Questioning the efficacy of Kata

[JowGaWolf]

Lei tai is the best.

 

[Hanzou]

From what I've seen board breaking is pretty rare in karate and not normally a testing requirement. Things might be different in the US.

Would that include Korean karate like TKD and TSD? Board breaking is pretty rampant in those styles.

As for Japanese karate, I practiced Shotokan, and board broke in that. A childhood friend of mine did Isshin-Ryu (which is Okinawan) and they did board breaking in that too.

Kata is a common testing requirement, but your statement was that these things were introduced into the art for spurious reasons and that is false. You've already given a more correct reason for kata in a post above, so why waste time defending your nonsense.

No, I said that they're now used as a method to reinforce the belt system. Obviously when they were first introduced it wasn't solely for commercial purposes. Nowadays its a different ball-game. Which is why there are so many belts in Karate these days, and plenty of kata to go along with them. Nothing wrong with that really, it is a business after all.

So you don't think kata is an efficient way to train. Fine, but you only hurt your argument by filling it with bile and misinformation.

Where's the misinformation?

And while you don't like it, I personally think that kata is an excellent training tool when utilised properly. They combine a useful adaptable coordination exercise that supports and helps develop a range of fighting techniques, with a mental tool to help students expand on lessons taught, as well as a reference guide for combat strategies and tactics.

They develop a range of fighting techniques that never emerges when a karateka is actually fighting?

Interesting.....

Also there's a better mental tool to help students expand on the lesson taught, and develop coordination when applying techniques; It's called sparring.

The differences between different types of karate are nothing to do with the kata.

Actually it does. If we have examples of highly effective styles of karate that don't use kata at all, that makes the practice of kata in other karate styles optional to pointless.

Just because you disagree with a particular method is no reason to assume negative motives for those who disagree with you. You don't and can't know what is in the minds of others, you are talking out of your bottom.

Why do you think a martial arts instructor trying to eek out a living is a negative motive? You got to keep the lights on right? If that means you add a few more belts, stretch out a few more katas, or add some more boards to break, than so be it.

None of that makes you a better fighter, but it does allow your teacher to keep doing what he/she loves to do.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Competition has been in MA for a long time.

The oldest picture can be traced back more than 2000 years ago.

 

[Phobius]

They seem rather fatal to be training exercies though. But cool, thanks for those images. Seems I need to read up a bit on Lei Tai.

 

[DaveB]

Would that include Korean karate like TKD and TSD? Board breaking is pretty rampant in those styles.

As for Japanese karate, I practiced Shotokan, and board broke in that. A childhood friend of mine did Isshin-Ryu (which is Okinawan) and they did board breaking in that too.



No, I said that they're now used as a method to reinforce the belt system. Obviously when they were first introduced it wasn't solely for commercial purposes. Nowadays its a different ball-game. Which is why there are so many belts in Karate these days, and plenty of kata to go along with them. Nothing wrong with that really, it is a business after all.



Where's the misinformation?



They develop a range of fighting techniques that never emerges when a karateka is actually fighting?

Interesting.....

Also there's a better mental tool to help students expand on the lesson taught, and develop coordination when applying techniques; It's called sparring.



Actually it does. If we have examples of highly effective styles of karate that don't use kata at all, that makes the practice of kata in other karate styles optional to pointless.



Why do you think a martial arts instructor trying to eek out a living is a negative motive? You got to keep the lights on right? If that means you add a few more belts, stretch out a few more katas, or add some more boards to break, than so be it.

None of that makes you a better fighter, but it does allow your teacher to keep doing what he/she loves to do.

Your original statement was that these things were introduced for reasons of financial gain. That is false. You stated that board breaking was a requirement to grade in karate (I don't count Korean arts when I discuss karate), in many large karate organisations it is not. Being required in some places is not a requirement across the art. Thus you were inventing your own facts to prop up an argument that is unnecessary because everyone who supports kata practice for effective use of karate also supports robust sparring.

Your assumptions about style effectiveness and kata are wrong. Correlation is not causation and I would question your whole idea of effectiveness anyway.

That you don't like kata doesn't qualify you to speak on the motives of people you don't know.

The one thing that I do sort of agree with is that even many application.focused karateka don't join up their kata and sparring in a manner that suits me. But it suits them and that's okay.

Personally I feel you should be able to apply all of your applications in free sparring. I achieve this by avoiding over-complicated grappling applications and working on the reasons behind given sequences which can be applied universally. These translate far more easily into free sparring than much of the self-defense set pieces I see others do.

However, while I like my way, its not the only way. Nor is yours

 

[RTKDCMB]

No, I said that they're now used as a method to reinforce the belt system.Obviously when they were first introduced it wasn't solely for commercial purposes. Nowadays its a different ball-game. Which is why there are so many belts in Karate these days, and plenty of kata to go along with them. Nothing wrong with that really, it is a business after all.

Painting everything with the same brush again.

Also there's a better mental tool to help students expand on the lesson taught, and develop coordination when applying techniques; It's called sparring.

Two mental tools are better than one.

Actually it does. If we have examples of highly effective styles of karate that don't use kata at all, that makes the practice of kata in other karate styles optional to pointless.

By this piece of faulty logic kicking and arm bars are optional to pointless in other martial art styles because the highly effective boxing styles don't use them at all.

Why do you think a martial arts instructor trying to eek out a living is a negative motive?

As with many things it is all a matter of degrees. When the instructor cares more about getting as many students as they can through the door than they do about the quality of their instruction it becomes a more negative motive.

 

[drop bear]

Not saying you do, from what you were saying though you seem to think that martial arts instructors can only do sport not self defence. It's a muddled argument.

I'm beginning to think you aren't sure about what you are saying. When you say competition is an integral part of martial arts training that's making a big generalisation. Some take part in competitions so train for that, some have nothing whatsoever to do with any type of competition other may compete in sparring comps but your idea of competing while training is off, there's no reason to compete, it's not beneficial to training if that's all you are focusing on, it makes you a bad training partner.

As for being 'afraid' of conflict, no sane person would think conflict is something to be welcomed, something to enjoy. There are those who do enjoy physical altercations ( not competitions) and they really aren't the sort of human beings one wants to meet or have anything to do with...ever.

Competitive nature in training and doing competitions are two different things. Compliance makes you a bad training partner. If we read right back to the original point in a drill you have to have a point where you are both competing to win the scenario that you are given.

This is so you learn to deal with an oponant who is not trying to help you but is actively trying to shut you down.

Being a bad partner teaches you lessons you will not otherwise learn. And is far less egocentric training than a drill designed bto make both parties look good.

As for being afraid. It gets complicated.

 

[drop bear]

I dont really want to object but do you know this for certain? If you do, can you share the origin of such facts? While it may sound as if I doubt your facts the truth is that if this can be verified as truth it would be very interesting.

It is still my belief that if you wish to compete with fellow students then you will not give them the help they need to improve their methods, as such they will not be able to help you improve either. Two people can do sparring, but neither will improve much unless both do.

All training needs to be done with intent, but the intent should not be to win in my opinion but to make their opponent better than themselves. When your opponent starts sharing same goal that is when you will both progress faster.

Plato was a mad keen wrestler.
Plato - Philosophy In An Hour - History in an Hour

 

[Phobius]

Competitive nature in training and doing competitions are two different things.

Well if you are competitive in training that would mean you look at training as a competition.

Are you sure what you try to say is not that all training needs to have intent? If that is what you are trying to say then I do agree with you completely. Intent may exist however in training, when you are mad at someone, in competition, barfights and so on. Intent to really go at someone in honesty.

The difference is what you have as a goal with your intent, either to show the other person what needs to improve in their techniques, win some points in a fight, win a fight or just knock someone out. Competition means that you allow yourself to do anything to win within any given rules. What if your training partner has not yet fully learned a technique well enough, would you knock him /her out because you can or halt yourself to allow him/her to understand what goes wrong with your assistance?

 

[drop bear]

Well if you are competitive in training that would mean you look at training as a competition.

Are you sure what you try to say is not that all training needs to have intent? If that is what you are trying to say then I do agree with you completely. Intent may exist however in training, when you are mad at someone, in competition, barfights and so on. Intent to really go at someone in honesty.

The difference is what you have as a goal with your intent, either to show the other person what needs to improve in their techniques, win some points in a fight, win a fight or just knock someone out. Competition means that you allow yourself to do anything to win within any given rules. What if your training partner has not yet fully learned a technique well enough, would you knock him /her out because you can or halt yourself to allow him/her to understand what goes wrong with your assistance?

Depends on the drill and how far along you both are. In the op,s example it is two black belts doing self defence. That might mean if I grab I don't let go until he makes me.it might mean I time a strike to nail him rather than feed a defendable strike and if it were animal day I am knocking guys out.

We do this drill. And it is competitive without being ego driven.
the mother of all drills. | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

 

[DaveB]

So basically you are saying the same thing as everyone else you just really really like the word competitive, despite the negative connotations that you apparently agree should be avoided.

 

[JowGaWolf]

They seem rather fatal to be training exercies though. But cool, thanks for those images. Seems I need to read up a bit on Lei Tai.

From what I've seen of Lei Tai. It is the best competition art for those who really want to test their martial against other martial art styles. It's definitely good for anyone looking to get away from the point sparring competitions.

 

[drop bear]

So basically you are saying the same thing as everyone else you just really really like the word competitive, despite the negative connotations that you apparently agree should be avoided.

This is a big semantic game. It gets played a lot here.

I have already refuted the negative connotations. (He says in his vague sensai speak)

Look. You can use the concept of intent but it removes the idea of winning and loosing which in a fight is going to be very real and very present.

Using concepts like the intent removes part of the training that is necessary to have a strong mental game. The guy you are trying to fight won't be fighting you with the desire to help you. And you are better off getting a taste of that in training before you take it out and use it for real.

This means part of your training needs to be competitive. Win or loose so you can access that part of you will should the pace suddenly ramp up.

Training should be hard and come with a cost because fighting is hard and comes with a cost.

Now I don't hate my training partners or fight for my ego. But I will fight to win. Just as they fight to win. Nobody gives an inch. So that is n a real fight I don't give an inch. It is already there all trained up.

 

[Phobius]

Using concepts like the intent removes part of the training that is necessary to have a strong mental game. The guy you are trying to fight won't be fighting you with the desire to help you. And you are better off getting a taste of that in training before you take it out and use it for real.

Win or lose has nothing to do with training hard. Lets say I fight with full intent of hitting my opponent with force, all of a sudden I notice a scenario where my move does not feel 100% in control although it does seem to work. In training you would attempt to correct that move/technique the next time same situation appears and doing so you might get punched and lose and learn a lot more about yourself.

In competitive state of mind in any scenario as long as it works no matter how you feel around it. It is all good since you win. The focus is no more on the actual techniques you apply and how confident you feel about their performance but the actual outcome. Competitive behavior removes, in my interpretation of the word, the possibility of losing just to improve. Lets face it, we all have moves that needs to be improved but we still apply every now and then. Some of which can not be tested without being in a live scenario.

Also an angry mob or drunk person will not care about win or lose. They might overcommit and in worst cases be resistant to techniques that would normally work on an opponent that rather play it safe in order to win. And not to mention that the aspect of suprise is gone in any competition.

 

[drop bear]

In competitive state of mind in any scenario as long as it works no matter how you feel around it. It is all good since you win.

Exactly. And my point is made.

 

[Tez3]

Exactly. And my point is made.

Well, no.

 

[DaveB]

This is a big semantic game. It gets played a lot here.

I have already refuted the negative connotations. (He says in his vague sensai speak)

Look. You can use the concept of intent but it removes the idea of winning and loosing which in a fight is going to be very real and very present.

Using concepts like the intent removes part of the training that is necessary to have a strong mental game. The guy you are trying to fight won't be fighting you with the desire to help you. And you are better off getting a taste of that in training before you take it out and use it for real.

This means part of your training needs to be competitive. Win or loose so you can access that part of you will should the pace suddenly ramp up.

Training should be hard and come with a cost because fighting is hard and comes with a cost.

Now I don't hate my training partners or fight for my ego. But I will fight to win. Just as they fight to win. Nobody gives an inch. So that is n a real fight I don't give an inch. It is already there all trained up.

There are other ways to train the mentality needed that don't compromise decision making by causing us to treat self defense as a game.

As I mentioned before, the kind of training where a competitive mindset may be useful is really just the testing phase, where.your aim is to successfully make use of what you have learned in a simulated conflict. At all points before that, when you are learning and developing, not testing, the competitive mindset is not useful.

 

[Zero]

Fighting to win dosent help people survive?

The idea of a competitive mindset and a survival mindset being different is a fabrication to make self defence people feel more comfortable with training that is just not as effective.

I think I understand where you are coming from but I feel that there is actually a difference to a "competitive" and a "survival" mind set. There are tragic examples of where great competitive sports fighters have made grave errors of judgement and ended up dead when faced with what is essentially an SD situation. A competition mind set has the focus on "winning" and winning in that context means defeating/physically succeeding over another. If that is your mind set and focus for an SD situation, that can get you killed.

Survival is completely different. A "survival" mind set equates to doing what is needed to survive at all costs. That could even mean, in certain circumstances, taking a beating - or what appears to be a beating - in order to live...

It could mean flat footing it out of there. It could mean turning off the ego and letting the monkey dance and insults wash over you.

Competition training and a competitive mind set in itself does not readily equip you to deal with the above situations.

Look, I am primarily a competition fighter, long time ago judo and now karate, kickboxing and to a lesser degree mma. I love to compete but thankfully I have trained in a karate club where due to the sensei's and seniors' personal back grounds (LEO, bouncer, SD instructor), there was also a big focus on SD. And I can tell you, while the right mind set is crucial, there is a world of difference between being in the ring and an SD scenario. For example, many sports focused or originated martial arts do go on about SD techniques - but they are always starting at the physical fight stage and from the perspective of submitting an opponent - that is very late in the SD game (and often the wrong (= least safest) path to have gone down or to have found yourself on). By example, you see this on "self defence bjj" or "combative bjj" websites and sales materials all the time.

 

[drop bear]

I think I understand where you are coming from but I feel that there is actually a difference to a "competitive" and a "survival" mind set. There are tragic examples of where great competitive sports fighters have made grave errors of judgement and ended up dead when faced with what is essentially an SD situation. A competition mind set has the focus on "winning" and winning in that context means defeating/physically succeeding over another. If that is your mind set and focus for an SD situation, that can get you killed

That is pretty second guessy though. If he hadn't gone in as aggressively or if he wasn't aggressive enough or mindset herp derp guessed wrong and got him killed.

I mean you can find a lot of real life situations where someone flipped a coin and went the wrong way.

I know I have done it before.

It is not something that is easily predicted before hand.

 

[drop bear]

Survival is completely different. A "survival" mind set equates to doing what is needed to survive at all costs. That could even mean, in certain circumstances, taking a beating - or what appears to be a beating - in order to live...

It could mean flat footing it out of there. It could mean turning off the ego and letting the monkey dance and insults wash over you.

Puts you half in half out of a fight. Where I believe you have to be all the way in or all the way out.

But the other way could say a competitive mindset might be you will not take me to the deck or into that alley or the boot of that car.