Questioning the efficacy of Kata

[Matthew78]

Ok, first off, a qualifier: I know this is an old question/ discussion... and I'm sorry for raising an old hat question, but I'd like to join the discussion and phrase this in my own words....

Question: Does traditional karate utilize effective teaching methods for self-defense in comparison to styles that don't utilize traditional methods?

Context: I have taken Shorin Ryu karate for a little over 6 years now within several different schools. Overall, the learning methods have been:

One-steps (two people face each other and one strikes and the other blocks as one step at a time is taken - usually 5 or 10 steps forward and then in reverse. These sequences become progressively more complicated with each new rank, in the form of adding a punch after a block, changing the angle of the defensive movement, or adding a simultaneous kick, etc.

Kata - as is typical in karate, a new kata is learned at certain ranks.

Bag-work: we line up in rows and practice a specific punch or kick repeatedly.

Traditional weapons: bow kata, sai kata, tonfa kata (and one-steps for bow)

Self-defense - specific techniques to be used in response to a choke, grab, and sometimes kicks and punches.

This is where it all comes into question for me: the black-belts (and sometimes brown-belts) are allowed to participate in a little more free-style self-defense sequences. The instructor gives us minimal instructions and lets us defend. The problem is that after years of training, I see a lot of black belts standing there with no clue what to do in response to the attack. I've had my moments of confusion too. One-steps seem too rote and impractical and I never see anyone using a one-step as a defense in our randori. I am just not convinced of the street defense effectiveness of the teaching methods. Kata has most always been a frustration to me in that I have always questioned how practical it is. I mean, unless a school is continuously practicing bunkai for each specific kata, then it seems little more than a dance which doesn't translate into anything practical.

I have gone to a jiu jitsu school on occasion for some time now, just to broaden my perspective. The particular school I've gone to doesn't focus on kata or many traditional methods and honestly when we do randori there, I've watched some of their beginning students who have been taught aggressiveness and in a more active and moving style who would likely be able to completely take apart some of the black-belt students I train in karate with. I wonder if a focus on traditional methods SLOWS down the progress of the student. I know that a person after years of practice can learn some good self-defense skill from karate but I just wonder if it takes much longer.

It seems as though there is this underlying thought notion that is held in karate that certain skills are withheld for the more seasoned students and we can have no idea of how much we can learn until we have spent years and years and years in the art. I understand that certain techniques should be withheld for more experienced students but I'd at least like to have some idea of what an instructor can teach me before deciding if I want to spend years and years trying to figure it out. What are your thoughts on traditional martial arts teaching methods: kata, etc?

 

[Matthew78]

I tried to change the title of my post after finishing as I was originally going to ask about kata but decided to broaden the question.... but I couldn't figure out how to change the thread title.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The instructor gives us minimal instructions and lets us defend. The problem is that after years of training, I see a lot of black belts standing there with no clue what to do in response to the attack. I've had my moments of confusion too.

The reason the instructor gives you minimal instructions is so you can figure it out. The moments of confusion is normal. Real fights are fluid and punches and kicks don't come at you in a "text book manner." This type of sparring is so that you can take what you know and try to apply it to a new situation. Part of this type of training is understanding your opponents attacks and the other part is understanding your opponent's defenses. This is a necessary learning point for martial arts that use forms.

I wonder if a focus on traditional methods SLOWS down the progress of the student.

Learning the form doesn't slow down the learning process. It's actually key to learning how to use the fighting style in a self-defense situation Katas and forms teach the proper movement that's makes the technique work. You practice it over and over so that you don't think about it when you do it. If you are always thinking about what punch to throw or what defense to use, then your reaction time will be horrible. Learning a form and the ability to use the technique from a form are two different things and requires 2 different approaches.

I study kung fu so for me the realism of a teacher's knowledge is what helps me to determine the quality of a teacher's ability to teach me. Kung fu isn't about knowing just the forms. It also requires that you understand how other fighting styles operate. If the instructor is always explaining the application of a form based on the same fighting style then I would leave. Your kata should be explained in terms applications against basic punches, kicks, uppercuts, hooks, attempted grabs, shooting for the legs and waist like a tackle, and wild punches. If the instructor doesn't understand how these things work then he or she can't teach you how to use the karate to fight.

Forms teach you proper technique which makes you more efficient. Even if you are practicing a move on a partner, it is still like a form. You do it over and over until you get it correct.

 

[tigercrane]

A very relevant post indeed. I'd like to offer my opinion on the significance of Kata (form). Kata is a fundamental block in learning the art the right way.

Back in the early days of Karate (prior to Funakoshi Gichin, Anko Itosu and other masters) when it was known as To-De or "Chinese Hand", there were no ranks and no belts. To-de was largely based on Southern Chinese Fuijan White crane kung fu style. Heck, Matsumura Sokon passed Chinese katas known as Kusanku, Chinto and Seisan to his followers.

It was perfectly normal and accepted for disciple to learn 1-2 Katas (forms) and train in basics for hours every day. Karate (just like kung fu) was hard and never ending work at basics. A master would know on average 3 Katas which lay foundation to many years of continuous training. One Kata contains many basic elements and most essential punches and kicks, which vary from style to style. As you know well, Kata is broken down into segments and parts of it are subject to Bunkai or analysis (not application as stated everywhere). Kata should not be changed, where as Bunkai is fluid and be interpreted differently depending on circumstances.

Fast forward to today, many if not most Karate dojos are businesses and are run as such. Business owners want students to progress through ranks (belts) and in order to do so, more forms (Katas) are learned. The end result is lots of so-called delusional black belts who think they know the art where as they don't. Then, there a term called "sports karate" with endless tournaments, trophies, medals and tons of money to be made along with it.
This is what is wrong with most dojos and not the Katas. Kata in itself is like a template and it is useless without basics that support it.

Watered Down Art of Karate.
Karate took the worst hit when Funakoshi took it from Okinawa to Japan's mainland. There he had to introduce it to University as method of physical development, which of course it was, however in the process he also wanted Karate to not have the stigma of "bloody fighting method" and thus most lethal techniques were dropped thereby watering down Karate in the process. A Shotokan style, suitable for competitions was born. Okinawan karate followed suit, albeit much later.

Tsuki (straight punch).
Anko Itosu once said that, quote: "Karate begins and ends with respect". Many masters however believed that true Karate begins with a perfect tsuki - straight punch. A lot of schools nowadays work on forms (Kata) and neglect basic punches, hence their Kata teaching is good for nothing. To have a good punch a development of Ki (Chinese Qi or Chi) energy is necessary. Such techniques apart from obvious Sanchin Kata (Goju-ryu, Isshin-ryu) are simply not taught. Sanchin kata is also of Fujian White Crane origin.

Advanced and lethal techniques.

These may be reserved for advanced students but most dojos are not teaching them unless you learn directly from Morio Higaonna (Goju-ryu) himself or someone alike. Then again, you may have the techniques, but not have any skills to apply them. If you take shuto-uchi and practice it 5000 times, what do you think it will become? - A lethal technique.

Kata contains hidden techniques that may be used regardless of situation and out of context. Bruce Lee once said that he was not afraid of someone who knew hundreds of techniques but was afraid of someone who practiced one strike thousands of times. The same principle applies to Kata.

Katas (forms) have been proven and tested over hundreds of years of martial arts development, but a Kata is nothing without basic punches, kicks and take-downs.

It is just that unfortunately, people don't want to train properly and diligently but expect it to work on the street. Some trained for years and still don't get it.

More on Kata here by Jesse Enkamp: Kata KARATE by Jesse - The Blog of Jesse Enkamp - Karate Nerd

 

[hoshin1600]

hey Mat, welcome to MT.
i am in a particular mood today so i am going to come off a bit harsh. i think you are spot on. in many instances TMA are a horrible platform to learn self defense and real fighting. your instincts are correct. you can train for 20 years and you will still suck. there are no secrets to be given out at higher ranks. that thinking is a scam to keep students and keep them paying.
now the flip side...its not the art itself that is lacking, its us. us being everyone. you, me, your teachers and the entire organization around any particular art. its the platform, the institution of the art that is lacking and keeping people from becoming effective. MA 's have ranks, ranks need promotions, promotions need standardization and that leads to dogma and an unchangable structure. the things you practice like one-steps and kata were developed as tools and they are good tools but should not be dogma and should not be the only tools you use. you would never find a carpenter who builds a house today only using a hammer, chisel, hand saw and hand auger/drill....*(unless your in Amish country). of course this will slow you down. if teachers only stick to the "traditional" format of kata , one steps and occational sparing that is very unrealistic, then yeah you will spend your entire life practicing your heart out and you will still suck. but add in some other training and the art will flourish and grow and will surprise you on how effective it can be. so i would advise not to be down on the art but rather the structure in which it is taught. they are not the same thing!!!

 

[Matthew78]

Thank ya'll for the comments. You've given me much to think about. My karate teacher has my respect. He has dedicated years and years to the study of the art and I know he is very skilled. My school is not a strip-mall dojo or anything like that; it's not a business at all. People come and give very minimal dues just to keep expenses paid. It just seems sometimes that the traditional methods don't put all the punches, kicks, and etc. that we are learning into a practical context. We line up to do randori and I've seen black belts who have done kata for years literally stand there and upon being attacked, say "I don't really know what to do." When I'm taught a specific technique or response to an attack, my mind grabs that, I get a mental picture that I can replicate when attacked. I know that in fighting, there is always the unexpected that makes having an arsenal of techniques impractical because everything has to be modified. I can do kata for hours and with exception of what are very obvious blocks, punches, kicks, etc., I can't generally interpret what's going on until someone shows me something practical; at which point, it is forever seared in my brain, but not until then. My thinking is, wouldn't it be much more useful to just break the kata down into much smaller segments and just teach students "This is what this move means, now practice that 50 times." I go to jiu jitsu; however, and almost everything except the initial exercises to warm up, is done in contact with or in opposition to another live person: flow drills based off of the reaction of a partner, techniques that are practiced in response to repeated attacks, drills that are based on manipulating the weight and force of another person, and these students honestly seem much more confident and aggressive when with faced with an opponent than do my karate buddies. If putting money on them in a fight, I'd probably bet on the much less, in fact years less, trained jiu jitsu students who have been taught in live practice. Going back to the other side of the spectrum, though, I like the traditional aspect of karate in that it focuses on clean technique, good form, etc. I've thought about quitting karate for a time and going focusing on the jiu jitsu class for a time, but I don't want to lose anything I've learned in Karate.

 

[Drose427]

Im going to preface this by saying I like forms and One-step, they have value.

But I do have some caveats:

One-step have to be done with huge attention towards doing them properly i.e. realistic distance and punch speed, so I get hurt if I mess up.

And forms are NEVER the only thing you should be practicing.

Forms are great for many things, but you cant do only forms and expect to fight.

I have a theory that theres a formula involved for success in training:

At MDK TSD/TKD our regular class breaks down like this(each section is roughly around 30 minutes long:

Forms: Nice warm up, focus, conditioning, lets us practice technique, get us to using the hips, breathing,etc.

One-Step/SD: Get used to a full speed punch coming at your face and reacting

Sparring: Medium-hard contact, generally kicks above waist punches from neck down but its always been common for them to change the rules for the adults, especially once I started competing in kickboxing. In fact, when many of the instructors were coming up the ranks, they threw backfists, ridge hands, etc. at each others face. Our KJN loooooooves hard fights, so its no surprise he wasnt strict about sparring rules.

We also throw in things like paddle/thai pad work and kicking shield practice

Now, heres the breakdown of boxing/kickboxing at my gym:

Shadow Sparring for warmup/conditioning: nice warm up, focus, conditioning, practice technique, breathing, practice using the hips, etc.

Mits/"One-Step", type drills( coach is working on various things with you in a simulated environment much like onestep or other SD drills you see in TMAs": Get used to punches coming at you, reacting, and adapting to a real opponent

Sparring: a few rounds of medium-hard sparring, just like TKD depending on who you spar and how close an event it.

I dont take the MMA class, but it has a similar structure and BJJ does as well outside of solo work (although on another thread someone posted a video of BJJ solo drills)

All 3 of these happen every night, even at TKD.


A lot of professional fighters have similar structures of

Solo work > partner work > full sparring

Forms are meant to be done in conjunction with everything else.

Assuming you're trying to cultivate fighting ability that is

 

[JowGaWolf]

One-step have to be done with huge attention towards doing them properly i.e. realistic distance and punch speed, so I get hurt if I mess up.

And forms are NEVER the only thing you should be practicing.

Forms are great for many things, but you cant do only forms and expect to fight.

I agree 100% with this. A person that is not doing sparring and actually trying to use the techniques in sparring is only getting half of the training. Sparring allows you to make mistakes and learn the hard way without being seriously injured. It's better to make learning mistakes during sparring than to make them in an actual fight.

One-Step/SD: Get used to a full speed punch coming at your face and reacting

I agree with this too so long as it's done with control just in case you have to pull a punch to prevent severely injuring your sparring partner. It's important that you get comfortable with fist flying towards you.

Shadow Sparring for warmup/conditioning: nice warm up, focus, conditioning, practice technique, breathing, practice using the hips, etc.

We dedicate about 15 minutes once a week just for this. Shadow Sparring is a good way to visual and to get out of the habit of trying to fight using the forms and it teaches how to use the techniques from any position. If a person is sitting on the ground, he should be able use a technique from that position while getting up. On our sparring days, I always remind the students that they should be able to use a technique from any position. The first 3 weeks of this training students look confused and nothing flows, but each week they begin to figure out how to piece techniques together and by 4 weeks certain techniques flow without thinking. When a technique gets to this point then we add another technique from the form. We always start with the techniques that feel most comfortable to use and gradually add the other techniques that don't come so naturally.

 

[Tez3]

The first question is what do you think kata is, the second question is what do you think it's for?

 

[JowGaWolf]

The first question is what do you think kata is, the second question is what do you think it's for?

This is an excellent approach. First have the original poster define kata as they see and what they think it's for. I'm finding that in a couple of discussions people aren't on the same page when discussing Kata/Forms, TMA, and self-defense. Understanding how the OP understands something would help in the discussion.

 

[DaveB]

This is where it all comes into question for me: the black-belts (and sometimes brown-belts) are allowed to participate in a little more free-style self-defense sequences. The instructor gives us minimal instructions and lets us defend. The problem is that after years of training, I see a lot of black belts standing there with no clue what to do in response to the attack. I've had my moments of confusion too. One-steps seem too rote and impractical and I never see anyone using a one-step as a defense in our randori. I am just not convinced of the street defense effectiveness of the teaching methods. Kata has most always been a frustration to me in that I have always questioned how practical it is. I mean, unless a school is continuously practicing bunkai for each specific kata, then it seems little more than a dance which doesn't translate into anything practical.

Hoshin is 100% correct. The 3 k method of karate was not intended to create fighters, it was for creating good little soldiers and citizens of the Japanese empire.

But the training and the art are distinct from one another. Change the training and you change the outcome.

The reason the instructor gives you minimal instructions is so you can figure it out. The moments of confusion is normal. Real fights are fluid and punches and kicks don't come at you in a "text book manner." This type of sparring is so that you can take what you know and try to apply it to a new situation. Part of this type of training is understanding your opponents attacks and the other part is understanding your opponent's defenses. This is a necessary learning point for martial arts that use forms.

This statement is 100% correct but also completely wrong.

This is the reason those things are done but it is completely the wrong way to teach and not how anything calling it's self a martial art should be explained.

No one goes to a martial arts class to figure it out for themselves. But where the 3 k traditional approach is all technique and very little time for learning fighting (plus a lack of knowledge to pass on in the first place), at each generation there is a loss of info.

Martial arts teacher's should be able to take each technique and teach it's use, it's strengths and weaknesses and most importantly how they all fit together in the context of the fighting style and it's application to self defense. Greater than all that they should be able to teach the guiding strategies and principles that keep a person safe and enable victory.
Following on from this, sparring becomes about practicing the skills taught, not working out what those skills are through trial and error.
One step sparring becomes just a skill building exercise, getting you used to footwork and whatever body skills are presented in the response technique.

In this type of training environment self-defense skills come through familiarity with violence and with the feel and movement of an opponent. Things you can only get

You practice it over and over so that you don't think about it when you do it. If you are always thinking about what punch to throw or what defense to use, then your reaction time will be horriblemail.

If you are training only one kata with a defined and finite list of non overlapping applications, and nothing else, then this might be true, but mostly it's a myth.

Think of all the times fighters say that boxing is like chess. They say that because of the thoughtful tactical element of fighting. If they were just reacting this wouldn't be the case.

Just reacting without thought is what happens to beginners. As we advance (in skill not years) we learn to observe and think and plan while under pressure. We react faster not because of changes in reaction time, but because we spot attacks earlier in our opponent's body language. These developments can only happen with enough exposure to people trying to hit you.

Please understand that I'm not suggesting anyone is a beginner. Often it is the most experienced who have the most deeply ingrained misconceptions.

 

[Tez3]

So, we have a thread that that is supposedly about kata but isn't at all. Oh well too much to hope for that we could have an interesting discussion on kata and bunkai. As you were gents, this obviously isn't going to be what it promised.

 

[DaveB]

So, we have a thread that that is supposedly about kata but isn't at all. Oh well too much to hope for that we could have an interesting discussion on kata and bunkai. As you were gents, this obviously isn't going to be what it promised.

I think this is a much better and more honest discussion than another bunkai thread. Too many karateka think that adding a few exotic 1-step drills into a 3k syllabus will make them Bruce Lee. The fact that effective skill comes through hours of live and semi live partner drills is missed completely by many. Bunkai is great but but meaningless if trained poorly.

Although, on the topic of bunkai I will say that I think that karateka have gone a bit loopy trying to use bunkai to fill the grappling gap. There is definitely plenty of grappling in karate kata. However Karate is a striking art, but because we thought we knew how to use strikes to fight when we started looking for applications in kata that were grappling based. Many karateka advocate jujitsu to help understand kata but kata are derived from kung fu, not jujitsu. Striking and grappling are integrated together in Chinese arts. Control methods are used to support striking, giving a balanced understanding of both. IMO Karate is built this way too, with most kata detailing how and when to use strikes, how to create openings, how to attack as well as defend, how to move and strike, use angles, pick targets and throw combinations etc.

When I watch bunkai videos most of what I see is over complicated 1-step with the karateka showing locks that they knew before they spotted them in the kata or turning simple defensive movementso into shoulder locks despite there being no logical entry.in the previous move.

As mentioned above, endless 1-step drills won't prepare students for using martial arts in self defense. Knowing what is coming and having the response in mind is why they seem to work in the dojo. Luxuries not available on the street.

Ingrained adaptability is what is required and that comes from free and semi free partner work that centres around guiding strategies and tactics. Unless you are learning a complete grappling art, over focus on joint locks will just see you rolling around on the floor and probably getting kicked while down there when you should have been hitting and moving.

 

[Tez3]

Many karateka advocate jujitsu to help understand kata but kata are derived from kung fu, not jujitsu. Striking and grappling are integrated together in Chinese arts. Control methods are used to support striking, giving a balanced understanding of both. IMO Karate is built this way too, with most kata detailing how and when to use strikes, how to create openings, how to attack as well as defend, how to move and strike, use angles, pick targets and throw combinations etc.

In most karate styles that would be true but my style, Wado Ryu, has a great deal of jujutsu in it because the founder put it there.
The History of Wado Ryu

 

[drop bear]

If you want to do a drill of any sort with enough realism to learn from it then it has to be done at a pace and resistance level where you don't always win.

Which by the way can be really frustrating.

 

[Tez3]

Which by the way can be really frustrating.

No, not really, it's about learning not winning against your partner, only the sort who turn everything into a competition would think it frustrating. You learn, you win anyway.

 

[drop bear]

No, not really, it's about learning not winning against your partner, only the sort who turn everything into a competition would think it frustrating. You learn, you win anyway.

Drills at a certain point should be competitive. I think that is OPs issue that his drills contain too much fluffing around and not enough trying to win.

 

[Tez3]

Drills at a certain point should be competitive. I think that is OPs issue that his drills contain too much fluffing around and not enough trying to win.

That's not karate's fault that will be the people who are doing the drills. Still don't think winning is the point of doing them, training and learning should be the point. If you wanted to win you'd just pick up a bit of 4X4 and belt them round the head with it.

 

[D.Cobb]

You will also find a different way of training between the traditional Japanese styles and the traditional Okinawan styles. Then to add mud to the mix there are still a few, very few, old school Okinawan styles. My teacher was a direct student of Meitoku Yagi in the Meibukan system of Goju Ryu. We learn certain techniques and we drill them relentlessly, and then we learn the kata. By the time we learn the kata, we have executed the individual techniques against various opponents of different skill levels, at different speeds and levels of intent to the point that we not only know and understand the techniques, but we also understand the underlying principles and concepts that the kata is really about.

There is not meant to be competition in drills. Least ways not in the Okinawan way of training. The drills should be performed as if they are a self defence technique, so there should always be pressure moving in one direction or another. It depends on the type of drill as which member is applying pressure and then also what actions the other member will do in response to that pressure.

One step, two step and three step sparring should always be performed to the best of the lower ranks ability. That is, a black belt should never expect a coloured belt student to know and be skilled enough to keep up. If the coloured belt shows that higher level of skill then it is fine for the black belt to perform at the higher level. They should always be done in such a way, though, that if the defence is not executed correctly that some level of contact is made. It is important to learn the consequences for not learning the basics...

 

[drop bear]

That's not karate's fault that will be the people who are doing the drills. Still don't think winning is the point of doing them, training and learning should be the point. If you wanted to win you'd just pick up a bit of 4X4 and belt them round the head with it.

In the context

That's not karate's fault that will be the people who are doing the drills. Still don't think winning is the point of doing them, training and learning should be the point. If you wanted to win you'd just pick up a bit of 4X4 and belt them round the head with it.

If you wanted to learn you have to risk loosing. Otherwise it is boxersise.