Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited.

Posted by: oldman

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/04/07 11:20 PM

Folks,
The first thing I'd like to point out that the title Redmond's article is "The Relationship Between Kata and Kumite". MAGons thread which references it is the "Value of Kata". To me those are two different questions or points. I don't disagree with Redmond that they are completely different things. Saying that, does not mean that the practice of one will have no beneficial effect on the other, even if it is minor. It is not hard to make an argument that to do something well you have to do a lot of that activity. It stands to reason that if you wanted to be successful in competion kumite you would focus time and attention on that. If your goal was to be a World forms champion engaging in a lot of sparring could be counter productive to your goals.
Neither the article or the post puts forward either practice as effective in preparing someone to fight though the thread will ultimately cover that ground again. It stands to reason that preparing to fight, or training to fight, if that were a practitioners primary focus would need to be trained with that goal in mind. I guess I should say if you want to fight really well rather than just "fight" since anyone can participate in them whether they care to train or not.

So, "The Relationship Between Kata and Kumite"? They are related in "Shotokan" by history and practice. We are not and will not be the last to question their individual or combined value. Personaly if my goal was to be the most effective fighter in the shortest time possible I would not choose Shotokan or my practice (Chung do Kwan) as the vehicle to get me there.

Kata, sparring, fighting, to excel in any of they may can contribute and or take away from the execution of another.

As far as the "Value of Kata", for me? I continue to practice them as I continue to find value in them. They are one of the many practices that I feel are helping me make progress toward personal goals. I may take the time one day to try to articulate what value I find in them. The easiest way may be to say that currently for me (they are a healthy part of a balanced diet).

Posted by: kakushiite

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/04/07 11:21 PM

I just posted to the Kata and Applications thread: "Why do you practice kata?" I believe my post touches on a number of issues. It is only recently that some traditional Shotokan schools are attempting to effective map of kata movements to fighting, and one reason I discuss in my post is that there are too many kata.

Another, IMO, is that Shotokan kata are more artificial approximations of fighting due to the deep stances. But the emphasis of kata, without application, makes it difficult to develop fighting techniques that can have some utility in sparring.

Which brings me to sparring. Shotokan sparring does not necessarily map to 100% to fighting. There is little in attacks and counter attacks to the head (which is a safe way to train). And many of the locks and throws found in kata are effective only if you get the first technique in dazing or disorienting the attacker. You don't get those opportunities in sparring. Generally, if you do clock in guy in the face so much so that his head is knocked back, you have to back off. Let's just say that this would probably not be the optimal time to follow up with the groin or knee kick, designed to bring the head down enough so you can get that hook in to the temple or neck. That's just not the way sparring works. Sparring is a model of fighting which requires safe techniques. Fighting is a system that does not use safe techniques.

Shotokan sparring and Shotokan kata are both models of fighting, both with good points and weak points. It is a challenge to develop fighting applications from kata that map to fighting, and then further map to sparring. With so many kata, that challenge is even greater.

Kakushite

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/04/07 11:34 PM

Quote:

This is nonsense. Just when you think you've seen and heard it all....

This is easily seen for what it is. Take a guy and for a year, have him do nothing but kata for 2 hours per session, three sessions per week. Take another guy, same age, height, weight, and have him involved in alive sparring and drilling for the same duration, times, etc.

At the end of that year, have them fight ten times. The guy with sparring experience wins 9 of them (if not ALL of them...but I've giving kata guys a small benefit of a doubt). I really don't even think it would be CLOSE. Just my opinion.

I'd bet this would be pretty easily demonstrated if one was so willing.

-John

JKogas, you may be unfamiliar with kata training in karate, or maybe effective kata training, but it is much more than just performing a kata. Just as sparring is more than going full blast all the time. Your analogy is incorrect. A more accurate analogy would be have one guy do kata for a year. And you spar with another full blast everyday for a year. I guarantee that the kata guy will win because the guy that sparred full blast everyday will be too battered and beat up to beat anyone.

Now I know that when utilizing sparring it encompasses more that simply going full blast trying to hurt your opponent every training session. Well news flash, kata training encompasses much more than simply kata performance. Its easy to make one's art look good when stating an inaccurate opinion as a fact. However, if you take the time to understand what others do, then it may actually shed some light on other training methods you may not know.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 12:13 AM

But that's not what John said at all.

Kata only vs. alive training.

Alive training wins,duh.

WE know what kata training consists of, or should. But, kata training vs just doing kata needs to be explained to the masses, even most karateka.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 12:54 AM

Yes, I know, the thing is I am doing what JKogas did. The article was not about alive training, it was about kata versus sparring. In Kogas' attempt to prove his point he morphed sparring to include all alive training and defined kata to only include simple kata performance. I was ignoring the premise of what he said just like he ignored the article's comparison of kata to sparring. Just as the article was nonsense in its misunderstanding of karate training and kata's relation to alive training so was Kogas' post.

Posted by: Ironfoot

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 03:13 AM

Quote:

This is nonsense. Just when you think you've seen and heard it all....

This is easily seen for what it is. Take a guy and for a year, have him do nothing but kata for 2 hours per session, three sessions per week. Take another guy, same age, height, weight, and have him involved in alive sparring and drilling for the same duration, times, etc.

At the end of that year, have them fight ten times. The guy with sparring experience wins 9 of them (if not ALL of them...but I've giving kata guys a small benefit of a doubt). I really don't even think it would be CLOSE. Just my opinion.

I'd bet this would be pretty easily demonstrated if one was so willing.

-John

I can't argue with that. But 10 years later, if he truly gets the worth of kata, and also spars, my money is on the well-rounded one.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 03:23 AM

Quote:

I can't argue with that. But 10 years later, if he truly gets the worth of kata, and also spars, my money is on the well-rounded one.

Well said. !

Quote:

Yes, I know, the thing is I am doing what JKogas did. The article was not about alive training, it was about kata versus sparring. In Kogas' attempt to prove his point he morphed sparring to include all alive training and defined kata to only include simple kata performance. I was ignoring the premise of what he said just like he ignored the article's comparison of kata to sparring. Just as the article was nonsense in its misunderstanding of karate training and kata's relation to alive training so was Kogas' post.

Some guys on here make the brain, and peoples ability to read things correctly, work harder. ( I mean myself in that sentence)

Good stuff. This thread was an education in itself!
Why do I have this tingling effect in my brain?

Jude

Posted by: cxt

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 09:01 AM

JKogas

Your probably right--IF we were talking about a "kata ONLY" regimen.

But were not---in many schools kata is only part of an overall training methodolgy.

Besides, it kinda depends on what kind of "sparring" you have the other guys do.
If were talking about the high speed games of "tag" that pass for "sparring" at most open tounaments then I really don't think that would help you much in a real fight either.

Posted by: Blackrainbow

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 10:52 AM

This is probably the oldest and most tired and worn out subject in the MA's. I see it this way. If you don't like coffee then stay out of the Starbucks store. There are plenty of MA systems available that don't practice kata. If you do not see any value in it then just leave. I fail to understand people who will spend years studying a particular style only to decide that half of the curriculum should be discarded just because they don't believe in it. My dojo is not a democracy. I encourage my students to ask questions at the appropriate times and I go to great effort to explain the reasoning behind everything I do. I also tell my students that if there is ever a time that they no longer have faith in the validity of what I am teaching, please leave. I don't know of any of the old Okinawan masters who ever stated that kata alone would make you a great fighter. I can state for a fact That Shoshin Nagamine, who I trained with and knew quite well stated exactly the opposite. Kata is a tool. Just one part of the whole sum. Is kata needed to be a great fighter. I don't belive so. But if you take it out of my system then I am no longer teaching that style as prescribed and my teaching is no longer legitimate under the rules of that organiztion. If you don't want to follow the rules then just go create your own style and call yourself "soke".

Posted by: Ronin1966

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 10:56 AM

Hello MAGon:

Far be it from me to disagree with Mr. Redmond, I have always enjoyed his... "biting experiences" which he articulates so well. However I also feel sad for him, in that the connection is not more blatently obvious for him.

There are levels of sparring. The 1/3/5 step versions are identical to kata and vice-versa. The "disconnect" comes when the sparring becomes so called free-sparring, and that answer seems fairly clear... to me at least.

Free sparring is a technical exchange between partners of ones best technique(s). Kata is designed to stop an attack intended to kill/harm/maim: Choke, grab, punch, bite, hurt from point blank range. If I were to be choked during sparring... if I were to be grabbed and then punched in an untrained manner, my response would be direct kata.

Free-sparring is several levels above that powerful primitive level. As such my response is still identical kata but in different, typically smaller pieces. The attacks are not even close to the norm for which kata was designed. A normal attack will not possess any of the technical prowess, or sophistication a trained martial artist owns. Hense the supposed "disconnect"...

Merely my opinion I could surely be mistaken,

Jeff

Posted by: hedkikr

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 11:45 AM

Quote:

Free-sparring is several levels above that powerful primitive level. As such my response is still identical kata but in different, typically smaller pieces. The attacks are not even close to the norm for which kata was designed. A normal attack will not possess any of the technical prowess, or sophistication a trained martial artist owns. Hense the supposed "disconnect"...

This is something I came to recognize years ago & so articulately outlined in McCarthy's HAPV (Habitual Acts of Physical Violence) Theory. I teach my class that the chances of "us" coming up against another MA-ist is rare & that most people who engage in street fights tend to fight in similar ways (just look it up on all those street fight videos).

Sparring is a relatively new development in MA training & can be labeled "Gendai". That understood, the next question for "traditionalists" is, "if kumite is only about 100 yrs old, how did MA-ists train before systemized kumite was developed?".

Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 05:42 PM

Quote:

What most people miss is that kata & sparring are not mutually exclusive when it comes to the purpose of SD.

Peanut butter is good; jelly is good. Put them together & you have a better sandwich.

Sparring is fighting w/ rules so don't expect to save you A$$ w/ sparring; kata is too systematic to save you a$$. But if you take the fluidity & responsiveness of kumite & include some of the nasty little tricks of kata, you'll have a well-crafted SD system. The product is greater than the sum of it's parts.

Where's the controversy?

very nicely put

Posted by: GriffyGriff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 07:53 PM

Kata is NOT Sparring.
Sparring is NOT Self Defense.

Why do we constantly have to restate the obvious.

I believe that the Origins of Kata have been obfuscated and in some instances lost. This is similar to the original passages in the Bible, which have been mistranslated and misquoted over the ages.
(Light the touch paper and stand well back

).

We can try to find practical application within ancient kata, but it was really designed to help the fidgety to meditate. It was physical meditation devised by the Buddhist Monks, implemented in Asia. If Buddhists try to sleep without rolling over and potentially causing harm to insects, why the hell would they devise these sequences to inflict damage on other humans??? That would surely go against the primary Buddhist teachings!

When you have finished earnestly performing Kata over a prolonged period of time, you have a wider sense of spatial perception and feel more at ease.

Lets just Enjoy it for what it is and stop making it more complicated than it needs.

Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 08:07 PM

Quote:

Kata is NOT Sparring.
Sparring is NOT Self Defense.

Why do we constantly have to restate the obvious.

I believe that the Origins of Kata have been obfuscated and in some instances lost. This is similar to the original passages in the Bible, which have been mistranslated and misquoted over the ages.
(Light the touch paper and stand well back ).

We can try to find practical application within ancient kata, but it was really designed to help the fidgety to meditate. It was physical meditation devised by the Buddhist Monks, implemented in Asia. If Buddhists try to sleep without rolling over and potentially causing harm to insects, why the hell would they devise these sequences to inflict damage on other humans??? That would surely go against the primary Buddhist teachings!

When you have finished earnestly performing Kata over a prolonged period of time, you have a wider sense of spatial perception and feel more at ease.

Lets just Enjoy it for what it is and stop making it more complicated than it needs.

with respect I need to disagree with you on this one.................

some kata for sure were developed for other things apart from fighting (and certainly some elements of kata have evolved that way), but to suggest no kata were developed for this reason is sheer lunacy IMO.

I guess you may have read Barefoot Zen, an excellent book IMO but wildley sceptical in some of its presentations.

Not wishing to be rude but I will not enter prolonged debate on this one, I will leave that to others.........

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 09:04 PM

ok so kata's primary use for you is as a moving meditation. noted.

everyone sees and uses things differently based on what they perceive as to it's usefulness. not unlike in the movie Castaway when the main character doesn't think twice using paper bills to help start a fire. or even a tribesman emptying a bucket of gems into a river in order to make use of the bucket.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 09:11 PM

Quote:

Kata is NOT Sparring.
Sparring is NOT Self Defense.

Why do we constantly have to restate the obvious.

I believe that the Origins of Kata have been obfuscated and in some instances lost. This is similar to the original passages in the Bible, which have been mistranslated and misquoted over the ages.
(Light the touch paper and stand well back ).

We can try to find practical application within ancient kata, but it was really designed to help the fidgety to meditate. It was physical meditation devised by the Buddhist Monks, implemented in Asia. If Buddhists try to sleep without rolling over and potentially causing harm to insects, why the hell would they devise these sequences to inflict damage on other humans??? That would surely go against the primary Buddhist teachings!

When you have finished earnestly performing Kata over a prolonged period of time, you have a wider sense of spatial perception and feel more at ease.

Lets just Enjoy it for what it is and stop making it more complicated than it needs.

Total garbage, respectfully.

Why so many moving meditations? Why punches and kicks, strikes, hand formations, etc...???

That's not even a good theory, much less close to reality.

Posted by: GriffyGriff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 09:22 PM

Quote:

with respect I need to disagree with you on this one.................

Have you watched the Film "Talladega Nights: The Ballad Of Ricky Bobby"? He believed that if he started a sentence with the words "With Respect..." then he could issue any insulting remark and feel that it was OK. I know that is not the case here, but I do now find that phrase funny.

I wholehartedly agree with kata from styles such as Enshin, which represent the actual art.

But the main point of my post was that these were all repudetly developed initially by Buddhist Monks from the Shaolin. Buddhists preach non-violence.

I did read Barefoot Zen and can concur that I was left feeling sceptical, but it did get me thinking.

Karate Styles do seem to have a disjointed link between Kata/Sparring/LineWork/Self Defense.

Hi Brian! Brilliant reply - see Ricky Bobby above...

Lots of Katas have now got their original sequences jumbled up and bits added by various styles/instructors/nationalalities.

Lots of styles have similar movement sequences in different Katas/Tuls. Maybe there was only 1 original Kata?

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 09:39 PM

Griffy,

I love that movie! That statement is pretty much true. No offence,but....Respectfully...LOL!!

Quote:

But the main point of my post was that these were all repudetly developed initially by Buddhist Monks from the Shaolin. Buddhists preach non-violence.

Which kata are you talking about specifically? Not all kata are that ancient and were developed for SD purposes.

Quote:

Karate Styles do seem to have a disjointed link between Kata/Sparring/LineWork/Self Defense.

Kata is the foundation and all other aspects are built on top of it, IMO. (karate)

Quote:

Hi Brian! Brilliant reply - see Ricky Bobby above

Quote:

I will say again, I think that just like the Bible which has now lost most of its true meanings in re-translations etc. the same has happened with Kata. Lots of Katas have now got their original sequences jumbled up and bits added by various styles/instructors/nationalalities.

I'm going to stay from the Bible analogy, the very mention of it gives people shivers around here.

Quote:

Lots of styles have similar movement sequences in different Katas/Tuls. Maybe there was only 1 original Kata?

Well ,we are going to far left field on that one.

Posted by: GriffyGriff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 10:02 PM

Quote:

Well ,we are going to far left field on that one.

Oh yes!!
Far far Left...

Almost into the Twilight Zone

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/05/07 11:54 PM

Noo noo noo noo.... noo noo noo noo....

So, if kata are only moving meditation, why so many of them? How and when do you suppose they were made into fighting or self defense strategies? Who did this?

Do you have some way of validating your theory of moving meditation?

Posted by: GriffyGriff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 02:39 AM

Hi Brian.

With Respect ......

Give me a little time to come up with something not contraversial.

Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 02:47 AM

'Have you watched the Film "Talladega Nights: The Ballad Of Ricky Bobby"? He believed that if he started a sentence with the words "With Respect..." then he could issue any insulting remark and feel that it was OK. I know that is not the case here, but I do now find that phrase funny. '

how do you know thats not the case here then

Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 06:14 AM

Some kata, like sanchin, might well have originally been moving meditation. Just because some of them were then doesnt mean they all are now.

One MA historian postulated the idea that warriors seeking refuge in the temple taught the monks how to fight. How can one protect life if one is too weak and too defenseless to protect themselves.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 06:52 AM

Quote:

You don't need kata and there are many people who do not.
Kata is the foundation of karate. If you don't do kata then you aren't doing kata. I like karate!

That's all really anyone needs to say on the matter.

-John

Posted by: jbrown2130

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 07:43 AM

To get back on topic and repsond to the main question brought up in the thread, with all due respect, that's the dumbest load of monkey bunk I've ever read. Reading through the following posts, some of you guys will probably agree with what I'm going to type, others will not.

To say that kata is not related to kumite is like saying that your education is not related to your job/life. Sure, there are ppl out there that go to college, then end up with jobs OUTSIDE their feild of study... HOWEVER, does that mean they wasted their time in college. NO! College is about EXPOSURE. If you SEE something or hear something here and there in school, it will better help you to deal with situations in the future when you see it again... you are more prepared b/c its not your first time seeing things. Kata is the same. It is the textbook for your art (if you are practicing a traditional art) No one said it was going to be identical to a combative situation. However, it DOES train your body. AND it SHOWS you what you can do, or how you CAN move... so that when you need to move that way in a confrontation, its not the first time you've been required to DO that. The deep stances, etc are for TRAINING... If you can move from a deep stance b/c that's how you are used to training, think of how easy its going to be to move from a more natural stance. There is SO much there to kata... these ideas are the basics...

sure, you don't HAVE to do kata. You know, you could get just as good at fighting by going to a bar 3x a week, having a few drinks, and then pick on the biggest SOB in there... After a while (assuming you're still around), you'll probably be good at fighting... but that doesn't mean you are studying a traditional art. Kata is a TOOL for traditional stylist... if that's what you choose to do, utitilize that tool to its greatest extent (which will increase the longer you practice). Whatever art you choose just gives you a framework for how you can move... everyone is built the same... with arms and legs... you can only do SO many things with that... once you have an idea of how you can move/interact (however your art teaches), your abilities as a fighter are FAR more dependant on YOU as a practitioner. What IS you intensity in your study? How seriously do YOU take your study? I.E., two students from the SAME school can be different in abilities... but NOT b/c they get different information, but rather HOW they utilize the information presented to them.

In closing. I would like to mention, that I don't beleive KUMITE = sparring. For the purposes of this article/thread, the original author should have used "sparring" in the title of his article instead of "kumite." Its funny, that he used "sparring" all through the article anyway... but they are not entrily the same. In any event, I'm not really familiar with the author of the article... I wonder if his goal in this was to express a belief (which would indicate that he is not actaully that experienced with most traditional systems) or if he was tring to provoke discussion like this thread (which would indicate the man is a pure genious in getting MA practitioners to share their thoughts on their art). Either way, I love my karate. I love my kata. This is just how I think.

Posted by: Aeras

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 01:08 PM

Now for something completely different, (thank you Monty Python).

Food for thought:
Recently a buddy of mine and I are sparring, fyi each of us do completely different styles of MA.

I continue to get through his defenses with the same or similar moves, repeatedly.

He gets frustrated but continues to fight. He goes home for a week and when he returns we come back together for some more sparring. He asks me to continue to try and defeat him with the same techniques and lo and behold he has incredible defenses for them now, and destroys me utterly

. How did you accomplish that? I ask him. To which he replys "I ran through all of my Kata examining each move carefully and trying to discern a defense for your technque. And it was there, embedded in my Kata. I didn't have to look anywhere else."

Thoughts?

Posted by: GriffyGriff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 03:28 PM

Quote:

Now for something completely different, (thank you Monty Python).

Food for thought:
Recently a buddy of mine and I are sparring, fyi each of us do completely different styles of MA. I continue to get through his defenses with the same or similar moves, repeatedly. He gets frustrated but continues to fight. He goes home for a week and when he returns we come back together for some more sparring. He asks me to continue to try and defeat him with the same techniques and lo and behold he has incredible defenses for them now, and destroys me utterly . How did you accomplish that? I ask him. To which he replys "I ran through all of my Kata examining each move carefully and trying to discern a defense for your technque. And it was there, embedded in my Kata. I didn't have to look anywhere else."

Thoughts?

I would need to see you both sparring 1st I think.
Before I could really comment on that one.

Posted by: hedkikr

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 03:35 PM

WOW...for a 1st time poster, you sure know how to announce yourself.

BTW... if you don't believe that kumite = sparring, what is the correct interpretation of "kumite" (I suppose that you're fuluent in Japanese). Hundreds & hundreds of people (including many Japanese) must have been lying to me for over 30 yrs.

Posted by: GriffyGriff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 05:26 PM

Dear JBrown2130 With Respect....

What is "Monkey Bunk"?
(I have found this link by searching for the above term, but I am still confused: http://www.futondreams.com/text/children.html )

From your post I gather that you classify:
"Kumite" as Real Fighting (Self Defense orientated). - Not Kata
"Sparring" as a rule based competition affair. - Not Kata

Can you HONESTLY say that you have (and promote the use of) Kata techniques like the OsotoUke (Kaunde Ap Palmok Makgi) for Self Defense?
(Please say "no").

Kata can be described as an exercise in Balance, Breathing, Focus, Coordination, Direction-Changing & Posture.

How many times have you seen a similar sets of movements in another style's Kata?
These sequences are often encompassed by totally different techniques.
Often these movements are energetically expressed differently, or when you enquire about their original purpose you receive answers that do not sit well.

Practicing Kata is a worthwhile study. It is energetic and therefore promotes a sense of wellbeing. If practiced sincerely, it clears the mind of everyday clutter and brings a clarity of thought and spatial awareness. I LOVE it.... But I can not honestly say that it is directly related to Kumite.
Kumite is fast, direct, nasty and with little wasted movement ... and that's just not Traditional Kata.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 06:40 PM

Griffygriff

Quote:

Kata can be described as an exercise in Balance, Breathing, Focus, Coordination, Direction-Changing & Posture.

Add self defense techniques to that list. Why would you not?

Quote:

How many times have you seen a similar sets of movements in another style's Kata?
These sequences are often encompassed by totally different techniques.
Often these movements are energetically expressed differently, or when you enquire about their original purpose you receive answers that do not sit well.

Easy, because of all the watering down and sport oriented styles that have developed. You end up with block punch, block kick karate.

Quote:

Practicing Kata is a worthwhile study. It is energetic and therefore promotes a sense of wellbeing. If practiced sincerely, it clears the mind of everyday clutter and brings a clarity of thought and spatial awareness. I LOVE it.... But I can not honestly say that it is directly related to Kumite.
Kumite is fast, direct, nasty and with little wasted movement ... and that's just not Traditional Kata.

Kata is not a fight, that's what most karateka don't get. Kata are sets of seperate SD techniques that are applicable in a fight.

Posted by: GriffyGriff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 07:02 PM

Hi Brian.

With Respect..

Quote:

Kata is not a fight, that's what most karateka don't get. Kata are sets of seperate SD techniques that are applicable in a fight.

mmmmm.....

Maybe it boils down to subjectivism. (and thats where the real confusion lies).

In NO way would I use Sang Sonkal Makgi / Kaunde Son Sonkal Tulgi / Najunde Sogi, Sang Sombadak Miro Makgi etc. in a fight.

Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 07:39 PM

Quote:

In NO way would I use Sang Sonkal Makgi / Kaunde Son Sonkal Tulgi / Najunde Sogi, Sang Sombadak Miro Makgi etc. in a fight.

SPEAK ENGLISH DAMMIT!

Or at least give some reference for those non jibberish speakers.

On a more serious note, they sound like korean phrases, which implies TKD techniques. Many (not all)TKD kata are a waste of time as their main purpose was to not look Japanese. This is coming from a TKDist.

Also if you are talking about TKD forms being a form of moving buddhist meditation, I can't begin to explain all the things wrong with that idea.

Thats assuming its TKD your talking about.

All I will say is that just because YOU cannot see how something can be used combatively, doesnt mean it can't.

Posted by: GriffyGriff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 08:03 PM

Quote:

In NO way would I use Sang Sonkal Makgi / Kaunde Son Sonkal Tulgi / Najunde Sogi, Sang Sombadak Miro Makgi etc. in a fight.

No way would I use a:
Sang Sonkal Makgi
- Twin Forearm Block (Blocking a frontal and overhead attack simultaneously).
Kaunde Son Sonkal Tulgi
- Straight Spearhand Thrust.
Najunde Sogi, Sang Sombadak Miro Makgi
- Low Stance, Twin Palm Pushing Block.

Quote:

On a more serious note, they sound like korean phrases, which implies TKD techniques. Many (not all)TKD kata are a waste of time as their main purpose was to not look Japanese. This is coming from a TKDist.

With Respect…..
You are on the verge of opening a can of worms as many of the TKD Tuls are in fact bastardizations of Shotokan Katas.

Quote:

Also if you are talking about TKD forms being a form of moving buddhist meditation, I can't begin to explain all the things wrong with that idea.

With Respect….
I am questioning the origin of Kata.

Quote:

All I will say is that just because YOU cannot see how something can be used combatively, doesnt mean it can't.

With Respect…
Oh yes it does!

Quote:

Theres no use crying!
Your family is dead...
tomorrow I hope you have a better day!!!!

Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 08:21 PM

LOL

The origin of humans supposedly was single celled organisms. Just because it was then, doesn't mean it is now.

And of the techniques you mentioned, the first one in particular has been shown to have countless applications, non of which are a twin block. The third may or may not, but I don't know what it is to be able to say.

As for the can of worms, I said some and not all with that in mind. But then there are many who question the worth of Shotokan kata, more who question if the Japanified shotokan kata can still contain anything of use when further bastardised by the koreans. I stand by my statement, although I will say that I think a bigger problem to that of technical drift after kata left Okinawa is the problem of label disease. The techniques you refered to did not originate with the labels of blocks or even strikes much of the time. Fixating on such labels causes misinterpretation.

I'm sure you know all this, and if you really think that all the forms and kata of all the south east asian fighting traditions that make use of them are all forms of moving meditation with no combat value then good for you. I'm sure you will be spiritually richer for your training than any of us.

Posted by: GriffyGriff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/06/07 08:49 PM

Quote:

The origin of humans supposedly was single celled organisms. Just because it was then, doesn't mean it is now.

Are you suggesting that amoebas actually practiced Katas?
(now we are off into the twilight zone).

Quote:

And of the techniques you mentioned, the first one in particular has been shown to have countless applications, non of which are a twin block.

OK, granted, but in a fight would you use it?

Quote:

I hope you will be spiritually richer for your training. You are a wonderful individual.

Hey! Thanks, that was very kind of you.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/07/07 06:44 AM

Shonuff and Griffy Griff.

Quote:

The origin of humans supposedly was single celled organisms. Just because it was then, doesn't mean it is now.

Not to sure about that. Some humans still show those attributes. And no Griffy none have been seen doing kata under a microscope. They more than likely wait until its switched off.
Secret kata!

Quote:

and of the techniques you mentioned, the first one in particular has been shown to have countless applications, none of which are a twin block. The third may or may not, but I don't know what it is to be able to say.

Griffy what is it?
Photo/ video would be better.

Quote:

As for the can of worms, I said some and not all with that in mind. But then there are many who question the worth of Shotokan kata,

I’m glad you said that. I wasn’t going to because I can’t prove it yet. But I think the mechanical movements were scattered amongst the different kata. So the need to learn all of them and stick to the syllabus. Therefore keep the long-term students in that style.

Quote:

more who question if the Japanified shotokan kata can still contain anything of use when further bastardised by the koreans.

I’m glad you said that. I wasn’t going to because I can’t prove it yet either.

Quote:

I stand by my statement, although I will say that I think a bigger problem to that of technical drift after kata left Okinawa is the problem of label disease. The techniques you refered to did not originate with the labels of blocks or even strikes much of the time. Fixating on such labels causes misinterpretation.

And that.

Quote:

I'm sure you know all this, and if you really think that all the forms and kata of all the south east asian fighting traditions that make use of them are all forms of moving meditation with no combat value then good for you. I'm sure you will be spiritually richer for your training than any of us.

Errmm. The moving meditation part. There might be something in that with the use of kata/forms in a historical sense.

Griffy

Quote:

OK, granted, but in a fight would you use it?

http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_home.asp

There is quite a few uses of techniques in his website. Including the knife hand application. Perhaps if you cared to look at it the applications then we could discuss your findings or on here or the other thread.

Posted by: CVV

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/07/07 07:02 AM

Studying karate without studying kata is impossible.
Kata is THE tool for studying karate. It is not the only tool but the most important one.

[qoute]
BrianS quote
Kata is not a fight, that's what most karateka don't get. Kata are sets of seperate SD techniques that are applicable in a fight.
[/qoute]
I agree fully and would add that it not only shows SD techniques but also principles and methods related to the ovarall development of the karateka.

I study goju-ryu karate. We train 12 kata.
Basic training kata sanchin.
Fukyu kata (beginners kata) gekisai-dai-ichi and gekisai-dai-ni.
Classical kata saifa, seiunchin, shishochin, sanseru, sesan, sepai, kururunfa, suparinpei.
Cool down kata tensho.

Although the focus in some kata is not the SD application of the technique (like sanchin for goju or the fukyu kata or tensho), any technique used in the kata of our kata-curriculum has fighting applications that can be used in a real fight.
The execution of a technique in kata is abstract and for the purpose of retaining basic priciples and methods, like balance, rooting, breathing (spitting swallowing) etc.
The actual use in combat adapts the technique towards the situation.
From kata to bunkai already sets the step towards application but bunkai is not the final SD form. It gives direction in the final use of technique from kata. Further study can be gained by building partner drills derived from these bunkai, tested through various stages of resistance, eventually tried in free fighting forms like jyu kumite.
This makes the study of kata and karate a lifetime study, eventually comparing with experiences from and with other MA-ists from different thinking and styles.
To analyze kata I use the following principles:
- you are facing only one opponent (altghough multiple opponent exercises ar fun)
- the direction of movement in the kata are not absolute, you could step back where the kata steps forward etc..
- the position of the technique is not absolute, a chudan uke could be done higher and it becomes a jodan uke in application etc.

But first you must learn the kata.
I do notbelieve that the intent of karate training is to build instant fighters. By sticking to the program and learning the kata and gradually going from the academic study of kata to the practical study of technique in fighting, the student builds character and insight in the behaviour within society.

Read the (Okinawan) bubishi. It's all explained there.

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/07/07 12:18 PM

Quote:

Studying karate without studying kata is impossible.

Somewhere down the line, I was able to do the impossible. Or, strike that, I practice something that looks like karate, but isn't quite.

No problem there. I call the stuff I practice, karate, but it doesn't contain the kata that you traditionalists have, nor the same pedestal propping that kata gets from your perspective.

It really, actually doesn't matter to me since I like what I do, and on some level I consider it pretty functional. But if kata is karate, then why the variations in kata? Why different kata? And so, depending upon differences, is one karate superior to the other because of that kata? If kata is the measurement, then what of functionality with or without kata? And if you take the kata away from the instruction and you still leave the techniques and applications, is this then not karate if you judge it on functional alone, regardless of the practice necessary to illicit that function?

Just curious.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/09/07 11:56 AM

Quote:

This is different from Chinese quan-fa as I understand. They start with a form then proceed to the next form wich is more complex and so forth. This evolution is not common in karate.

From my studies this evolution seems to be done in certain traits of karate.

I say traits because when I look at a certain kata of certain style's they seem have in the main nearly all the same commen physical movements but the reason I use the term nearly is because for some reason their kata doesnt have specific details that reflect in the techniques available.

So in effect they have little chance of getting the amount of techniques from kata.

They miss things out.

In some styles of karate/offshoots the techniques available in their kata might be considered a waste of time.

Butterflys karate.
His karate is funtional. The kata I posted from his style is also funtional. He says he doesnt in a way require trad kata.
I dont think he does.

Just a small point nothing to do with karate.
There is a very basic chinese style I am looking at the moment. I am studying the realationship in techniques.

Does that then say it isnt a chinese art because it only has very basic forms ? Techniques?

Back to karate
Butterflys karate is termed and is karate as is your karate

Jude

.

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 01:32 AM

CVV,

No problem on my side...it might not be karate that I practice, but I like what I do... mostly. And this is absolutely fine by me, whatever anyone calls it.

BTW, The link you put up is not affiliated with the Ashihara that I know and study. I believe it also has a different headquarters and a different "leader of the pack."

The questions that I have, though, remain in how one regards karate. If kata and karate are intertwined to such an extent that they are inseparable for derived use, then the question of functionality comes to mind. Either karate was meant to be used well defensively, and kata was meant to help in this endeavor....or none of this study really matters, at least for use. So I'll qualify this by trying to get some functional use out of what one's studying. I am talking the historical reasonings for practice.

If the study of kata can perhaps lead to this use then that is fine. If kata doesn't lead to this use, then there's a problem....despite practicing that kata. Which it seems many do. It seems many practice the overt, stylized movement of their katas and are happy with these as just that: movements to be memorized for testing purposes or as part of the historical baggage that came with their system. Tradition, in other words.

I do understand that there are now varied reasons for studying any martial art, but I think functional use would still have to be there somewhere. Therefore, if you practice kata, but don't use the techniques in it for any purpose except exercise or meditation....but someone else practice functionality from karate derived techniques yet doesn't claim to study kata, which is more true to the use of those techniques---forgetting for the moment how you may have acquired your understanding of their use.

Now, if you have function without kata, or with limited kata, then it remains to be seen how much that kata actually gives to the performer if some others practice kata, but show limited ability in its use. So, I think it less the kata, but how you are taught...using or not using kata to facilitate this education.

If you just looked at one person fighting or defending himself, you would see application of technique and by this you could judge the efficacy of his training. You may not be able to even tell if it was someone within a particular karate style. But for me, I wouldn't necessarily be asking which kata he was using or studied...I would see use of technique and judge that accordingly, regardless if he or anyone else called it karate or not.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 03:41 AM

Karate is the principles of fighting contained within the kata, not necessarily just the kata themselves. Kata is a vehicle used to transmit fighting knowledge. You can have karate without kata if you study the principles, however, you cannot have "true" karate without proper fighting principles conveyed in your kata. Lets not confuse kata performance with kata training for combat use. Kata performance is a very small part of karate training for combat, and it is a large part of karate training for health/exercise/self improvement/etc. When training kata for combat you are training principles. For example I will describe my method of teaching a kata for combative purposes. If you are teaching a kata for combat you start with the first few movements. Then you teach one basic (yet effective) application. And I don't mean using a low block in a front stance to block a kick the way it is commonly seen, however, I won't describe application right now. I use the application to drill proper technique. In fact, most class time is not spent in solo kata practice, but partner work with varying resistance levels working on specifc techniques or technique sequences from kata to develop fighting skill based on fighting principles extracted from kata. A student learns to associate fighting strategies/principles with different movements and/or sequences of movements in kata. As a student develops this skill his at home practice is improved because he can start to visualize combative situations when practicing kata and greatly improve technical proficiency of technique as well as developing a body/mind connection between simple technique execution and its combative application. As more kata techniques are learned then more application is learned. As supplemental exercises muscle/tendon/bone conditioning as well as kumite for cardio, spirit, and timing training are used. However, the core of karate training is the two man drills based on kata and their reinforcement during kata practice. In fact, I believe that ashihara uses the same principle. Why would Ashihara develop "solo kata" when his students develop their fighting skill during kihon and sparring drills. To reinforce what was already developed. I would say that the usage of "kata" in a style like Ashihara is very close to that of okinawan karate. Now, this is not surprising considering the fact that Oyama was a fighter who valued the practice of kata. It is just that Ashihara's fighting priciples are different from that of okinawan karate (as seen in their heavy use of high roundhouse kicks and such). Now, as I add more layers of fighting techniques/principles on to what my students already know I can relate them to techniques in their kata syllabus. This enables them to grasp the concepts I am teaching them faster (because they have already developed proficiency in the base technique I am teaching). In addition, as a student develops he will be able to develop without the aid of a teacher giving constant correction due to his ability to relate kata technique to fighting principles. Through kata practice, technique sequence extraction, visualization, and combat concept realization he will be able to improve fighting ability in solo karate practice. And this does not even touch on the precision and power generation training that kata practice can provide.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 03:44 AM

Butterfly, while I certainly do not think kata is neccessary for fighting skills, I do think it is neccessary for karate. If you don't do kata it's not karate. Doesn't mean it's bad, but you have no syllabus to speak of unless you make up your own one or 2 man drills, in which case you have kata, and if you personally have these, then i'd say you have kata.

Kata are not quaint tradition or calisthenics (sp?) or anything like that, and anyone who says this really doesn't get what the purpose of kata is.

Most Jujutsu styles I've seen have a list of paired waza referred to as kata, it really shouldn't be much different with karate kata, other than the fact that there is a solo performance element.

Naturally because alot of people don't get what kata is about, the solo performance/moving meditation aspect has been given central stage in many dojo, but I can say from personal experience that this attitude seems to be changing.

My view is anytime you create a drill with repeating components to illustrate a certain principle or technique, and add it to your syllabus, functionally (don't know about it in terms of Japanese langauge usage) you essentially are using kata.

Posted by: harlan

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 07:20 AM

'Kata is a vehicle.' Just pointing out that phrase...as I think it is the most relevant aspect of 'the value of kata.' A simplistic analogy is comparing kata to a car. A car gets you from point A to point B...and if you have to you can run someone over with it. LOL! Some people love their cars...get obsessed with the details. How it looks, how powerful the engine is, the value of it or brand name, etc. Some people practically worship their cars, and have a lot of ego invested in it. Some collect them, and like to show off how many they own. Some only care about the functionality of it. 'Will it get me where I want to go and is it dependable?'

Reminds me of the Constable's sarcastic retort to the Dauphin in Henry V. On the eve of a battle, the Dauphin goes on and on about how wonderful his horse is, to which the Constable replies in deep sarcasm: "Indeed, my lord, it is a most absolute and excellent...horse."

But 'vehicle' alludes to much more. It is specifically stated by the last generation that kata is meant to be more. It was designed to offer more. You can take or leave the philosophical aspects that these teachers point out, but I believe that the stricture, that 'there is no karate with kata', points directly to the intent to offer more than a collection of techniques to run people over with.

Kata is a vehicle. The journey is up to the individual.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 09:20 AM

Quote:

Butterfly, while I certainly do not think kata is neccessary for fighting skills,

I think some kata are neccesary for some fighting skills. The mechanics should be in there. But not everbody fights the same way. But the kata has to be the kind that hasnt been changed that much that the skills/ mechanics can hardly be taken from them. Which does happen.

Quote:

I do think it is neccessary for karate. If you don't do kata it's not karate.

I cant realy follow that. Butterflys karate is karate.
Butterfly uses roundhouse are they in trad kata?
I think they are.
Should open a can of worms
Hundreds of people do kata for no other reason than grades or competition.

Quote:

Doesn't mean it's bad, but you have no syllabus to speak of unless you make up your own one or 2 man drills, in which case you have kata, and if you personally have these, then i'd say you have kata.

Yes perhaps it can be termed kata but not tradional kata. I think the address I posted contained a form of kata. But that isnt trad kata. Can two man drills be classed as kata?

Quote:

Kata are not quaint tradition or calisthenics (sp?) or anything like that, and anyone who says this really doesn't get what the purpose of kata is.

It depends on the (trad?) kata and how much people have messed about with it. I now study/ practice trad kata. I think what people miss is that on this forum there are people who do realy know their stuff.
There are those who teach/ train from trad kata as a vehicle because they know the contents of their kata.
There are those who train / teach not from trad kata as a vehicle.
Although I guess some techniques/ principles trained had already been removed from trad kata at some time.

So Butterflys karate is still termed karate

Those are my thoughts based on limited kata study.

Jude

Posted by: hedkikr

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 12:04 PM

Butterfly...I thought that Ashihara developed fighting kata. These are not representative or abstract techniques but literal techniques w/ characteristic footwork that identify your style's concepts.

BTW...who said Round-kick is in kata? To the best of my knowledge, there are no Round-kicks in traditional kata. Some styles have a Round-kick from the floor in Unsu in lieu of a side/back kick but I can't say if that was the original kick. To the best of my knowledge, the Round-kick was a relatively new addition to karate.

Can someone shed light?

Thanks

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 12:08 PM

Med wrote this:

Quote:

It is just that Ashihara's fighting priciples are different from that of okinawan karate (as seen in their heavy use of high roundhouse kicks and such)

And ZZ wrote:

Quote:

If you don't do kata it's not karate.

So again this revolves around a definition of kata. And Medulant, feel free to not be "too" considerate.

I can take a verbal punch or two.

What's lacking is the emphasis on which kata; and if anyone can make kata, does it have as much merit or the same merit as the traditional kata that many an Okinawan traditionlist will proselytize about.

If these traditional kata are held in as much reverence as I have been made aware of, why the changes from style to style and system to system? And then why not one or two Pan-Kata that hold primacy across the kata playing field that appear exactly the same, and losing the other less capable ones?

In essence, if kata is as maleable as some mention and are given as nebulous a description as "made" two-man drills, then one can say boxing has kata and is karate by this definition. Which, btw, I would be happy to include by opening up this definition for its acceptance.

The question still points to a barometer of use. If one studies kata, then one studies karate. But nowhere in that description is acknowledgment of utility. If use and application are the goals, then it should matter less how one gets there, even if you don't study kata. If one punches well or can perform a take down, then it hardly matters how profound a consideration of kata that helped or hindered one in this practice, but how well you applied what you have learned.

My point is that if kata is the exclusive, inextricable tool by which learning is processed in karate, you give no inclusion to those who study kata well and perform badly in application. The answer has always been that they didn't understand the kata well enough, or their practice was insubstantial. This always circumscribes the answer to a function of the winner's circle. This leaves it in the same realm as an Olympic medalist runner who must train better since he won the race, but not including his running mates on his team who received the exact same education, but did not win. Within applications of figting, on the other hand, one can watch a boxer or a MMAist and can see functionality without the claim for traditional kata. So this still leaves me ambivalent about kata as an important tool to train for use, since functional use doesn't necessarily need kata. And for some who practice kata, their functional use is questionable.

Just thoughts.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 12:39 PM

Quote:

Butterfly...I thought that Ashihara developed fighting kata. These are not representative or abstract techniques but literal techniques w/ characteristic footwork that identify your style's concepts.

BTW...who said Round-kick is in kata? To the best of my knowledge, there are no Round-kicks in traditional kata. Some styles have a Round-kick from the floor in Unsu in lieu of a side/back kick but I can't say if that was the original kick. To the best of my knowledge, the Round-kick was a relatively new addition to karate.

Can someone shed light?

Thanks

From my limited student studies in to certain trad kata.
There are hidden techniques in trad kata.
The trad kata has to be practiced as near to the original as
can be done. I fnd this in some cases isnt done.
There are no high kicks in trad karate.
There are endless techniques in trad kata and I doubt(could be wrong in this one I am still a student) if there is anything new in karate. Different heigth in some cases maybe, but not new.

Butterfly uses high/medium/low round house kicks
Round house kicks are in trad karate kata.
His karate is karate. With or with out trad kata.
Tomari te shuri te and nahe te all have kata.

Jude

Posted by: Dobbersky

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 12:49 PM

Sensei, Sempai and Kohai

I actually agree with everyone here and I can understand why you conclude you replies. I believe though that sometimes we forget what it is we are discussing, as such, Kata is just a serious of moves placed together to create a form. For example if you didn't practice Traditional Kata but you put all the Ippon Kumites, Sanbon Kumites etc together, does this then not create a kata, thus Kata is always present in Karate.

It doesn't stop with Karate, there are forms in all styles of Martial arts. There are even forms in Krav Maga and KFM and Systema (they're not know as kata, but they are kata nethertheless).

This is just my view especially coming from tradtional and Modern styles of Karate.

Osu

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 12:55 PM

Quote:

Within applications of figting, on the other hand, one can watch a boxer or a MMAist and can see functionality without the claim for traditional kata. So this still leaves me ambivalent about kata as an important tool to train for use, since functional use doesn't necessarily need kata. And for some who practice kata, their functional use is questionable.

Just thoughts.

Hi Butterfly.
I am afraid I have to dissagree. I am a novice in comparison to some who have studied bonifide trad karate kata.

Your karate is karate. Good karate.

MMA and boxing have rules. Some real trad kata has nasty things in it. Breaking/smashing fingers is one of them. I am sure this was used on a MMA fighter by a certain Japanese gentleman to begin a seriouse of techniques which ended up in the other guys ribs being broken

I will have to get the video and look again

All due respect Butterfly if you dont know what is in there then I am not sure trad kata can be critisced
I dont know any where near a vast amount yet. But from what I do know it cant realy be critiscised.

Jude.

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 01:34 PM

Jude,

You may be right about my exposure to traditional kata. I have seen it and have even practiced it a time or two, but you may also be making the same mistake that you have criticized me for, which is a valid point.

BTW, my contention isn’t that kata doesn’t hold these virtues everyone lauds them for, or that they don’t give something to someone. My point is that they aren’t “necessarily necessary” for derived skill and ability. And that further, there may be other, better ways to do the same thing. Also, there is a reverse consideration here of assuming that the abilities that you ascribe to kata are not present in those who practice in and for boxing or MMA events. The defining element in this case is the active application and the delivery system of their techniques. In other words, dirty techniques that you have taken from kata….but may find that you can’t apply due to the effectiveness of your adversary or opponent, will not mean much. And by the way, no one does neck breaks or knee breaks "for realz" in sparring. So how you learn to do something is as important or more so, than just learning a catalog of techniques that you haven’t been able to prove effective in some light against an adversary. Meaning, bringing an opponent to a point where active application of that "dirty" technique can be accomodated or not by the intellectual decision of applying it.

If you have never tried to apply your techniques against these folks (boxers and MMAists), you may have a surprise about how well you can apply what you think you can apply. I don’t say this casually, I am very earnest about this from my own experience and ignorance. Karate, as Med has pointed out previously, should be applicable across all fronts, and not necessarily against just those inexperienced brawlers who might take a dislike to you. And I'll be honest here, my karate is not formatted well against a ground game. I have holes in what I know. I, and the karate that I practice, is not perfect....but I still like it well enought to train it.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 01:48 PM

Butterfly

This argument could go back and forth.
The ground game I cover with ju jitsu practice seems to read like old stlye judo. They train stand up using boxing and mauy thai kicks. No kata.
and no one wears a belt or gi.

I just do the grappling training with them. Because I can learn stuff.

I know what your saying about restistance training.
Either ways its early days. I like the stuff I get from trad kata. I see stuff in there. I think the path is the right one

Jude

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 01:54 PM

Quote:

So again this revolves around a definition of kata. And Medulant, feel free to not be "too" considerate. I can take a verbal punch or two.

What's lacking is the emphasis on which kata; and if anyone can make kata, does it have as much merit or the same merit as the traditional kata that many an Okinawan traditionlist will proselytize about.

Anyone can make kata yes, but the traditional kata
in karate, and the quan or whatever in chinese styles etc, have been around a long time and are likely the work of many people over time, I'm not sure it's possible to have the same level of depth when you create your own kata on the fly.

That said, i'm very impressed with styles like ashihara karate, and generally I think their kata, whether one or 2 man seems to be very good at accomplising what I assume it sets out to do. Point is you probably do something I would consider kata, whether you term it as that or not.

Quote:

If these traditional kata are held in as much reverence as I have been made aware of, why the changes from style to style and system to system? And then why not one or two Pan-Kata that hold primacy across the kata playing field that appear exactly the same, and losing the other less capable ones?

That is the subject of much debate in karate circles, however certain kata are generally given importance above others, i.e. sanchin in Goju and Naihanchin in Shorin, also it is standard practice (in my experience obviously) once one reaches a certain level to focus on one or two kata.

Quote:

In essence, if kata is as maleable as some mention and are given as nebulous a description as "made" two-man drills, then one can say boxing has kata and is karate by this definition. Which, btw, I would be happy to include by opening up this definition for its acceptance.

Just out of curiosity, if you eschew the traditional karate training methods, why on earth do you care whether or not "traditionalists" (I laugh that I find myself labeled as such in a discussion) consider what you do karate or something else? In the end I suppose the argument is kind of semantic.

Quote:

The question still points to a barometer of use. If one studies kata, then one studies karate. But nowhere in that description is acknowledgment of utility. If use and application are the goals, then it should matter less how one gets there, even if you don't study kata. If one punches well or can perform a take down, then it hardly matters how profound a consideration of kata that helped or hindered one in this practice, but how well you applied what you have learned.

My point is that if kata is the exclusive, inextricable tool by which learning is processed in karate, you give no inclusion to those who study kata well and perform badly in application. The answer has always been that they didn't understand the kata well enough, or their practice was insubstantial. This always circumscribes the answer to a function of the winner's circle. This leaves it in the same realm as an Olympic medalist runner who must train better since he won the race, but not including his running mates on his team who received the exact same education, but did not win. Within applications of figting, on the other hand, one can watch a boxer or a MMAist and can see functionality without the claim for traditional kata. So this still leaves me ambivalent about kata as an important tool to train for use, since functional use doesn't necessarily need kata. And for some who practice kata, their functional use is questionable.

Just thoughts.

Here is where you are not understanding, kata is a holistic training method, and it can and should include fuku-shiki kumite practice of kata application, obviously constant static performance of solo routines has limited utility. '

You are still stuck on the idea that kata training is just doing solo routines, this is incorrect. Again it is useful to compare what "kata" is in Judo and Jujutsu, it really should not be that different in karate minus that the 'syllabus' is not a list of techniques, but a solo form.

What I don't get is why you think what you do should be called karate proper, when you have decided to forgo karate training methods.

Do you use Chi-ishi, Kongoken or do traditional warm ups?
Speaking for myself, I am sure what you do is valid, and I will hazard a guess that you probably have more fighting skill than some "traditionalists", for me it is simply the fact that I am tired of the term 'karate' being used in such a generic manner. Simply having techniques that are karate-like doesn't make it karate, these can be found in martial arts all over the world.

Do you know any good Shorin people? If you do ask them to teach you some applications from Naihanchin, the kata itself is incredibly short and takes very little time to learn, it is also full of nice applications which are relatively simple, some of them I am sure you already do. If you really want to see why some people think kata is a good training tool that is my suggestion.

Posted by: Ironfoot

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 02:01 PM

Quote:

... But if kata is karate, then why the variations in kata? Why different kata? And so, depending upon differences, is one karate superior to the other because of that kata? ...

If "Of Mice and Men" is a great book on the human condition, why bother writing "Of Human Bondage", or "Atlas Shrugged"? Why are they slightly different, and is one superior to the others?

Or do they, and all their variations, have slightly different perspectives, making them worthwhile in their own right?

Also, when you say "if kata is karate, then why the variations?" Hell, if karate is karate, then why the variations??

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 03:14 PM

I don't have much time so I will address a few things now, and more later. As far as pro fighters not needing kata, that is an unproven statement. There are training methods people today use that were not used 30 years ago. So to go back 30 years ago and say that a pro boxer did not need some of the modern training methods we see today would be an incorrect statement, especially because a boxer from 30 years ago may have been able to benefit from training methods of today. Just because someone does not use a training method does not mean that it will not improve their skill. It simply means they are not using them. There will be training methods used 10 years from now that are not in use today. Just because they are not being used today does not mean they have no value to those who do not use them.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 03:38 PM

Quote:

Just because someone does not use a training method does not mean that it will not improve their skill. It simply means they are not using them. There will be training methods used 10 years from now that are not in use today. Just because they are not being used today does not mean they have no value to those who do not use them.

Med -

The simple fact that modern fighters are NOT using kata would seem to indicate that other methods are more useful or efficient. It is a fact that athletes nowadays have much more (and more reliable) info at their disposal than ever before. To try to make an analogy about the perceived usefulness of training methods that someone may or may not be aware of is questionable. They ARE aware of much more today than they were, so they could use things from the past.

The fact that they choose not to speaks volumes to me.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 03:56 PM

Can we please not turn this into the same old MMA vs. TMA debate? We will never come to any points of agreement if the conversation goes in that direction.

Competitive fighters do something altogether different than TMA, and without needing to go into detail, yes they do not need kata. This however, has no bearing on whether or not kata is a good training tool for traditional karate (however we choose to define it) or whether or not butterfly's kata-less art should or should not count as karate proper.

BTW the few times i've seen the inside of an MMA gym I saw people training in a way that is not altogether different than what goes on in some (though obviously not all) traditional dojos, the whole argument of sport vs. art is a useless one to get into and it leads to dead ends and name calling.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 04:32 PM

Well Matt, the fact that most MMA/UFC guys seem to prefer to lay on their backs and get pummelled rather than standing up speaks volumes to me. Even when one of the greatest, Randy Couture, preaches against this very tactic. If you close your guard you ain't getting back up, period. MMA is the pinnacle of MAs to some, not to me. Everytime I watch it I see what amounts to poor fighting strategy. There are some which are on their game such as Anderson Silva, Rampage, Couture, St. Pierre, Matt Hughes, and Fedor who fight to dominate, not survive until the next round. My own training speaks volumes to me and what I have seen being passed of as good fighting skill, strategy, and principles is sometimes laughable. Like in any professional sport many "pros" use their athletic ability to get by and make money, not necessarily sound fighting. Fedor has used a sports psychologist for years, yet St. Pierre JUST got one last year after he lost to Serra? You are right, there are more tools available now than ever, but many don't use the right ones to succeed.

Now, back to the topic.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 04:47 PM

Quote:

Can we please not turn this into the same old MMA vs. TMA debate? We will never come to any points of agreement if the conversation goes in that direction.

I agree.
The style of Ashi hari that Butterfly trains is karate .Good karate.

From my limited kata study.
I cant see the point of not calling it karate. That would be like saying thousands of people dont practice real karate.

Because although there is kata in their curriculem some dont have a use for it other than grades and competition.

Some of the kata/ forms are seemingly so far removed from the original its a best guess as to what their intention is.

The fact that certain people dont know the techniques in kata ( this includes some trad types) does not mean that techniques in kata cant be used effectively in self defence.

But in the main if everybody knew all the decent techniques taken from kata then there would be no point in kata study.
It would then be purely kata practice and application.

In certain kata the techniques were hidden. Well hidden.
So well hidden that they are hard to find. Add to that some people meddling with certain kata means very little chance of finding them.

So then it is down to study.

Footnote.
I wasnt refering to unsu with the roundhouse kick.
It is in trad kata.

Jude

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 05:13 PM

Butterfly, I believe I said that in okinawan karate it is more about the principles contained in kata than the kata itself. If you have kata without the principles then it is not karate.

You also speak about non functional kata practitioners. Then you point to Boxers and MMA guys who are functional. I hope you are not comparing pro fighters/trainers to weekend warriors and over glorified daycare specialists. What if I took a cardio kick boxer enthusiast and pointed to that individual's inability to defeat a karate man who was a pro fighter? Would kick boxing then be said to be useless? Oh, that's right, cardio kick box class is different from "real" boxing/kick boxing. Interesting.

The bottom line is that kata training is more than solo performance just as sparring is more than going full blast all the time. Just as Jeet Kune Do guys with the initials J.K. can relate aliveness and sparring and talk about drills with pads, situational sparring, and varying resistance, etc. why does kata have to only include solo performance. That is like saying boxing training only includes shadow boxing. It sounds silly, doesn't it? Oh, I forgot, a 10th Dan Soke Hanshi Shihan Kaicho Professor said it and that makes it so. All I know is this, in 1990 my instructor told us he was training us how Nagamine trained him. We did conditioning to increase both strength and explosive power, we did body conditioning to toughen up the forearms, hands, shins, and feet. We did two man drills with progressive resistance. We did joint locks and throws in those drills with resistance so that we could make them work on people who didn't want to be put on the ground. Then we did kumite. Not for points but continuous fighting with no rules other than take it easy on those who could not take it hard. Then we did solo kata practice for maybe the last 10 or 15 minutes of a 1 1/2 to 2 hour class. Maybe 20 minutes on a good day. Now, my instructor was a good teacher and karate man, however, he did not have the knowledge to explain properly what was taught to him and why we were doing what we were doing. How the conditioning, drils, and fighting related to our kata practice. In addition, we did meditation before and after class. Not too long, maybe 5 minutes, but this too was related to the kata training. He did, however, always tell us that most of our training was kata training. How can most of our training be kata training if we only did solo kata practice for the last 20 minutes of a 1 1/2 to 2 hour class? This is total being training. It is to promote health and focus as well, things a fighter needs as well as a good punch.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 06:17 PM

kata or no kata, I think the 80/20 ratio is a good one: 80% 2-person drills, 20% solo/isolation drills.

where and what people use to inspire what those particular drills are to be, is a function of the quality of instruction...not a function of whether those drills are inspired from kata.

it would seem hypocritical for a karateka to openly accept looking to and incorporating certain Traditional Chinese art aspects in order for them to be inspired into deeper study of their art, all the while feeling completely justified to maintain what they are doing is Karate. YET, if someone wishes to look towards and incorporate other arts into their Karate study for inspiration such as Muay Thai, BJJ, Jeet Kun Do or 'non-traditional' 'non-kata' practices, then suddenly they are no longer doing what can be considered 'Karate'??

That seems rediculously limited.

IMO, kata does not define Karate - kata is a training method within karate. 'Karate' is only a nationalized construct in order to describe the striking/grappling art from Okinawa influenced from China, which was largely formalized and framed with the Japanese Budo system. Ashihara or any other non-kata system which bases it's inspiration from Okinawan/Japanese striking arts falls squarely in that definition. If TKD wasn't nationalized to be it's own name, then it too would be 'Karate'.

for many, it's the kata of their karate which defines their art's shape, and they will stick to that - regardless of whether or not that shape has been deformed, formalized or mechanized. seems too narrow of a definition to me....especially in an art that has always been changing.

I think only by allowing for a wider definition of what an art's shape can take and still be their art, will people have a better sense of what their art is and can be personally to them.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 06:50 PM

Ok so i've come to the conclusion that whether or not we term butterfly's karate as karate is semantic, i'm still not particularly comfortable with the generic usage of the term, but I suppose an expansive defnition is usually better than a limited one.

However, I still stand by my suggestion that you should find a good teacher, learn one kata, learn some apps from it, train them for a while, then see how you feel about kata.

Posted by: harlan

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 06:52 PM

Just for clarification...is this addressed to Butterfly, Ed, anyone? Thanks.

Quote:

However, I still stand by my suggestion that you should find a good teacher, learn one kata, learn some apps from it, train them for a while, then see how you feel about kata.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 06:58 PM

Sorry, the suggestion was addressed to butterfly.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 07:28 PM

Quote:

Ok so i've come to the conclusion that whether or not we term butterfly's karate as karate is semantic, i'm still not particularly comfortable with the generic usage of the term, but I suppose an expansive defnition is usually better than a limited one.

However, I still stand by my suggestion that you should find a good teacher, learn one kata, learn some apps from it, train them for a while, then see how you feel about kata.

Hi
My thoughts.

I think with all due respect there is no debate.

Butterfly practices karate .

Jude is politely wishing to end that conversation.

Jude is now off soap box.

If I can find the videos of him (Butterfly) teaching and he is ok with it I will post them.
This guy is good.

Jude.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 07:58 PM

Great, I would like to see them, however that wouldn't add or subtract anything from the conversation, no one is accusing him of not being skilled at what he does.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 09:10 PM

Quote:

Sorry, the suggestion was addressed to butterfly.

Quote:

However, I still stand by my suggestion that you should find a good teacher, learn one kata, learn some apps from it, train them for a while, then see how you feel about kata.

Shouldn't you see butterfly's karate BEFORE making that statement? I think you would retract it.

Some think my karate is not karate and I have said that kata is the foundation of karate and karate without kata is not karate. I now retract that statement entirely.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 09:19 PM

No, why would I retract it? It's not an insulting statement in any way shape or form, I already mentioned that it wouldn't surprise me if butterfly has fighting skills to meet or exceed alot of traditionalists, that doesn't mean that kata is useless to him.

Honestly it sounds like what he has been exposed thus far as far as kata training goes is very sub-par, and he therefore rejected it, probably rightfully so. However, there are people out there teaching some great stuff for any karateka from traditional kata, and I really don't get why someone who wants to do karate proper would throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

The arguemnt has had nothing to do with the quality of what butterfly does, just the naming and category.

Posted by: Victor Smith

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 10:06 PM

Believe me the fundamental issue isn't semantics, just words whose definations don't mean much and can meanings can shift as readily as marrigae can mean new things in todays world.

No it's essentially dominance, to prove a point take control of the words.

Karate as it developed on Okinawa always had kata. The arts that developed on Okinawan without kata practice didn't use the term karate, they chose to use different terms.

Then a piece of the Okinawan arts was exported to Japan, and almost instantly the Japanese began to re-define the terms to mean what they wanted them to mean, so karate became karate.

It was about 30 years ago I saw what the modern use of terms was becoming. Kempo called itself karate. Tae Kwon Do called it self karate. As there was no brand copywright anyone did what they wished. Bill Wallace didn't like kata, so he droped them and pushed karate without kata as one small example.

The fact was nobody cared, whatever hastly generalization anyone wanted to use became their right.

The only rational answer I was was to drop the use of karate, and 30 years ago I choose to use an older term Funakohsi written about, and my schools program became Bushi No Te Isshinryu, not Isshinryu Karate. Having used that name for 30 years I'm not changing but today I'd probably just call it Isshinryu and forget the rest.

All of these discussions fall in the same line of misuse of language. I mean absolutely no disrepect, but defining 'real'fighters as those who have dropped kata and are using modern methods is just moving the discussion away from the reality of different traiing methods.

So what real fighters means, what kata means (and actually it's dozens and dozens of different approaches to training, not just one or two answers, and each of them having an entirely different reality.

Of course a few years ago the Okinawn's held their latest World Karate Championships and specifically chose not to have any 'fighting' involved and focused only on kata.

Now as they created karate who has a better right to define it.

It is a lousy waste of our time and efforts to misuse language. A better way to communiate has to be found than the dominance games of logic that take place.

We have tons of Great practitionsers on myriad arts here. Why not find a way to make that work instead of pulling up the same old definitions discussion.

Of course the really nice thing about teaching bushi no te is that almost none of you are qualified to know what I am doing. That is what the original traditions were anyways, keep technical language to a minimum so others couldn't grab it and use it against you.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 11:11 PM

I wonder...was there any Okinawan Te kata? 'Toudi' was surely influenced from Chinese forms. and to confuse matters, the term toudi/tode and te were all used interchangably for an overlapping time....prior to it's 'official' recognized rename to Karate at the start of the 20th C. no one can really say for sure in any detail of the training method used.

but had it not been for those 20th c. changes, Te might well have died alongside tegumi. albeit sacrifical changes whenever a folk art gets put into mass-production.

not directed at you Victor, just some thoughts...

so apparently some fundamental changes are accepted, but others are not. Is an XMAists doing Seiunchin to music considered karate? hey, they train kata right... so it fits the description. XMAists do karate forms so it must be karate they are doing.

take away the intent, increase the range, mechanize and formalize the art into an aerobic exercise for visual entertainment...but as long as they keep kata then they can fall into the karate category. however, keep out the non-kata self-defense full-contact non-sporting oriented practitioners, they can't be karate since they don't maintain it's modern traditions and/or form-based training method. anyone see how that kinda doesn't make sense?

I wonder if Karate/Toudi/Te is to be defined by it's purpose (intent), or by it's practice (appearance) ...

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/10/07 11:41 PM

Quote:

however, keep out the non-kata self-defense full-contact non-sporting oriented practitioners, they can't be karate since they don't maintain it's modern traditions and/or form-based training method. anyone see how that kinda doesn't make sense?

Ed, you're not calling Ashihara karate non-sporting and strictly self defense karate are you? If we are getting rid of the "useless" kata training, then please, lets do the same for non contact mile away punches to downed opponents.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 09:53 AM

???
sometimes I wonder if people even read before responding.

did I say kata was useless? did I mention any art specifically? or maybe I was addressing in general about how 'karate' could be defined.

but you bring up an interesting point - are you saying point-spar sport karate with kata can be considered karate, yet non-sport, self-defense, non-kata is not considered karate even if the techniques draw from Okinawan/Japanese arts...according to you?

not that it matters how anyone tries to define something for all, but just curious.

I think training solo kata as visual entertainment or hollow aerobic exercise is further from 'karate' than a non-kata 2-person drill based art...or even a non-kata full-contact sport. but thats just my opinion.

Posted by: CVV

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 10:28 AM

I still keep to the idea that kata are central in the study of karate. Towards functionality in fighting the study should be conducted.
But if somebody studies kata only for tournament purpose he/she is not studying the essence of karate.
Somebody only studying for kumite (sport or not) he/she is not studying the essence of karate.
The essence in my opinion is 3-fold, without limitation in age, sex, race, ... :
- a means of SD
- physical and spiritual health
- character building
Sometimes temporary goals can be strived like tournaments or grades or being the best fighter of the dojo/organzation etc... But regarding lifetime commitment I fall back to kata, how I can perform them at different times and how I can adjust them in performance and application in the span of time I can train, so I can use techniques with effect.
To better understand the nature of fighting and the application of offensive and defensive techniques found in kata, I have also studied or still study kobudo, muay thai, aikido, ju jitsu, ....
This reevaluation through training sets me back to the base wich is kata. Whether this base is wide or narrow does not matter that much as long as you are happy with it's evolution. But this base can also limit your knowledge.
The research in the techniques from kata can again widen it.
But this is no instant way to techniques you can use in fighting. Leaving out the research and just do partner drills learned from others or creating drills from basic techniques or from actual fighting experience is fine by me but is not in line with the tradition of karate as it is known from the beginning of the 20th century.
Kyokushinkai is kata based and has a very wide kata base.
But as some styles emphesize kata solo exercise training from the beginning, others emphesize jyu kumite from the beginning.
We emphesize contact training from the beginning (at least for adolescents and adults) so they are not stunned when they get hit. But it took me 15 years to learn just the performance of the 12 kata of goju-ryu. The research in the application will take me a lifetime and more. And beside the knowledge I can build myselve I have the guidance of others before me. The common factor to exchang this knowledge is the kata and it's related exercises.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 10:42 AM

Victor, CVV, Ironfoot, BrianS and others are on the thread and Ed and Medulant seem to be having a disagreement.

There will be valid points on the thread in the foreseeable future.

Dictionary website at the ready!

Jude

I can predict/forecast points for further research.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 11:17 AM

Looks like the founder of Ashihara created his own kata?
Self defence kata included.
Unless I missed something?

Jude

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 12:13 PM

Jude (et al),

To be honest, some of the forms that were created by the founder of Ashihara were pretty crappy too, IMO, and had political or agenda driven reasons behind several of them.

I don't really practice these either. We are vested in some aspects of sport derived techniques....and I think in a good way... where some punching and kicking come from boxing and MT. But there is still, for me, a karate flavoring to these in the instruction and in the performance of techniques that don't translate well from wearing gloves to open hand. And these include grabbing and throwing. And, I will further state that I can't guarantee the quality of any other dojo or school that professes the same name as the one on the window where I practice. So my thoughts are my own coming from my training and experience with the instructors that I had.

In any case, I understand the points made by those earnest about their kata studies. My contention is somewhat the inverse of what Medulant put up. That there have been those who studied kata and forewent this route to wrap themselves more in the world where application and drilling application were done sans their extraction from kata. And the conclusion from the kata camp has always been that they did not have proper kata instruction to go this route...for who could find problems with kata training if they were properly instructed?

I have personally noted a few examples of someone who trained in traditional styles but who then left these behind, however I have never seen someone from an application camp (ie boxer, MTer, etc) engage in active study of a kata-centric style for extracting use.

And again, I am not saying that kata is meritless (especially for those who enjoy this endeavor), but that it may not be the best or most efficient way of transmitting utility to the practitioner if that is the intent of the student's study. But if this is the way you like to take your medicine, then go for it. My posts were directed from my lines of thought with respect to the article presented and have welcomed all who posit otherwise with good argument. These are just a vantage for looking at the article presented by MAGON (which I happen to agree with more than not...but you guys are already got that part

LOL ).

And as far as what CVV stated about health, and SD, and all the associated ancillary benefits ascribed to traditional martial arts, well these are there at BJJ studios and MMAs clubs as well. They just don't have the formality which colors much of the activities that traditionalists enjoy.

In any case, we will probably always end up agreeing to disagree, but as a side note, perhaps for those with less experience, it might be prudent for them to never take for granted what is being stated to them. To question their training, in good and profound ways, and to make decisions more based on experience than taking for granted what is said. At least that is one of the benefits to these on-going battles for and against kata.

-Brad

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 12:30 PM

Hi.

I have seen you strutting your stuff on you tube.

Your karate is karate. It is named karate and it is karate.
Interesting that the karate ka of the 50's with kata got beat by thai boxers. Looks like they didint train in the correct manner or study the principles in kata?

Your style has kata if you apply it or not.

I have just been looking at some photos of some tasty techniques done by the founder. I think they will be in a bonifide trad kata somewhere. But I would need better information than just a few photos to research them.

You have your views on trad kata and I can see your points.
But your karate is still termed karate.

Jude

Posted by: hedkikr

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 12:56 PM

As a kata practitioner, I posed a question (a long time ago): "Is kata archaic?". Putting aside the other benefits, I stated that in the past, when DVD's weren't available, kata was a key ingredient in transmitting knowledge. Other cultures have related their histories through chants, hunting methods through dance & way of life through wall paintings. They didn't have the technology of film, tape & digital media.

I stated that if the passage of knowledge was all that kata was for, it is archaic but I happen to believe that the other features define & round-out my form of MA.

I compare kata-centric MA & non-kata MA to 2 restaurants that serve the same food...one is basic while the other adds "ambiance" (music, lighting, artwork, etc.)...no better / no worse.

Posted by: Victor Smith

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 01:57 PM

Butterfly,

The way I see it in today's commercial world different sorts of arts attract different sorts of students.

For someone who wants to 'fight' ASAP, there are arts focused on that, though the recent law suit lost by a Vancouver Kung Fu instructor for messing up his students leg, might give some programs more pause about fighting as the real result will always be court.

Commercially all sorts of schools might claim anything, but if an instructor is honest, and anyone else should not be teaching and is always a sign for a student to leave immeidately, they should explain the program and the pace at which skill will be developed.

IMO the correct use of forms (kata, kune, etc) dicates the student never spends one instant trying to work out the applications. Instead the instructor should be completely in charge to develop the student through the application potential studies, and effect their abilty to use them.

The full range, leg breaks, arm breaking or fracturing, neck wrenching, full body striking, projection and locking as well as a whole lto more should fully be expored, when the student potnetial has been so developed.

I'm slightly prejudiced because I've experienced this from an Okinawna, Japanese, Chinese and Indonesian points of forms training.

I've never seen karate was a quick study. Of course in my day it was so 'hard' most quit instantly and only those who could take it stayed long enough to learn anything. While that was a older approach to training, if you need to focus on short term return in an art that is a necessity.

But if someone wants a shorter answer than what you teach, you owe it to them to direct them to where they can find what they're looking for.

Of course I'm not looking for students, they have to really seek my program out, and even with long training they still start at the beginning, the only way to correctly learn the tools I'm using.

I doubt it's ever been one size fits all.

BTW, today arts from other places (kickboxing, Kyokushinkai, etc. are also taught on Okinawan along with the native Karate systems and Sumo.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 02:28 PM

Quote:

???
sometimes I wonder if people even read before responding.

did I say kata was useless? did I mention any art specifically? or maybe I was addressing in general about how 'karate' could be defined.

but you bring up an interesting point - are you saying point-spar sport karate with kata can be considered karate, yet non-sport, self-defense, non-kata is not considered karate even if the techniques draw from Okinawan/Japanese arts...according to you?

not that it matters how anyone tries to define something for all, but just curious.

I think training solo kata as visual entertainment or hollow aerobic exercise is further from 'karate' than a non-kata 2-person drill based art...or even a non-kata full-contact sport. but thats just my opinion.

Ed, the useless was aimed at what I believed was an implication that kata was useless in developing fighting skill. I am sorry if I was wrong, maybe you do believe it is useful for this. And, I don't believe I ever said that point sparring plus kata performance equalled an effective karateka. Now, as for the non kata full contact sport are we talking about the head kicking no face punching very limited grappling full contact sports? Ed, as far as kumite the three levels of what I would consider karate kumite are valuable ways of training. However, they are not complete. When used in conjunction with the proper intent and different strategy other than winning a tournament they can train a very effective fighter. However, those three combined are not enough and there are other ways to train that can create a complete karateka. You seem to be saying its an either or deal. Either kata or full contact fighting. Actually, okinawan karate contains MANY different training methods to create an effective fighter. I try not to limit myself. But that's me.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 03:19 PM

I'm leaving 'effective' out of the argument. this was started as a discussion of what karate is or isn't.

and the only either-or is: either we each use kata as a part of our training method or we do not. personally, I do use kata as a training method. but my argument is that the choice for kata or not, does not define (in my eyes) whether or not something is defined as karate.

but if your only criteria is whether or not they do kata that looks okinawan, then thats your choice.

personally I feel 90% of what people label 'karate' (they label it as such apparently just because they memorized a sequence of movements to okinawan kata) doesn't approach a fraction of the amount of karate I saw in Brad's 'non-karate' practice.

but whats in a name anyway.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 03:52 PM

Quote:

In any case, we will probably always end up agreeing to disagree, but as a side note, perhaps for those with less experience, it might be prudent for them to never take for granted what is being stated to them. To question their training, in good and profound ways, and to make decisions more based on experience than taking for granted what is said.

Excellent point.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 03:53 PM

Yes Ed, but that is assuming those 90% are labeling their art correctly. When people talk about karate "for da realz" they are talking about this 90% that you are referring to not really practicing karate. I don't think anyone here is saying that by simply performing a kata's sequence that that is all that is needed to practice karate. And by karate I don't mean the daycare or kardio karate, but karate as an effective system of self preservation and fighting.

Posted by: Ironfoot

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 03:54 PM

Hedkicker asks "Is kata archaic?". Maybe it is, but I'm more concerned with the ART of Okinawan karate than being some killing machine, so I MUST know kata, or it really isn't "traditional" (Damn, I hate that term) karate.

Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 03:56 PM

I encountered once a historical Karate research group who only defined Karate as Shorin/Shuri-te derivatives. Goju/Uechi etc didn't cut it.

On the value of kata:

Kata practice I believe is a far more elegant and practical solution to the problem of archiving what is and is not included in an art than any DVD.

First I shall detestosterone this post and relate it back to Mr Redmonds article: Kata practice is practicing the performamce of the kata. End of. Everything else, all the bunkai, the two person drills etc are kata "inspired" practice. Just doing kata is what I am refering to here. Now kata performance can be practiced with a number of different intents most of which are nothing to do with sport, but that's not really important.

I believe that the greatest value in the doing of kata is in the begining stages of the karateka's training. As I said, kata to me is an archive of what is and is not present within a particular karate system in terms of techniques and it acts as a guide to the strategies of that system. However in practicing the kata the students begins to have their movements stylised into the movement habits of the system being learned. Also the kata acts as a holistic aerobic exercise that when repeated in high volume develops muscle memory and creates fighting fitness (stamina that lets you keep punching in a fight).
Later down the line kata study keeps the students mind in the art, continuing to develop creativity within the fighter, and it can act as meditation/exercise or just fun.

It is only one aspect of training, but its all-weather and will last as long as you do, unlike most DVD players.

For me though the key to keeping classical kata lies in the value of what is contained in them. In modern times it has become popular to fight in one way, hence the notion that true/original karate is close quarter, and also to grab anything that looks good and incorporate it.
Kata for the most part shows us individual systems of fighting:
Deep study of the principles of any one kata or group of kata will give a unique and almost universally applicable fighting method that may have nothing to do with the kick boxing that seems to be regarded as the only way to fight these days, a phenomenon that seems to have occured for exactly the same reasons that karate lost its focus on kata application study in the first place.

Part of the reason I started my own thread on why individuals continue to practice kata was to ascertain why, if karate's fighting methods were as un-unique as general concensus seems to show, i,e, endless vids of karateka kickboxing and groundfighting or practicing yellow belt jujutsu and calling it bunkai, then why keep with karate (kata being karate's prime signiture and yet its most contested point as far as training effectiveness and efficiency arguments)?

Anyway, I'm rambling now. Ultimately we aren't going to war, we train because we enjoy it and if we enjoy kata as physical or mental exercise then it is valuable.

Posted by: Usenthemighty

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/11/07 11:44 PM

Yea I did not bother to read the post because, this is an never end argument. Kata is useless:I'm just gonna throw that out there. Someone on this forum, whom shall not be named, tried to tell me that in Heian Yodan, a practitioner is not doing a neck clinch and a knee strike. Although, I bet 400$ if anyone saw that practitioner do that move which they did in that kata to someone in a spar they would say, " Hey he just did a neck clinch and a knee strike thats not karate." Even tho the kid was doing exactly what he did in Heian Yodan. However, that was not suppose to be a knee strike; the kata makers were just making movements to fill in the kata to make it look cool. Anway kata useless quit doing it and just spar.

Posted by: hedkikr

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 12:13 AM

5 yrs of Shotokan & you have all the answers

(how much longer is this thread going to go on?)

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 12:58 AM

Quote:

Yea I did not bother to read the post because, this is an never end argument. Kata is useless:I'm just gonna throw that out there. Someone on this forum, whom shall not be named, tried to tell me that in Heian Yodan, a practitioner is not doing a neck clinch and a knee strike. Although, I bet 400$ if anyone saw that practitioner do that move which they did in that kata to someone in a spar they would say, " Hey he just did a neck clinch and a knee strike thats not karate." Even tho the kid was doing exactly what he did in Heian Yodan. However, that was not suppose to be a knee strike; the kata makers were just making movements to fill in the kata to make it look cool. Anway kata useless quit doing it and just spar.

Sorry, kata isn't cool anymore. MMA is cool, sparring is cool, meaningless tats that cover your body are cool, weight divisions are cool,ufc is cool, and spouting meaningless nonsense about something you know little or nothing about on a forum is cool. Let's all be cool!!!

We are all inspiring to be ultimate fighters,we are all in our early 20's with no real responsibilities, we are all just in karate for the fighting experience,and kata is useless to us!!!

Get out of my forum,dork.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 01:13 AM

by the way I was only presenting a flip-side argument for fun. I secretly think kata is cool.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 02:23 AM

Quote:

by the way I was only presenting a flip-side argument for fun. I secretly think kata is cool.

I know. It was funny watching medulanet 'schooling' you on what kata is and isn't for and its' effectiveness.

Ed is a kata guy. I think he does some pretty decent kata from his videos.

Posted by: Stormdragon

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 04:25 AM

Quote:

Yea I did not bother to read the post because, this is an never end argument. Kata is useless:I'm just gonna throw that out there. Someone on this forum, whom shall not be named, tried to tell me that in Heian Yodan, a practitioner is not doing a neck clinch and a knee strike. Although, I bet 400$ if anyone saw that practitioner do that move which they did in that kata to someone in a spar they would say, " Hey he just did a neck clinch and a knee strike thats not karate." Even tho the kid was doing exactly what he did in Heian Yodan. However, that was not suppose to be a knee strike; the kata makers were just making movements to fill in the kata to make it look cool. Anway kata useless quit doing it and just spar.

What a fantastically well supported and thought out statement. We're all so much smarter now. Way to taint a genuinely interesting thread.

Posted by: CVV

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 07:09 AM

Quote:

I have personally noted a few examples of someone who trained in traditional styles but who then left these behind, however I have never seen someone from an application camp (ie boxer, MTer, etc) engage in active study of a kata-centric style for extracting use.

Well I have. But they did not continue this study after a year.
It's a good story and also explains how I got involved in muay thai. Most MT practitioners from my area that are borne in the seventies and before started at one point in karate and judo or ju jitsu because this was the only thing there was. From around 1990 MT became known in my area (Belgium/Holland). So, in that period there was a great blues/rock bar, run by 2 friends of mine. I was local discjockey. 2 customers whom I came to know pretty wel and I consider my friends were training MT at the time. They were a colorfull bunch and testosteron would fly regurly in the bar. At one time, we had a fight and I hit him to the floor. As it was a 'friendly' fight, no egoes were bruised, we decided to train at each others club to compare techniques. Although the experiment only lasted for a year, I retain the need for 'contact' training. From his side he learned that there is more than the boxing like hand techniques. But he also critiqued the kata study as a waist of good training time. It was to slow a training method to come to actual fighting ability. According to him it was better to learn a few techniques and train them through partner drills and free fighting into actual combat skills then to learn a myriad of techniques through kata and gradually learn how to apply them over the years.
Their training method allowed one to be 'ring' ready in half a year of 2-3 time a week training. The format was sport oriented.
However after all these years, I am still training and they all stopped training.
The karate training I know from the 80ies was structured more towards fighting, just because nobody knew all the kata (my teacher only knew a few kata) and nobody did bunkai. We only did gekisai-dai-ichi with partner and sanbon-kumite partner drills, wich at that time seemed not linked to kata (but does now), as far as kata related fighting study goes. The rest was more kickboxing like fighting, kihon drills and contact drills to toughen-up.
Nowadays kata has come more to the foreground as karate training in the 'traditional' styles, especially towards youth. But fighting is still on the agenda.

Posted by: Usenthemighty

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 07:54 AM

And I said I had all the answers when? What I have experienced, saying maybe somethings are as they seem, such as in kata sometimes a punch is just a punch.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 08:02 AM

Quote:

Yea I did not bother to read the post because, this is an never end argument. Kata is useless:I'm just gonna throw that out there. Someone on this forum, whom shall not be named, tried to tell me that in Heian Yodan, a practitioner is not doing a neck clinch and a knee strike. Although, I bet 400$ if anyone saw that practitioner do that move which they did in that kata to someone in a spar they would say, " Hey he just did a neck clinch and a knee strike thats not karate." Even tho the kid was doing exactly what he did in Heian Yodan. However, that was not suppose to be a knee strike; the kata makers were just making movements to fill in the kata to make it look cool. Anway kata useless quit doing it and just spar.

I cant make any sense of what you have written. Care to explain in detail? Which kata is useless? Spar how?
Are you refering to some of the unworkable bunkia some people come up with?
If so that is the person who came up with unworkable bunkia's fault if it is deemed unworkable.
Might be no fault of the kata. I might be interested to see your bunkia for a Pinan kata.

Jude

Posted by: Usenthemighty

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 08:16 AM

OMG!! You think from the post I think kata is useless?? Gess can't even use sarcasm anymore. I even said in Heian Yodan if one were to do what they practiced exactly how they did it in kata, people would see you doing a neck clinch into a knee strike, but say oh you do Muy Thai or some crap. I have posted on my thoughts on kata before; I thought it would be understood that I was for it by now.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 08:37 AM

Quote:

OMG!! You think from the post I think kata is useless?? Gess can't even use sarcasm anymore. I even said in Heian Yodan if one were to do what they practiced exactly how they did it in kata, people would see you doing a neck clinch into a knee strike, but say oh you do Muy Thai or some crap. I have posted on my thoughts on kata before; I thought it would be understood that I was for it by now.

Might be worth while giving a slight indication of the sarcasm part so it looks that way.
The source/ origins of mauy thai might be more or less one of the influences that formed karate. So your observer might be correct.

You stated "or some crap"?

Not to sure that there is any physical movement that indicates that specific bodily function in any of the martial arts I have observed.

I think it is just taken for granted that happens anyhow.
Might also depend on the ability of the opponent.

So anyway back to the topic. Would you like to share your bunkia for that particuler pinan?

Jude

Posted by: Usenthemighty

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 09:18 AM

"You stated "or some crap"?
Not to sure that there is any physical movement that indicates that specific bodily function in any of the martial arts I have observed. "

At least you have a sense of humor, and since you asked sure. On the last movements of Heian Yodan, like I stated before, that action can be seen as graping the neck and pulling it to your knee while swing your knee upward. In Bassai Dai, they do particularly knife block after knife block before you do the grabbing action and kick. I saw it as parrying with your left and striking with your right, and vis versa, or as you parry with the knife hand, you use your other hand and press against your opponents elbow. From there you have a pressing arm lock. Sequence 27 where the karateka has the chambered fist and left arm out, I saw it as one graping the right or left arm and pulling that arm ,which you have just graped, back into the chambered fist position. This right here is making your opponents arm straight and pressing their elbow against your belly.(aka armbar) Also with Bassai dai, the first movements 1-3 is someone getting in close, graping the right or left arm (depending what side you are on) and tripping the leg on the side which you have graped, from the inside. All of which I have stated I have spared with before and has worked ,so it's not some theory that I haven't tested. I have more ,but it gets more difficult to explain in words.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 09:22 AM

Usen,

Sorry buddy! I completely missed it!! Duh...

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 10:52 AM

Ok

Isnt that a more informative post than some?
What do you think of Ian Aberneathys work?
This isnt hijacking it is related to the thread.

Jude

Posted by: Usenthemighty

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 04:30 PM

I actually think Ian Aberneathy is ok with his kata application. I wish I had his books ,especially the one on Karates grappling. I only know that he shows how karate has throws and ground fighting. I think the ground fighting is a bit far moreover would be hard to prove, but the throwing and joint locks sure. He also has a book on locks for any martial art. Some how people to think of a boxer or a Judoka are not allowed to to do joint locks or punches.

Posted by: Blackrainbow

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 09:54 PM

Not that I want to pour gasoline on the flames---but critique this.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pQez2t3zlk8

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/12/07 09:59 PM

neither. Brian was just being nice since he likes Goju.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 12:08 AM

Instead of beating a dead horse, i'm gonna switch up the conversation a bit and just ask butterfly about his teaching method.

Since you don't teach kata, how is your curriculum organized? Do you have different "levels" of kihon, waza, drills whatever?

I assume you do alot of kumite, but aside from that how do you structure things teaching wise?

Posted by: jbrown2130

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 12:54 AM

Quote:

WOW...for a 1st time poster, you sure know how to announce yourself.

BTW... if you don't believe that kumite = sparring, what is the correct interpretation of "kumite" (I suppose that you're fuluent in Japanese). Hundreds & hundreds of people (including many Japanese) must have been lying to me for over 30 yrs.

sorry so long to get back to this... I was out of town. I'm not saying you were mislead or that your beleif are un-true, kata and kumite are similar... Its a nomenclature issue, and I'm making a differentiation with contact. If you've been in this for 30 years, you can certainly appreciate (or at least acknowledge) the move AWAY from full contact KUMITE. Sparring isn't the same. When you can get a point by "showing" your opponent they could be hit, its just not the same. I mean, just consider. Two people trade off shots. One gets hit in the head and the other in the chest. Sure, all things equal, the person getting hit the head loses. However, that doesn't mean all things are equal. What if the person striking to the chest did it more efficiently with more power and wins that trade off?? That's not as apparent when points can be awarded by "putting" your techniques out there. Once that's no longer an issue, it goes back to the practitioner. How hard-core are they? do they study kata, man I don't know..

Griffygriff:
monkey bunk would be along the same lines as horse dropings, cow pies, pig dung, bull $h*()*, maggot munchies, you know...excrement in general. Don't post a picture of your findings when you search that out, please.
But seriously, didn't you READ my post? I never said you would use things Directly out of kata. You ever notice the BEST cyclist in the world are the guys that ride bikes all the time?? They don't RACE all the time, heck, sometimes they even ride on TRAINERS... and don't go ANYWHERE. I'm saying that kata prepares you for things by making your body move in ways you normally wouldn't. Like others said..in this thread, karate and kata isn't here to make instant fighters. But if you are in it... if you LIVE it for long enough... you'll be ok. and you don't even (IN MY MIND) have to practice fighting for that to be true.

-- all right... 2 posts and already making friends!

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 01:03 AM

Quote:

I'm saying that kata prepares you for things by making your body move in ways you normally wouldn't.

That's very true.

Someone had a post asking if a sidekick is an unnatural movement. Well, ofcourse it is. What moves in karate are natural?

I still don't believe that only DOING the kata will make you proficient at self defence or "fighting". You have to put it into practice, you have to have your drills, sparring, resistance,contact,etc...

Posted by: Uchinanchu

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 02:26 AM

Quote:

What most people miss is that kata & sparring are not mutually exclusive when it comes to the purpose of SD.

Peanut butter is good; jelly is good. Put them together & you have a better sandwich.

Sparring is fighting w/ rules so don't expect to save you A$$ w/ sparring; kata is too systematic to save you a$$. But if you take the fluidity & responsiveness of kumite & include some of the nasty little tricks of kata, you'll have a well-crafted SD system. The product is greater than the sum of it's parts.

Where's the controversy?

Well Put! I was starting to nod off (again) from reading some of the long winded arguments/explanations. This is one dead-horse topic that should have been burried a loooong time ago. Focusing on only one aspect of your training in the arts might help you to a certain (limited) extent, but eventually leads nowhere if you outright ignore the other aspects of your training.

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 12:31 PM

Zach,

No biggie on the instruction and is probably the same as most folk do, sans the kata. The real focus owing to time constraints, however, would be spent on partner drills followed closely by isolation drills...shadow boxing and bag, pad work.

In an ideal class with "X" amount of time, I think warm-ups and stretching are good as a beginning. This is where Kihon practice for basics are done then stretching between sets of kihon punches and kicks, etc. Say about 20% of the time given over to this if you had an hour and a half class. The balance 80% of the time would be divided into partner sets. Instructor shows applications, while the rest of the class partners up and does these lightly back and forth and then switching persons. The key here is to always make contact and acknowledge the correct distance to throw techniques. For face punches straight on, hitting the sternum is required. For follow through of techniques, punching past and behind the head is done with full extension. Just as a qualification, within our style, you would never hit at just the surface or back away and not make contact with the technique. Some form of contact is almost always mandated, with the exception of punching past the head as described above and with follow through on kicking techiques to the head.

The instructor will go around correcting application and fielding any and all questions--- pointing out target areas, and the differences arising from disparate body types and range/distance problems stemming from being short or tall with respect to your partner. He's also trying to explain the universality of certain principles despite some inabilities to apply them the same way because of bodily structure differences. This way no one gets stuck on just copying a technique, but makes sure they can apply the idea behind it to the extent that his or her body type allows.

All through the partner drills the expectation is that the partnered people are talking to each other stating if this works or doesn't work and why, if they can articulate it.

After or concurrent to this, depending on the techniques demoed that day and the ideas and reasons in them, then pad work is done especially for punching and kicking with the partners giving pads back and forth after a set number of drills...and rotating between the individuals in the class.

In this case, there would be no difference in the structure of the class per low level or higher ranking students, just ability to perform better. In the intance of more sophisticated techniques that are built on preceding more basic ones, then higher belts may be asked to amplify and expand certain options while the lower belts are left to secure these basics a bit better within the drill.

For instance, if a lower belt is parterned with a higher belt for a defence against a right straight, the lower and higher belt may be told initially to just parry the punch and throw a counter right. Then as the drill progresses with speed, the lower belt is still working on this while the higher belt would be told to add a hook and set up for a lead round kick if the opponent turned.

BTW, there are other times that it might be just circuit training on bags, or more specific isolation drills. But I think time is best spent partnering up to secure what you have been taught. Like I said, it probably sounds much like what most people train, I just wouldn't emphasize kata practice over any of this.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 04:11 PM

You know it's funny, I run my class about like what you've described, occasionally we spend some time on solo kata but generally we don't have the time for it, so I teach the application and give the kata kind of piece by piece.

I suppose the only difference is the applications (some) that i'm teaching are said to formally be "from kata" but even that is a little semantic because in the end there are only so many ways to make on omlette.

In the way I was trained the vast bulk of class time is always spent on partner work, and I do the same thing with my class.

The exception to this is the practice of sanchin kata with which we open most classes, and maybe a related push/pull or rooting drill.

If i had more time I would spend a bit more on solo kata, with enough correction to improve body mechanics and impart some basic principles that people could "take home" for practicing solo kata by themselves.

Unfortunately my class is is at the longest 1hr and 15m right now, so everything else is sacrificed for the partner work other than occasional makiwara/heavy bag/pad work.

So since you do not have kata, do you simply have a written syllabus of partnered waza, or is it more malleable?

Out of curiosity, do you train on makiwara at all?

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 06:06 PM

Zack,

Two quick answers first. Training is malleable, but is within a conceptual model of our system and how it is applied.

No makiwara. We generally use heavy bags of about 150 lbs, focus mits and MT style kicking pads. Round kicks are generally delivered with the shin, second most common delivery system is with the ball of the feet.

As I have stated, these are probably pretty comparable to what most folk do. And I am not anti-kata per se, I am just opposed to the notion that this is necessary for functional training for use in karate or in any other system. BTW, there are things that are called kata in our system, but I think would look much more like two-man drills put together to your eyes without the partner if performed solo. These were made by the founder of our system and have little to do with any traditional notion of kata. Nothing extraneous or as aesthetically pleasing to the classical karate-ka there.

LOL And I don’t even like these and don’t teach them, except in part as drills.

But what follows is the point that I was trying to make as far as derivation of techniques is concerned, not that there’s a difference in utility from something someone can apply that they learned from kata or from elsewhere.

In our system, we do use a back stance, but it was never formally taught as an aspired to stance or position, at least when I started….but you made use of it pretty much from the beginning. And we would probably use this less for lead front kicks when compared to lead round kicks as the more common means from which to apply this kick. Here’s the situation though, you learned to throw a lead round kick as you moved at 45 and 90 degree angles from an attacker’s leading straight technique. The learning process then concerned the round kick from a vantage of movement to apply the kick. When you could apply it, you found that the stance functioned as a decent platform from which to throw the technique noting you haven’t been formally taught the stance; so that if you had the application down, the stance basically took care of itself. This removes questions of aesthetics from the equation, which just wouldn’t be a real concern for me as long as “good” function was transmitted.

If you could apply a technique well, generally folk looked pretty much the same doing it since the mechanical processes involved are the same, just changed slightly for each individual’s physical makeup. And even if you didn’t get it down exactly, the concern wasn’t what the stance (or anything else) looked like, but if the technique worked using your facsimile of the stance to support it.

This is the part that I was trying to get across more than anything else: That an aspired to aesthetic of technique (say kata for instance) is not something that I am fond of since rote learning might (but not always) take precedence over function. This would be contrasted with learning to make a technique function in an environment where application was the higher concern, and having the aesthetic of that function being a consequence of application. In the former case of learning the look of something and then lunderstanding the application(s) of it, doesn’t necessarily mean you have functional ability with the technique. For the latter, if you learn the application and try to get this by performance of the technique with a partner, if nothing else, when you succeed, regardless of how it may appear to others, you have something that works.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 06:59 PM

I'm actually in agreement with most of what you've said here.
The one thing i'd like to point out about the whole "asthetic" end of kata is that this is a comparatively modern phenomenon, and meaning no offense here; it is a very widespread trait in Japanese karate.

It is much more common to find people concerned with kata for looks and asthetics only in a system like Shotokan than it is in Goju or Shorin Ryu. This is not to say that the Shorin or Goju guys neccessarily can apply kata functionally, there are plenty that probably cannot, only to state that the view taken on kata is generally alot less geared towards asthetics.

Usually the purpose of solo kata training is to ingrain the mechanics of the technique, to get the footwork, etc.

Your two man drills are kata imo, here is an interesting article by Seikichi Toguchi on the possible origin of kata, and on it's analysis, in it he basically says that modern kata came from 2 man drills.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zfFaPBl...OU3xjPHUQ#PPA49,M1

Kris Wilder, who is one of my teachers has also authored a book on this subject with Lawrence Kane, it is something which I think has been misunderstood in karate for a long time, and whether or not the approach layed out in his book is the "original" one, I believe it is functional.

here is a link to his book for anyone who is interested:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KwjtqbX...-thumbnail#PPP1,M1

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 07:11 PM

Quote:

Usually the purpose of solo kata training is to ingrain the mechanics of the technique, to get the footwork, etc.

Your two man drills are kata imo,

Jude

Happy Birthday RazorFoot"!

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 07:32 PM

And as Jude just quoted, if the drills are sufficient and you can do them and change them and add to them, why do you have to go the extra step of memorizing the forms to extract these drills--- when the kata don't appear exactly like the drills?

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 07:40 PM

Quote:

And as Jude just quoted, if the drills are sufficient and you can do them and change them and add to them, why do you have to go the extra step of memorizing the forms to extract these drills--- when the kata don't appear exactly like the drills?

Hi Butterfly. Hows you?
As I think I might have stated somewhere. Your karate is karate.
It is named karate it is karate and your good at it.

Your excellent tutorial karate vidoes arent on you tube anymore?

Did your student remove them?

Jude

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 08:01 PM

The book looks good.
There wasnt that much to read on the link.
Pity some more cant be posted. Or can it if it is educational?

Jude

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 08:04 PM

Mainly as a record of techniques, and to focus on you own bodymechanics and footwork. The drills are just like kata once you remove the repetition from kata in general. There is little difference, this may not be true in style of karate where kata is more stylized, but I can say that in the Goju I have been taught the only real physical difference between the drills and the kata is the extra reps added to the kata.

Why do you shadowbox? Why do you practice kihon solo?

Solo performance of kata shouldn't be too different of an animal from formalized shadowboxing.

As I said, my training was to learn the pattern, internalize it somewhat, then move to application. However there is something to be said for repetition of technique anyway, hopefully I don't need to argue that point, right?

This was the standard way of doing things in a ton of martial arts for a long time, why would it all the sudden be useless?

Re: The book, no I don't think you can preview more than that, you can look at www.ymaa.com and see if there's more to preview there. The book is really worth getting imo if you do practice kata. So are Ian abernethy's.

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 08:12 PM

Zach,

Naw...just mess'n with 'ya.

Basics are basics and kihon is kihon. I think we just formalized are training paradigm in reverse in comparison to yours...and don't revere kata as much as some. No biggie.

How I would see it is to practice application from the get go and then whittle that into something functional and let the the aesthetic take care of itself. Then after some form of ability to apply the technique is present, add solo drills to create efficiency... so an expectation of what and why you are doing something is present. Just different than what a lot of you guys do....but not necessarily better.

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 08:15 PM

Jude,

I had some removed since they were put there without my permission or attention. I have never put something up on the internet of myself.

There are a few things that I are still there that, again, I have not put up.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 08:49 PM

Quote:

Jude,

I had some removed since they were put there without my permission or attention. I have never put something up on the internet of myself.

There are a few things that I are still there that, again, I have not put up.

Yes I know you didnt put them up. I think they were put up by one of your students.

Zach
I think certain Kata have hidden techniques and require study outside of karate to aquire them.

Jude.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 09:12 PM

Quote:

Zach
I think certain Kata have hidden techniques and require study outside of karate to aquire them.

Jude.

Well yes, there are ura-waza, hard to say if you need to go outside of karate or not to learn them, depends on who your teacher is i'd imagine.

It's always worth cross training anyway though, i've been training Danzan Ryu ju jitsu for a little bit, both my teachers were also Judoka. However I did not attempt to cross train until hitting shodan in Goju. For me it is good to get a good base in one thing before branching out.

There is some overlap in techniques believe it or not between some basic judo/jujutsu techniques and Goju ryu (and I imagine other karate as well), but there are nuances in the way you do stuff that is very different.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/13/07 11:10 PM

I have a question, Brad. In what way has taking a non kata orientation in karate helped improve your art. What I mean is, if kata is not needed to develop a competent fighter, then it what ways has ashihara karate and its other variants developed beyond what their karate with kata would have been. I personally see the value of kata as its ability to fit into any fighting paradigm there is. Its techniques and strageties can be used to fight in almost any environment. However, from what I have seen of many forms of "karate" who have abandoned kata seem to pigeon hole themselves in their own niche of fighting and have difficulty breaking out. I have seen it in guys like Joe Lewis and Superfoot as well as styles such as Ashihara and Enshin. Most if not all of the training to fight I have seen is heavily rule laden. If not training for tournament fighting, then why focus exclusively on such fighting. However, when kata is added into a training regimine, the techniques become less set in stone (for some) and can represent a myriad of other things. Then two man drills can be used to extract the fighting skill. Then a karateka can go back to the drawing board with kata and continue to fine tune technique and transitions between techniques, as well as continue to draw on the principles in kata and draw out more knowledge. However, when simply relying on two man drills it seems as if it is too easy to get stuck into one way of doing things and focusing on once concept. Such as sabaki method in ashihara and enshin. In fact, especially when rules put on the fighting are eliminated, such a focus on this one concept can be a detriment rather than an advantage.

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 01:27 AM

Quote:

have a question, Brad. In what way has taking a non kata orientation in karate helped improve your art. What I mean is, if kata is not needed to develop a competent fighter, then it what ways has ashihara karate and its other variants developed beyond what their karate with kata would have been.

Med, hard to say honestly. I think it might be a mindset that some things are not necessary for going forward in one's studies and that principles are exclusive of kata. Kata, from what you tell me, envelopes these things, but this is a container for how you wish to imbibe these pricnicples. And for some, this may be beneficial...for others like me, I see just the empty container and memorized movmements.

Perhaps as much as you pigeon hole what I do, I see the same thing in much of kata based MAs...which might be unfortunate since I may be generalizing as much as you may to me and others who claim no inheritence from kata.

In the style I study, specifically in the dojo I study at, I had very good instructors--- and I also realize this is the consideration of many folk in their various training halls. I can say that I have studied other things, some of which was shallow in its understanding despite the outward similarities of practice.

I will further say that the principles in the karate I study weren't given to me within the kata, they were told and explained and instructed in the basics of the movements I do and in the stratagems I apply in working techniques. Some of these may be very basic to you and received by you through kata. That I can't tell. Perhaps all that I do is shallow compared to your or other's studies. But the more I have searched, the less I have seen that leads me to believe that kata will open things further than other routes to the same goals. And this is a personal, subjective view.

I also recognize that this may be just dancing around how ideas are presented and though you claim them from kata and I don't, they very well may be the some of the same concepts. While you open up kata to explore these things by pouring them out, I have been given a blank slate to pile in the the things that work for me, using certain principles to guide me in this process. In other words, you see the extraction of ideas and techniques but for me, this is more claustrophic. I am not beholding to kata to exercise my will on the principles I am able to apply through techniques. The stuff that I was taught was independent of kata, but proved in application and linked to movements by being told and then shown what to do and why, not necessarily practicing memorized movments and then having an ah-ha moment through their practice. That is how I see the benefit to me of the way I train...which in most respects would probably be similar to most karate-ka, different only in the emphasis of the origin of these considerations and how I apply them.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 01:53 AM

Butterfly, I am not saying your study is shallow, just limited by an instructor's applications. For example, why not use palm strikes to the face rather than punching to the sternum or punching past your opponent's face? In this case your training methods are being limited by your instructor's desire to focus on closed fist striking techniques. In fact, if you are not taught palm strikes in your drills you will likely have to venture outside of your system to develop its application. I am not saying this is how it is in your style, however, this is an example based from your posts. However, regardless of your teacher's preference, if an instructor teaches kata as well as his applications from those kata you will have ALL manner of techniques in your toolbox, as well as effective application from your instructor. Then you are free to use what you want, focus solely on your instructor's fighting system or delve deeper into kata for a more customized approach. As Victor has said, it takes much more than one lifetime to harvest all of the potential from the kata of okinawa.

Posted by: jbrown2130

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 02:34 AM

Quote:

It's always worth cross training anyway though, i've been training Danzan Ryu ju jitsu for a little bit, both my teachers were also Judoka. However I did not attempt to cross train until hitting shodan in Goju. For me it is good to get a good base in one thing before branching out.

There is some overlap in techniques believe it or not between some basic judo/jujutsu techniques and Goju ryu (and I imagine other karate as well), but there are nuances in the way you do stuff that is very different.

Just to express a polar oposite idea, I don't agree with that at ALL. I mean, yeah, there is something to be said for being familiar with what other people do. HOWEVER, training karate like that would be like learning the "basics" of 10 different languages. They are all ways to communicate, sure... and yeah, you might learn how to get something to eat or drink, learn where the restroom is or even how to pay for things in each language, but that doesn't mean you'll be able to carry on an worthwile conversation in even ONE of those languages.

I used to be in a system that took the "good" stuff from a lot of places in an attempt to have one GREAT system. Good in THEORY, but it sucked in reality. Who's to say what the "good" stuff is when you don't FULLY understand the purposes. Some of this and a little of that turned out to be a big load of NOTHING in the end. I've grown leaps and bounds in my karate by switching to Okinawa Kenpo.- -one system -- pick one... whatever it is... TRUST ME.. there's more there than you can comprehend in a lifetime... no need to "add to".

-- your understanding of your art is limited by your own experience and knowldege at any given point of exposure. Ever notice how your instructor will say the same things YEAR after YEAR... and yet over time, what he says MEANS something different than what you remember it meaning the first times you heard it??

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 02:58 AM

Quote:

just limited by an instructor's applications. For example, why not use palm strikes to the face rather than punching to the sternum or punching past your opponent's face?

Med, we do practice shotei and uraken and a few other things. And no, the things I do haven't all been necessarily circumscribed by what was shown to me by my instructors.

Once you have a foundational understanding of an art, say about 10 years or so in practice, I think you can start to make those techniques your own and gravitate to doing things your own way that work within the principles of your art.

Kata may show you opportunities, I'd rather see where the principles in the techniques I do lead me. Sometimes with the help of instructors and sometimes just by the guidance of the concepts involved in the art I practice. Just a perspective with the guiding light being if the application worked, not that I found it somewhere in kata or not.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 03:16 PM

Medulanet -

Quote:

However, from what I have seen of many forms of "karate" who have abandoned kata seem to pigeon hole themselves in their own niche of fighting and have difficulty breaking out. I have seen it in guys like Joe Lewis and Superfoot

*hubris-o-meter deep in the red*

I'm sure that Lewis or Superfoot would appreciate knowing how "limited" and "pigeon-holed" their training is.

I hereby grant you the "2007 Multiversed Honorary International Snidely Self-Aggrandizing Whilst Simultaneously Condescending Post Of The Year" award.

*hands Med a mirror with "Who Loves Ya Baby!" stenciled on it*

Posted by: Victor Smith

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 03:37 PM

Hi Matt,

You probably don't know this but I trained with Bill Wallace in 76 in York, gosh that's a while ago now. We spent an entire afternoon of not stop kicking with our left leg.

I don't recall his entire background, but for a few years he taught for a TKD instructor and he was friends with Elvis too.

Superfoot does make a case on focus on training. His kicking style, because I believe of a Judo injury to his other leg, was developed to use just his left and his physiology and anatomy as well as his training led him to throw 4 kicks with that left leg, in hundreds of combinations without putting his footdown.

His kicking was unreal, but in amatuer competition he was capable of being beaten by those who didn't try to fight the leg and instead took the fight to him.

When he entered PKA full contact he stopped using his legs as much and worked on boxing skills for the KO's that brought him success.

Focusing on a small piece of the whole leave infinite invention and progress, but infinite is infinite, for the entire answer in karate is infinite too.

His fighting style was very much based on his particular abilities, and without the same ability, the best you could do was try and adopt it to your body. I'e seen some who've trained with him end up with modified capabilities, without beginning to approach Bill's either.

I Haven't followed him for decades.Did he ever propogate a school/training program or did his studies remain mostly peronal effort?

O yes, he did develop fixed kicking sets for training, ones that are simply kicking kata, so while not traditional, the core remained.

I have seen Joe Lewis too, and with different ability he arrived at his own answers. He was simply stonger than almost everyone he faced in the early days of karate in the states, a case that power matters.

Again I haven't followed his progress over the years, except seeing he does clinics on fighting too.

All training is right or wrong based on one's personal perspective.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 04:11 PM

Victor -

I was making the point that despite what Med perceived as "limits" (ie; lack of kata) of their training, they were world-class, high level fighters.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 04:33 PM

Quote:

Victor -

I was making the point that despite what Med perceived as "limits" (ie; lack of kata) of their training, they were world-class, high level fighters.

Exactly Matt, when you are a world class fighter/athlete you don't need a complete game. Your abilities can overcome your shortcomings. However, what about people who do not have those superior abilities?

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 04:42 PM

Quote:

Medulanet -

Quote:

However, from what I have seen of many forms of "karate" who have abandoned kata seem to pigeon hole themselves in their own niche of fighting and have difficulty breaking out. I have seen it in guys like Joe Lewis and Superfoot

*hubris-o-meter deep in the red*

I'm sure that Lewis or Superfoot would appreciate knowing how "limited" and "pigeon-holed" their training is.

I hereby grant you the "2007 Multiversed Honorary International Snidely Self-Aggrandizing Whilst Simultaneously Condescending Post Of The Year" award.

*hands Med a mirror with "Who Loves Ya Baby!" stenciled on it*

Matt, its just that I am not PC. I am not a person who gets on forums to make friends and be all we are the world. I tell it how I see it, right or wrong. Is that so bad? Or is it bad when I am the only one who believes in what I am saying? I guess that is my "hubris" or tragic flaw. However, you have not posted a reply to my post on why their approach to karate is not limited. Especially considering the distinct lack of grappling, open hand fist formations, and tai sabaki in what I have seen of their art. If you know of these aspects of what they do, then state it.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 04:49 PM

Quote:

Exactly Matt, when you are a world class fighter/athlete you don't need a complete game.

Hmmm.....are you certain about that? How many holes can you have when you are fighting other world class athletes?

Quote:

Your abilities can overcome your shortcomings. However, what about people who do not have those superior abilities?

MMA for one has proven pretty conclusively that it is about the skill, not (as much) about the attributes. Those skills can be developed in the absence of kata, so the added benefit of doing so is questionable IMHO.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 04:55 PM

Quote:

Matt, its just that I am not PC.

I'll grant you that.

Quote:

However, you have not posted a reply to my post on why their approach to karate is not limited. Especially considering the distinct lack of grappling, open hand fist formations, and tai sabaki in what I have seen of their art. If you know of these aspects of what they do, then state it.

Superfoot limited grappling? Wasn't he a judo BB? Don't know about Lewis. Tai-Sabaki? It was good enough for both of them to be champions, eh? How much better does it need to be?

Again, lack of open hand techniques did not seem to impede their fighting abilities much, did it?

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 05:17 PM

As far as their champion status disproving that their styles have more limits than those with kata I don't believe it does. Just because your style is limited doesn't mean it isn't effective. I am not questioning the effectiveness of they fighting systems. Even Victor pointed out that Lewis won due to his strength, not superior technique. Just look at the NBA, there are all NBA guys who are "champions" who are so due to either size or athleticism and not their knowledge of the game or sound basketball fundamentals. The same is true for many athletics. A fight record shows what a person is able to do with what they have, but it doesn't always point to the effectiveness of their fighting system for anyone other than them. Look at Royce Gracie. His approach to fighting was limited. However, he too was a champion. And in the modern MMA era his limits were exposed.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 05:39 PM

Re:Jbrown2130's comments about why people evidentally shouldn't crosstrain:

I still train in, and run a class in Goju. I do not do a "mismashed system", I have a shodan in Goju, I feel that is sufficient enough (and so do both my Goju teachers btw) experience to go out and experience something else as long as it is not to the exclusion of my roots in Goju, and it is not.

I'm really not sure what your point was, at any rate I really don't see a need to defend crosstraining, sorry, it is different than if I were a greenbelt or something going around trying this and that. I have about 7 years in Goju, and many in Shorin before that, I don't think i'm losing anything by doing some crosstraining in Jujitsu.

I'm thinking maybe you misread my post or something?

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 05:47 PM

Many of the past (and current) masters cross-trained. Not uncommon.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 05:58 PM

Quote:

MMA for one has proven pretty conclusively that it is about the skill, not (as much) about the attributes.

Actually, this is not the case Matt. I would argue that modern MMA has proven the opposite with its institution if weight classes. Size is one attribute that cannot be developed like speed and strength can. Size is such a HUGE advantage that it had to be largely eliminated to make MMA a "sport." However, fighters still try to obtain this size advantage at seemingly all costs. The two best LHW in the world are also the biggest and cut between 30 and 40 lbs to make 205. Tim Sylvia was able to be a champion due to his size and reach advantage, not necessarily superior skill.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (Shut up!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 06:43 PM

Quote:

Quote:

MMA for one has proven pretty conclusively that it is about the skill, not (as much) about the attributes.

Actually, this is not the case Matt. I would argue that modern MMA has proven the opposite with its institution if weight classes. Size is one attribute that cannot be developed like speed and strength can. Size is such a HUGE advantage that it had to be largely eliminated to make MMA a "sport." However, fighters still try to obtain this size advantage at seemingly all costs. The two best LHW in the world are also the biggest and cut between 30 and 40 lbs to make 205. Tim Sylvia was able to be a champion due to his size and reach advantage, not necessarily superior skill.

I have to agree with that! Tim Silvia is like a giant three-toed sloth,lol. He needs kata!!!

I don't want to veer off subject,but the weight cutting is rediculous!!

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 08:09 PM

Quote:

Actually, this is not the case Matt.

Uh, actually it IS the case, Med. You are forgetting how Royce Gracie choked out much larger Ken Shamrock's and Kimo Leopoldo's in the early UFC's. He didn't win because of his size or strength, LOL.

Brian - You might be right about Tim needing kata.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 08:21 PM

a couple of points on your previous comments - sorry I'm not referencing them (lazy on my part).

In general, it's probably not a good idea to paint anyone in a certain corner based on a few things you've seen on youtube which are categorized using the same name. for instance, I can bring up some pretty aweful matsubayashi clips, plus I could reference subpar training methods that seem to be prevalently promoted via DVD under self-claiming MB authorities yet it looks like robotic vanilla shorin movement...plus there are plenty of family fluff-n-stuff mcdojos with a Matsubayashi heading in every state - but it still probably wouldn't begin to describe perhaps what YOU do with your matsubayashi art.

similarly, I see mainstream ashihara video on youtube which doesn't represent the ashihara that Brad presented when joining in on one of his classes. the strategies, economics of moving and training methods are different from my own - but I can say our arts share similar intent: to protect against/drop the attacker as quickly as possible.

any art with that intent is compatable within a study of karate, IMO. and I've seen many places that claim 'karate' which do not have that intent. in fact, I'd hazzard to say MOST karate places do not have that intent.

again, I don't think it's about the curriculum...it's about the intent inherent in the practice and therfore an integral part of the individual art. ...not whether or not they preserve kata.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 08:31 PM

(Medulanet deletes long drawn out post explaining position mroe clearly and then writes)

Your right Matt, skill will always beat attributes and Royce Gracie is living proof of that fact.

Now, back to the value of kata.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (shut the ...up!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 08:42 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Actually, this is not the case Matt.

Uh, actually it IS the case, Med. You are forgetting how Royce Gracie choked out much larger Ken Shamrock's and Kimo Leopoldo's in the early UFC's. He didn't win because of his size or strength, LOL.

Brian - You might be right about Tim needing kata.

Hmmm, while this example is certainly valid, I do think that MMA has changed enough since UFC1 that alot of fights are won based on strength and endurance now, and that make sense.

Not saying they are unskilled brutes by any stretch of the imagination, but now that there are weight classes etc. it is certainly alot more limited in what goes on the ring.

Obviously these guys are tough as nails and quite skilled, but I honestly think drawing paralells between what goes in martial sports, and trying to apply that to how the average martial artist should train is frankly nonsense.

I've seen a number of MMA bouts that were won by roundhouses to the head, yet this technique is not one I would think of as rational self defense for most people, the thing is that when it's athletes doing something, alot of what they do works because they are athletes, and I assume that was med's point.

MMA concepts have done alot for martial arts generally I think, but to draw sweeping conclusions about thousands of years of martial arts based on what happens in a modern sporting environment is going a bit far. We are not living at the end of history where MMA has determined the formula for the most efficacious (sp?) fighting system for everyone.

Posted by: Usenthemighty

Re: Value of kata (stfu!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 11:14 PM

HOLD the PHONE!! Didn't Royce lose to Matt Huegues. (can't spell) Everyone knows how strong and large that man is. Maybe he should have added sum Kanku Dai to his silly little I'm gonna pop guard routine.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (shutup!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 11:25 PM

Ok guys, let's get this back on topic. This isn't the mma forum.

Posted by: oldman

Re: Value of kata (shutup!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 11:26 PM

Exactly.

Posted by: jbrown2130

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 11:39 PM

Quote:

Re:Jbrown2130's comments about why people evidentally shouldn't crosstrain:

I still train in, and run a class in Goju. I do not do a "mismashed system", I have a shodan in Goju, I feel that is sufficient enough (and so do both my Goju teachers btw) experience to go out and experience something else as long as it is not to the exclusion of my roots in Goju, and it is not.

I'm really not sure what your point was, at any rate I really don't see a need to defend crosstraining, sorry, it is different than if I were a greenbelt or something going around trying this and that. I have about 7 years in Goju, and many in Shorin before that, I don't think i'm losing anything by doing some crosstraining in Jujitsu.

I'm thinking maybe you misread my post or something?

First I need to say that I wouldn't assume yours or anyone else's system to be "mismashed" -- that was a comment about a system I used to be a part of.

Second, I don't think I misread your post. You said, "Its always worth crosstraining" I was commenting on that idea. I was just expressing another (maybe opposite) idea on the same topic (as indicated by my first sentance). And I did't say that people shouldn't crosstrain. I said to be careful. I SAID (in a number of words) that its easy to get lost in this and that and end up NOT strengthening what you already do (which, I assume, is why you would crosstrain anyway) -- and if you're not strengthening, then you are waisting your time. And thats something you can't get back... I said that in MOST any system, there is more there than you can fully comprehend even if you dedicate your LIFE to the art (clearly more than 7-10 years)... so what amount of crosstraining is nessisary ESPECIALLY if you don't benefit quickly?

In any event, I did find your comment about a greenbelt crosstraining very interesting. -- especially in that your point is that a beginner can't distinguish good/bad or worthwhile principals to focus on when crosstraining. That's interesting to me b/c of how I see myself in karate. I have been in karate for over 15 years and hold a yondan in Okianwan kenpo. And you know what I find out EVERY time I train (and yes I mean on a daily basis) That I SUCK. That I should still be a greenbelt-- what I'm saying is that I recognize that I am still just a BABY in karate. I'm not even sure I know what I should spend my time on if I were to crosstrain and what I should let slide, but I can tell you this... Since I switched systems, I can tell you WHY I do everything that I do. I can tell you how I USED to do things, what I "tweaked" to make them a little different, and WHY that makes them stronger. And that was by moving to a... well... more "based" (or less branched) system.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that I'm not confident in my own abilities. I think that on days when I feel like "I've got this" or I finally understand that, then AT THAT MOMENT, or even for that DAY, I'm stagnant -- I'm not progressing. but as long as I feel like I could do better, and I CONSTANTLY TRY to do better (especially at kata, to bring this arguement full circle) then I'm learning, and I AM getting better. Its just an attitude. That is all.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/14/07 11:59 PM

While I understand what you've said, I fail to see how that should dissaude me from crosstraining.

If I were sacrificing some of my Goju training then maybe you'd have a point, but i'm not, I do the Jujitsu on average of one day a week, and it doesn't conflict.

I understand what you're getting at, but honestly you are taking your own personal views and trying to make them the standard for whether other people cross train or not.

A large amount of famous karateka cross trained, I won't bother to go any further with it than that because honestly I just don't think it's anything I need to justify.

Anyway it becomes apparent almost immediately when doing something like Danzan ryu that is is very different from Goju, I don't ever see it becoming my main thing, but it is good to get some perspective, and honestly there is a long, long tradition of doing this in the martial arts.

It is interesting to train in something with an entirely different strategic framework than Goju.

I really hope you don't assume that by crosstraining i'm somehow claiming mastery of Goju or something, far from it, as you said mastering one art arguably takes more than a lifetime, however using this as a reason not to expose yourself to new things is frankly ridiculous.

Nowehere did I state crosstraining is "neccessary" for anything, but I do think it's not a bad idea.

Anyway, i'll stop now because we are really going off topic here, we can simply agree to disagree I suppose.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 12/15/07 01:07 AM

On a related subject, here is a thing I read someone posted on e-budo, it is on Judo kata, but nonetheless it is very informative and I think touches on some of things we're discussing here, despite not being karate specific.

http://www.e-budo.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=10234&d=1175850712

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Value of kata (stfu!!!!), revisited. - 12/15/07 09:33 AM

Quote:

HOLD the PHONE!! Didn't Royce lose to Matt Huegues. (can't spell) Everyone knows how strong and large that man is. Maybe he should have added sum Kanku Dai to his silly little I'm gonna pop guard routine.

What point are you trying to make? Matt Hughes is also a highly skilled wrestler. Hughes didn't beat Gracie solely because he was bigger. It was only because Hughes had a comparable skill level to Gracie that size/strength became a factor. Again, look at Gracie vs Shamrock in the early UFC's. No skill = ass whuppin.

Posted by: dsv_kempo

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/16/08 09:09 PM

I mean no offence - but i'm sure it will.
Sparring is an invention encouraged and designed to engender national spirit and train children in schools in the combative arts leading into WWII.

It has since proliferated and the changes to karate and other martial arts with them. What you are all comparing as seen (sparring and kata) is a fallacy of the terminology.

To engage in kumite is to test / utilise lessons that should have been learnt in the transmission of kata. Correct learning suggests the waza within the kata are learnt to wrote and then the kata as a whole to provide a memory aid.

The modern interpretation of of "sparring" is quite frankly rubbishand impasses nothing unless you soley intersted in competition - there is no self defebce value. To fight / engage a person in combat requires the lessons contained within the kata.

To those who will no doubt mock and respond with bravado - you have clearly never actually faced a real combative situation - which bears no resemblance to dojo or tournament sparring.

P.S. it is widely known that Funakoshi altered the kata, removing the "good stuff" to create an easier system to transmit widely and hide the essence of karate. Having trouble understanding the actual meaning / purpose of kata, want the real deal - leave shotokan have a look at a good Shorin-ryu school or try a Koryu Uchinadi practitioer.

My apologies for these opinions and those whom have been offended.

Posted by: Unyu

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/17/08 03:08 AM

The 24fightingchickens guy must feel like a fool for training so many years in something (kata) which he feels did not impart the lessons he wanted to glean from them.

I guess with his karate training he feels that he is weaker, not stronger after it was all said and done. Sounds like most N. American and European Shotokan-ka I've encountered.

Kata alone without physical acumen, creativity, ruthlessness, real street experience and the reality of bone-on-bone contact means very little. In order to focus the energy of young, testosterone-filled men wrestling, boxing, sparring and kata were invented. Kata allows one to use a general outline of positions, movement and other physical and mental training devices in order to maintain a myriad of options ingrained through repetitive solo practice. You can't and don't want to spar all the time, especially if fighting is not your vocation. You can't always have the luxury of hard contact training or rolling with another person anyway.

You can either fight or you can't. Most good MAs types of whatever style who can walk the talk just become better fighters after training in a solid MA with proper, smart and logical instruction, kata or sans kata. Notice the clarifiers I used. If you train in some guff art you could be a potentially gifted fighter yet the system might actually stagnate that potential or even sap it.

Very few wimps become technically adept at fighting and executing what it is they learned from whatever MA they train(ed) in, but they may become better equipped at handling themselves just because of the experience. The mental factor as well being acclimated to conflict and contact do help a person to become more adept at fighting. Without luck you still ain't gonna whup a true squabbler like a Mike Tyson in his mugging days, but with a good system and a good teacher you can become a better you.

Most of us will never fight for real. We might force ourselves to fight for almost real as in combat sports and MMA. That's not true entropy. Anyone who has worked clubs, lived in a place where physical altercations are commonplace or comes from a hardcore abusive environment knows what real fighting is and it ain't that sport we see via the Dana White Gravy Train. Fighting for glory or money is fine, but it doesn't mean that you will be any more prepared for a real concrete thumpin' than your average karate BB. various headlines about MMAs guys getting their butts whupped by construction workers or regular Joes, from Hawaii to Japan, are out there. The unknown is a helluva equalizer...

I'm also sure that in order for guys like Bill Wallace, Chuck Norris or Joe Lewis (3 BBs in 1 year on Okinawa) to get their yudansha they had to know the kata up to their belt level. They can dismiss it all they want, like Bruce Lee did, but they did do it beyond the journeyman level, and in good styles at that. Same can be said for Jigoro Kano, Mas Oyama and many other founders of traditonal and nontraditional MAs out there. Even the 2-man self defense drills of GJJ, the bread and butter of the true street effective aspect of BJJ, can be said to be Yakusoku Kumite or even 2-person Honto Kata.

Yaduh-yaduh-yaduh! How the heck do I always wind up wasting my breath on this damned site! BTW Medula' the "Bucho Ikko" speaks of "alive" types. They are called "Nominal Budoka", all the talk of winning and competing and boasting. Kickin ones own arse for no good reason at all. "Glory mongerers" IOW. That's the interpretation I have of that special letter.

Some folks are like a rain puddle in the middle of the street. I mean the reflection can trick the observer, but how deep are they really? Is it pothole deep or half-an-inch of water? The same can be said about all aspects of reality. So--- Who you?!

Happy New Year!

Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/17/08 03:54 AM

ah Bryan you have been missed.............

happy new year mate!

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/17/08 10:10 AM

Hi Bryan.

Hows things?

Jude

Posted by: Ronin1966

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/17/08 01:56 PM

What exactly is gendai, more importantly why use it

?
How did ma train prior to a hundred years ago? Studying application come immediately to mind! Practicing sequences from a kata seem certain.

Two or more person studying how to respond to common attacks seems guaranteed.i.e. "...What do you do when your arms get grabbed..."

Jeff

Posted by: Ronin1966

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/17/08 02:07 PM

Hello Butterfly:

You forgot something critically important IMHV for that kind of study as well. Regardless of the particular label exploring how to respond means encountering particular challenges, problems that need exploration, examination correct? Going back and figuring out how to overcome the particular issue, to me seems the genisis of kata practice. Coped with that attack, how do you neutralize their next response? Chained together, ~poof~ kata

Jeff

Posted by: cxt

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/17/08 03:23 PM

dsv

Nope--sparring was NOT "an invention encourged and designed to engender national spirit and train children in combative arts leading into WW2."

Was it USED that way for some?

Sure.

But "sparring" even Japan far pre-dates the events "leading into WW2"--judo has been doing its version for long before that--and kendo even longer.

It maybe "widely known" but the idea that Funkoshi "removed the good stuff" is hardly that accurate---he may or may not have removed/changed all kinds of stuff--and he may well have---BUT that is another question entirley.

The "good stuff" is still there--both overtly and in areas that require a bit of study.

If your looking for the "real deal" I suggest you find a PERSON and place that knows and teachs what your looking for and depend less on perceptions of generic "styles" to guide you.

Posted by: Neko456

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/17/08 05:04 PM

I agree Funakoshi didn't originally teach his art with the wide long stance, some of his early Tokyo pictures show the shallow stance of Shuri-te. Now I don't believe that he taught the Kousho-ryu part of Shuri-te and he didn't stress the application in bunkia and really didn't want them to spar.

But I don't think alot of changes that were made be it good or bad, happened until Funakoshi was old and gone.

I believe he wanted to teach Karate as a culture exchange to and through the school system, he didn't want it to be the Tournament champion art/sport that it is today.

Shotokan has some serious kumite competitors and self defense components. Though it didn't turn out like he had hope I still think Funakoshi would be proud of the growth of his school. Thats just my opinion.

Shotokan to this day puts a lot of emphasis on it's Kata.

To me Kata has as much value & purpose to Karate as the webster dictionary has to the USA broken english, which is a good comparison to Karate. As some see both as Crude but affective.

Posted by: cxt

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/17/08 05:29 PM

Neko

Funakoshi also said (more or less) "High stances for experts and deep stances for beginners."

I think--that is to say IMO, both Funakoshi and Kano both were pretty much against the focus of competiton becoming THE focus for the art----sure its easy to say that their opinions seem to have changed with age, but my read of both mens work is that they at least thought their arts were more important than simply winning matchs---the competion was a method or path TO a goal--NOT the goal in and of itself.

I recall reading a quote from one of Funakoshis first students---guy, as a young man, had pushed hard for a heavy focus on sparring....and as an older man, felt that he might have owe Funakoshi and apology in the next life.....as in his opinion things went kinda exactly where Funakoshi thought they would go if the focus was on competitons.

Posted by: kakushiite

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/17/08 10:26 PM

Good discussion on the evolution of sparring. Although Funakoshi has left us with several texts in English, and possibly more in Japanese, I have not seen any mention in his writing about how the art evolved in Japan.

Jiro Shiroma once told me that the sport element of karate was a result of the Japanese Ministry of Education. It is no coincidence that the major martial arts taught in schools have a competitive element. Judo, Kendo, Karate, and to the extent that it is a martial art, Sumo.

I saw a post above that Kano didn't want to have competition be too much a part of his art. I hadn't read that before (though I confess I have not read extensively on the history of the development of Judo). It was my understanding that a big driver in the development of Judo was that it removed much of the dangerous locks and throws from its jujitsu-aikijitsu predecessors, precisely so it could be done safely in schools. And in schools, the Japanese Ministry of Education fostered competition.

This shouldn't be any surprise. In school systems, sports are done in a competitive setting, as it has been believed for a long time that competitive sports are good for kids.

Lots of folks like to criticize Funakoshi for changing the art. In some areas, I am not sure he had much choice. The Japanese culture is much more homogenous than Western cultures, especially the very heterogeneous American culture.

When the Japanese Government decided that martial arts taught in the school systems, high schools as well as colleges, would have a competitive element, Funakoshi well knew his place was not to challenge this.

There is an old saying in Japan, the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

The Ministry of Education in Japan is very powerful and influential. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, also known as MEXT or Monkasho, is one of the ministries of the Japanese government. The Meiji government created the first Ministry of Education in 1871.

The Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture was one of the most powerful and influential ministries in the government. Japanese government centralizes education and it is managed by a state bureaucracy that regulates almost every aspect of the educational process.

-Kakushite

Posted by: dsv_kempo

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/18/08 12:39 AM

thank you for that deliberation, far more eloquent in expression than my own.

Must learn not to bear emotion when writing

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/18/08 01:10 AM

Whe nyou learn not to do that,fill me in on your secret.

Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/18/08 09:36 AM

Personally I still question whether Funakoshi made any changes to his art and I seriously doubt he removed anything.

I think most of what folk consider changes are based on differences to the Shorin ryu schools technique. However Funakoshi was older and was teaching Karate long before most of those arts were founded.

I think if any changes were made then they came from Itosu/Azato. I think Funakoshi taught Azato's style of Karate with influences from Itosu, not Itosu's Karate as many seem to think. This difference in origin would account for the stylistic differences with arts like Shito ryu and Itosu linneage Shorin.

I also think that in an effort to make scientific that which was never based on western science, both the Japanese and the modern western practitioners have become fixated on the mysterious science of body mechanics, a subject that no two people agree on let alone two different MA stylists.
This fixation on mechanics has caused people to waffle about minute points of technique and tried to make static that which is fluid and adaptable to circumstance and practitioner. Those same people will in the next breath happily acknowledge that in the heat of real conflict much of the clean technical details fall away, completely contradicting any arguments they may have made about the necessety of "correct" mechanics in kata.

When Funakoshi discussed movements there was a flexibility of approach in his writings that to me clearly conveyed the message that it is the idea behind the movement that matters more than the movement its self. Hence he held the view that there are no styles of Karate, just Karate. The outward shape mattered little, Oizuki and gyakuzuki are the same etc, and deep study of the kata was supposed to help us realise this and teach us the principles and skills of effective fighting.

Funakoshi could not have held this view and written about it if he had ommited useful things from the kata or made hugely obfuscating changes to his art.

The argument that usually follows the shadowy unidentified but myriad changes argument is the one where Funakoshi didnt actually know Karate in depth, usually justified by a lack of demonstrated applications.

The thing is he demonstrated and discussed lots of application. But like kata you have to look for it and actually read his books as opposed to just looking at the pictures. Add to that the fact that he was asked to teach his own teachers son, that he had 40 odd years of karate training under his belt before he ever came to Japan and had been taught by masters all over okinawa. Somewhere in that life experience he'd have picked up something worthwhile.

Even a gold plated iphone can be used as just a paper weight if you don't play with the buttons and figure out how to use it.
Such was the fate of Shotokan.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/18/08 09:42 AM

Quote:

Personally I still question whether Funakoshi made any changes to his art and I seriously doubt he removed anything.

Shonuff, Shoshin Nagamine was one of the greatest karate researchers ever, and he states in his book about Okinawan karate masters that Funakoshi did in fact alter his karate, such as replacing nekoashi dachi with kokutsu dachi.

Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/18/08 10:15 AM

As I said, I'm not convinced this particular variation wasn't just a stylistic preference of Azato. Choki Motobu was against the use of cat stance so its inclusion was not a universal fact on okinawa.

Did Nagamine happen to find out why the change was made? After all it seems to be an incredibly small variation to make.

Posted by: kakushiite

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/18/08 10:29 AM

I think Funakoshi made several changes but agree that these are overhyped.

1. He changed the names of the kata since the Japanese did not like the original Chinese names.

2. He, along with others at the time, began teaching many kata. In Nagamine's "Tales" book, Choki Motobu was more concerned about the pointless practice of so many kata. But this was not unique to Funakoshi. While Funakoshi went to 16 and then to 25 (his students learning lots of kata from Mabuni), kata practiced in Okinawa was changing in similar ways.

3. The deeper stances were likely more a result of the desire to give younger students more exercise in training curriculums that were likely shorter than Okinawans practiced. (And it is just possible that this may have been a preference of the all powerful Ministry of Education.) Itosu said to practice 2-3 hours every day. But in high schools and colleges, this was probably not the norm.

Related to this was the change to competition. Here karate shifted from a defensive art to an offensive sport. And in competition, forward acceleration is a fundamental component. And who had the best acceleration in Japan???? The kendo students. And what stance did they practice with???? The deeper backstance that we find in Shotokan.

What I find most imusing in the Shotokan bashing stems from the simple fact that since Shotokan is so prevalent, every system has seen Shotokan kata. And when they compare Shotokan kata to their own and find it different, they think that Funakoshi must have changed the kata.

What they fail to recognize is that all systems practice different kata. Look at the Itosu lineages. The kata of systems descending from Funakoshi, Chibana, Mabuni, Nakamura and Toyama are ALL different. No two are alike. A comparative study of the kata of these systems shows that Funakoshi's kata differ from the others about the same amount as any of the others differ from the rest.

-Kakushite.

Posted by: Neko456

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/18/08 01:05 PM

I find that the changes were more prevelant and purposeful then that. Though I agree that some were catered toward the strengthing of legs through doing the basics.

But when you look at the way that each block is taught along with enlongated stance its clear that he wasn't showing the most efficient method of using this technique. Or when you really look at how the wraps up are actually used compared to the way they are initally taught you can tell theres something changed.

I believe that Funakoshi was choosen because he was the total package a teacher/cultural dipolmat/author/well spoken and knew how smooth things over. I believe that he wanted to teach Karate-do as a cultural exchange program through the school system as he was told to do by Itosu.

I also believe that the Motobu vs. Funakoshi debates were because Funakoshi had a different agenda and Motobu wasn't as well schooled. Kata was always taught as a method of training, some like Shito-ryu's Manubi felt that the more you have the more stored knowledged. (I still don't know why he didn't used more White Crane technqiues then principle? He seemed awfully impressed.) Thats another story back to the topic.

The changes seen in the other systems are small and more strategic then enlongated, each of the other Shorin systems seem to be trying better awys to make their system more efficent in motion, rather then make each move longer in anyway.

Shotokan was created and changed from the Shuri-te roots, imo for its designated purpose. IMHO.

The backstance thing may have come from kendo, but I would say Jujitsu/Judo because thats who was training in Karate Shotokan then.

In any event bc the Japanese fire test their products Shotokan is still a good discipline and a great sport as is the bigger/longer cocking TKD, though its my opinion Shotokan maybe more practical as a sport. You must forgive me but its hard for a Goju man to see chest bumpin to get space to kick as entertaining or effective (as seen in Olympic TKD). Near Chest to chest is were it starts getting good for us. Let me say that I am a old Tang-Soo-Do man so I'm not anti TKD, I know thats not combat TKD. I still have no reason why they do the chest bumpin?? Thats another story.

But this is just my opinion and opinions are like a$$ holes, everybody has one.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/18/08 01:42 PM

Quote:

Near Chest to chest is were it starts getting good for us.
But this is just my opinion and opinions are like a$$ holes, everybody has one.

Hi Neko.

From my limited kata study.

The near chest to chest part. From some of my limited studies I think that sometimes this is where people who devise bunkia (from kata practiced in their art) get confused.

If a technique was meant for in-fighting and it is in shotokan kata they sometimes seem to change it to something that is in-practical.

Kanazawa sensie added other kata to his curriculem.
He also studied tai chi.

The article that Victor posted stated that it would be beneficial for certain karate ka to study other styles/ kata to add to their knowledge.

It seems from some kata bunkia they dont.

But I am just speculating somewhat at the moment.

Jude

Posted by: cxt

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/18/08 01:59 PM

Kakushiite

From what I have read, Kano was pretty focused on his art being a true "budo"--asd much what we might view as the "other" benefits to martial arts study than its overt fighting applications.

In his view the competitons were a PATH to the goal--not the goal in and of itself.....IMO.

He was also pretty clear (esp in the early days) that he saw his movement as involving the preservation of classcial jujutsu techniques/art....the number of classical jutjutsu experts that taught at the Kodokan in the early days reads like a "Whos Who" of period jujutsu (and not a few Koryu experts) experts.

Course the other side of the argument is that his writings and actions also show a guy that wanted to establish his art as being preemenent.
And his "spirtitual" comments came AFTER he had done just that---later in his life.

I always find it helpful to look at arts that have come up against the same sitions and how they responed.
Take Kendo for example--the whole kenjutsu to kendo thing went down long before the jujutsu-judo or karate to karate-do thing went down.........interesting reads on both.

Posted by: Neko456

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/18/08 03:18 PM

Quote:

Quote:

From my limited kata study.

The near chest to chest part. From some of my limited studies I think that sometimes this is where people who devise bunkia (from kata practiced in their art) get confused.

If a technique was meant for in-fighting and it is in shotokan kata they sometimes seem to change it to something that is in-practical.

Jude

I have studied with and studied a little Shorin/Shotokan, Tang-soo-do, Gung-fu and little Silat and others but my base is Goju-ryu. Which does train infighting with bunkia formally. But where I really find this face to face situation important is in a real fight. Most people fall into this range that I like, lately called clinch r near clinch. So the practical and formal meet and I'm glad they did, this is not a class room theroy. I believe I have a firm understanding of this matter concerning what happen with and to me.

Shotokan address this situation differently. Each system has its range of comfort, I find that some Silat and Wing-chun guys like to get too close, which makes me clinch. I got ya. Lesson to the too Trad/sport, if you feel too uncomfortable in a real situation, clinch (and everything that goes along with it).

Again I will say by practicing Shotokan and with Shotokan stylist I know Kata means a lot to them. But they don't teach formal bunkai? Which defines what some of the Soke favorite or purposed technique were. It answered What is this Katas purpose & suppose to teach? Its my opinion its more then correct posture or a basic punch, its techniques within them there moves.

Karate is more then sport/sparring.

I'll add you probably don't know that the chest bumping, I was refering to is the method that Olympic TKD stylist use to clear room for their next kick, they will bump the other in the chest and turn and amazingly throw a Jump spining back thrust or hook kick. They don't need much room either. But really wouldn't a knee or elbow or sweep stomp work better at that range, but thats against their rules.

Again this is what I was saying MAs are more then sport/sparring for points/entertainment.

Posted by: kakushiite

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/18/08 05:14 PM

cxt,

Good post. Jiro Shiroma is a student of Shuguro Nakazato, and teaches here in the U.S. His version of this history is that when the U.S. forcefully opened up Japan, the U.S. portrayed the Japanese as barbaric, and in need of Western Culture as well as trade.

The Japanese found this deeply offensive, and to counter this, they wanted to present an enlightened image to the West. One thing that had to change were their martial arts, because these were a big part of the negative image. All these samurai slicing and dicing themselves on the battlefield.

In that effort, the Japanese government set out to reform the arts to make them less brutal. And from Shiroma's perspective this is why we have seen the evolution of combat arts to those safe for the young of Japan.

I agree that there were likely a whole series of influences that led to these changes over time.

But when looking at the evolution of the arts, from Kenjutsu to Kendo, from the Jujitsu/Aikijutsu arts to Judo and Aikido, from the ti that was taught in Okinawa to the Karate that Funakoshi taught in Japan, Shiroma's arguments make an awful lot of sense.

-Kakushite

Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/19/08 01:32 PM

Quote:

I think Funakoshi made several changes but agree that these are overhyped.

1. He changed the names of the kata since the Japanese did not like the original Chinese names.

2. He, along with others at the time, began teaching many kata. In Nagamine's "Tales" book, Choki Motobu was more concerned about the pointless practice of so many kata. But this was not unique to Funakoshi. While Funakoshi went to 16 and then to 25 (his students learning lots of kata from Mabuni), kata practiced in Okinawa was changing in similar ways.

3. The deeper stances were likely more a result of the desire to give younger students more exercise in training curriculums that were likely shorter than Okinawans practiced. (And it is just possible that this may have been a preference of the all powerful Ministry of Education.) Itosu said to practice 2-3 hours every day. But in high schools and colleges, this was probably not the norm.

Related to this was the change to competition. Here karate shifted from a defensive art to an offensive sport. And in competition, forward acceleration is a fundamental component. And who had the best acceleration in Japan???? The kendo students. And what stance did they practice with???? The deeper backstance that we find in Shotokan.

What I find most imusing in the Shotokan bashing stems from the simple fact that since Shotokan is so prevalent, every system has seen Shotokan kata. And when they compare Shotokan kata to their own and find it different, they think that Funakoshi must have changed the kata.

What they fail to recognize is that all systems practice different kata. Look at the Itosu lineages. The kata of systems descending from Funakoshi, Chibana, Mabuni, Nakamura and Toyama are ALL different. No two are alike. A comparative study of the kata of these systems shows that Funakoshi's kata differ from the others about the same amount as any of the others differ from the rest.

-Kakushite.

Kakushite,

I agree with most of your comments, however with regard to practicing a small or large number of kata, Funakoshi actually chose the middle road, prefering to train a relatively high number of forms in two stages. First learning the form to build co-ordination and secondreturning to the begining for in depth study. He was content with the original 16 and felt that there was no need of more.

The impression I get is that as GF got older his students listened less and less to him and did not study their forms in depth as he wished, prefering to spar competetively and saw mastery of the sequence of a kata as the whole challenge. Hence Funakoshi took a step back and let Gigo take the lead in shaping the art for the young. By all accounts the longer deeper stances were Gigo's preference, not Gichin's, and they likely were more about exercise. But as I previously wrote, GF's whole perspective on Karate was that the surface form mattered far less than the underlying principle so I doubt he wasn't too concerned.

It is unlikely back stance was anything to do with sport and competition as the first official tournament of the JKA was in the 1950's and there are pictures of Funakoshi using kokutsudachi from at least as far back as 1925. It stands to reason that changes made for competition reasons needed competitions to exist first.
As I said I subscribe to the idea that kokutsu dachi was simply a stylistic variation used by those who were not keen on cat stance. As you pointed out each style of Shuri-te based karate differs from the others by about the same amount so until I see something that confirms this and any other differences were actual 20th century changes and it is shown not to just be another assumption, I'm going to stick with what I see as the simplest and most evidentially suported solution.

I think this "changed for competition" myth needs to be clarified. If any such changes were made they were much more likely made by Nakayama or even Gigo Funakoshi, but not Gichin. Theres just no evidence to support the idea that he would do so and everything he wrote or was written about him leans away from the notion.

Neko,

Quote:

I find that the changes were more prevelant and purposeful then that.

Such as what?

Quote:

But when you look at the way that each block is taught along with enlongated stance its clear that he wasn't showing the most efficient method of using this technique. Or when you really look at how the wraps up are actually used compared to the way they are initally taught you can tell theres something changed.

I'm not sure I understand what this means?

I think you are saying that elongated stances are inneficient and/or that GF taught less effective uses of basic techniques?

If thats the case, then I would refer back to my previous point about the surface technique being ultimately irrelevant for learning to use karate, and I would also ask what is it that long stances are inneficient for?

Regarding things being changed because of the descrepancy between how things are taught and how they are used, I would suggest that GF's teachings were incomplete because he fully intended for the individual student to develop understanding through further independant study and training, as he comments to this effect numerous times in his writings. This culture of "work it out for yourself" seems by all accounts to be the Okinawan Way, which would account for why Shotokan was not the only style to lack deep application study as part of its syllabus.

Posted by: used2b

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/19/08 09:22 PM

To perform a kata properly, is much harder than it appears. Those low, deep stances have a great value and if done often enough become easy and natural, and very useful.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/19/08 11:21 PM

Low deep stances are a modern thing, not valuable in my opinion.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/20/08 01:43 AM

tying back to the opening post...

Quote:

http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2007/11/25/the-relationship-between-kata-and-kumite/

"There is no relationship between kata and sparring."

Show me someone who does deep, low stances during sparring and I'll show you a person who is sparring too far away from their opponent, playing tag.

Posted by: CVV

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/20/08 02:38 AM

Quote:

Low deep stances are a modern thing, not valuable in my opinion.

Monkey Kata
Deep enough for you ? He was in his seveties when performing this and already sick. He learned the kata from his father. Their tradition in bu-jutsu go all the way till 16th century. Their is some great info on the Matayoshi fighting traditions in the latest meibukan magazine.
Meubukanmagazine

Posted by: CVV

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/20/08 03:45 AM

The low stances in relation to fighting could come from the need to train mobility even when going deep to reach the target. JKA ippon kumite format tries to score "fast in - fast out" as only punching(tsuki-uchi) or kicking(geri) technique would score. One ippon and you won.
But to think thy would fight from deep stance is a misconception. Ippon kumite
From what I have heared from Kanazawa the early univesrity matches where much more brutal, allowing more contact, and closer fighting.

WKF shobu allows grabbing and throwing so fights can continue on close distance. It's a pitty elbows/knees/headbutts ar no longer allowed. JKA is part of WKF and they compete in WKF-circuit.
WKF SHOBU

Was the deep stance was primarely influenced by JKA ippon kumite? The format was the base for most of the karate point fighting systems. Other systems would have changed their kata to very low stances(Wado, Goju, Shito).
I do think that ippon kumite was the result of primary kick/punch applications and that their sense of best practice irimi was moving in a straight line, like you see in fencing/kendo. But point fighting evolved and most systems allow close-in techniques with high stance.
The association deep stance / play tag = point fighting, I think is not correct.

Posted by: kakushiite

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/20/08 10:03 PM

Several have noted that in sparring long stances are not effective, and have drawn what I believe is an incorrect conclusion about the relationship of deep stances and sparring.

What sparring added to the traditional practice of karate was a need for explosive forward movement for offensive techniques. Without an attacker quickly covering ground, there is no sparring. (As an aside, this does not imply that explosive forward acceleration was not a useful skill in Okinawan karate, just that the emergence of competitive sparring in Japan led to the development of new training methods to better develop this skill.)

The original impetus for sparring in Shotokan, likely came from Funakoshi's son Gigo. Gigo is also credited with the movement to high kicks and deep stances. After Gigo's death in 1945, Funakoshi's top student Egami continued with the emphasis on deep stances and high kicks.

This kind of training is grueling on the legs. And the constanct coverage of lots of ground through explosive steps from one long stance to another is a great training regimen. It is especially well suited for developing the strength and speed needed to cover lots of ground in kumite attacks. (I would also argue that this training, over the long term, may not be all that good on the knees, especially for those more muscular or heavyset.)

Below is an old clip of Egami's students, probably from the 40s or early 50s. It is instructive to look at the forward movements at :13. There is so much forward momentum that the student's stance doesn't stop him. And look at the students doing one step sparring at beginning at :36, and also at Taikyoku Shodan kata at 1:03. These are incredibly deep stances and anyone who has done this kind of training knows well what incredibly good conditioning this is for the legs, and can really improve the speed of offensive charges common in kumite. Those that cover a lot of ground quickly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad6bdqsFG5M

Once again, this doesn't mean that you would use these techniques, the same way in kumite. For mobility, you need to start in an upright stance.

We all use all sorts of training regimens that improve different capabilities but don't directly translate into kumite or fighting.

For a comparison, let's review this clip of a kendo training regimen. I believe anyone would be hard-pressed to say that these precise movements would be used in a kendo match. But they certainly do help build the leg power needed for the explosive offensive movements needed in kendo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzifRfZZXd0

One last note. I believe there is a big difference between the deep stances in the Matayoshi kata and what was practiced in Shotokan video above. While Matayoshi spends a lot of time in these deep stances, he does not use them to cover a great deal of ground the way that the Egami students do. It's the movement from one deep stance FORWARD into another deep stance that really helps develop the forward explosive power.

I believe that the Matayoshi stances would likely be more effective in improving stability and balance, a very different capability, but one that has enormous advantages in fighting.

-Kakushite

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/20/08 11:03 PM

Here is my logic for guessing that there is a connection between long and low stances to safe long-distance point spar - Funakoshi as well as his contemporaries all consistantly had relatively high and short stances. As noted by kakushiite above, post WWII saw changes not only to Shotokan, but to mainland Japanese systems in general towards safe distance point-sparring. This also corresponds to the time we see longer and lower stances particularly from the arts which incorporated this type of sparring into their training. It's my belief that since the assumed fighting range changed, so too did the assumed range of kata interpretation....thereby naturally lengthening, widening and lowering kata form.
As it became it's own look-and-feel (long and low), judges started to base the status quo on it's visual style and it stuck as a standard. More recently, with the advancement of protective gear and improvement to overall safety standards in sparring, these same arts are slowly closing the allowable distance - and as a result, we've started to see the stances slowly but surely creep back to the higher more natural fighting stances which are better suited at closer ranges - not surprizingly, the kata follow suit. So future 'standard' Shotokan may someday return back to looking more like Funakoshi and his generation.

my guess - no hard evidence, just observation.

Posted by: CVV

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/21/08 06:51 AM

Ed, I disagree with that logic, especially regarding the generalization for the Japanese schools.
Read this Interview
with Kanazawa regarding competition in the 50ies and 60ies.
They could tell from kamae wich style a karateka was. Goju neko-ashi dachi. Wado high stance no kamae. Shotokan more a long stance with kamae. The stategy to score the point in shotokan was from a longer distance than the strategy of the other styles/schools. The JKA format of kata with the long stances was a training tool, for the JKA not for Goju-kai not for Wado-kai and not for Shito-kai. Their kata did not use the long zenkutsu or kokutsu dachi. But they all did point fighting.

Kakushite, the Egami video says training in the 70ies, not 40ies or 50ies. The wideness of the stance Egami uses is even for most other shotokan groups too much. I do not know why he altered as he did but I believe he broke away from JKA. In regard to JKA, Nakayama is your man. I have one book from him amd he never stands in a deep and long zenkutsu-dachi. But he was already older in that book. I have always heared that the deep stance is a training tool.

Posted by: butterfly

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/21/08 12:01 PM

Interesting points on this thread. One, I am not a kata guy, and two, I do have a partial heritage from Shotokan informing the karate that I practice. Perhaps that's why I think low stances, outside of covering distance and leg conditioning have real defensive uses...regardless if they were thrown into the pot after the fact.

We practice in some sense a sport-centric karate. Not that the impetus is for sport, but some techniques are derived from MT and boxing because they were found to be valuable while using them...not that they have to be in a venue for sport only.

In any case, we also practice very low and long front and kibadachi stances for use as well. These are not necessarily for covering distance, but suprisingly, and perhaps for some, counter-intuitively, these are used to unbalance and control while in close proximity to an opponent as you take him off balance and he's falling.

As a point of observation, I found a couple of videos of my original instructor, Yoshida Sensei, but now named Hirahara Sensei (he had changed his name in Japan to take over an in-law's business). After the head of our style died, he started his own organization that isn't quite karate any more, but also contains Yoga and his take on martial arts. But some of this stuff is pretty much how I was trained by him. On this first link, go to the last of the listed videos and I think this will show some of what I am talking about.

http://www.shintaiikudo.jp/fullcon.htm

And here is another link that just shows flow, but in one section you see him demo a movement into zen-kutsdachi with and uraken back hand strike. You'll have to hit on the video player link under the Japanese characters that say DVD.

http://www.shintaiikudo.jp/menu.htm

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/21/08 01:35 PM

never said low stances are functionless. what I'm saying is the overall look and feel of mainstream shotokan changed corresponding to around the time sport-sparring was popularized (post WWII). but maybe I'm wrong. maybe Shotokan always had ground grappling in it's kata as well?

Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/21/08 05:13 PM

Hi Ed

I didn't see anyone suggest that Shotokan has always had ground grappling.
However I've suggested that the superficial changes to the art, such as elongation of stances, actually make no diffrence to the quality and effectiveness of the art presented as Shotokan when taken in context of the kata and Gichin Funakoshi's writings regarding their study. Regardless of the reasons for those superficial changes.

Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/21/08 06:08 PM

Edited out, going to far back in time.

Sorry

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/21/08 07:48 PM

if this sub-topic is not even in agreement that there are significant differences between what Funakoshi demonstrated (there are video and book pictures) in the 20's comparred to popular Shotokan today ...then there is really nothing to discuss.
It's like trying to explain the historical differences of Okinawan Karate and Japanese Karate. not to say one is better than the other, they just developed along different paths.

Posted by: CVV

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/22/08 06:58 AM

That shotokan had a different evolution than eg Matsubayashi is without doubt. But immediatly linking it to point sparring is not correct imo.
Why didn't wado-ryu change ? They have the comparable syllabus and also did point fighting at university.

I heared that Giko Funakoshi introduced the longer stances as training tool for leg development. Nakayama introduced the ippon kumite as standard for the JKA, not the entire Japanese karate society. JKA clearly states that they strive for the 'one hit one kill' principle and ippon kunite was a sport format to spar with rules to decide the winner.
This sport format was not the format they used at the university championships, wich was in the beginning more a last man standing contest.

What I do believe is that Nakayama with the JKA instructor programs build up a curriculum that strives to this 'one hit one kill' explaining irimi mostley as movement in a straight line towards the center of the opponent.
But JKA is not the only shotokan group and shotokan is not the only karate-style that is practiced on Japan mainland.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/22/08 09:43 AM

good points (no pun), however you seem to be making the argument that the stances in kata were changed since longer stances were considered benefitial as a training tool. when you make such a change globally to all your kata in a syllabus, it runs the very real risk of loosing utility - since utility is likely not the deciding factor to such an overall and sweeping change.

I don't buy it. I think the assumed range of kata interpretation changed to sparring range in order to justify a link between point spar and kata. look at the old 1950's and 1960's footage of kata interpretation: they are interpreting kata as if their arms are swords and the long stances are used to close the distance - waaaay too far away of a range to even begin to see the useful principles. when that kata<-->sparring link reasoning was shown not to hold water, the reasoning changed to 'longer and lower stances has training benefits' and left at that.

nobody can argue that long and low stance training builds strength and flexability - it's a sortof built-in pilates benefit. also, no one argues that there are some techniques where it calls for getting below an opponents center of gravity, or dropping yours. so natually *some* stances are low/long.

it's the overall change - almost as if a kendo look and feel was artificially grafted into all Shotokan kata, add to that an almost neurotic attention to geometric detail which leds to the robotic-ness of movement and it became the staple impression of early post war Japanese Karate (prior to the development of the full-contact systems that soon followed).

so today, for the traditionalists, that nagging question must still be there for the people trying to interpret their long and low stanced katas into a close-range application: how come the footage of Funakoshi and others of his time show higher and more natural stances.

maybe others disagree, and maybe I'm 180 degrees wrong, but I think interpreting okinawan kata with that kendo-like mindset and sword-range misses the whole point of the principles within the Okinawan forms.

but we can agree to disagree - we're all just contributing opinion.

Posted by: cxt

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/22/08 10:35 AM

Wasn't it Funakoshi that said something like "higher stamnces for experts-lower stances for beginners."

Something like that.

Posted by: CA_Isshinryu

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/22/08 01:24 PM

I'll be honest and say I have not read this thread. I have found the following article and provide a couple of sections from the Abstract:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-65352539.html

The researchers suggested that there are three key elements when working with violent adolescents. First is the role of the sensei (teacher) as an "exemplar of restraint," a parent figure, and someone with faith in the student. Second is the teaching of the do (the ethics and philosophy of martial arts) along with the physical training. Third is the use of the kata (noncombative physical forms), which stress technique rather than conflict.

The psychotherapeutic aspects of martial arts were outlined by Weiser, Kutz, Kutz, and Weiser (1995), and included a focus on enhancing self-esteem through the use of physical activity, group experiences, relaxation training, concentration, assertiveness training, and rewarding honesty in communication. Layton, Higaonna, and Arneil (1993) also found that the practice of kata in two different styles of karate (goju-ryu and koyokushinkai) lowered aggression...

Posted by: Bushi_no_ki

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/22/08 03:47 PM

Can we please leave the dead horse and dead dog alone.

Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/22/08 04:44 PM

Ed

I'm not saying there were not changes made to Shotokan As Funakoshi demo'd it and how the JKA teach it today. What I am saying is that the changes are superficial, and ultimately with a bit of study make no difference to what is contained within the art/kata.

I am in total agreement that the JKA are guilty of practicing Shotokan out of distance, but that is a superficial mistake easily rectified by the individual if not by the lumbering tradition obsessed JKA.

I don't accept the changed for sport argument because as CVV said, no one else changed who took part in the same sport. Also there was no points fighting scene when the changes were brought in, they happened before.

What I do think fuelled the changes was the desire to spar with only a knowledge of the basics and a lack of desire to engage in serious kata study. Shotokan was e-optimised for long range strikes as one generates more power when one has more room in which to accelerate.

I know it is an alien concept for modern MAists, but there are other ways to fight percussively other than at close quarters and the Shotokan moved in that direction. Much as how the Kukiwon has turned WTF Taekwondo into it's own animalafter learning Shotokan from the Japanese, so before them the JKA turned Shotokan into their own art, an art that exists almost completely seperate to the kata they have inherited.
Kata which they kept in tact and so preserved the principles and strategies which transcend superficial stylisations.

Posted by: dsv_kempo

Re: Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited. - 01/26/08 05:34 PM

Hi - have been away a while, there are a number of valid points / conjectures floating around this topic, and I thought I would this link as a point of consideration to some:
http://www.koryu-uchinadi.com/Myth_Busting.htm

keep punching (and kicking)

Value of kata (Groan!!!!), revisited.