It's in the form "little 5 hands".
Here is another example of the praying mantis 8 moves combo.
We were taught the moves initially. When we had an idea of how to put them together, we were told what the attacks were, the better to visualize them.
The point he is making is that many people have different views of the purpose of the x block. Which one do you teach your student, are you doing a disservice to them if you only know 5 of the 6 ways it could be taught, and would it be too much information for (primarily newer) students to have to memorize all of the different uses?
Agree! The proper training sequence should be:
We were taught katas as well as individual techniques. When we were taught the katas, we were taught the moves 1st and then what the attack was we were defending against so we could visualize it as we were refining the kata. When taught individual techniques, we were also told what the attack was at the time.
Oh, he needn't agree with me on the purpose of the movement. I'd be happy if he simply taught any purpose. Movement without purpose seems counter-productive in martial arts training, unless you are simply training for body development or a meditative state (which are both, IMO, fully acceptable and positive purposes for MA study).That would require the instructor to agree with your conception of the role & purpose of kata. It should be obvious by now, in this thread alone, that broad agreement, never mind universal agreement, on the role & purpose of kata is, um..., "remarkably unlikely." I hate to say "never," but... well... never.
It would also require the instructor to agree with you on what exactly the purpose of each movement is. Good luck with that.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
There are two basic approaches (not a black-and-white division, but ends of a continuum):
I could see this with some very basic movements, but I would find it counter-productive to teach entire sequences without teaching some intent. There are small adjustments and tweaks that a student will quickly make when they know something is a block (versus a strike), for instance, and I'd rather they learn those early rather than developing a habit that doesn't match the need.
What about muscle memory purposes, while they are using other methods to learn similar techniques to what is taught in kata, then later learn how the kata relates? This is how both Cerio and Villari kenpo teach kata (along with using it both as a workout and/or cooldown, and as a way to calm or raise the heart, depending on the form in question).
This is why I referred to the different muscle involvement. If I'm training someone's muscle memory, it doesn't help them if I let them practice improper intent, as that usually involves different muscles (or at least different usage of the muscles) than the desired intent. Now, it's not actually necessary that they know the intent in order to do the right movements, but it's often easier to get them do use the right muscles if they are thinking of the right kind of force. There are some exercises that train the right movements and muscle involvements through a different intent, and those are just as useful. Here's the example I use: if I have a student who did Tae-bo for 10 years, I may have a hard time training them to good kicks, because they've learned a similar motion, but with all the wrong muscle involvement (many of the kicks in Tae-bo are too focused on speed and retraction, so no power in them, and no balance when hitting a target). On the other hand, if I have a student whose prior instructor had them standing for a few hours kicking in front of a mirror WITH PROPER INTENT AND FORM (correct muscles, proper balance for the strike, etc.), I can probably get them to kicking with some power fairly quickly.
I think it's usually best to start them with one. Once they have some competency there, you can add more. This is true of all techniques, and can either be over a period of a few classes, or over a period of a few years.
So to clarify (for Villari more then Cerio): We learn the intent first, outside the kata (the first form is generally not started for the first couple of months). You learn the basics through those, and then learn the form. The primary way to learn intent is through combinations which are essentially broken up parts of kata that are learned. After a couple ranks, you learn the first pinon, which is used to teach body mechanics, meditative purposes, and muscle memory of the body mechanics. However, bunkai is not taught during this time, as the focus of bunkai is on the combinations for a very long time. After you learn the form and are doing it to a competent level (whatever the instructor says that is), then he starts teaching the bunkai and intent of the minute moves. This is true for both of the villari based schools I have trained (although both broke off from villari), so i am fairly certain it is how the style as a whole is supposed to teach them.
This thing:
Sure it does.
My point is that this particular example shows up in several styles of Karate and there is a LOT of disagreement over what its "purpose" is. How can you perform your kata to a purpose if no one can agree on what that purpose is?
Well, those are certainly possibilities, but no one can seem to agree. I've heard it suggested to be everything from a knife-block to a collar-choke.
To be honest it doesn't matter if other people disagree with your own personal interpretation, just as long as the application you are visualising works for you in the context in which you apply it.
