Shu Ha Ri

[skribs]

I think this is a valid point. The basic mechanics of a roundhouse kick are very similar to a side kick and many kata have inside crescent kicks. Just apply the hip rotation of a side kick to an inside crescent kick and you have a rudimentary roundhouse kick. How many of us have tried to teach a beginner a side kick and it ends up looking like a round kick unintentionally? The basics of a round kick are there, you just have to piece it together.

Quite often.

Ironically, I have the opposite problem when trying to teach ballet dancers how to do a roundhouse.

 

[skribs]

This is an example of trying to look at the Kata as a dictionary of techniques. In sparring, we use technique A a lot. So, you are then expecting to see technique A in the kata. In fact, you are trying to correlate the amount of usage of technique A in sparring to the amount of times it shows up in your dictionary. When that does not show the correlation you want, you break it down into pieces, so that you can show the correlation between your dictionary and how you spar. But, thats not how Kata were designed to be used, or should be used. Yes, I can drive a nail with a crescent wrench... but, it works much better if use the proper tool.

Go back to the English Grammar Textbook example. It is possible for such a textbook to teach you how to use verbs, without listing out every single verb that exists in the English language. I would bet that at some point in your life, you will successfully and effectively, use a verb that was not in your English Grammar Textbook... That verb, even though it was not in your textbook, is still part of the English Language... the same English Language that you used the Grammar Textbook to study. This is just how technique A can be part of the martial art that you use kata to study, even though the kata does not have technique A in them.

If you are looking at kata, to define the techniques you can use... you are missing most of what is in kata. Further, you are introducing an artificial barrier or constraint to your art.

This is my (outsider's) criticism of Bunkai.

 

[hoshin1600]

What I find most humorous is all the people who say kata is useless and then go about doing kata without knowing that what they do in class is kata.
Kata is not a long sequence of solo actions that is supposed to have martial meanings hidden within the moves.
Kata is a method of learning. based on repetition and improvement through self examination. Making corrections and improvements as errors arise.
So all those kata hating BJJ / MMA guys who do multiple reps of arm bars and leg takedowns are in fact doing kata.
Or the gun guys out on the range practicing draw, pushout and pull the trigger.
Perhaps I need a Koryu practitioner to verify this but I think the word kata would have been used in swordsmanship to describe practicing sword cuts long before Okinawa was doing karate kata.

 

[skribs]

What I find most humorous is all the people who say kata is useless and then go about doing kata without knowing that what they do in class is kata.
Kata is not a long sequence of solo actions that is supposed to have martial meanings hidden within the moves.
Kata is a method of learning. based on repetition and improvement through self examination. Making corrections and improvements as errors arise.
So all those kata hating BJJ / MMA guys who do multiple reps of arm bars and leg takedowns are in fact doing kata.
Or the gun guys out on the range practicing draw, pushout and pull the trigger.
Perhaps I need a Koryu practitioner to verify this but I think the word kata would have been used in swordsmanship to describe practicing sword cuts long before Okinawa was doing karate kata.

Even if you don't see kata as practical, I still think there are benefits, similar to a boxer who does push-ups, sit-ups, and goes for runs.

 

[wab25]

This is my (outsider's) criticism of Bunkai.

Can you elaborate on your criticism? I am not sure I get what your criticism is...

 

[skribs]

Can you elaborate on your criticism? I am not sure I get what your criticism is...

TL;DR: Bunkai doesn't teach you anything, it just validates the forms.

Keep in mind, my experience is with watching TKD guys do a similar process, and discussions I've had with Karate guys on what Bunkai is. So I don't have first-hand experience. But from what I can tell, this is the over-simplified process:

1. Learn the kata.
2. Learn a technique that uses similar moves to the kata.
3. Relate the technique back to the kata.

For example, let's take a technique in Taegeuk 7. The second-to-last technique is to step with the left leg into a sideways horse stance, and knife-hand block with the left hand. I know you're probably not familiar with the form, so if you're not sure what I'm talking about, you can find it on youtube.

This move is similar to a technique in our curriculum. My Master doesn't have a name for it, it's just a number for a belt color. I call it a "chop sweep". You put your knee right behind theirs, and you chop to the chest to push them back over your knee. There are a few differences in execution, but the gross movement is the same.

Using the process above, I could:

1. Teach Taegeuk 7.
2. Teach the chop sweep.
3. Relate the chop sweep to Taegeuk 7.

Now, let's edit it. See if we can simplify the process. What if I took out one of the steps?

1. Teach Taegeuk 7.
2. Teach Chop Sweep
3. ???

Without Step 2, a throw will most likely not even enter into student's minds when thinking of the knife-hand block in horse stance. Even if I told them to, there would probably be a lot of trial and error to figure out how to use it in that context, and there would be a lot of details missed (like where to place your knee to help buckle theirs).

What about another step:

1. Teach Taegeuk 7.
2. Teach Chop Sweep.
3. ???

In this case, you still can't relate the chop sweep back to Taegeuk 7, because there isn't one. But students have learned the Chop Sweep.

Or the third step:

1. Teach Taegeuk 7.
2. Teach Chop Sweep.
3. Relate the chop sweep to Taegeuk 7.

In this case, students learn both the form and the ancillary technique. The only thing they lose is the relation of technique to form. This is my criticism. Bunkai is a way of validating the forms, and making them seem grander than they actually are. Without learning the technique, you could not do Bunkai. Without Bunkai, you could still learn the technique.

 

[wab25]

Bunkai is a way of validating the forms, and making them seem grander than they actually are.

That is not the way to look Kata, or Bunkai.

Go back to the Grammar Book example. The kata are the rules and structures, the principals and ideas of English grammar. A sentence is composed of a subject and a predicate. The Bunkai, are then the examples. John drives his car. Alice investigates the crime. Just because the grammar book only has those two examples for what makes a sentence, does not mean that other examples cannot be made. Pete rows a boat. This would also be correct English, as it satisfies the same rules, principals, structure and ideas as the two Bunkai examples.... even though the words were never used in the grammar book.

The thing is that there are not only 2 Bunkai. There can be many. The examples / Bunkai in the English grammar book, were not given to limit the student to only using those sentences, or only those words. Or to say that only these two sentences fit this subject study. In English, the student is expected to then take the lessons he learned from the grammar book and to apply them... using different words. This is why English students are then asked to write papers. Then their grammar is critiqued. This is the same pattern as Shu Ha Ri. We study and copy the sentences in the Shu stage. Then in the Ha stage, the student is expected to use different words and say different things, that still conform to the rules, structures, principals and ideas, of the particular issue being studied. Any good and successful author, then breaks the rules of grammar in their writing. This is the Ri stage. In writing, breaking the rules here, is done for a specific effect... and can really have an effect, since the author knows what they are doing.

 

[Flying Crane]

TL;DR: Bunkai doesn't teach you anything, it just validates the forms.

Keep in mind, my experience is with watching TKD guys do a similar process, and discussions I've had with Karate guys on what Bunkai is. So I don't have first-hand experience. But from what I can tell, this is the over-simplified process:

1. Learn the kata.
2. Learn a technique that uses similar moves to the kata.
3. Relate the technique back to the kata.

For example, let's take a technique in Taegeuk 7. The second-to-last technique is to step with the left leg into a sideways horse stance, and knife-hand block with the left hand. I know you're probably not familiar with the form, so if you're not sure what I'm talking about, you can find it on youtube.

This move is similar to a technique in our curriculum. My Master doesn't have a name for it, it's just a number for a belt color. I call it a "chop sweep". You put your knee right behind theirs, and you chop to the chest to push them back over your knee. There are a few differences in execution, but the gross movement is the same.

Using the process above, I could:

1. Teach Taegeuk 7.
2. Teach the chop sweep.
3. Relate the chop sweep to Taegeuk 7.

Now, let's edit it. See if we can simplify the process. What if I took out one of the steps?

1. Teach Taegeuk 7.
2. Teach Chop Sweep
3. ???

Without Step 2, a throw will most likely not even enter into student's minds when thinking of the knife-hand block in horse stance. Even if I told them to, there would probably be a lot of trial and error to figure out how to use it in that context, and there would be a lot of details missed (like where to place your knee to help buckle theirs).

What about another step:

1. Teach Taegeuk 7.
2. Teach Chop Sweep.
3. ???

In this case, you still can't relate the chop sweep back to Taegeuk 7, because there isn't one. But students have learned the Chop Sweep.

Or the third step:

1. Teach Taegeuk 7.
2. Teach Chop Sweep.
3. Relate the chop sweep to Taegeuk 7.

In this case, students learn both the form and the ancillary technique. The only thing they lose is the relation of technique to form. This is my criticism. Bunkai is a way of validating the forms, and making them seem grander than they actually are. Without learning the technique, you could not do Bunkai. Without Bunkai, you could still learn the technique.

What you say about being able to learn and apply and use the techniques without the kata is completely true, of course. I’ll even go so far as to say that using kata is not automatically a superior method. I think a lot of what makes a method effective is how well a person can relate to that method and find it meaningful. Some of that is dependent on how well the teacher can present it in a meaningful way, and some of it is simply how well the individual can relate to it, regardless of the quality of instruction. No methodology works equally well for all people. Different strokes for different folks.

My system is pretty heavy on forms practice, with a pretty long list of forms, and the forms themselves are related lengthy. But my Sifu has said, if you simply want to learn fighting skills quickly, then he can teach you that in about a year, with no forms in the training. I agree with that assessment, but the timeframe of course would depend on how hard a person works at it.

I think the best way to look at it is, kata is part of a methodology that is prevalent in many Asian martial systems. It works well for a lot of people, but also not so well for a lot of people. I think people need to make decisions about their own training and choose how they wish to approach it, once they have enough experience to make an intelligent choice. And often that experience is simply spending some period of time training in a method and then deciding that you are satisfied with the results, or you are not, in which case you ought to consider training with a different approach.

In the US, we have a lot of freedom to do as we wish. This can be problematic, but it can also be freeing and can give you the room to explore training in a way that works better for you. There will always be people who will say that you gave up on a system before you fully understood it. That is debatable. There could be truth in it or not, but if the training is nothing more than frustrating for you, finding a new method that works better for you is a better choice than sticking with it until the interest is thoroughly beaten out of you for good.

Choy lay Fut is a Southern Chinese method with A WHOLE LOT of forms. Dozens and dozens. I don’t know how they got so many. Nobody can learn them all, and it is possible to get bogged down in forms training, spread so thin that you cannot develop real skill because all of your time and energy is devoted to simply trying not to forget the dozens and dozens of forms you have learned. But there is a lineage of Choy lay fut that eliminated most of the forms, I think maybe they only kept about three (empty hand forms, at any rate). But it is still Choy Lay Fut. It is just a different lineage, that decided a different approach made more sense to them. And it is a thriving lineage. So that is one example.

Coming back to the issue, I think it is ok to recognize that a particular method just isn’t working for you, and you decide to train differently. At the same time, you can recognize that the method apparently does work well for other people. They are free to pursue it, whether it makes sense to you or not. And that can be a pretty direct and simple way to make peace with it.

In my opinion, forms are a very useful tool if you see them as an opportunity to practice the fundamental principles of the method, in a moving and changing context with the example of the major techniques of the system. Understanding the application of the movement is important and gives it meaning, but expecting to be able to apply every single movement in the form in a fight or in sparring, is unrealistic. It is meant to show examples of what is possible, but not to dictate what must be done nor to put limitations outside of which you are forbidden to venture. Those examples can be directly useful, but should not be seen as mandates. Ultimately, you do what you want and apply what you want, how you want, so long as it is effective. That is how I view it, and in that way I find it very useful.

Given how you post about your experience with TKD forms, it is my opinion that you ought to develop your own TKD-based methodology, without the forms. I think you would be happier doing that, and if you teach, you can appeal to students with a similar point of view. You don’t need anyones permission to do so, but I’ll just say that I personally would be supportive of your efforts, for what it’s worth.

 

[skribs]

That is not the way to look Kata, or Bunkai.

Go back to the Grammar Book example. The kata are the rules and structures, the principals and ideas of English grammar. A sentence is composed of a subject and a predicate. The Bunkai, are then the examples. John drives his car. Alice investigates the crime. Just because the grammar book only has those two examples for what makes a sentence, does not mean that other examples cannot be made. Pete rows a boat. This would also be correct English, as it satisfies the same rules, principals, structure and ideas as the two Bunkai examples.... even though the words were never used in the grammar book.

The thing is that there are not only 2 Bunkai. There can be many. The examples / Bunkai in the English grammar book, were not given to limit the student to only using those sentences, or only those words. Or to say that only these two sentences fit this subject study. In English, the student is expected to then take the lessons he learned from the grammar book and to apply them... using different words. This is why English students are then asked to write papers. Then their grammar is critiqued. This is the same pattern as Shu Ha Ri. We study and copy the sentences in the Shu stage. Then in the Ha stage, the student is expected to use different words and say different things, that still conform to the rules, structures, principals and ideas, of the particular issue being studied. Any good and successful author, then breaks the rules of grammar in their writing. This is the Ri stage. In writing, breaking the rules here, is done for a specific effect... and can really have an effect, since the author knows what they are doing.

Kata don't really make sense as rules and structure. More like the difference between an essay question and a short answer question. Or the difference between reading a passage vs. reading a sentence. The kata themselves are a string of examples. In the case of Taekwondo, that string often doesn't make a coherent passage.

 

[wab25]

kata is part of a methodology that is prevalent in many Asian martial systems

This is what I am attempting to discuss here. Kata is not the martial art. And Kata is not the whole methodology for transmitting the art. Kata is one part, the first part, of an entire methodology.

You are correct, that Shu Ha Ri, is not the only method for learning. And for many people, it may not be the best method. But, we should look at the whole method (Shu Ha Ri) not just the first step of that method (kata) in trying to make the decision. Recognize that there is more to it, than memorizing a line dance.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is what I am attempting to discuss here. Kata is not the martial art. And Kata is not the whole methodology for transmitting the art. Kata is one part, the first part, of an entire methodology.

You are correct, that Shu Ha Ri, is not the only method for learning. And for many people, it may not be the best method. But, we should look at the whole method (Shu Ha Ri) not just the first step of that method (kata) in trying to make the decision. Recognize that there is more to it, than memorizing a line dance.

I agree, one needs to understand the process. However, one does not need to dedicate years to training in this methodology before he can make a judgement that he does not care for it and wishes to train in a different manner. People know what resonates and what does not.

 

[Flying Crane]

But there is a lineage of Choy lay fut that eliminated most of the forms, I think maybe they only kept about three (empty hand forms, at any rate). But it is still Choy Lay Fut. It is just a different lineage, that decided a different approach made more sense to them. And it is a thriving lineage. So that is one example.

I did a little quick internet/Wikipedia search on this, it seems the Buck Sing lineage was established by a fellow who was kicked out of a school for some reason, after he had only learned three forms. So he just opened his own school and started teaching, and developed a reputation as a fighter. That particular lineage is known for producing effective fighters who don’t get bogged down in too many forms.

It goes to show how much stuff in these systems is not really necessary. Even a very “incomplete” education in the system is plenty to be able to fight well and defend oneself. We don’t always need more more more. Sometimes less is better, if you have a good vision of what to do with it.

 

[wab25]

Kata don't really make sense as rules and structure.

They may not make sense to you. But, to others, they do make sense and have quite a lot to say.

In the case of Taekwondo, that string often doesn't make a coherent passage.

We differ on this point quite a bit. Lets try something different this time. Lets assume you are right. In TKD, they make no sense, they have no coherent theme or passage. So, lets identify when that happened...

General Choi had some influence on the development of TKD. He went to Japan, and studied Shotokan under Funakoshi. Under Funakoshi, he earned a black belt, an instructors rank and opened a Shotokan Karate school in Japan, under Funakoshi. It is safe to assume that he was educated in the Shu Ha Ri method, as this is how Funakoshi taught and intended his students to teach. General Choi was not the only Karate influence to be had, when TKD was being formed...

When TKD started, they literally started with the Shotokan Kata, using the Japanese names for both the kata and the techniques. At this point, all of the extra stuff was still there and all the passages were coherent... as they had not changed anything yet. In fact, they were still teaching Shotokan with the Shu Ha Ri method, under a new name.

Then they changed the names of the techniques to be Korean. Did changing the name of the techniques from Japanese to Korean, remove the extra stuff? Did that make the messages any less coherent?

They then changed the names of the Kata themselves to be Korean. Again, this did not remove any of the extra stuff or make the messages any less coherent.

Now, here is the first place where they could have removed a bunch of that stuff... when they rearranged the techniques and came up with their new forms. Lets look at this is two ways. Technique B, by itself, in the Japanese kata had a set of layers to it: surface level, application level, principle level, deeper levels. If we move Technique B from the second position (aBcd...) and move it to the fourth position (acdB...) did all the layers just disappear? Would the founders of TKD, who brought this stuff from Japan, to use as the basis of TKD have wanted to water down the techniques? I don't believe so. I think the had a good understanding of what they had.

Now, in the Japanese Kata, they did a set of techniques: a,b,c,d. This can be looked at in many ways. First the individual techniques, as above. Then you can look at ab, bc, and cd. Then you can take abc and bcd. And finally abcd. These are all coherent passages that teach and transmit things to the student. These are things General Choi would have understood. When TKD then decided to change things up to cabbad... Are you arguing that General Choi and the rest did not have a good enough understanding to create coherent passages to transmit? Or are you saying that they intentionally made coherent passages meaningless?

My take on this, is that the founders of TKD took some things from Japan that had value and used them as a starting place to form TKD. They then added into this framework and methodology, the other influences that were brought to the table from China and from the various Korean arts themselves. I think they did understand what they had. I think that they were able to add to what the Japanese had... by adding in elements from China and Korea. And I think they did so in a coherent fashion. Why would they take something and make it so incoherent and unconnected as you seem to see it? And if they had... why would people actually study it?

 

[wab25]

I agree, one needs to understand the process. However, one does not need to dedicate years to training in this methodology before he can make a judgement that he does not care for it and wishes to train in a different manner. People know what resonates and what does not.

I agree with you 100% here. The part I argue for, is that people recognize that kata is step one of a method, not the method in total.

It would also be good if people stopped looking at kata to be the dictionary of an art. Its not that either...

 

[skribs]

These are things General Choi would have understood.

Not necessarily. From what I've read, there were a few issues at play that the Korean students didn't learn the full lessons from the Japanese instructors.

• Japanese did not want to teach the full curriculum to the Koreans.
• The versions of the kata the Koreans were learning were the kid-friendly versions modified for teaching Karate in school.
• The training stopped when the occupation was over.

Even if Choi did, and created his forms to meet the same purpose, then that only applies to ITF. It does not apply to other styles to come after ITF. Many of the decisions around the creation of KKW had more to do with politics than the training itself. The KKW was created to replace ITF after General Choi had a falling out with the South Korean government, and part of the push to develop the forms was to make them Korean and not Japanese.

Why would they take something and make it so incoherent and unconnected as you seem to see it? And if they had... why would people actually study it?

That's a question I spent a long time trying to answer. I finally found mine (it's an exercise and a performance). This is also why I am so critical in searching for the application. I believe a lot of people have found a "good enough" answer, which they use to appease this issue. "Good enough" isn't good enough for me. I want the best answer.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I did a little quick internet/Wikipedia search on this, it seems the Buck Sing lineage was established by a fellow who was kicked out of a school for some reason, after he had only learned three forms. So he just opened his own school and started teaching, and developed a reputation as a fighter. That particular lineage is known for producing effective fighters who don’t get bogged down in too many forms.

It goes to show how much stuff in these systems is not really necessary. Even a very “incomplete” education in the system is plenty to be able to fight well and defend oneself. We don’t always need more more more. Sometimes less is better, if you have a good vision of what to do with it.

It's always about the basics. If you can't learn the ABCs of an art in the first few forms, you have to ask yourself what you are learning.

This is not a problem with many Chinese arts, including Choy Li Fut. I could probably make an entire new martial art out of the Taming the Tiger Fist in I-Shaped Formation, if that was all I had ever learned about kung fu. Over 200 movements in that alone.

Cut it up into 4 new forms, call it something cool like Vermillion Tiger Fire Fist.

 

[_Simon_]

in the Japanese kata had a set of layers to it: surface level, application level, principle level, deeper levels

Sorry just had to pick this out and say, YES. That's for sure how I see it, even the literal application stuff I see as closer to surface level. So much more to explore than 'this means that'

 

[wab25]

From what I've read, there were a few issues at play that the Korean students didn't learn the full lessons from the Japanese instructors.

The reason I focused on Choi, was that he received a karate instructors license from Funakoshi. He opened a Shotokan Karate Dojo, in Japan, and taught Japanese people, Shotokan Karate, with Funakoshi's blessing. Funakoshi was happy to have Choi represent and teach his Shotokan, in Japan. The fact that he was Korean, and was able to get Funakoshi's blessing in opening a dojo and teaching other Japanese, speaks very highly of his understanding and skill... both in Karate and in the method used to transmit Karate.

Even if Choi did, and created his forms to meet the same purpose, then that only applies to ITF. It does not apply to other styles to come after ITF.

You are saying here that the people who further developed TKD, did not understand what they were doing... I don't see it that way. I see those who developed the different styles of TKD as accomplished martial artists, who understood what they were doing, to a level most of us will never achieve.

part of the push to develop the forms was to make them Korean and not Japanese.

Why does making a form Korean also make it incoherent? Why does it strip away all meaning and all layers? Do Koreans not have the ability to form coherent thoughts?

TKD has more influences than just Karate and Japan. It was also influenced by China (the Chinese had a similar teaching method to Shu Ha Ri... and most likely this method was the basis for the Japanese creating their Shu Ha Ri method... at least I am sure it had influence) Additionally, it was influenced by the Korean arts that existed before TKD was created. Making the forms Korean then, would mean taking the thoughts, ideas, principles... from the Korean arts and adding them to the Japanese forms.

Your theory relies on the idea, that those who created TKD and those who modified it to be more Korean, had no understanding of the arts that they spent years of their lives studying. Further, it would require people with no understanding of martial arts to create an art that is practiced world wide. I don't see it that way. I have seen arts that were created by people who had no understanding of martial arts... they don't last long.

These folks were very good at their respective arts, Japanese, Chinese and Korean. Many of them trained in multiple arts across multiple cultures. When they made TKD and then modified it later to be more Korean... they took very coherent ideas, and all the layers from their source arts and put them together into something new... and also coherent and multi layered. Its interesting that they even kept the basic Shu Ha Ri framework for their creation... as in here are some kata to study in order to learn the art.

 

[Hyoho]

I figured I would start a thread here about Shu Ha Ri. Shu Ha Ri, is the Japanese version, but I believe that there are other versions from other places that are very similar. (It would be great to discuss those as well here, to compare the similarities and the differences...)

I see a lot of threads about Kata, and how to understand Kata... and a lot of people that don't really understand what Kata are. Well, at least, what Kata were originally intended to be... Despite what they may have become in some places.

To start out with, the Kata of an art is not a dictionary of moves in the art. More importantly, the Kata is not the art. I see too many people looking at the kata in an art and concluding that because move X is not in one of the Kata, move X is not part of the art and therefore cannot be done by one practicing that art. I see too many people saying that we don't fight like that, so the Kata is useless for martial training.

To understand what Kata is, and what it should be used for... we need to understand where it came from. Kata, is part of the Shu Ha Ri process. (I and others have brought this process up in many threads, but I feel that it needs its own thread) A very simple definition: Shuhari - Wikipedia

A much better discussion of Shu Ha Ri: Teaching and Shu Ha Ri | Kimusubi Aikido Orlando

Simply stated, Shu Ha Ri is a process or method of transmitting Japanese traditions. Martial Arts is just one of the things this process is used for.

Shu Ha Ri has three basic steps: Shu, Ha and Ri.

The first step Shu, is where the Kata come in. Note, learning the Kata is step one. It is step one of a very long process. In Shu, you learn the kata. You learn them exactly, with no variance. You simply copy. From the second article I listed above:

Through time:

Again, learning to do the kata, is step 1. This is where many people stop or get stuck. For many, it is because their instructor doesn't know any better. Anytime an art, that has kata, feels restricted by the kata (that technique is not on our kata therefore it is not in our art... our art does not handle that type of situation, because our kata don't contain that situation...) it means the art has gotten stuck in the Shu part of the process.

Correctly understood, the Shu Ha Ri process is about creativity, not simply memorizing patterns.

In the Ha stage, the student diverges from the kata. As in, the student makes changes to the kata.

This is the first stage of introducing creativity. It must be done with the help of the sensei, so that the kata remains recognizable... or in other words, says the same thing, but with different words. Learning happens both when the student makes a good divergence and when he makes a divergence which is too great or changes the nature of the kata, or what it says. Both, especially the latter, help the student to understand what the kata is communicating in the first place. At this stage, the student is not confined to repeating the same things, the same words, but is encouraged to say the same thing with different words.

The final stage is Ri. This is where the kata are thrown away.


The Shu Ha Ri process is designed to communicate the art, in such a way that the artist is completely free to express his art as he sees fit. The Kata is a tool used to see the art, to explore the art, to understand the art, but it is not the art.


A full reading of the second article I posted above is worth the time. (all of my quotes above come from that article) I feel we would have much better discussions about kata, if we had a better understanding of how they were designed to be used. That many places do not use them in this fashion says more about the place than it does about the tool. The tool, when used correctly, can help produce amazing results... it also has to be used in conjunction with the other tools. We have too many people trying to build a house with just a hammer...

Kata is "not" an art unless one actually invented it art post warring period when methods were designed to kill the opponent. If invented with the original purpose of killing someone it is called a waza. A technique of killing them. To understand "waza' one breaks it down into kata to examine the more intricate detail. Shu Ha Ri is the mastery of an art regardless of purpose.

 

[skribs]

Why does making a form Korean also make it incoherent? Why does it strip away all meaning and all layers? Do Koreans not have the ability to form coherent thoughts?

For the same reason that if you make a movie with an agenda other than to make a good movie, the movie will not be a good movie. See 90% of Christian movies for this on the political right, and 90% of "woke" remakes for this on the political left.