Kata in Aikido

[morph4me]

Aikido Waza IS Kata! It is a senseless activity to simply mimic the choreographed movements of the nage and uke, expecting that you will become a formidable martial artist. It is truly sad to see so many people stay stuck at the first stage of kata learning. All that you are left with is a beautiful “dance” between nage and uke. People need to dedicate themselves to explore the principles that are inherent in each waza. A good teacher should be actively exploring these principles of movement to develop true “Aiki” that can be expressed in “Do.” As your teacher develops, so should you. We all should be left with a state of wonderment with how deep the depth of each waza is. We should all be striving to deepen our understanding of the underlying principles of our art, so that the spontaneous expression of this art occurs in such a manner that the “uninitiated” remark that “This is not Aikido”, “that was phony” or some other statement reflecting the inability to understand what one has seen.

http://aasbk.com/blog/

This forum is kind of quiet, so I thought I'd try to liven it up a little.

It is said that there is no kata in aikido, and it is also argued that kata is useless in learning to fight. I think that the problem is that kata isn't recognized for what it is, a training tool to help us unlock the principles that will make us better martial artists.

It's pretty obvious that holding out your hand and being "attacked" by someone trying to grab your wrist is not realistic, or is it?

How many of us ever get passed the mechanics of techniques and get into the principles that make the art work, so that we can effectively use what we spend years learning if we need to?

I think it's worth some thought and some experimenting in the dojo to see if we can make our techniques work outside the box.

 

[K-man]

http://aasbk.com/blog/

This forum is kind of quiet, so I thought I'd try to liven it up a little.

It is said that there is no kata in aikido, and it is also argued that kata is useless in learning to fight. I think that the problem is that kata isn't recognized for what it is, a training tool to help us unlock the principles that will make us better martial artists.

It's pretty obvious that holding out your hand and being "attacked" by someone trying to grab your wrist is not realistic, or is it?

How many of us ever get passed the mechanics of techniques and get into the principles that make the art work, so that we can effectively use what we spend years learning if we need to?

I think it's worth some thought and some experimenting in the dojo to see if we can make our techniques work outside the box.

The fact is that apart from weapon kata (jo, bokken, etc) aikido does not have kata. There is no need for kata because Aikido is a recent art and its teachings are well documented by print and video.
By the same token, if an Aikido student were to learn some of the karate kata they would find all of the aikido techniques concealed within those kata.

Aikido Waza IS Kata! It is a senseless activity to simply mimic the choreographed movements of the nage and uke, expecting that you will become a formidable martial artist.

Aikido 'waza' is not kata. It is a technique practised with a partner. If you perfomed several techniques sequentially, with a partner, it would still 'not be a kata' because it is a prearranged sparring or as we call it in karate, yakusoku kumite.
And, no one will become a formidable martial artist by performing kata (choreographed movements). They will become formidable martial artists by understanding kata. :asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi K-man,

I would actually disagree with you a bit here. Kata is not just the form found in Karate schools, so limiting it in such a way misses what kata is. Kata simply means "form, or shape", and is a term that can be applied to any training method which is repeated in an unchanging way (retaining the same "shape" each time). In the much older classical Japanese arts (koryu), most teach kata as paired exercises, which can be single movements (opponent punches, defender blocks, then grabs and kicks to throw) or much longer actions (the very long paired weapon kata of Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu come to mind) of 10, 15, 20, 30+ movements. So if something is trained over and over without variation to instill a skill set, then that can be considered kata training. You just may not use that word.

I would also say that stating that kata is not needed in Aikido because it is a modern system is a bit incorrect as well. Tae Kwon Do is even more modern than Aikido, as are a number of Karate systems, and they all use kata/forms/poomse. And remember that Aikido is taken from Ueshiba Sensei's studies of a variety of Koryu systems, including Daito Ryu, Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, and others, all of which utilise kata training (most commonly in the paired form mentioned earlier), so it would make sense that Aikido is also a kata-learnt system.

But when all is said and done, your last line trumps pretty much everything else, and is something many would do well to heed. Knowing and understanding are two very different things. Thank you for that wisdom.

 

[amir]

This discussion would be pointless, unless we can agree on the term "Kata". I agree with Chris:

Kata is not just the form found in Karate schools, so limiting it in such a way misses what kata is. Kata simply means "form, or shape", and is a term that can be applied to any training method which is repeated in an unchanging way (retaining the same "shape" each time). In the much older classical Japanese arts (koryu), most teach kata as paired exercises, which can be single movements (opponent punches, defender blocks, then grabs and kicks to throw) or much longer actions (the very long paired weapon kata of Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu come to mind) of 10, 15, 20, 30+ movements. So if something is trained over and over without variation to instill a skill set, then that can be considered kata training.

See also a lecture of one of Korindo Aikido Shihan:
http://www.freewebz.com/aikido/lecture/unit5.htm


Kata is simply any prearranged and pre-set exercise. Thus, most of the Aikido Waza practices are Kata. Mostly, these are Kata just defined by Sensei, which shall be forgotten by the end of class.

A good Sensei, would create "his" kata in a manner from which the student should learn more then just his own mechanics. One of the things I will not forget having private lessons with one of the Japanese teachers in my system (just him – 6th Dan, my brother and me – both of us wre already Yundasha), was the very clear intent he transmitted when grabbing. He did not just grab – he either pushed or pulled or did some other action. In this way, one could really sense his intention, and the Kata he was teaching made sense.

The Korindo Aikido methodological approach is built on three foundations:
Tai-Sabaki (train your own movement)
Kata (pre-set training with partner to learn the approach and techniques)
Kyoshu \ Randori (free play training types to learn to move, act and react spontaneously in a chaotic situation)

Without deep understanding of the Kata, one might try and force a technique instead of making it happen. Such forcing does not work against resistance. For this purpose, one should understand the Kata, this starts in realizing the directions of power Uke should employ (regardless of the nature of the attack – grab, strike, punch or kick, the attacker has to employ force in some direction), feel that force, realize how to harmonize with it and neutralize it (not using force against force, still leaves more then one option), understand how to get to technical opportunity (Position, Kuzushi and Atemi) and only then, understand the mechanics of the lock \ technique.
It is impossible to learn and ingrain all the above in a free-play, this is the reason all systems employ some kind of Kata, they only give it a different name (be it drill, paired techniques or any other).


Amir

 

[morph4me]

The fact is that apart from weapon kata (jo, bokken, etc) aikido does not have kata. There is no need for kata because Aikido is a recent art and its teachings are well documented by print and video.
By the same token, if an Aikido student were to learn some of the karate kata they would find all of the aikido techniques concealed within those kata.
Aikido 'waza' is not kata. It is a technique practised with a partner. If you perfomed several techniques sequentially, with a partner, it would still 'not be a kata' because it is a prearranged sparring or as we call it in karate, yakusoku kumite.
And, no one will become a formidable martial artist by performing kata (choreographed movements). They will become formidable martial artists by understanding kata. :asian:

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Kata is a means of learning princples and the body mechanics. When you practice a front punch, you're doing kata, when you're doing prearranged sparring, you're doing kata, and if you're doing waza, you're doing kata.

The trick, as is says in the blog, is not just to go through the physical motions, but to think about what your doing and develop an understanding of why you're doing it and why it works.

In any art, you look at the advanced practioners and compare them with the beginners and you see differences in the way they do the same technique, whether it be a punch or block, or a lock or throw. Those differences come from an understanding of what's involved with that technique, learned by examining what they were doing.

Kata is a starting point, and even getting into and out of seiza can be kata.

 

[K-man]

I accept your positions but as was stated by amir: "This discussion would be pointless, unless we can agree on the term 'Kata'."

From Chris : I would also say that stating that kata is not needed in Aikido because it is a modern system is a bit incorrect as well. Tae Kwon Do is even more modern than Aikido, as are a number of Karate systems, and they all use kata/forms/poomse.

It is probably my poor phraseology. What I meant to say was that in the time up to the 20th century the 'secrets' of the martial arts were never recorded in written form to be passed on to the next generation. Kata was the medium chosen to pass on that information. Many masters or families only had one or two kata. The interpretation of the kata also differed depending on the understanding of the student. Only the direct decendant was likely to be taught the complete understanding and, to the uninitiated, the kata seemed like a harmless dance. Once you add the second person it becomes bunkai or application or interpretation. TKD incorporated a lot of Shotokan in its structure and of course Shotokan has roots back into the traditional Chinese teaching. Same thing goes for newer karate styles. Ueshiba Sensei, on the other hand, chose not to include any such kata in his teaching, as far as I am aware, and much of his teaching is available in print.

From Shono Seiki Sensei:

Kata is the way to deal with the opponent's attack. There are many methods of attack and targets to attack, attacks can appear in countless forms and there should be countless ways to cope with them. This is exactly what we mean when we assert "there isn't a single kata in aikido." There are so many counter- attacks that we can't name them one by one. It is completely meaningless if someone boasts that he knows 3,000 kata.

To go to the other extreme. Obviously an exageration but this illustrates a totally different definition of kata.

So, to return to the OP:

It's pretty obvious that holding out your hand and being "attacked" by someone trying to grab your wrist is not realistic, or is it?

How many of us ever get passed the mechanics of techniques and get into the principles that make the art work, so that we can effectively use what we spend years learning if we need to?

I think it's worth some thought and some experimenting in the dojo to see if we can make our techniques work outside the box.

Holding out your hand and being attacked is valid training IMHO. In aikido it makes us get past a physical barrier to press home our response. If we get hung up on the grab we cannot proceed to attack our attacker. It is a 'mind game'. So the next step is to totally ignore the grab, or attempted grab, and attack our opponent's centre. Once we can do that we are effectively 'outside the square'. Aikido, and I believe karate also, then becomes 'enter with irimi, hit with kokyu'. The techniques, that we so diligently practise, loose their relevance. :asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

Just to make one little point...

[originally posted by K-man]
"It is probably my poor phraseology. What I meant to say was that in the time up to the 20th century the 'secrets' of the martial arts were never recorded in written form to be passed on to the next generation. Kata was the medium chosen to pass on that information. Many masters or families only had one or two kata."

I'm not really sure what you're basing this on, is it Karate systems? In Japan, Densho (written transmissions, scrolls) are generally thought to have been a product of the Edo Jidai, 1608-1862, and were used to transmit the methods (kata) of a particular Ryu-ha.

Commonly, kata is used to teach, but records were used to transmit the information. So written records existed, but were obviously kept to the individual schools themselves.

 

[amir]

I accept your positions but as was stated by amir: "This discussion would be pointless, unless we can agree on the term 'Kata'."

It is probably my poor phraseology. What I meant to say was that in the time up to the 20th century the 'secrets' of the martial arts were never recorded in written form to be passed on to the next generation. Kata was the medium chosen to pass on that information. Many masters or families only had one or two kata. The interpretation of the kata also differed depending on the understanding of the student. Only the direct decendant was likely to be taught the complete understanding and, to the uninitiated, the kata seemed like a harmless dance. Once you add the second person it becomes bunkai or application or interpretation. TKD incorporated a lot of Shotokan in its structure and of course Shotokan has roots back into the traditional Chinese teaching. Same thing goes for newer karate styles. Ueshiba Sensei, on the other hand, chose not to include any such kata in his teaching, as far as I am aware, and much of his teaching is available in print.

phraseology
The definition of Kata you present, and the way many people translate this term, stems from Karate. However, Aikido stems from Ju-Jutsu, and in Japanese Ju-Jutsu, Kata is normally performed by more then one person, and that term equates to any pre-arranged exercise. Kata can be paired (a very common form in Koryu Kata) or multi-participent , unlike the singular Karate Kata. Kata can have only 3-4 movements, again unlike the much longer singular Karate Kata.
Most koryu system have few Katas that are fixed and old, but not all Kata must be of that genre.

And, if looking for long history, I am not sure I would start with Shotokan or TKD (both systems are of about the same age as Aikido - same generation).

I have learned several koryu Kata as part of my Korindo Aikido weapons studies, some of these Kata are very short and are limited to the very "simple" act - extremely similar to empty hand technique.


Hope this gest us to agreement on the phraseology, and we will now be able to aadvance to the content.

Amir

 

[morph4me]

I accept your positions but as was stated by amir: "This discussion would be pointless, unless we can agree on the term 'Kata'."

It is probably my poor phraseology. What I meant to say was that in the time up to the 20th century the 'secrets' of the martial arts were never recorded in written form to be passed on to the next generation. Kata was the medium chosen to pass on that information. Many masters or families only had one or two kata. The interpretation of the kata also differed depending on the understanding of the student. Only the direct decendant was likely to be taught the complete understanding and, to the uninitiated, the kata seemed like a harmless dance. Once you add the second person it becomes bunkai or application or interpretation. TKD incorporated a lot of Shotokan in its structure and of course Shotokan has roots back into the traditional Chinese teaching. Same thing goes for newer karate styles. Ueshiba Sensei, on the other hand, chose not to include any such kata in his teaching, as far as I am aware, and much of his teaching is available in print.

To go to the other extreme. Obviously an exageration but this illustrates a totally different definition of kata.

So, to return to the OP: Holding out your hand and being attacked is valid training IMHO. In aikido it makes us get past a physical barrier to press home our response. If we get hung up on the grab we cannot proceed to attack our attacker. It is a 'mind game'. So the next step is to totally ignore the grab, or attempted grab, and attack our opponent's centre. Once we can do that we are effectively 'outside the square'. Aikido, and I believe karate also, then becomes 'enter with irimi, hit with kokyu'. The techniques, that we so diligently practise, loose their relevance. :asian:

From what I'm reading, we seem to be in agreement, except as to what constitutes kata

phraseology
The definition of Kata you present, and the way many people translate this term, stems from Karate. However, Aikido stems from Ju-Jutsu, and in Japanese Ju-Jutsu, Kata is normally performed by more then one person, and that term equates to any pre-arranged exercise. Kata can be paired (a very common form in Koryu Kata) or multi-participent , unlike the singular Karate Kata. Kata can have only 3-4 movements, again unlike the much longer singular Karate Kata.
Most koryu system have few Katas that are fixed and old, but not all Kata must be of that genre.

And, if looking for long history, I am not sure I would start with Shotokan or TKD (both systems are of about the same age as Aikido - same generation).

I have learned several koryu Kata as part of my Korindo Aikido weapons studies, some of these Kata are very short and are limited to the very "simple" act - extremely similar to empty hand technique.


Hope this gest us to agreement on the phraseology, and we will now be able to aadvance to the content.

Amir

I'm willing to accept this as the working definition and examples of kata

 

[K-man]

It is said that there is no kata in aikido, and it is also argued that kata is useless in learning to fight. I think that the problem is that kata isn't recognized for what it is, a training tool to help us unlock the principles that will make us better martial artists.

It's pretty obvious that holding out your hand and being "attacked" by someone trying to grab your wrist is not realistic, or is it?

Within your definition, or mine for that matter, kata is essential. Years ago we were taught choreographed movement and were given nonsensical explanations which made us all think kata was a waste of time and totally useless in any fighting situation. Fortunately a number of westerners began to research our karate kata and not only provided sensible explanations but also also the more advanced applications as well.

So within your example, being attacked by someone and holding out our arm to be grabbed is valid as it opens up multiple responses for us to use depending on how the arm is taken. In fact it turns the exercise into 'waza' and the faster the attacks, the more realistic the scenario. IMHO the biggest problem from an observer's point of view is that, often, uke's attack looks so weak because most times the non-striking arm is left hanging by the side. It is interesting to look at our aikido moves and see how often they involve PPs even though they are not being specifically taught. This includes every wrist grab and most if not all locks. I am finding aikido totally fascinating. Even more so is finding all the aikido moves in the various karate kata, obviously due to the shared ju jutsu background. :asian:

 

[morph4me]

I am finding aikido totally fascinating. Even more so is finding all the aikido moves in the various karate kata, obviously due to the shared ju jutsu background

I think this is only to be expected, since the purpose of kata is to teach the mechanics and principles of technique, and principles don't change except in application. I would be very suprised if you didn't find the aikido moves in various karate kata, or if you couldn't find similarities between martial arts, no matter what their origin. It may not be obvious to beginners, but with experience you should begin seeing more similarities than differences, the applications may be different, but the principles remain unchanged. Kata, no matter what form it takes, is just a way of teaching those principles.

 

[Yari]

..... I would be very suprised if you didn't find the aikido moves in various karate kata, or if you couldn't fin similarities between martial arts, no matter what their origin. .....you should begin seeing more similarities than differences, the applications may be different, but the principles remain unchanged. Kata, no matter what form it takes, is just a way of teaching those principles.

I do agree. At to put it at point; there is no reference. It just might as well be karate in aikido as aikido in karate.


Gettign back to the start, I think it's important to remember that the only way we can learn is through seeing , and evaluating our own actions through a response system.

By doing "kata", you are learning to "write" for the first time. Understanding the whys and what's between small lettering and Big lettering,. The letters that consist cerstain sounds and such.

At some point your writting will become more fluent and part of who you are. The same way for your MA(or anything else).

The fundamentals (kata) are first, then comes the individual/freeing more reality based ...

/Yari

 

[hussaf]

Old thread, but I'm new to the forum so motivated to write stuff!

In my training, all of our kihon, and even oyo waza could pretty much be considered kata. There is an exact way to do every movement...down to where the hands are place, what angle degree one moves, and what percentage of body weight is on each leg (and much more, where to look, how to breath). This is done so its easier to breakdown and learn the mechanics of aikido techniques...so a student can see and feel how exactly it works, vice giving someone 'off the street' starting aikido training some nebulous advice such as "extend ki" or "maintain one point" which can be tricky to understand.

 

[Yari]

Interessting!

Is there any risk that the style might be lost concerning individual differences?

BR
Yari

 

[amir]

It's pretty obvious that holding out your hand and being "attacked" by someone trying to grab your wrist is not realistic, or is it?

How many of us ever get passed the mechanics of techniques and get into the principles that make the art work, so that we can effectively use what we spend years learning if we need to?

I think it's worth some thought and some experimenting in the dojo to see if we can make our techniques work outside the box.

At the time, I did not respond to this part of the post.

The Korindo curriculum, at least in the Israel dojos (All teachers are students of the same teacher), follows these ideas:

1. Techniques from simple static hand grabs, we start with these because:
   • Low threat level - Tori is not under pressure
   • Easy to replicate - Even a beginner can be Uke and provide the same (gross) situation again and again, letting Tori repeat and improve.
   • The correct Mae to start moving is created without problem
   • No Timing requirement
   • Techniques from dynamic grabs - mostly timing & line of attack is added.
     • Low threat level - Tori is not under pressure
     • only slightly harder to replicate - Even a beginner can be Uke and provide the same (gross) situation again and again, letting Tori repeat and improve.
     • The correct Mae to start moving is created without problem
     • Light Timing requirement
     • Simple lines of attack - easy to follow, identify, blend (for both Uke & Tori)
   • Techniques from Shomen Uchi - slightly higher treat level
     • Long attack -> Low threat level - Tori is not under pressure
     • Easy to replicate - Even a beginner can be Uke and provide the same (gross) situation again and again, letting Tori repeat and improve.
     • Long attack ->Light Timing requirement
     • Simple lines of attack - easy to follow, identify, blend (for both Uke & Tori)
   • Techniques from Yokoomen Uchi - almost the same as shomen, but slightly more complex mae, timing, directions.
   • Techniques from O-Zuki (long reverse punch) to the center - still long attack, but faster more threatening and
   Only then we start all other hand strikes & punchs to both head and body. And Kicks only come later.
   
   
   
   Every step adds a few more elements to the practitioner, making the learning process very gradual and methodical, and making sure one will find the principles repeating in each situation, in addition to the techniques.
   
   
   And let us not forget, after the Kata practice, comes the Kyushu/ Randori - free play, in which one learns the principles and behavior beyond the technique areat least as important as the technique itself.
   Amir

 

[hussaf]

Interessting!

Is there any risk that the style might be lost concerning individual differences?

BR
Yari

We do Jiyuwaza as well...but we also like to focus on the basics in a strict manner so student's techniques are effective first.....pretty/fluid later. And we actually do continuation drills to specifically focus on fluidity and movement...but again with a focus of keeping one's center balanced...meaning good posture and weight distribution. Not sure what you mean by individual differences...but hope this answers your question. For tests, and practice of these basic techniques...one does not deviate from what we are practicing. If its jiyuwaza you can do whatever technique you want. Make sense, or did I explain that poorly?