ppko said:
Hedgehogey,
You really haven't stayed in one art long enough to make a decision about kata
Well, 3 years would be enough to form an opinion, especially if he was a "live in" student as he claims (though that isn't a common standard by which to measure time in training). As far as the other arts, however, a few months here, a few months there... Not enough. If you figure an average of 3 - 4 times a week, an hour per class, that'd be around 16 hours per month, 32 hours in two months, 48 in three months... Not much time, really.
even if you practice just self defense techniques do you not do the same thing over and over to learn the techniques,
All arts do, even the ones that appear to claim they don't. I trained with a Bujinkan student once who tried (in vain) to show me how they actually
don't practice any actual techniques. Needless to say, he couldn't actually do anything beyond move around looking ninja-like.
In order to perfect a movement, to develop proficiency in a technique, it
must be repeated. Of course Hedge repeats movements and techniques. The range he has access to, like the rest of humankind, is finite. The rules of biophysics are the same for him and everyone else. To develop physical skill, the movement must be repeated to ingrain it into the neural network.
that is a kata no matter how you want to look at it you do a kata everyday you train. Sure it may not be the same kata that shotokan does or another art but it is a kata.
I think one of the main issues is defining what is and is not
kata. Hedge says 7 movements or more. Kai pointed out that some
iaijutsu kata are only 3 movements long. I'd point out that the commencement movements of some forms are longer than 3 movements long!
Perhaps we should agree on some definitions before continuing with the argument/debate? What constitutes "a technique," what constitutes "a combination," and what constitutes "a
kata" or "a form."
I'd submit that a technique is one single strike, kick, joint lock, throw, etc., without entry modifications. I'd submit that a combination is one or more techniques linked together, whether intended for use against one opponent or multiple opponents. I'd submit that a
kata is a series of techniques or combinations linked together in such a manner that they become a standard method of practice in order to communicate specific lessons, or specific application of the said techniques or combinations. There is no upper limit to a form, though at a minimum it should be at least two techniques or one comination.
hedgehogey said:
Rmcrobertson: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with drilling a technique. What i'm saying is that doing a prearranged sequence of five or more techniques in the air or with a nonresisting, in place attacker won't help your fighting.
So what is the limit, in your training, to the number of techniques in a combination? I've been taught, both for fighting and for competition, to become accustomed to throwing techniques non-stop... In fighting, if you train a 1-2-3 combination, you'll stop at 3 whether your opponent is neutralized or not. In competition, you can control your opponent's movement by throwing technique after technique, dominating your opponent's defense...
hrist you're being obnoxious and patronizing. If i've studied something for THREE YEARS and I find it lacking I damn well can and will criticize it! If you can't use something to defend yourself after three years, what the hell kindof use is it?
I'd have to agree... If a person is unable to employ at least some of what is being taught within the first few months, there doesn't seem to be much use in training that art. Most folks today (and I'd think that all folks once upon a time) didn't have decades to become proficient fighters... When I trained in Arnis, one of the things I liked (and still like) about it was that it was almost immediately useable. Very little time required to be able to employ what was taught (though "mastery," whatever that is, would certainly take much longer).
I do not do kata. I never do long sequences of prearranged kata. The drilling we do in bjj is NOT kata. In fact it's as much sparring as it is drilling.
I don't think anyone said that a person
has to train forms to be a good fighter. I think the only thing that has been debated is the utility of forms practice to someone who has an interest in that kind of training.
Also, given the nature of ground fighting, it is more difficult to translate those kinds of techniques into a solo routine, but it isn't impossible. Start from the mount without an opponent, do an arm trap, "roll" your opponent into a rear mount, do a RNC. Now you have a ground fighting
kata.
When I learn a new technique I spend maybe fifteen minutes drilling it without resistance, then fifteen minutes with resistance and my partner trying to counter. After that it's time for sparring, and i'll apply that technique if I see the opportunity. I think other BJJers on this forum would agree with me.
So you never, ever, repeat a technique outside of that initial 15 minutes, and then only in sparring "if you see the opportunity?" I'd say that your understanding of the technique is far too shallow after such a short time of training it... "Mastery is made of little things," and it is the little things borne of experience with any given thing is what defines an expert from a beginner.
I find it funny that the same people who say "Sportfighting doesn't work for teh str33t!" without ever having gone to a sportfighting gym are the same people who say "Only after XX number of years can you apply the kata in the ______ system, but when you do you cause the seas to part and pharao's army to shudder beneath your weight."
Well, I for one have never said that "sportfighting" won't work in the str33t (gotta love the Bullshido alumni! Bullshido ROCKS!). I've said that "sportfighting" isn't the end all/be all that some folks believe it to be. No single art is (though some are more complete than others).
ppko said:
Well I believe that their are certain things that shouldn't be taught until a certain rank or maturity has been reached
But who says any particular teacher is qualified to make that judgement? I've run into a far larger number of instructors with serious ego issues than I have genuinely humble and courteous teachers who have the student's best interests at heart... My own teacher, who I trust implicitly (and who is like a second father to me) teaches us absolutely everything and holds nothing back. As I've said before, if a student really isn't "worthy," then they won't put the effort out to train a particular technique (that you think requires maturity) well enough to be able to use/misuse it in the first place.
I think this is an antiquated ideal, one that is enforced and employed by teachers who want to think of themselves as more than what they are. Dave Lowry wrote a great article about this in Black Belt a few years back, and he encouraged teachers to remember what they were teachers of (martial arts, not life). They are no more qualified to direct someone else's life than anyone else...
