Why is this done?

[skribs]

As a former karate exponent (Shotokan), I've come to the conclusion that Bunkai is bunk in general. In my view kata as its generally taught in karate/Kung fu/whatever schools are filler in order to prop up the ranking system of many martial arts. I would actually argue that non-kata based MAs show better overall outcomes than kata-based MAs.

That said, I do think kata have value, mainly in the form of fitness or a type of moving meditation. However, students shouldn't be led to believe that their kata holds some sort of secret knowledge waiting to be unlocked, or that consistent kata practice will make them better fighters overall. You only become better at fighting by actually fighting.

Circling back to the point; Kata can be used to peddle nonsense like having hidden Bjj techniques inside traditional martial arts. This misinformation leads to people like Greywalker actually believing his mysterious karate style contained legitimate ground fighting techniques.

I think there's slightly more benefit that fitness and moving meditation. I think they work out muscles that are used in the techniques, that you wouldn't work out through a normal workout regimen. But...the timing is off, the techniques are often stylized or over-exaggerated, and in order to be practical there's more you need to know about them to make it work.

 

[Graywalker]

I suppose you missed the fact that after the early UFCs, nearly every fighter who stepped into the octagon was trained in Bjj. Not much has changed in almost 30 years.

Think long and hard about why that is the case.

Yes the flavor has lasted a while. A lot of suckers...but that is sport for you.

Point fighting has lasted just as long. If not longer...it must be legitimate as well.

 

[isshinryuronin]

In my experience, trying to connect things to the kata becomes more of an exercise in how far can you stretch the kata to meet whatever technique you're talking about

This is very true, as I have seen in several YouTube videos on bunkai. IMO, this somewhat backwards thinking. You should fit the bunkai to match the kata, not "stretch" the kata to make it fit whatever bunkai you have in mind. I've posted this before in other past threads. You shouldn't have to add a whole lot or otherwise significantly change the kata to make a bunkai work.

If you want to show some new, personal interpretation of a bunkai, create a new kata - don't mangle the original kata just to fit your personal agenda (seeing throws or wrist locks in every move.) But if you understand the principles of kata, you will see that you have several good variants of application (including takedowns, breaks and locks, and even simple punches) within it that work quite effectively, without having to reinvent the kata.


QUOTE="skribs, post: 2013960, member: 31615"]You learn a punch in a form, and later learn it's actually a throw (if you take great liberties with how it's used in the form). But would you have ever learned the throw if it wasn't specifically taught to you? Is knowing the form a prerequisite to learning the throw? Does the form make the throw easier to learn?[/QUOTE]

This is also a little backwards, but a very good question. In your example, no, your would not have learned the throw from the kata. In the original Okinawan training, you would have learned the throw first, then practiced it in the kata. In other words, the bunkai was primary and the kata, secondary (being a training aid). But this got flipped as karate became more stylized and made safer for kids/general public, with kata being done for its own sake, concentrating on form rather the intended function.

While I may know kata, your math examples, though interesting, had my head spinning!! Haha.

 

[skribs]

You should fit the bunkai to match the kata, not "stretch" the kata to make it fit whatever bunkai you have in mind.

The funny thing is, there's often other movements in the kata that fit the "application" better.

 

[Hanzou]

I think there's slightly more benefit that fitness and moving meditation. I think they work out muscles that are used in the techniques, that you wouldn't work out through a normal workout regimen. But...the timing is off, the techniques are often stylized or over-exaggerated, and in order to be practical there's more you need to know about them to make it work.

"Working out the muscles used for techniques" would qualify as fitness. The additional thing you would need to learn to make those techniques work is actual fighting.

For example;

There isn't much martial benefit in that practice.

 

[Buka]

If you’re a karate master, your kata should be crisp as hell. A master in karate should have kata that looks like this;

And yes, I love Rika Usami.

Yeah, I do, too.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I haven't watched the video yet but I read your post.

It's a business. They sometimes have to false-advertise. That's just how businesses are.

Me, for example, I am doing my own weightlifting program that I invented "borrowing" ideas from Bulgarian weightlifters. Although I will, in fact, mention my source of inspiration (Bulgarian weightlifters), it won't stop me from naming my own program with a name that I see fit that would make me look good. The ends justify the means.

That's not the same as claiming something came from inside a style when it didn't, though. There's nothing at all wrong with giving your system (MA or weightlifting) its own name to differentiate it from other systems, even if you didn't invent it from whole cloth. Nobody has done that for a very long time, unless they were too arrogant to try to learn from others.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I’d be very curious what ancient Koryu from Japan contained guard play and triangle chokes. Especially considering that that terminology was being used instead of Japanese names for those techniques.



I’d be interested in seeing this karate based ground fighting you’re talking about.

Also in Bjj we don’t train get ourselves knotted up either....

The difference in terminology could reasonably be a recent adoption. As to the rest, I tend to share your opinion.

 

[Hanzou]

View attachment 23191
Yeah, I do, too.

The difference in terminology could reasonably be a recent adoption. As to the rest, I tend to share your opinion.

Nah, they're using Bjj and claiming that they pulled it from an ancient Ninja kata.

I think a better question at this point is given how some traditionalist view ground fighting as something you shouldn't do, why are they engaging in this practice?

 

[drop bear]

All sport, you can say the set about American wrestling, which usually dominates BJJ. This has been shown countless times...why not just train that...oh wait, that's a Jr. and High school activity, people have for decades, long before BJJ was the flavor of the month.

But really, I am not overly interested in sport, arts, they are limited and incomplete.

It isn't all sport.

Jocko willik for example has much more of a street pedigree than most street guys. Which is why I threw him in there.

And that is not uncommon in one way or another. Bjj is the corner stone of ground fighting for some police and the bulk of the military. Yours and ours.

It is one of the more obviously successful street martial arts if you ever wanted to jump on you tube. Along with boxing and other combat sports. But then a lot of people do BJJ and it is pretty obvious when they are doing it in the street.

American, folk, catch, roman greco wrestling is an interesting one. I think it has better application for street in a lot of ways. But is generally less accessible.

Its relationship with bjj is more complicated than "usually dominates" though It is more of a cousins marry kind of thing.

Here is Paul cale who heads the combatives program for the Australian army.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

As a former karate exponent (Shotokan), I've come to the conclusion that Bunkai is bunk in general. In my view kata as its generally taught in karate/Kung fu/whatever schools are filler in order to prop up the ranking system of many martial arts. I would actually argue that non-kata based MAs show better overall outcomes than kata-based MAs.

That said, I do think kata have value, mainly in the form of fitness or a type of moving meditation. However, students shouldn't be led to believe that their kata holds some sort of secret knowledge waiting to be unlocked, or that consistent kata practice will make them better fighters overall. You only become better at fighting by actually fighting.

Circling back to the point; Kata can be used to peddle nonsense like having hidden Bjj techniques inside traditional martial arts. This misinformation leads to people like Greywalker actually believing his mysterious karate style contained legitimate ground fighting techniques.

My opinion from the outside (never been "insider" on a kata-oriented system) is that if it's "kata based", that's too much focus on the forms. I like kata as warm-up, moving meditation, and a place to work on some basic principles (balance and structure can be reinforced without a partner). But a system shouldn't change dramatically if kata is removed, except insofar as that makes room for other drills. If removing the kata changes the entire system, it feels to me like the kata is given too much import.

Again, my thoughts from the outside, and likely some folks with more kata experience have different views.

 

[Hanzou]

My opinion from the outside (never been "insider" on a kata-oriented system) is that if it's "kata based", that's too much focus on the forms. I like kata as warm-up, moving meditation, and a place to work on some basic principles (balance and structure can be reinforced without a partner). But a system shouldn't change dramatically if kata is removed, except insofar as that makes room for other drills. If removing the kata changes the entire system, it feels to me like the kata is given too much import.

Again, my thoughts from the outside, and likely some folks with more kata experience have different views.

As a person who has done both Karate and Boxing, taking away kata from some karate styles would fundamentally alter how some schools teach. Some forms of Karate have no sparring, so all they do is kata and one step drills. That said, if you remove kata and focus on actual application and sparring (frankly like sport MA), you get a better martial arts system overall.

 

[drop bear]

Yes the flavor has lasted a while. A lot of suckers...but that is sport for you.

Point fighting has lasted just as long. If not longer...it must be legitimate as well.

Point fighting is not very common in MMA.

MMA is very common is successful self defence.

And 2+2=4

Or even self defence scenarios. Which is where self defence training pretty much lives.

Which if we go back to this scenario.

MMA has better options from more competent guys.

Which is kind of the point of this thread.

 

[isshinryuronin]

As a person who has done both Karate and Boxing, taking away kata from some karate styles would fundamentally alter how some schools teach. Some forms of Karate have no sparring, so all they do is kata and one step drills. That said, if you remove kata and focus on actual and sparring (frankly like sport MA), you get a better martial arts system overall.

I agree with your 1st sentence.

2nd sentence, if true (I haven't seen this myself) is kind of sad. Karate without sparring? I understand if no tournament competition sparring, but without strong one on one interaction of some type, the system/school will have a hole in its training and IMO lacking in actual self-defense value.

I disagree with the 3rd sentence. Removing kata will not make the system better. Kata contains the essence of the style and practical bunkai. It is a valuable training aid in several areas as has been discussed earlier by others. Consider removing shadow boxing, jumping rope or speed bag work from boxing. Would that make a boxer's sparring better?

Over-reliance on kata at the expense of other training, however, can be a bad thing, I agree. I think a balance of fitness, sparring, kata, and application - all lead to, and contribute to, karate's main goal - effective self-defense.

If the various trainings I mentioned (and perhaps others such as mental/spiritual) are targeted towards this main goal, the style will be worthwhile as a martial art.

 

[Graywalker]

Point fighting is not very common in MMA.

MMA is very common is successful self defence.

And 2+2=4

Or even self defence scenarios. Which is where self defence training pretty much lives.

Which if we go back to this scenario.

MMA has better options from more competent guys.

Which is kind of the point of this thread.

MMA us really of no value to me at all. It really is nothing new. Combining different training methods, have been going on throughout the evolution of Martial Arts from basically the beginning.

 

[skribs]

Point fighting is not very common in MMA.

MMA is very common is successful self defence.

And 2+2=4

The fact that MMA is commonly successful in self defense doesn't mean other styles are not. I could easily apply this "logic" to any art.

"Punches are not common in BJJ. BJJ is very commonly used in self-defense. 2 + 2 = 4, therefore boxing sucks for self-defense."

 

[Hanzou]

I agree with your 1st sentence.

2nd sentence, if true (I haven't seen this myself) is kind of sad. Karate without sparring? I understand if no tournament competition sparring, but without strong one on one interaction of some type, the system/school will have a hole in its training and IMO lacking in actual self-defense value.

Well check out this Doshinkan Karate school, they frown on sparring;

Karatedo Doshinkan, Clemson University

I can only imagine what would happen if they needed to defend themselves.

I disagree with the 3rd sentence. Removing kata will not make the system better. Kata contains the essence of the style and practical bunkai. It is a valuable training aid in several areas as has been discussed earlier by others. Consider removing shadow boxing, jumping rope or speed bag work from boxing. Would that make a boxer's sparring better?

Shadow boxing, jumping rope, and speed bags aren't pre-determined forms. I do agree though that removal of the kata would turn the majority of Karate styles into kickboxing clones.

Over-reliance on kata at the expense of other training, however, can be a bad thing, I agree. I think a balance of fitness, sparring, kata, and application - all lead to, and contribute to, karate's main goal - effective self-defense.

If the various trainings I mentioned (and perhaps others such as mental/spiritual) are targeted towards this main goal, the style will be worthwhile as a martial art.

Eh, I have yet to see any evidence that kata benefits self defense. I mean, essentially it's a dance with close to zero fighting application. Consider a dojo where no one sparred like those Doshinkan folks, and just did kata all the time. Now consider a dojo where all they did was beat the hell out of each other via kumite all the time. Now set those schools loose on each other, and you tell me which group is going to come out on top.

 

[Hanzou]

The fact that MMA is commonly successful in self defense doesn't mean other styles are not. I could easily apply this "logic" to any art.

"Punches are not common in BJJ. BJJ is very commonly used in self-defense. 2 + 2 = 4, therefore boxing sucks for self-defense."

Actually punching is quite common in Bjj (i.e. ground and pound).

 

[isshinryuronin]

Eh, I have yet to see any evidence that kata benefits self defense. I mean, essentially it's a dance with close to zero fighting application. Consider a dojo where no one sparred like those Doshinkan folks, and just did kata all the time. Now consider a dojo where all they did was beat the hell out of each other via kumite all the time. Now set those schools loose on each other, and you tell me which group is going to come out on top.

The benefits of kata (again) are forming a strong stance foundation, footwork and tai sabaki (evasion), teaching good balance and posture, effective form when executing techniques, and last but not least, self-defense against grabs and other attacks.

Kata is not an end to itself, but part of an overall program of various trainings, each lending its own benefits.

Not having done kata or much karate, or understanding the origins and development of same, you do not have a good comprehension of the subject. "Beating the hell out of each other via kumite all the time" leads not to karate, but to brawling.

 

[skribs]

The benefits of kata (again) are forming a strong stance foundation, footwork and tai sabaki (evasion), teaching good balance and posture, effective form when executing techniques, and last but not least, self-defense against grabs and other attacks.

The forms I've trained and the kata I've seen don't do a good job of teaching footwork or evasion. Strong stances, maybe. But not any footwork I'd use in a real fight.