The Importance of Kata

[MJS]

I teach the Kata that where taught to me the way they where taught. I simply say : do a down block here or this is called a crazy turn then do a high block, etc. Once a student reaches a certain level I have them perform the Kata against opponents. I then say ok I want to see a different application the form doing it as it has been taught, You tell the opponent what kick or punch to do then show me something different than what I first taught you .
This starts to open the students mind to what some of the applications may be yet dose not change the form in any manner.

During my Arnis BB test, myself and the other 3 that were testing with me, had to perform the anyo (form) of our choice. We had to do this just as you said, with people attacking. It was interesting to see the variations.

 

[MJS]

II am choosing my words carefully here, not wanting to offend, but has anyone here been training their kata at the next level, as is alluded to by L.P.Lambert in his article refered to in the OP? :asian:

No offense taken. Personally, as of late, I havent devoted as much time to my own kata training as I'd like to. Hopefully that'll change. I do teach kata, and I teach it in a similar fashion to the stages that were described in the link. In the beginning, the kata usually looks robotic, which it shouldn't, but with time, as the student gets more and more familiar with the moves, it get smoother.

One of the things that caught my eye in the link was when the author made his first paragraph...that kata lacked the structure which would help with power, and that in many cases, the demos have taken a front seat to the real meaning. My Arnis inst. is also a Kenpo BB. My last few lessons with him have not been on Arnis, but instead on Kenpo. It was interesting for me to see the variations or differences in the techs. and kata, as he remembered them, compared to the way they're taught today. I think alot of times, things get lost in translation. Someone performs a move, and they dont like how it works, or they change it because they think they're changing it for the better, when in reality, the change makes the move impractical.

I say this because I think back to the Villari forms, the breakdowns that I was taught, and the breakdowns that I saw from Dillman. Things that make you go Hmmmm......

This has certainly been a very interesting thread.

 

[seasoned]

IMO, there is a difference between not showing because you dont know, and not showing because you want the student to think for themselves. If we tell them nothing in kata, then by that same logic, we dont have to tell them anything when showing self defense technqiues either. Just simply tell them to move this way and that way, and figure out what they're doing and why.

I feel, and again, this is just my opinion, that the student needs some sort of foundation to build off of. Lets use the SD techs. as an example. I teach a tech. to someone for a preset attack. I also teach them how to block, punch, kick, move, etc. I've run technique lines, and tossed out an attack to a newer student, an attack that they didn't know a preset defense against, and they give that deer in the headlights look. Upon asking them if they know how to block, move, punch and kick, to which they say yes, the light then goes off, so to speak, and they learn to build from there. But the preset tech., and the explaination of the basics and how to put them together, all aids in that. Eventually, the goal, IMO, is to just react without having to think. But when you react, you want to react with something thats going to make sense, not some hodgepodge of moves, tossed together, in hopes that what you're doing works or will work.

Back to the kata....it was interesting for me, when I was at that Dillman seminar. Things that I thought were designed to block a kick, were really pressure point hits, designed to flow with other moves, to hopefully get a KO. Again, if the instructor knows the true meanings, and is guiding the student, letting them think, but also guiding them to whats right and wrong, then fine, I can agree with that. If the inst. is simply letting the student loose, never correcting them, never guiding them, then IMO, the student may a) come up with some weird translation, which could be ineffective or b) never understand what the kata was really designed to do.

You make some very good points. It is my understanding that to be a fighting art, (1) it must cover all aspects of battle standing and ground, and (2) because of the time frame that the old kata came from, an element of secrecy, so as not to arm the enemy's of old with your techniques. Old kata appear to contain only block, punching, and kicking. But if this were the case, then there would not have been any old masters around to pass on the art. They would have all been taken to the ground and destroyed. Bottom line, learn the kata, do the kata, own the kata. Approach the kata, not from a sparring attitude, but from a survival attitude.