don't get that.

In spite of a street encounter never being the same, the principles of the kata never vary. One must know how they are applied and how to bend with the winds of adversity. Choki Motobu

Okay. But what you believe Choki Motobu means and what I believe he means have some big divide. I agree with him and you agree with him, we disagree.

For kumite one trains kumite, I would have thought obviously. For kata use Bunkai.

Yeah, this is very often the conventional practice. Certainly what boxing does. Traditional karate in it's pure form rejects and rejected what you conclude. You view kata as some discrete exercise aimed at specific and specialized objectives. I look at kata in a broader context with the same qualities as kumite or kihon, by traditional martial arts principles. I will agree that your approach is sound, does work, despite my position. Mine works too. Mines better, assuming one can latch onto theory. Where I came out.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

IMHO, your kata are how you practice your kata. Kata itself, is defined by the traditional martial arts system of training and what it's trying to accomplish. If you want to make a change to suit your personal objectives that's fine. But it may no longer qualify as "kata."

"Kata" is just a word. Loosely translated, as I understand it, it means "form" or "pattern". How it is used does, in fact, define what it means. If someone in the future uses my kata in a different way, that's fine...so long as they don't assume they know what I intended it for. If they do that, they'd have to come back to my same usage, or they're missing the intention.

Again, I acknowledged this common sense fact, literally speaking. The traditional martial arts, here karate, purpose and effect of kata is, however, what defines it. You find kata somewhat meditative. I can say that too. Yet is our personal knowledge of kata or our understanding personally what defines kata? Kata sets a standard for us to aspire to, and attempt to achieve. You've decided that your meditative, somewhat defines a sorta standard for kata. Are you the best judge of that? Are your conclusions the actual, realistic conclusion?

Actually, my point was that my kata doesn't set a standard. Nor does any other. Not all kata is the same.

That's the point of my Shotokan 2015 kumite exhange. Both contestants are not just doing physical stuff. I'll through a nice looking punch and you through one, see what happens. No. More is going on. Decisions have to be made. Cognitive skills come into play. Not just some "drill." Not some physical rehearsal you speak of for kata & 1 steps.

I never said kata was about physical rehearsal. In fact, I don't like for my students to use the kata as its own purpose - practicing kata to get the kata right. It's a conditioning exercise. You can use it to work endurance (work them with effort, at some speed). You can use them to warm up before class. You can use them to work balance and core muscles (slower weight shifts). You can use the to work transitions, and so on. They are expressly not meant for practicing the exact movements, but to approximate them for examination (by the student, not an external source). The weight shifts in a throw in kata will never be correct, because there's no off-setting weight from uke. A similar problem occurs with all strikes and blocks, so kata really can't be about the memorization of the exact movements.

Of course not. Because you have created a presumption based on your own thinking which set that presumption. And what you do, your "kata." doesn't qualify as traditional karate kata or 1-steps.

You've misunderstood my point. My point wasn't that all kata are like mine. My point was that we cannot assume all kata are anything. There are differences, and unless we're trained in the specific kata, we can't know what those are. My kata will be "traditional" if my style survives long enough. I don't for a moment believe every person who ever created what we now know as "traditional" kata had the same purpose and approach.

As above. Simon recounts in his tournament, how the opponents caught him off guard. Caused Simon to do a lot of flinching. Depart from good technique. The second opponent surprised him by becoming aggressive and bulldozing into him. How did Shiina conduct herself in her tournament? Proper traditional karate practice addresses these deficits not by us just doing physical stuff... but by ascending above & beyond that. That's my opinion. That is also stated in all traditional karate manuals and curriculum's and explicitly set down by the karate masters. Through study and training, I found same to be true. That's were I came out.

I doubt kata can defeat the flinch reflex, unless sparring/kumite is also used. We see this a lot when someone from TMA without any sparring takes a challenge fight from someone who spars or fights regularly.

I've adjusted or changed some of the forms of the kata I practice. On balance, however, never stray from the underlying principles upon which they are based. My adjustments or some ancillary changes I've personally made aren't critical or fundamental to the overall success of kata training... to add. Some tailoring in certain, limited circumstances. The overall exercise of kata, I've left intact. Same with 1-steps.

If it's working, there's not much need to change it. I introduced long-form kata for my students for specific purposes. The short forms (one-steps) I've changed where I wanted to teach a different set of physical principles, or change the order the student encounters them. I have no issue with changes to material. I can say with high confidence that none of the styles in existence are perfect, and if their founders were here, they'd still be making adjustments as they saw fit.

 

[Yokozuna514]

So if the chambering isn't necessary, why does Shiina do so? For fun. 'Cause her coach said so? Boxer's Muay Thai are reputed to hit harder, with more physical force than karate. Is karate trying to do that? Is karate trying to maximize physical force? Does karate physical form generate from the same kind of body mechanics boxing and Muay Thai employ? Does karate draw upon different body mechanics on certain ways? Why?

I am not a Shotokan practitioner but from a Kyokushin perspective, 'chambering' or bringing your opposite hand back in 'hikete' brings back the hip. Putting your hip/body/grounded stance behind a punch makes it more effective, all things being equal. In other words it allows for rotational forces to be used in the strike.

Muay Thai fighters and boxers hit harder because they use gloves and have their wrists taped. Kyokushin fighters that practice kudo and have the same hand protection can hit just as hard, all things being equal.

Most Kyokushin knockdown fighters try and maximize physical force but the mechanics are slightly different because the game is different. Kyokushin adopted low kicks from Muay Thai as they are essentially effective techniques. Kyokushin did not adopt the 'teep' because we do not fight in a ring with ropes. Pushing our opponent away means we have to spend energy chasing them.

I am not a Shotokan practitioner but I can clearly see that Shiina scored a clean jodan tsuki for a Shotokan tournament. I would have awarded the point too given instructions on what constitutes a point in the match. I do see a lot of functional issues that would cause me to think that the punch itself (technique) would only be suitable in a Shotokan tournament situation. If she tried to do that exact same movement in a SD situation it would not be effective at all. The major issue I see when I look at that punch is that she is moving backwards AND in the air when she lands the punch. Although she clearly won the point, I do not believe the punch itself would not work in any other situation other than a Shotokan tournament (ie: knock someone out).

 

[ShotoNoob]

I am not a Shotokan practitioner but from a Kyokushin perspective, 'chambering' or bringing your opposite hand back in 'hikete' brings back the hip. Putting your hip/body/grounded stance behind a punch makes it more effective, all things being equal. In other words it allows for rotational forces to be used in the strike.[/qoute]

Along those lines of karate physical body mechanics, YES.

Muay Thai fighters and boxers hit harder because they use gloves and have their wrists taped. Kyokushin fighters that practice kudo and have the same hand protection can hit just as hard, all things being equal.

You are speaking of kumite practice by rule set. Generically speaking, I believe there are stark differences between boxing and karate body mechanics, the same in certain principles too.

Most Kyokushin knockdown fighters try and maximize physical force but the mechanics are slightly different because the game is different. Kyokushin adopted low kicks from Muay Thai as they are essentially effective techniques. Kyokushin did not adopt the 'teep' because we do not fight in a ring with ropes. Pushing our opponent away means we have to spend energy chasing them.

Did not know this about Kyo. '...cept Kyo competitors seem to expend a ton of energy.

I am not a Shotokan practitioner but I can clearly see that Shiina scored a clean jodan tsuki for a Shotokan tournament. I would have awarded the point too given instructions on what constitutes a point in the match. I do see a lot of functional issues that would cause me to think that the punch itself (technique) would only be suitable in a Shotokan tournament situation.

Not me, in principle.

If she tried to do that exact same movement in a SD situation it would not be effective at all.

That's certainly a question. Because Shotokan kumite is controlled contact (I beleive), we can't conclude from the video, by the effect on the opponent. Since the latter is still functioning.

Here's the thing with point fighting. If one is literally getting your body to punch into thine air or touch a pillow. Then point fighting is ineffective for actual physically strong conflict. The latter, however, is what numbskulls do and IS NOT karate.

The major issue I see when I look at that punch is that she is moving backwards AND in the air when she lands the punch. Although she clearly won the point, I do not believe the punch itself would not work in any other situation other than a Shotokan tournament (ie: knock someone out).

Yes, that is a controversial area. The kumite formal rule set rewards 1st & fastest (and proper form). So you see speed given the greatest emphasis in performance as a raw physical skill. Yet the countervailing view is several fold.

The strength that karate tradition develops is contained internally, is created internally, as well as from the physical stances from which Shiina launched. All of that together creates a strength which then can execute with power from the movement she makes and the action she takes. I alluded to this dynamic earlier.

Moreover, this then comes to involve spiritual or internal energy as an additive strength. The body mechanics of traditional karate are complex... and generate strength from movement other than a planted power shot. It's not a planted stance power switch on, transition power off dynamic. The way body momentum plays in also incorporates some factor. Shiina;s moveing back yet twisting and turning her body into the punch.. the backward move may thusly add power.

Traditional karate, it's execution of principles, is complex.

 

[ShotoNoob]

"Kata" is just a word. Loosely translated, as I understand it, it means "form" or "pattern". How it is used does, in fact, define what it means. If someone in the future uses my kata in a different way, that's fine...so long as they don't assume they know what I intended it for. If they do that, they'd have to come back to my same usage, or they're missing the intention.

Right. Kata is not a "word." It's a concept. The definition as pattern or form is a literal one. Begs what form or pattern meaning. A physical tracing? You use kata your way. So what is a "pattern" descibe? Specifically?

Actually, my point was that my kata doesn't set a standard. Nor does any other. Not all kata is the same.

Our divide.

I never said kata was about physical rehearsal. In fact, I don't like for my students to use the kata as its own purpose - practicing kata to get the kata right. It's a conditioning exercise. You can use it to work endurance (work them with effort, at some speed). You can use them to warm up before class. You can use them to work balance and core muscles (slower weight shifts). You can use the to work transitions, and so on. They are expressly not meant for practicing the exact movements, but to approximate them for examination (by the student, not an external source). The weight shifts in a throw in kata will never be correct, because there's no off-setting weight from uke. A similar problem occurs with all strikes and blocks, so kata really can't be about the memorization of the exact movements.

Agreed on the rehearsal. The worse interpretation of kata, makes it useless for martial arts.

Conditioning physically I agree. We differ on the workings though in certain ways. Transitions agree.

Kata are not meant for practicing exact movements, disagree. I think we are confusing actual application where we may be forced out of perfect form. Application always requires adjustments to variable circumstances. Where we are the same is perhaps we agree one doesn't go out and replicated a form absent the specific circumstances posed by the opponent.

The mental discipline side is where we have this departure. Your last sentence is precisely why traditional karate becomes (can become) so effective, including over boxing and Muay Thai. Your stumbling block with mental discipline is "memorization." Mental discipline doesn't involve memorization, it involves the mental strength of actualization, based upon building up the thinking process and putting that conscious strength into the physical moments. These mental qualities are also spelled out in traditional karate manuals and in the curriculum and by the karate masters.

In becoming accomplished in kata, we are not memorizing moves (at the outset sure to learn how to do the form), we are developing a strong mind over a conditioned body... the capability for deliberate action according the the principles embodied in the kata and it's applications. Kata at it's root, is a mental exercise, not a physical one. Karate karae Kata is driven mentally, expressed in physical movement and technique.

You've misunderstood my point. My point wasn't that all kata are like mine. My point was that we cannot assume all kata are anything. There are differences, and unless we're trained in the specific kata, we can't know what those are. My kata will be "traditional" if my style survives long enough. I don't for a moment believe every person who ever created what we now know as "traditional" kata had the same purpose and approach.

No, I got your point. No mis-understanding. "Kata is fundamentally something." See my rant for details. Traditional karate has fundamental standards & principles which give rise to it's effect and these are embodied in kata, kata training.

We just see, or have interpreted kata differently on a very fundamental basis. If it helps, I feel you are being too "technical," too focused about kata's technical, physical form.

I doubt kata can defeat the flinch reflex, unless sparring/kumite is also used. We see this a lot when someone from TMA without any sparring takes a challenge fight from someone who spars or fights regularly.

You have proven my thesis (unwittingly). Kata practice is the ultimate way in which to defeat the flinch or any other reactive mind set.

It's made plain when you describe kata as a way for "warming up." We can warm up by stretching. Doing some jumping jacks. Light run around the gym. No mental content.

We see this alot, the TMA sink because just as I stated earlier above, I'm in the minority of karate practitioners. All these TMA failures against challenge fights arise from training the curriculum as if it is physical endeavor. So hence, they are mentally unprepared for the mental challenges of actual conflict. See it in the dojo all the time too.

One can learn a kata, physically perform the kata, do the physical techniques iN the kata, examine bunkai of the kata, and that IS NOT KATA. Kata is getting the mind and body to work together in a highly mentally disciplined way. That's it. Once one becomes accomplished at kata, one doesn't react strictly speaking. One acts deliberately, with the coordinated, whole body strength developed the way karate develops it.

Is this perhaps what Shiina demonstrated in her win? Instantaneously rockets that reverse punch into the aggressor precisely on target, BANG;! the opponent's head snaps back, in th shock & trauma the concentration is lost, her aggression shut down.

This is my traditional karate proposition.

If it's working, there's not much need to change it. I introduced long-form kata for my students for specific purposes. The short forms (one-steps) I've changed where I wanted to teach a different set of physical principles, or change the order the student encounters them. I have no issue with changes to material. I can say with high confidence that none of the styles in existence are perfect, and if their founders were here, they'd still be making adjustments as they saw fit.

At the end of the day, all that matters in actual conflict, is that it works. Agreed 1000%. How we get there will always be a difference of method and opinion.

A spirited discourse like this is what keeps us growing, even if it's re-examine and re-training our particular, individual styles & approach.

 

[Yokozuna514]

Here's the thing with point fighting. If one is literally getting your body to punch into thine air or touch a pillow. Then point fighting is ineffective for actual physically strong conflict. The latter, however, is what numbskulls do and IS NOT karate.

Huh ? I'm ok with controlled contact. It takes a good degree of skill to control your strikes especially when your opponents are your dojo mates and you are sparring in the dojo. Not sure if this is solely a point fighting concern.

Moreover, this then comes to involve spiritual or internal energy as an additive strength. The body mechanics of traditional karate are complex... and generate strength from movement other than a planted power shot. It's not a planted stance power switch on, transition power off dynamic. The way body momentum plays in also incorporates some factor. Shiina;s moveing back yet twisting and turning her body into the punch.. the backward move may thusly add power.

Respectfully, I think this part of your explanation defies physical laws. I agree Shiina's movement uses some rotational movement to generate power but the majority of the power is also negated by her backward movement and having both feet in the air at the moment of the strike. We don't have to look any further than Newton's laws to see her strike would not be effective out of this scenario. Also, being about a buck twenty I seriously doubt she can generate any significant power even with the hikete. If there is a way to generate any significant power this way, please let me know. I would be happy to try it out.

 

[ShotoNoob]

Huh ? I'm ok with controlled contact. It takes a good degree of skill to control your strikes especially when your opponents are your dojo mates and you are sparring in the dojo. Not sure if this is solely a point fighting concern.

Okay. On the point fighting, I didn't say it was a sole concern martial principle wise, I said it was a specific requirement of the rule set.

Respectfully, I think this part of your explanation defies physical laws. I agree Shiina's movement uses some rotational movement to generate power but the majority of the power is also negated by her backward movement and having both feet in the air at the moment of the strike. We don't have to look any further than Newton's laws to see her strike would not be effective out of this scenario.

Well, I agreed in part and attempted to explain that. And counter-pointed and attempted to explain that. Over a forum / computer screen we are kinda limited. I will say her controlled strike had quite a dramatic physical & mental impact on her aggressor / opponent.

Also, being about a buck twenty I seriously doubt she can generate any significant power even with the hikete. If there is a way to generate any significant power this way, please let me know. I would be happy to try it out.

The chamber or hikete as you termed it, this has been another ongoing debate. I believe I understand how it works and that's not adequately captured by the physical move taken in isolation. More on the entire body, mind and later spirit. Some of the trouble practitioners have with gaining ground in karate or traditional marital arts is the attempt to focus on individual technical parts without considering the greater whole, and integrating that.

My post line about the meaning or purpose of Kiai, was meant to illustrate that limitation in thinking. You can go on you tube right know and find black belts/ instructors of karate explaining the kiai is to build confidence. And it well may be a confidence builder, create confidence. The kiai "yell" may in fact startle or unsettled one's opponent. That is a legitimate occurrence, I'm sure.

But as acknowledged, there is a fundamental purpose of the kiai, and how it draws all the strengths of the person into one. Actually at my current dojo, no instructor has ever explained the kiai's purpose to me, although I will say at the same time most everyone picks up what it's supposed to do. We get it empirically.

If one needs an express kiai explanation, karate instructors / masters do explain, the explanation is in manuals, and it's specifically made part of the traditional karate curriculum's in a certain fashion that leads one to the meaning by implication.