Strategy within kata

[Kreth]

I'm a real proponent of an uke giving meaningful attacks. As I've commented elsewhere, IMO, if an uke is being too compliant, then they are changing the dynamic of the kata.
Along with this, I often like to look at the strategy within the kata, on both sides. I find that looking at why uke is moving as he/she does, can often give you a better understanding of the movement and the dynamic. I also find that students tend to portray a more realistic uke if I can tell them, "here you cut to your opponent's lead hand because it appears he's left an opening," as opposed to just, "cut his hand." So maybe the whole thing is a cycle: Strategy leads to good uke who employs strategy.
Opinions?

 

[Fallen Ninja]

I concur!


:ninja:
FN

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

Depends on the skill level of the people in question, in my opinion. All the peope I've trained with who have been able to be uncompliant in a good way have had one thing in common - experience.

 

[Shinkengata]

Depends on the skill level of the people in question, in my opinion. All the peope I've trained with who have been able to be uncompliant in a good way have had one thing in common - experience.

Uncompliant in a good way? Please explain..

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

I touched on that in my thread about sparring types, "practicing kata so that it feels like randori".

 

[punisher73]

Uncompliant in a good way? Please explain

I took the quote to mean adding resistance as uke instead of just going along with whatever is being done even if it is wrong.

I think that strategy is an important part of kata and is often ignored by people. Often times kata is reduced to just punch/kick combos without any strategy involved. Strategy is what helps to even the playing field in situations.

 

[Kreth]

So... do you use strategy as a tool to help your own understanding of the kata, do you use it to help instruct your students (if you teach), or both. And how?

 

[Bigshadow]

"practicing kata so that it feels like randori".

I like the sound of that. IMHO I agree with that. That is how I think it should feel, too.

 

[Bigshadow]

So... do you use strategy as a tool to help your own understanding of the kata, do you use it to help instruct your students (if you teach), or both. And how?

There is a certain amount of strategy I would say. As an attacker, I would definitely attack with spirit, cover my openings, and use the same dynamics as a full speed attack but SLOWLY. Also as uke I am trying to make sure I am attacking with proper movement and balance. This may also mean not over committing, would you over commit in a real attack bringing yourself off balance?

I personally think that yes strategy is in there, but I think it is made up of the nuts and bolts of the same things that the tori is focusing on.

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

Maybe it's time to take a look at the other side of the coin here...

What is it with some people's explanations nowadays? Why do I often think that in our pursuit of understanding this very thing, the strategy (or context, if you will) in which our techniques and principles are meant to be applied, we tend to utilize far more complicated explanations than is really necessary?

Especially during this year, in which I've been exploring other dojos a bit more than usually, the conversation often takes turns such as these...

"- Now here, what I want you to do is not to 'evade' his punch so much, rather I'd like you to think of it like 'sucking in' his attack and drawing him into your own personal sphere of control...
- So what you're saying is basically I shouldn't be on the inside of his arm until his elbow has reached point xxx?
-...well, that's one way of putting it..."

"- Now remember, you cannot PLAN to do this technique, you have to utilize the natural flow of events by moving into this position with the correct timing, and try to 'invite' him instead of fighting...
- So I'm basically first stepping back with my right leg and then moving into a type of doko no kamae when he starts to retract his arm?
- Well, I suppose you could say that, sure..."

"- Here, move first with your body, don't fixate too much on the weapon, try to have the feeling of 'accepting' the circumstances and not holding on to your planned response, then spin the bo here, point the tip here, here and then here, and if something unexpected such as happens then you change immediately...
- So what you're saying is that after his second punch I use bo furigata to trap his arm and finish standing in seigan which will unbalance him due to my bent knees?
- Yeah, exactly, that's basically it I guess..."

Is it just me having a knack for clarification or are some people getting too caught up in vague descriptions for the mere reason that they a) fear they're not offering enough of an "air of mysticism" for people to still be interested, or b) are worried that too easily understood explanations will cause people to get bored and quit because of that instead?
I mean, sometimes a spine twist is just a spine twist, but isn't some stuff really complicated enough as it is? We're still having a hard time trying to get people to remember to bend their knees instead of their backs, for crying out loud!

If this is just me and I've missed something I'd be more than happy to stand corrected, but I still can't chase this thought out of my head completely, that many things really are needlessly convoluted (which is not the fault of Soke or the Japanese shihan, that is not something I mean to imply). I for one am not in the least worried that more simplified explanations would mean that there would be less material within the Bujinkan to work with given the complexity of matters at hand, but whenever I start asking "how do I do this" and the answer I receive has more to do with "WHY I do this", then it feels as if something isn't quite alright...

 

[Dale Seago]

What is it with some people's explanations nowadays? Why do I often think that in our pursuit of understanding this very thing, the strategy (or context, if you will) in which our techniques and principles are meant to be applied, we tend to utilize far more complicated explanations than is really necessary?

. . .If this is just me and I've missed something I'd be more than happy to stand corrected, but I still can't chase this thought out of my head completely, that many things really are needlessly convoluted (which is not the fault of Soke or the Japanese shihan, that is not something I mean to imply). I for one am not in the least worried that more simplified explanations would mean that there would be less material within the Bujinkan to work with given the complexity of matters at hand, but whenever I start asking "how do I do this" and the answer I receive has more to do with "WHY I do this", then it feels as if something isn't quite alright...

The examples you're giving don't appear "needlessly convoluted" at all to me -- which is not to say that I think you're "wrong". The key for me lies in one particular thing you said: "We're still having a hard time trying to get people to remember to bend their knees instead of their backs, for crying out loud!"

That's the crux of it right there. The examples you're giving indicate a student who's still working on a mechanical and technical level, and an instructor who's trying to put things across on a tactical level shading toward the strategic.

Something Soke was emphasizing repeatedly in training last week is that technical proficiency is only about the first 30% of the art.

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

That's the crux of it right there. The examples you're giving indicate a student who's still working on a mechanical and technical level, and an instructor who's trying to put things across on a tactical level shading toward the strategic.

But the thing is, I know of people who can bring such points across in a (mildly put) slightly more comprehensible manner as well - what I am mainly getting at is that I can make comparisons between instructors who choose to do so (due to what I presume is an understanding on their part that things within the Bujinkan are already complicated enough) and people with what others have called "Hatsumi syndrome".

"While others struggle to juggle tricky metaphors, I explore more to expose the core..." :supcool:

Something Soke was emphasizing repeatedly in training last week is that technical proficiency is only about the first 30% of the art.

And something Sveneric Bogsater spoke about last weekend was that when Soke says such things he isn't speaking to people like me. :asian:

 

[Kreth]

I think you can try to teach students a sense of strategy from the beginning without being esoteric about it. I've never been a big fan of "Do this because I said so," and in fact learn more with an approach like, "Do this, because he's doing that, and it leaves an opening here."

 

[Cryozombie]

and in fact learn more with an approach like, "Do this, because he's doing that, and it leaves an opening here."

Amen to that, brotha!

 

[Dale Seago]

I think you can try to teach students a sense of strategy from the beginning without being esoteric about it. I've never been a big fan of "Do this because I said so," and in fact learn more with an approach like, "Do this, because he's doing that, and it leaves an opening here."

Same here -- so of course you must be right!

Another possible way of expressing it, perhaps more simply -- and I'm big on keeping things as simple as possible -- is that you not only want to provide technical knowledge but a larger sense of context.

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

I just remembered something I got to hear about four years ago by a former instructor on the topic of swordfighting...

"So, basically, if there were no openings, we'd just stand in kamae with our swords like this for hours, until finally he'd lower his guard and say something like 'I saw your mom at the brothel last night', and then I'll get furious, charge him and get cut down because of my recklessness. Or, if I have the presence of mind, I'll respond "yeah, my mom is way too busy pimping your mom away to the lowest bidder to have time to care about what you say' and HE'll be the one who rushes in first and gets killed. Or, either one of us will pull out a matchlock gun concealed as a dagger while the other's busy talking."

That's the kind of strategy I like to hear. :ultracool

 

[Kreth]

That's the kind of strategy I like to hear. :ultracool

But it's not the type of strategy that the OP (who was that again? Oh yeah, ME.) was talking about. I was talking about examining the movements in the kata to find out why uke and tori move as they do. I've always liked the fact that our kata seem to give uke the benefit of the doubt as to skill. So, this is just looking at that aspect of the kata, why do X instead of Y?

 

[Bigshadow]

Same here -- so of course you must be right!

Another possible way of expressing it, perhaps more simply -- and I'm big on keeping things as simple as possible -- is that you not only want to provide technical knowledge but a larger sense of context.

I think that is a great point, Rob Renner an instructor of mine was always driving home that context of the situation is very important when training, in a broad sense. Such as why are they attacking the way they are, what is the situation that is transpiring or has transpired, etc. I guess taking the kata or principles and putting into a context or situation. I hope I understood what you mean by that. But I figure I have probably understood it at the most basic level. LOL

 

[Kreth]

How about a more specific example to discuss?
The Bojutsu keiko sabaki gata from Kukishinden ryu are often practiced with uke having a sword. The natural inclination, especially for beginners, is to hang back while your opponent is whirling that big stick around. Once they understand that what the swordsman needs to do is find an opening and try to get inside the reach of the bo so he can employ his own weapon, the whole dynamic of the kata changes.