kata?

[lklawson]

Can we at least agree with the fact that when performing a kata (just like when performing basic techniques) there should be intent and purpose behind it?

I think there should, but again, there's no consensus. And, to be quite honest, some of my ideas about the purpose or intent of some classic Karate movements are widely disputed by long time practitioners and subject matter experts. In particular, my position on the true intent and purpose of the three classic, standard, "blocks" (Chudan-uke, Gedan-uke, Jodan-uke).

Just going through the motions or doing the kata just because your instructor told you to seems like a waste of time to me. For example, take a look at this clip (skip to 5:29 in the video):

I think it seems like a waste of time to do it that way but I have little doubt that there are some instructors who tell their students to just do it and it will eventually dawn on them what the purpose and meaning are. I'm sure you must have heard something like that before, right?

That's one of the things that I find so intriguing, yet so frustrating, every time another "purpose of kata" thread comes up. There simply is no consensus on what Kata is, does, or what its purpose is. Honestly, the Ford vs Chevy, or even the .45ACP vs 9mm Luger arguments make more sense.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Only if you're silly enough to think that any single technique or movement only has one use.
Or that the purpose of forms is only to teach techniques.

Both of those viewpoints are far too simplistic.

Every movement has more than one application.
Forms are used to teach balance, movement, power generation, breathing, etc etc etc.

The only issue I have with this is that often when I see multiple proposed applications for a given movement in a form, those applications require different power generation, timing, etc from each other in order to be effective.

 

[Dirty Dog]

The only issue I have with this is that often when I see multiple proposed applications for a given movement in a form, those applications require different power generation, timing, etc from each other in order to be effective.

Obviously, different applications will require slight modifications - a rising forearm used as a block will require slightly different angles than one used as an attack. And you can certainly debate how far from the original, stylized example used in forms you can go and still consider it a variant.
But the specific techniques and applications derived from forms is secondary to the very principles you mentioned; power generation, timing, etc. If you've understood them well enough to apply them for an application that is fairly far removed from the original, then the training has worked.

 

[Steve]

kata is exactly what you really want it to be. if you work at it hard enough, it can be anything.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

I think there should, but again, there's no consensus. And, to be quite honest, some of my ideas about the purpose or intent of some classic Karate movements are widely disputed by long time practitioners and subject matter experts. In particular, my position on the true intent and purpose of the three classic, standard, "blocks" (Chudan-uke, Gedan-uke, Jodan-uke).

I think it seems like a waste of time to do it that way but I have little doubt that there are some instructors who tell their students to just do it and it will eventually dawn on them what the purpose and meaning are. I'm sure you must have heard something like that before, right?

That's one of the things that I find so intriguing, yet so frustrating, every time another "purpose of kata" thread comes up. There simply is no consensus on what Kata is, does, or what its purpose is. Honestly, the Ford vs Chevy, or even the .45ACP vs 9mm Luger arguments make more sense.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Ah yes, the good old "practice this seemingly pointless skill for hours and hours and one day you will discover the secret technique behind it...."

Don't get me wrong, getting your student to discover things on their own like this can be an effective way of teaching and gauging the student's aptitude and progress, but I fear that a lot of instructors only use it to hide the fact that they don't know the answer themselves.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Ah yes, the good old "practice this seemingly pointless skill for hours and hours and one day you will discover the secret technique behind it...."

If you think the way you're being trained is pointless, I'd strongly encourage you to leave the school immediately and find some other system that trains the way you think best.

Don't get me wrong, getting your student to discover things on their own like this can be an effective way of teaching and gauging the student's aptitude and progress, but I fear that a lot of instructors only use it to hide the fact that they don't know the answer themselves.

Maybe that is because, contrary to what inexperienced people often think, there is no "the" answer.
We had a student testing for 2nd Geup tonight. As part of his test, I asked him to show me 3 ways a "low block" could be used offensively. And stipulated that he had to come up with applications he had not been shown in class. A student able to do that is a student who is developing an understanding of the principles behind the movement. A student who has to be told "this is what it's for" lacks that understanding.

 

[Th0mas]

I think there should, but again, there's no consensus. And, to be quite honest, some of my ideas about the purpose or intent of some classic Karate movements are widely disputed by long time practitioners and subject matter experts. In particular, my position on the true intent and purpose of the three classic, standard, "blocks" (Chudan-uke, Gedan-uke, Jodan-uke).

Hi Kirk,
Would you care to elaborate on your view about the true intent of the three classic blocks ? I think it might be an interesting point of discussion.

Cheers
Tom

 

[Th0mas]

kata is exactly what you really want it to be. if you work at it hard enough, it can be anything.

Hi Steve
Are you sure about that? I agree that it is subjective.. Value being in the eye of the beholder... However I don't think most Martial artists who have invested a significant proportion of there training time on forms would be very happy if it transpired that it was nothing but bad interpretive dance?

 

[Midnight-shadow]

If you think the way you're being trained is pointless, I'd strongly encourage you to leave the school immediately and find some other system that trains the way you think best.



Maybe that is because, contrary to what inexperienced people often think, there is no "the" answer.
We had a student testing for 2nd Geup tonight. As part of his test, I asked him to show me 3 ways a "low block" could be used offensively. And stipulated that he had to come up with applications he had not been shown in class. A student able to do that is a student who is developing an understanding of the principles behind the movement. A student who has to be told "this is what it's for" lacks that understanding.

Like I said, it can be an effective teaching technique as you have illustrated in your example. However it can also be used to hide the lack of knowledge in the instructor.

 

[madihakhan]

I got about kata here that people are even forcing to practice kata but just tell me one thing if a guy is 26 years old and he wants to learn martial arts and all that , is it possible for him to learn everything ?

 

[Midnight-shadow]

I got about kata here that people are even forcing to practice kata but just tell me one thing if a guy is 26 years old and he wants to learn martial arts and all that , is it possible for him to learn everything ?

Nobody can ever learn everything, but there's nothing to stop that 26 year old from becoming proficient at that Martial Art. Will they become a Master? Depends what you mean by a Master, but again, they are young enough to be able to do it in my opinion.

 

[lklawson]

Hi Kirk,
Would you care to elaborate on your view about the true intent of the three classic blocks ? I think it might be an interesting point of discussion.

Cheers
Tom

OK, but please understand that this is a widely disputed position with many subject matter experts here on MT and elsewhere holding different opinions. I will say, however, that after I came to my conclusion (detailed below) that I did some further research and also found that my new belief was echoed by a few others who are subject matter experts. While my position is in the distinct minority, I am not entirely alone.

Let's take the middle block for descriptive reasons, but the general statements and principles can be applied to all three. The middle block is typically taught as two distinct movements. First, chamber the hand/fist to the opposing hip (often with a turning or loading to that hip). I.E. sweep your right fist to your left hip, turning slightly to the left. Then explosively return to the forward facing position while sweeping the hand/fist out with the arm vertical (ish) with the hand/fist roughly somewhere below eye level. Most are apparently taught that the first movement is a "chambering" movement and the second is an outsweeping movement designed to block or parry an incoming punch, often destructively. The idea of a parry in this manner appears to have some merit but the two-part movement as a whole doesn't make sense as has been typically described. Further, it seems to always fail when pressure tested with the goal of making it perform as a two-part motion of chamber-then-parry/block. It's too slow, and no one ever seems to be able to actually chamber then bock. If they try it, they almost get to the chamber then they get punched in the face.

I contend that this is backwards. The first movement, what is commonly taught as the chambering movement is actually the block. The movement of sweeping the hand to the oposide side of the body and twisting the body is the act of parrying and using body movement for two purposes, the first of which is body movement to evade the incoming blow. The second movement, which seems to usually be taught as the block, is actually a ripost (a counter-attack after a defensive movement). It is a straight up backfist or hammer fist attack to the now parried and exposed opponent and the act of chambering during the parry adds additional power to the back/hammer fist ripost.

I came to this revelation after reading Dempsey's "Championship Fighting" in which he describes a method of fighting where the fighter keeps his guard up but leaves the fists a bit wide apart in order invite an attack down the middle (between the fists) which allows the defender to 'swat' the punch away with the palm of his hand and then immediately ripost with a backfist to the face. It's a clean, elegant, and shockingly fast two-movement set and looks almost identical, though with less "exaggerated" movements, to a classic karate high block or middle block. A low block would be the same but back/hammer-fisting low to the kidneys, short-ribs, even the groin, etc.

While I believed that this was a awesome revelation, because during years of discussions, training, and trolling the net with other martial artists, I'd never seen the suggestion before, I came to find out that it wasn't exactly a new interpretation. However, it does seem to be an, um..., "minority opinion" so to speak.

In the context of this thread, I'm not really trying to argue for or against my interpretation of traditional karate low/middle/high-blocks, but rather to illustrate that there is not really a consensus on the "true meaning and intent" of even such basic movements, never-mind something so much more sophisticated and complex as kata.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

Hi Steve
Are you sure about that? I agree that it is subjective.. Value being in the eye of the beholder... However I don't think most Martial artists who have invested a significant proportion of there training time on forms would be very happy if it transpired that it was nothing but bad interpretive dance?

people look for value in different things. listen to the diversity of opinion even among proponents of kata.

does the kata help make you a more effective fighter? Jury's out. But I don't think it makes you a less effective fighter, and if you're getting some esoteric benefit, real or perceived, where's the harm?

 

[Midnight-shadow]

people look for value in different things. listen to the diversity of opinion even among proponents of kata.

does the kata help make you a more effective fighter? Jury's out. But I don't think it makes you a less effective fighter, and if you're getting some esoteric benefit, real or perceived, where's the harm?

Some people would argue that spending too much time on katas makes you a worse fighter, which is true in a way. In training you need to find a balance between drills, katas, sparring and body conditioning. Too much body conditioning and not enough technique work and you will lack the skill required to win a fight. On the other hand, too much technique work and not enough body conditioning means your strikes and blocks have no power behind them. That said, one thing I found recently on youtube was a video where the person recording it basically said katas are worthless, and that the difference between a "McDojo" and a proper school is that a "McDojo" builds their entire training around the katas, whereas a proper school builds their entire training around self-defense. You can decide which philosophy you agree with on that one, although personally I believe that when it comes to Traditional Martial Arts, self-defense is only a very small part of it. There are plenty of specialist self-defense schools if that's all you want to learn, but if I go to a Traditional Martial Arts school, I want to do a lot more than just self-defense techniques.

 

[Th0mas]

OK, but please understand that this is a widely disputed position with many subject matter experts here on MT and elsewhere holding different opinions. I will say, however, that after I came to my conclusion (detailed below) that I did some further research and also found that my new belief was echoed by a few others who are subject matter experts. While my position is in the distinct minority, I am not entirely alone.

Let's take the middle block for descriptive reasons, but the general statements and principles can be applied to all three. The middle block is typically taught as two distinct movements. First, chamber the hand/fist to the opposing hip (often with a turning or loading to that hip). I.E. sweep your right fist to your left hip, turning slightly to the left. Then explosively return to the forward facing position while sweeping the hand/fist out with the arm vertical (ish) with the hand/fist roughly somewhere below eye level. Most are apparently taught that the first movement is a "chambering" movement and the second is an outsweeping movement designed to block or parry an incoming punch, often destructively. The idea of a parry in this manner appears to have some merit but the two-part movement as a whole doesn't make sense as has been typically described. Further, it seems to always fail when pressure tested with the goal of making it perform as a two-part motion of chamber-then-parry/block. It's too slow, and no one ever seems to be able to actually chamber then bock. If they try it, they almost get to the chamber then they get punched in the face.

I contend that this is backwards. The first movement, what is commonly taught as the chambering movement is actually the block. The movement of sweeping the hand to the oposide side of the body and twisting the body is the act of parrying and using body movement for two purposes, the first of which is body movement to evade the incoming blow. The second movement, which seems to usually be taught as the block, is actually a ripost (a counter-attack after a defensive movement). It is a straight up backfist or hammer fist attack to the now parried and exposed opponent and the act of chambering during the parry adds additional power to the back/hammer fist ripost.

I came to this revelation after reading Dempsey's "Championship Fighting" in which he describes a method of fighting where the fighter keeps his guard up but leaves the fists a bit wide apart in order invite an attack down the middle (between the fists) which allows the defender to 'swat' the punch away with the palm of his hand and then immediately ripost with a backfist to the face. It's a clean, elegant, and shockingly fast two-movement set and looks almost identical, though with less "exaggerated" movements, to a classic karate high block or middle block. A low block would be the same but back/hammer-fisting low to the kidneys, short-ribs, even the groin, etc.

While I believed that this was a awesome revelation, because during years of discussions, training, and trolling the net with other martial artists, I'd never seen the suggestion before, I came to find out that it wasn't exactly a new interpretation. However, it does seem to be an, um..., "minority opinion" so to speak.

In the context of this thread, I'm not really trying to argue for or against my interpretation of traditional karate low/middle/high-blocks, but rather to illustrate that there is not really a consensus on the "true meaning and intent" of even such basic movements, never-mind something so much more sophisticated and complex as kata.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Hi Kirk
I think your interpretation is much more common than you realise. In fact that is precisely how we interpret those blocking actions.. In principle. We often refer to it as primary and secondary. Primary being the lead hand block and secondary being the following hand block.

By that I mean, there a degrees of nuance depending on how you wish to apply the technique. A favourite principle of mine is to recognise that the human parasympathetic flinch response, something that is ingrained and has evolved for as long as humans have walked on two legs, is something we should work with when "blocking" rather than try and unlearn.

By this I mean, in close quarters both hands should be deployed to block/parry grasp and disrupt. This lends itself to the primary / secondary technique and the resulting crossing of arms that results. Arguably traditional blocking at close range is not effective (fine at sparring range). Both hands with body/weight shifting resulting in the disruption to prevent your opponent being able to repeat the attack in a flurry of blows is much more pragmatic.

 

[lklawson]

Hi Kirk
I think your interpretation is much more common than you realise. In fact that is precisely how we interpret those blocking actions.. In principle. We often refer to it as primary and secondary. Primary being the lead hand block and secondary being the following hand block.

I think you're right that this interpretation is becoming much more common than when I learned in the 80's. From what I can tell, however, it is still not the most common interpretation though I believe you're right that it's gained a lot of traction.

I'm just glad that you're doing it right. <ducking>

A favourite principle of mine is to recognise that the human parasympathetic flinch response

I wish more people would recognize this. But, I can't dictate to everyone so they all have the right to their interpretation.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Th0mas]

people look for value in different things. listen to the diversity of opinion even among proponents of kata.

does the kata help make you a more effective fighter? Jury's out. But I don't think it makes you a less effective fighter, and if you're getting some esoteric benefit, real or perceived, where's the harm?

If Kata is part of holistic training regime where the objective is to create skills that are applicable to civilian violence, then of course it will make you a more effective fighter. I say that with cast-iron certainty!

That is of course assuming you use the kata as they were designed - a library of combatative strategies, principles and applications - that you explore, test and practice as part of All the other training methods you need to do to be effective when dealing with physical assaults outside of the Dojo or ring.

Kata is not the only thing that can provide a curriculum for self defence, but it is pretty good as a physical way of recording the lessons and providing a structure or framework to ensure you focus on the correct elements to achieve those training goals.

Crap solo Kata practice, like sloppy bag work, non existence partner drills, long range point sparring, over reliance on "air techniques" etc will not make you effective. Using the right tool for the job is a principle that has to be applied to kata practice. Else it is XMA or dancing in angry pyjamas

 

[Th0mas]

I think you're right that this interpretation is becoming much more common than when I learned in the 80's. From what I can tell, however, it is still not the most common interpretation though I believe you're right that it's gained a lot of traction.

I'm just glad that you're doing it right. <ducking>

I wish more people would recognize this. But, I can't dictate to everyone so they all have the right to their interpretation.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Hi Kirk,
Certainly in the 80's in the UK "traditional" shotokan karate, in my experience, was of the 3 K's variety - Kata, Kihon and kumite...When people were either kata guys or fighters... And the KUGB squad was a tough bunch of guys, so no critisism there from me in that regard.

It wasn't till about 16 years ago that slowly things started to change - I remember going to a course where the instructor was focussing on breaking down the kata into effective drills for close quarter combatives. That was the first time to me that anybody had addressed the question of "what is the point of Kata". A real eye opener for me at the time. Serendipitous as I was getting very bored with the same old stuff and had that awful feeling of "is that it?"

You are right, that things now are changing, the kind of arguments I was making in 2001 are generally accepted, certainly in the limited sphere of the like minded individuals I associate with.

 

[Steve]

Some people would argue that spending too much time on katas makes you a worse fighter, which is true in a way. In training you need to find a balance between drills, katas, sparring and body conditioning. Too much body conditioning and not enough technique work and you will lack the skill required to win a fight. On the other hand, too much technique work and not enough body conditioning means your strikes and blocks have no power behind them. That said, one thing I found recently on youtube was a video where the person recording it basically said katas are worthless, and that the difference between a "McDojo" and a proper school is that a "McDojo" builds their entire training around the katas, whereas a proper school builds their entire training around self-defense. You can decide which philosophy you agree with on that one, although personally I believe that when it comes to Traditional Martial Arts, self-defense is only a very small part of it. There are plenty of specialist self-defense schools if that's all you want to learn, but if I go to a Traditional Martial Arts school, I want to do a lot more than just self-defense techniques.

Who are these people arguing that too much timing on katas makes you a worse fighter? What exactly is too much (as opposed to "a lot" or "some" or "maybe a tad excessive")?

And in the same vein, how well documented is this direct correlation between technique, body conditioning and striking/blocking power? That's a new one on me.

My point is simply that if you do Kata and you find it valuable, for ANY reason, knock yourself out. If you think it helps your allergies, fine. I view it as a benign activity, which will certainly not make something worse. And really, "worse" is also subjective and entirely dependent upon what your goals are. Will it make you a better fighter? Maybe or maybe not. But will it make you a worse fighter? No. If your goal is to fight in a cage, you will likely want to train for that activity. Will kata help you succeed in MMA? Maybe not, but it won't make you fail either. Your lack of training for MMA will be the reason you fail, not your training in Kata.

If Kata is part of holistic training regime where the objective is to create skills that are applicable to civilian violence, then of course it will make you a more effective fighter. I say that with cast-iron certainty!

That is of course assuming you use the kata as they were designed - a library of combatative strategies, principles and applications - that you explore, test and practice as part of All the other training methods you need to do to be effective when dealing with physical assaults outside of the Dojo or ring.

Kata is not the only thing that can provide a curriculum for self defence, but it is pretty good as a physical way of recording the lessons and providing a structure or framework to ensure you focus on the correct elements to achieve those training goals.

Crap solo Kata practice, like sloppy bag work, non existence partner drills, long range point sparring, over reliance on "air techniques" etc will not make you effective. Using the right tool for the job is a principle that has to be applied to kata practice. Else it is XMA or dancing in angry pyjamas

Same as above. You guys seem to be really hung up on your goals and desired or expected outcomes, and you are using a lot of subjective language as a result. What if XMA is the goal? What if speed is valued over precision, or precision is valued over power?

Once again, if you like it, do it. Bill Mattocks is a recent evangelist for kata, and purports to gain some really deep meaning from his training of kata. Good for him, I say. Will it make him a better fighter, or help him better defend himself? Who knows? But, he's getting something out of it, and he seems like a pretty reasonable guy. So, what the hell. Go for it.

And in the end, the chances anyone of us will ever need to use any of this crap we're training for actual self defense are functionally non-existence, barring some unusual exposure to crime or engaging in high risk behaviors.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Who are these people arguing that too much timing on katas makes you a worse fighter? What exactly is too much (as opposed to "a lot" or "some" or "maybe a tad excessive")?

And in the same vein, how well documented is this direct correlation between technique, body conditioning and striking/blocking power? That's a new one on me.

My point is simply that if you do Kata and you find it valuable, for ANY reason, knock yourself out. If you think it helps your allergies, fine. I view it as a benign activity, which will certainly not make something worse. And really, "worse" is also subjective and entirely dependent upon what your goals are. Will it make you a better fighter? Maybe or maybe not. But will it make you a worse fighter? No. If your goal is to fight in a cage, you will likely want to train for that activity. Will kata help you succeed in MMA? Maybe not, but it won't make you fail either. Your lack of training for MMA will be the reason you fail, not your training in Kata.

No offence but I feel like you are arguing now just for the sake of it. "How well documented is this direct correlation between technique, body conditioning and striking/blocking power?" Is that a serious question? A stronger person can put more force into their strike, making it harder to block while also allowing them to inflict greater damage with less effort. Similarly, a person who has trained their body can withstand more hits for longer if needed. That's why people do Iron Palm and Iron shirt training. That's why ring fighters do weights and resistance training. You also get the benefit of increasing your stamina, so can fight for longer without getting fatigued. But, it has to be in moderation. Anything in excess can harm you in the long run. A fighter who only does kata and no sparring isn't going to have the natural reflexes and the adaptability to fight against different opponents (they will typically just do the same moves and combos over and over hoping they will work). On the other hand, a fighter who only does sparring and no kata may not have developed the muscle-memory to be able to keep their techniques effective while under pressure throughout a fight.