One Art, one Kata

[Deaf Smith]

Have any of you ever thought about having only one form, kata, in your art?

A form with maybe 100 or 200 motions, that enscribe say a flower, or a hexogon, or such, and each belt rank must learn a portion leading up Dan rank.

Maybe each rank does 10 to 20 steps, and of course, as you progress in belt ranks you must know all the steps up to your test level. Each step gets more complicated as the student progresses.

Anyway, today while working out this occured to me.

Deaf

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Simpler the better, I say.

 

[Jin Gang]

Really, what's the difference between memorizing 20 short kata or one long kata in 20 parts? Where does one kata end and the next begin? Take out the arbitrarily placed ritual bows, and everything you know is one long kata. In the beginning, nothing has a name. Then we name everything and make distinctions. Eventually, all the names need to be forgotten again. Then you rename things again, to give the next generation a starting place, but the true essence remains the same...nameless and formless.

 

[Makalakumu]

That's why Itosu designed the Pinan kata. That set of kata is one art in itself.

 

[exile]

That's why Itosu designed the Pinan kata. That set of kata is one art in itself.

Deaf, I think UpN's reference to the Pinans is a perfect illustration of the reason why you tend to get multiple shorter kata instead of individual long kata. If you look at the very deep, detailed analysis Iain Abernethy has given of the Pinans (especially here—you can download the e-books and all the articles for flat-out free), you see how he treats the first three kata in the set as dedicated to strategic and tactical combat instruction at progressively closer fighting ranges—arm's length to start with, then limb-entanglement, and finally close-in grappling distances—with the last two Pinans containing advanced-technique supplements for techs at those separate ranges. Gavin Mulholland's new book on the instructional sequence of Okinawan Gojo-ryu makes the same point. The technical domains each kata is devoted to, on their account, is distinctive. Having distinct kata, each devoted to a particular phase of combat sophistication (as per GM) or fighting range (as per IA), is a far more natural way to develop a kata-based curriculum than stuffing all the separate techs into a single kata with no heavily underscored boundaries between the end of one combat 'narrative' and the beginning of the next.

It's like, if you're teaching an undergrad physics curriculum, you have a sequence of different courses starting with classical mechanics and ending up with quantum theory and particle physics; you don't have a single three year long course that students take without a break for 144 continuous weeks where you finish electromagnetism on the Monday of week 28 and on the Wednesday of week 28 the instructor comes in and without a single bit of transition, starts talking about heat, and molecular motion, and bingo, now you're doing thermodynamics... and so on for the whole 144 weeks. Sorting the material with borders demarcating distinct themes or levels of technical difficulty and sophistication is a crucial part of teaching method, and for those who see kata as guides to combat instruction—the movement-written 'textbooks' of the art—progessive development of the material is probably way easier if you do it in a greater number of smaller, linked steps.

 

[YoungMan]

Here's why, to me, it wouldn't work:

In many arts, Taekwondo included, each poomsae represents something that stands on its own separate from the other forms. While true enough in the color belt forms, it is doubly so for the black belt forms.
While each form grows more difficult as you progress, each is not one partial part of a whole. Each form shows you what you need to know at that level. In short, having each be a segment of a whole defeats the purpose. I can't speak for the Japanese or Chinese forms; but the Korean forms are separate entities unto themselves.

 

[punisher73]

It depends on what you view kata for.

If you look at the IKCA (based on Ed Parker's Kenpo), they have 55 base techniques and then blend/borrow from that to expand all the variables instead of having tons of different techniques to learn. They have a "master form", which is all of the 55 techniques put together. Each belt rank you learn the required self-defense techniques and then those are put together into a section of the form. So for example, at orange belt you would learn 6 self-defense techniques, and then at purple belt you learn 7 techniques and the "orange belt portion" of the form and so on until you have all 55 techs and 1 form.

The advantage to this, is that you have an easy to train device to help you remember all of the techniques in the system.

On the other hand, many katas were created to deal with a specific scenario or strategy. Originally, a kata was a style of fighting and then people got 2-3. Then eventually, styles incorporated a whole bunch more. Uechi-ryu originally only had 3 kata. Others created "beginner katas" to teach basic principles and concepts.

This highlights the disadvantage of the first method. You are only teaching techniques and the overall kata does not have a strategic theme. It all depends on what you want for your study. I still think you could have smaller forms that highlight a concept and still have them link together into one larger kata.

 

[clfsean]

Have any of you ever thought about having only one form, kata, in your art?

A form with maybe 100 or 200 motions, that enscribe say a flower, or a hexogon, or such, and each belt rank must learn a portion leading up Dan rank.

Maybe each rank does 10 to 20 steps, and of course, as you progress in belt ranks you must know all the steps up to your test level. Each step gets more complicated as the student progresses.

Anyway, today while working out this occured to me.

Deaf

I've got a couple of sets with more than 300 individual steps. More doesn't mean better, less doesn't mean better. Solid basics means better. The uber long sets I have are just repetitions of the same basic techniques put together with varying stepping patterns, stance changes, combiniations of hands/feet, etc...

But... they're the heart & soul of CLF so I try to practice them with that in mind & not forget where I'm at!!!

 

[arnisador]

Originally in Okinawan karate, to know 1-3 kata was all that was usual. Uechi-ryu originally had three kata (its root art may have had four); five more were added after the founder's death. People "collect" katas, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

How many techniques do you really use on a day-to-day basis?

 

[terryl965]

Originally in Okinawan karate, to know 1-3 kata was all that was usual. Uechi-ryu originally had three kata (its root art may have had four); five more were added after the founder's death. People "collect" katas, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

How many techniques do you really use on a day-to-day basis?

Yea like everyone knows of one, that is the tech of eating

.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Maybe one can have one long kata, cut into parts, then name the parts different names. But each kata start where the one before stopped.

Yes in TKD we have many kata. What is more, I started in Moo Duk Kwan, and those kata were Tang So Do! Then when I went to WTF, we used WTF forms. But.... the last Master I was under used ITF forms below black, then WTF forms for black and above!!! Aaaaccckkkkk.

So now you see what I kind of think simpler is better.

But thanks guys. There are many pro's and con's to this I see.

Deaf

 

[Grenadier]

Breaking up a single long kata into multiple parts, and having them learn each part individually isn't really that much different than learning multiple, shorter different kata.

As it was already pointed out, Itosu Ankoh did that with kata Kusanku, essentially forming 5 Pinan kata that were relatively easy to learn, yet each one emphasized a particular area of the fundamentals. It's a system that works, and works well.

If I were to try to teach a beginner the first part of kata Kusanku, which incorporates several movements that require a bit of experience, then I'd probably end up with a frustrated student. There are several movements that require a reasonably good amount of synchronization that their minds and bodies probably don't have at that point, and that's just the opening part.

By starting them out with something simplistic, such as the Taikyoku series, and then teaching them Pinan kata, they can learn things in a way that is easier to understand, yet the final product, once they've learned them all, has prepared them very well for what's to come.

That, plus I run a much lower risk of having a student quit due to that frustration, but that's another topic for future discussion.

 

[Langenschwert]

There's no such thing as "kata" in my arts. We use flourishes, which are also series of moves, but they are composed by the practicioner, or are spontaneously composed at grading. In composing a flourish, the student learns to string various techniques together in a seamless fashion. It helps develop a fluidity of technique, both phyisically, and in developing mental agility when done spontaneously. Having a pre-set series of flourishes (or one big one) can discourage the creative application of techniques if the student isn't given anything else to do.

As to whether kata or flourishes actually accomplish anything when it comes down to brass tacks, I'm not sure.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[exile]

There's no such thing as "kata" in my arts. We use flourishes, which are also series of moves, but they are composed by the practicioner, or are spontaneously composed at grading. In composing a flourish, the student learns to string various techniques together in a seamless fashion. It helps develop a fluidity of technique, both phyisically, and in developing mental agility when done spontaneously. Having a pre-set series of flourishes (or one big one) can discourage the creative application of techniques if the student isn't given anything else to do.

As to whether kata or flourishes actually accomplish anything when it comes down to brass tacks, I'm not sure.

Best regards,

-Mark

The thing about kata is, you have to treat them in effect as sets of individual combat scenarios which teach you both general principles and specific tactical tools. Any kata worth its salt embodies a variety of resources which drawn on in a variety of scenarios with whatever variations meet the need of the moment. In a given kata or hyung, there may well be information about the major choice in facing an attack (go inside or go outside in response, say), in the use of controlling techs (joint locks to immobilize and force the attacker into a lower positions, bringing their upper body into easy striking range) and how to parlay an advantageous position into a finishing combination. But the level of complexity of the strategic and tactical resources on offer does seem in general to correlate with the progression in kata complexity and difficulty. Again, it's like a math book which teaches you simple methods in the early chapters, then builds on them to handle more difficult cases, and finally gets into the really abstract stuff which unifies the earlier subject matter with other branches of math you wouldn't have thought to connect it with. If you take out the chapter headings and the subsection divisions and just have page after page of text, equations and proofs, it's going to really discourage the student, because the logical structure of the narrative I sketched earlier is going to be much more obscure.

My own feeling, for what it's worth, is that people (i) learn too many kata in (ii) not nearly enough depth. Too much emphasis on kata as a promotion criterion, not nearly enough on kata as guides to thinking about combat methods. And nowhere near enough emphasis in most dojos and dojangs on pressure-testing those methods with noncompliant partner drills. But that's been brought up on zillions of threads already...

 

[7starmarc]

I seen is written that in many kung fu styles, there are many forms which are designed to highlight specific aspects of the governing principles of that particular style. When you train that form, you focus on that part and how the movements support that principle. One, unified form would not support that kind of training. It is not always matter of the technique demonstrated, but the principle being practiced. This may include different moves preceding or following a similar technique to emphasize that point.

True, there are some forms within styles that are merely collections of techniques. If that is the case, then having a unified form may be appropriate, although I think some other posters have made good arguments regarding the utility and teaching methodology which supports a different approach to forms/kata at different levels.

In other arts (such as many kung fu styles), the forms are constructed for specific reasons. To unravel these forms without very clear understanding of the forms is dangerous to the passing on of the complete system. Many of the grandmasters of the styles made their forms the way they did for good reason. I would not change those without equally good understanding of the style and reasons.

 

[punisher73]

I seen is written that in many kung fu styles, there are many forms which are designed to highlight specific aspects of the governing principles of that particular style. When you train that form, you focus on that part and how the movements support that principle. One, unified form would not support that kind of training. It is not always matter of the technique demonstrated, but the principle being practiced. This may include different moves preceding or following a similar technique to emphasize that point.

True, there are some forms within styles that are merely collections of techniques. If that is the case, then having a unified form may be appropriate, although I think some other posters have made good arguments regarding the utility and teaching methodology which supports a different approach to forms/kata at different levels.

In other arts (such as many kung fu styles), the forms are constructed for specific reasons. To unravel these forms without very clear understanding of the forms is dangerous to the passing on of the complete system. Many of the grandmasters of the styles made their forms the way they did for good reason. I would not change those without equally good understanding of the style and reasons.

That reminded me of something else I had read. There are certain styles of kung fu that after you learn a beginning form you don't keep practicing it, you learn the next form up that builds on the first and adds to it, and so on. Not sure the specific style though.

 

[newGuy12]

See, this is why I so like American Kenpo. Each of these moves are taught, as some "self-defense", and then put into the forms. These moves are known to the students. They are not mysterious, they are explicitly explained.

Now, that being said, there are SO MANY other uses for the movements. Hence, the title, Infinite Insights into Kenpo! We will never know them all, right? Infinite.

But, still, there is at least ONE very explicit understanding of each motion! The "what ifs" can be the subject of untold numbers of seminars, books, lectures, and so on!

Here is Kenpo form 4:

 

[clfsean]

See, this is why I so like American Kenpo. Each of these moves are taught, as some "self-defense", and then put into the forms. These moves are known to the students. They are not mysterious, they are explicitly explained.

Not taking pot shots at Kenpo or anything else, just MHO

In *any* decent MA, the same thing should be done & normally is. Maybe some stress it more than others, but it should be there. If I were to go to any school that said "do this form & I'll explain later when you're ready", I'd bolt. No questions, no second thoughts. If they didn't teach to you to use what was contained in the encyclopedia of the style (sets), then what's the point in learning the sets if they can't teach you to use the material contained?

In the all of the CMA's I've studied I guess I count myself as lucky in that drills are practiced taken from the sets & shown in "classical" application & then a "more updated/modern/real world/catch phrase of the day" version of the application(s), then the set is taught. By that time, you're not learning anything new, you're simply tying together the drills already practiced, however you're doing it in the manner they were passed down in the kuen po.

Now, that being said, there are SO MANY other uses for the movements. Hence, the title, Infinite Insights into Kenpo! We will never know them all, right? Infinite.

But, still, there is at least ONE very explicit understanding of each motion! The "what ifs" can be the subject of untold numbers of seminars, books, lectures, and so on!

See above and yep!

 

[Kosho Gakkusei]

If I were to go to any school that said "do this form & I'll explain later when you're ready", I'd bolt. No questions, no second thoughts.

It's really not like that.
The word the Japanese use for Kata (form) interpretation is Bunkai, which is best translated as "analysis", literally means to disassemble, pick apart, put back together, disect.
When you first learn your Kata a good teacher will show you some basic explanations of the movements - the simplest and most obvious. As you progress, you will be shown some alternatives to some of the movements and given keys and principles to play with other movements and see what else you may discover. Then comes more alternatives and other keys and principles for you to play and discover. Then you continue and learn other forms and as you learn interpretations, alternative interprations, discovering still other interpretations, and principles that guide them. You take the principles gathered from the new form and see how it applies and changes the other form and you all see how the principles from the old form affect the new. Of course there is also experimenting with different distances, angles, and number of opponents. And as you study you strive to apply the principles and movements to any of the unlimited ways you can practice Kumite (sparring), this leads to still more interpretations and principles. As you continue advancing in your understanding that will enable you to see things you didn't see before and lead you to new understanding and still more interpretations as you re-visit the forms you know.

The bottom line is - those who study Kata and Bunkai must be creative and willing to discover for themselves if they truly want to get all they really can out of the Kata; the limitless martial applications, the principles, understanding, proper body alignment, strategy, fluidity, timing, and spontaneity. Without that, you just have a requirement for advancement or at best a vehicle to store the x amount of techniques your system teaches.

_Don Flatt

 

[clfsean]

Don... I understand bunkai & henka from my early days.

However my point is (maybe I didn't make myself clear... my wife says I do that a lot) there are schools/teachers that show self defense techniques and applications that aren't related to anything the students learn in kata/hyung/kuen/etc... and if asked receive the response I typed. I've seen it before & have had that same response.

It's one thing to drill say the opening moves of Heian 1 without telling the student what it is until the set, but giving them practical useful info on usage as opposed to making something up on the fly that the student has no training base for. Once the students have the basics of something down, then the bunkai lead to henka & free response to attacks.

But if the students practice (used for example only) Heian 1 for 6 weeks in learning it & getting the idea of it, but then are shown a jump spinning back kick as a response to an straight punching attack, what have they got to base that on? That's why I'd made the comment on not taking pot shots on a style, but opened with my statement about decent MAs. IMHO a decent MA is going to first teach drills, movements, reaction, etc... as the ABC's before opening the book to read.

I hope that's a little more clear than my previous post. Like I said my wife is on my *** about doing the same thing with my step daughters.