founderoffriedfish,

Whilst I appreciate your humor I would like to stick to real theories with fighting applications.

Well you could get hold of a few human corpses and test out your theories. People do sometimes leave their bodies for scientific research.

Surely it is worth asking whether it is at all likely that the old masters who created kata would have experimented on live or dead humans. Personally I don’t think either of these cases is very likely but I could be wrong.

Martin

It might be assumed effective techniques were developed in one single generation. I imagine it to be a constantly evolving process.

Think of all the adjustments, tweeks, deliberate and/or consequential changes to a technique over several generations of acually using them - full power, full force, intent to kill in a war setting. It's a very different mindset that I only know enough to realize I can't even imagine about. As passed down, each generation wants to give their next the best of what they've learned and improved upon. next gen does the same and so on.

Your tounge in cheek example is not so outrageous, but the timescale spans over centuries not a single battle. If you look into the fairly well documented history of the development of warfare during the middle ages in various parts of Europe, you'll see how weapons/techniques/tactics progress in blended stages.

H2H development should be no different- I think it's reasonable to assume it develops along the same learning and adjustments curve in any part of the world....the needs dictated the skill. The needs were to defeat as fast as possible.

Melee combat on ancient battlefields is a fact. people East and West DID fight with swords at one time...they DID need to know how to kill someone in the quickest amount of time to lesson chances of being skewered from behind as oppossed to trying to 'tap' their opponent out on the ground.

If history is not ignored, it is a certainty that men in all 'civilized' societies had training methods and a knowledge base of methods.
I believe in it's beginning stages, efficiency of training those methods of quick killing was formed into kata as a recallable and consistant training tool.

The methods and needs of the warrior gradually changed with technology...calling for less and less H2H for military purposes...meanwhile, some ex-military guards employed to protect a temple or castle (still talking generically East or West), incorporate their training, but choose not to train the battlefield murder-moves and instead focus more on defense, control and restraint...and perhaps even methods of non-lethal crowd control. Of course they still trained and passed on the battlefield knowledge, but maybe it gets transfered to less and less people after each generation.

More centuries pass with kata being reshaped along the way to the needs of the people in occupation to use them as a training method.

Eventually, kata goes thru another revolution of changes, this time with civillian self-defense in mind. The people using and training this way, over time, over generations form the practice of kata to their self-defence needs.

In the line of thinking that I'm following, Kata went thru yet another series of 'adjustments for the needs' when introduced as a fairly safe practice of physical fitness and rudamentary skill building to the teenagers of well-off families in schools which were more than likely destined to become officers/soldiers during the first high-technology driven war...WWII. The history from there is more or less documented.

A possible way I see kata developing into, is for a practice of well-being, moving meditation, perhaps even 2-person moving meditation. The threat, to justify inordinate amounts of time practicing self-defense, is just not there for most people in suburbia during the 21st century. A bit of street smarts, awareness and technology(cell phones, protection devices,etc) is sufficient enough for more than most.

If kata practice moves that way for the mainstream, fine ...but it doesn't need to be justified by ignoring kata's original very probable battlefield intent.

It's almost like people need to justify in their minds what they do, even if that involves ignoring sensability.

I understand the motivation...the market is heading towards well-being, not self-defense - whoever comes up with a good sounding theory as to how and why kata should be practiced for well-being, gets to open the first book and gym-chain. going a step further to seal the deal would be to come up with a theory of kata's original intent of well-being...eons ago...predating it's Martial training use. It's romantic and it would sell. Actually, I'd like to believe it myself - it would give a nice 'full circle' in people's minds on the history of kata practice.

It's not a bad thing...everyone has a right to make a living. It is what it is.

I suppose you could get some soldiers together and get them to make their own kata for killing people h2h and compare it to karate kata. But if you are saying that the kata themselves have changed over time then this is all just speculation, “hypothetical” as Victor originally said.

Quote:

---

I would like to stick to real theories with fighting applications

---

… said Victor. By real I assume he meant testable… I could be wrong though.

Hmmm… just to recap we need some soldiers and some corpses… why not visit a war zone somewhere? (not me though)

Martin

nope. don't need to time-travel to a H2H battlefield with corpses...just find a good instructor to convince you. We can only find something when we know what it is we are looking for. either we know it when we see it, or we don't and pass it by.
There is an element of testability but there is also an element of faith. and by the use of the word faith, I don't necessarily mean spiritual, sipping kool-aid, or sensei-envy. I mean the kind of faith that when you see/feel something working you have a eurika moment and honestly say to yourself...now THAT makes sense to me.

An application in which someone has faith, confidence and practice in is the most effective. whether your app is ending confrontations or in new-age well-being methods (not me though), if its effective for you, then you are accomplishing what you set out to do.

The only time people need OTHER people to believe in what they are doing, is when they are selling it. Thats why the best stuff is the hardest to find and the crap is in the mall.

I think we have to accept certain things, as they are presented to us and as we test them for ourselves.

For example, for years I was told that reverse punch to the solar plexes was deadly (Im sure it could be), first time I 'used' one all out, the guy said good shot and hit me back - this was in a very hard contact training session, I thought my punch was weak from then on and that my karate instructor was talking rubbish (with hindsight he was about many things!).

Roll on about a year and in a competition I landed the exact same punch, difference was I had evaded a front kick and pulled the opponent in slightly, he had turned a little and I hit him in the side, lower rib area, about 50% power I guess - almost a snap reverse punch,

He went down like a sack of spuds and couldnt continue, I was reliably informed later that he had suffered 2 cracked ribs (and he was a fit, capable man), all of a sudden reverse punch had more meaning........

poor examples Martin but i hope you see my point.

Our training centres around freeplay for kumite, against common methods of assault, this helps us see that our defense is 'effective', well effective enough to accept and move on.

So we are back to either personal truth and/or your sensei’s personal truth. So the answer is yes, it is all hypothetical.

Martin

Martin with respect I think you are making to much of this aspect of the arts, of course certain things are hypothetical, to test them could be very unplesant.

Add to this the chaos of a real encounter, whilst science and philosophy can show us many things, who really knows the outcome......

So we relie on our own perspectives/expierience, as you say personal truths - my truth is that I am sure many karateka can deliver much damage and held within the kata is deadly (as well as healing), ancient knowledge that should be studied with respect and preservered for future generations.

It would seem that I am not alone as many of my Seniors, whom I respect much for their expeirience and ability seem to agree, and IMO the history avaliable supports this view.

technically yes, it's all hypothetical...till you ask someone who knows what they are doing to show you...then it won't feel hypothetical.

I once asked an instructor to show me what he was talking about on a particular sequence...and perhaps senseing a bit of reluctance to believe that it could work on my part, he proceeded to 'show' me at full speed...

At first, it's not the technique or theory you have faith in, it's having faith in the instructor....nothing hypothetical about that. Either we find someone who can open our eyes....or we pass it by.