Well John, I'll accept your use of "dead" is the opposite of "alive". Nicely put.

But I don't think it's any newsflash that your other terms for kata leave nothing to the imagination when it comes to your (perhaps contextually understandable) contempt for this training method.

I'm not asking you to like kata or see it as necessarily offering you something. All I'm asking you to do is to open enough to consider that some of us can and do put kata to a useful combative purpose (even if it isn't necessary for fighting per se or won't ever appeal to you). You might even show a bit of interest in why we kata people bother with it. Who knows, you might learn something - even if it's just about how/why other people do things differently.

Suffice it to say that I am actually in agreement with many of your posts as I've told you before. And I don't want the debate curtailed. I just want it to take a positive direction (as you frequently ask yourself). The problem is that you use language (I'm sure unwittingingly) that is fairly harsh towards us "kata types". No skin of my nose. I get hate mail all the time for my blog (the internet is full of weirdos who do things like that). I've had years of defendants shouting abuse and spitting at me for doing my job. I'm thicker-skinned than my posts seem to suggest. If I were really angry I wouldn't bother posting anything. And if I have been rude or overly strident I'm going to admit it - as I have done many times (let the record show).

But my central point is that people aren't going to debate things that I think would be useful to explore if kata/tma debate ends with "it's useless - forget it". I get the feeling my own (subtle) distinctions are frequently drowned out and missed in this context.

Remember that people aren't necessarily arguing the points about kata that you and many others who are from a Western combat sports background seem assume. A bit of textual/visible "respect" - only in not appearing to assume that we "don't get it" would be not only appreciated, but it might encourage some quieter forum members to air their views. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them weren't $hit scared of your pragmatic arguments. This is especially so when the subtlties of kata people's arguments are lost in the "prove it" invitations (which often wrongly assume they are arguing the "necessity" or "superiority" of kata over partner resistance training). Maybe people did argue such things in the past (there's no monopoly on logic with any type of martial artist). This would account for your frustration. But I'm not arguing anything like that here, nor has anyone lately as far as I can tell - although I stand to be corrected.

So sometimes you have to stamp your foot for effect.

Now I'd like to move on and invite you to consider my points made about focus in karate punches. If you want a summary I'll try to accomodate your request, but it's not a long article by any stretch and is nicely illustrated with pictures and videos.

That should give you some idea of why karateka and other tma punch the way they do (ie. why they have a different punching "delivery system") - even if you and others don't like it particularly.

I like your articles Dan. Have you considered contacting this site's owner and getting paid to write one for the front page?

Kata Kata Kata...so often this is discussed and so often it lands exactly in the same place.

Kata has a lot to offer a fighter, it starts with basic movements and progresses as you learn new Kata, designed to teach quite specific applicable fighting concepts. You have to understand what any given Kata is trying to teach you, and admittedly a good portion of TMA schools have lost this information, making their Kata fairly useless, and that is too bad.

But Kata, trained correctly is quite valuable. Can it's lessons be trained in other ways? Not really in my opinion. The struckture of movement plays a large role in the development of how a fighter moves, how they transition from different positions and put themselves in the best postion to continue the fight, and/or defend.

Of course these lessons should be applied in an alive setting, but you have to walk before you run, and moving too quickly into alive training actually stunts a fighters overall growth and often leads to a sloppy fighter with less then great efficiency and refinement of technique.

Kata is also a catalog. For those of us who are students of the arts, and wish to learn beyond the basics of Kicks and punches, Kata can be a treasure chest of information and contain many pearls of wisdom, if you have the inclination to look, and have an instructor that can show you the true nature of a given Kata.

Do you have to study Kata to become a great fighter? Of course not. But to say it's a worthless tool is just silly.

Thanks Harlan

I sent Chris a article about embu (2 person drills) a while back and heard no more. Mabey it was too long and esoteric. This might be the kind their looking forward to. Who knows...

But to the question, I don't like the idea of strikes being better. I think boxing uses a very simple delivery system that is extremely efficient and effective.
Karate uses both simple and complex delivery systems that offer far more options but also take considerably longer to make work as efficiently as boxing strikes.
So I guess it depends on how much time you want to invest.

How did Kata again become the focal point of which system offer the most potent strikes and range? Kata is foundation building and we all know that Kata doesn't contain all the strikes used in Karate. So I find that this is a foundation topic and doesn't address the idea of potentcy or best for the purpose of self defense.

I feel (and I maybe wrong) there are Kata strikes that build foundation and proper way of doing things. And there are combat strikes that adjust to the moment and are used for effect not proper posture but results. In combat you may have to weave and strike you may have to duck and kick or dive in for a tackle/shoulder butt proper poster is not always possible but proper postion and timing helps make the move work. In saying this I'll trade a eye gouge/flick for a punch to the forehead anyday, because whats coming next is Katie bar the door!!

Kata is a building process.Potency is the results of contact. I believe in Kata but I don't strike with my head always straight in the same spot or in great posture in Combat. Quite frankly I don't care how it looks only that Like a mirror I respond.

Kimo2007 there is such a thing as a better strike. For exampple in my above statement. I'll take a finger strike to eye over a jab to the forehead anyday. Which would be the closer for you? There is a better just like there times to do a technique over another. I agree with your analogy of Kata.

Another example boxing is better in Gloves imho. Karate is better at Kicking and trapping range which leads to elbows, sweeps and STOMPS!! Peanut butter and Jelly baby they go together and are better then a Tomato sandwich.

Quote:

---

How did Kata again become the focal point of which system offer the most potent strikes and range?

---

It's all Johns fault.

Quote:

---

Kimo2007 there is such a thing as a better strike.

---

Maybe if you mean for a given situation, but as the situation changes so would the best available strike. My point is simply that a jab is not better or worse then another strike it's simply different and has a specific application it is good for.

In terms of posture and stance in combat not always being perfect like in Kata, I think that goes without saying, a live and fluid environment will cause you to alter everything. But that does not preclude working within yourself and staying in control of how you move, keep balance snd set up stikes and defense. The stronger your fundamentals, the more deliberate and efficient your fighting will be.

There is no argument on foundation building making stronger strikes, as far as I'm concern. But really I don't worry about that until I'm back in the dojo. Saying you have to dance with girl you brought to the dance. The main things is to hit where you want to hit as many times as it takes.


On the question of Better strikes.

At punching range what is boxing longest strike the steping rear hand (almost Oi-tsuki like) or the jumping hook punch?

Niether is as long as a crossover side kick or kick to the leg/leg check. Is the close fist jab longer then a finger jab aginst similar reach fighters? Close fist does have more variable targets of contact.

So I'm not talking just close fist strike but total striking arsenal. Which is best?

What range/distance does each lack striking abilty at? I know that each can move into range but which system offer the abilty to hit at almost any range. Which has the longer or closest ranges which would include knees and elbows. You'd have agree there is a distance where close pucnhes are not as effective.

I agree that there is a time and place that makes one technique better then another but does both systems pratice using all ranges. Surly you could add bits and pieces to your boxing but if you don't pratice it you probably won't count on it when its needed. And back to foundation it won't be as pwoerful as if you routinely trained to set it up.

I know that Boxers will hit once they have downed an opponent but will they cover their jewels as they bend over to strike. What I'm saying is we fight the way we train, the further we get from adhock methods that are spar of the moment the more potent the move.

Boxers advantage is reflextive response and that they have fewer weapons to sharpen, but this is also their weakness, imho.

I wouldn't say that a boxer is better at Kicking range to make a mute but valid point.

Hi Guys,

its a great post so go for it, I only post the rules as a reminder to keep it in line - to a point, im also not particualry 'pc' but we need to remember we are in the karate section and we are running a public forum,

as a moderator I make judgements on when things need a little nudge back to topic etc etc, nothing more.

Here is the second part to my article about punching. The first related to "kime" or focus in karate punches. This one deals specifically with a physics analysis of karate punches vs. boxing punches.

As you'll see I've not decided that "karate punches are better". Or that boxing punches are "better". I've highlighted the nature and differences in what John calls "the delivery systems".

http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/11/karate-punches-vs-boxing-punches.html

If anyone who doesn't and hasn't done an art like karate is curious to understand what karate punching is all about, this should give you an idea (at least I hope it will).

(It also follows on from my other article "Hitting harder: physics made easy".)