thoughts on Kata

Nick, I'm not hounding you mate,I would just like to know, when you have time, your thoughts on Kata. ps are there any good clips of Kata and your form of Karate? Cheers Rob Mac

Roadkill and I have talked about doing a workshop/seminar at his school in Florida. When and if that happens I'll film some breakdown that hopefully will explain our take on it.

Nick

If Roadkill's ready, I am. Let's do it.

Optimystic wrote:If Roadkill's ready, I am. Let's do it.

Cool... did you break out your check book? LOL

Do it mid-March and I'll be there...

D

I just told my wife this morning that she BETTER give me some of my money ... please. Honey. I think she's gonna give me some!

Optimystic wrote:I just told my wife this morning that she BETTER give me some of my money ... please. Honey. I think she's gonna give me some!

You know the definition of a father is a man who keeps photos in his wallet where his money used to be?

I don't normally post on here but the title of the thread got me since I have an article by the same title written awhile back..

Thoughts on Kata

November last year...

Maybe it's just me? But most of the stuff on your blog Tommy_p, seems to be a (bad) regurgitation of everything that Steve Morris has ever written on his site.

However, on an aside, I particularly like this one of yours as it's more relevant to the topic.

I sometimes wish I had the resources to go around doing seminars. I would start the "Anti Bunkai Tour," and begin debunking all the charlatans. All the bunkai guru's who want to fool you will be exposed. A tip off is when they say "OK attack me using...” (insert technique here) What? You want to preplan the attack? Is that how it happens in the street? They always want to set up the attack and that is because it is something they have control of. They have done it a thousand times. Screw you...I will attack when and how I please....bunkai that!!! If I were to do a demo on application I would just have someone...anyone, not a prearranged partner, attack me, anyway he wanted to. That would show a real defense; that is how a real attack occurs, it's an unknown. You can't take a technique and say it is designed for a specific attack or a certain type of attack and then set up an example. That categorizes techniques and fighting isn't that predictable. Yes, I can see my tour now. One by one I will unravel all the impressive defenses and show how they don't work in real time. How they are con games made to sell books and seminars, or to make the demonstrator appear knowledgeable and head and shoulders above you. I would show that whatever it is they are showing you is all they can do. Put to the test (a fight) they, and their techniques would fall apart. I would politely say "OK, hurt me with some bunkai" better yet "kill me if you can."

PaulGappyNorris wrote:November last year...

Maybe it's just me? But most of the stuff on your blog Tommy_p, seems to be a (bad) regurgitation of everything that Steve Morris has ever written on his site.

That may be true and I wouldn't deny the similarities in principles. The methods of training weren't the same though. Steve has a "training Method." I have my own ways of doing things that weren't at all like his at the time of those writings up until the last few aritcles. I had my own beefs with how I had been taught and what I've seen over the years compared with "my own" reality. My blog are my "thoughts" put down about something I have been spouting for years on other forums. Some of those writings come out of saved posts. Many people share similar principles, thus the familiarity. I myself have read books that had me thinking someone had access to my files!!! Right down to certain words I use. For example, I have seen the word "progressive' used often lately when talking about training for example. That is something I have been using for a very long time. Lifted from me? Doubtful....just similar thoughts.

Many of my articles were lifted from files I had stored from as far back as 2004 and 2005. Some I lifted whole and some I reworked to update them and take some of the references to Shotokan out of them; others were posts from other karate forums. As far as influences in my training, thus my writing, they come from everywhere and some from far back and some not so far. "BUT" most of what I write can be found written elsewhere, or in some cases the principles written about, on forums as far back as 10 years ago. Steve Morris has only come to my attention recently. I'm sure future writings will be influenced by his thoughts though. Hopefully not "regurgitated" though....ouch

Thanks for the critique though. Some like some don't....the way of the world isn't it.

Sorry I caused a sidetrack of the thread here.....I shouldn't have wandered in....it was a slow forum night last night! Anything else should be taken privately ....thanks.

Tommy

anti bunkai...hmmm, because in your opinion it's unfair to demonstrate how to get out of a particular grab by setting it up in advance?????

How else would you demonstrate what the moves are for in a kata then? In other words, my instructor showed me that this particular move is designed to deal with this particular attack and I'm going to pass that along to my students so they understand what it is they're doing when they do the form (after all, one of the huge criticisms of the forms is most people are just dancing because they don't know what the moves are for right?)

So you'd have me say, "ok, just start attacking me with anything at all, hopefully at some point you'll actually use the move this technique is designed to counter." Is that it then?

When I did ju-jutsu they taught us how to get out of a headlock - yeah, sorry, they set it up in advance again. We'd practice the move until we got it down and then we'd practice it some more for an upcoming test. Years later, working on the door, someone (unplanned don't ya know) grabbed me in a headlock, and I got out of it using the technique I'd been taught. Gee, I wonder how that happened?

So how would you teach a new student headlock defenses - given they're so common in the street - given that you can't just demonstrate it because that's planned and attacks in the street aren't? I'd really like to know.

Funny, I've been to a few first aid courses and wilderness first responder courses and everything we learned was planned i.e. you come across someone with a bone sticking out of their arm and this is how you deal with it...how dare they? We all know accidents aren't planned. You should start an anti-first aid training course.

When I got my pilots licence the instructor taught me how to deal with various mid-air mishaps, engine failure, stalls, and spins to name but three. The bastard planned them. He actually said "ok, cut the power as if you've got a fuel blockage and we'll practice what to do" What a prick!! I want my money back Tommy, you're so right. We should get you on an anti-mid-air mishap tour. When the pilot says right, we'll work on getting out of spins, you can just do something else entirely because mid-air accidents aren't planned. And, if you're going to teach that stuff, just how would you? Fly around long enough and hope that during the lessons you'll experience all the possible problems?

As I sit here writing this I'm thinking of the body guard courses I've attended, the high speed offensive driving courses, first aid, flying lessons, scuba training, small unit tactics etc...every single one of them set their classes and problems and solutions up in advance. A mate of mine here who's a SWAT trainer actually has to do a "lesson plan" for each class he has to teach...fancy that, planning something so unpredictable and fluid as a shooter locked in building threatening to kill people. We'll have to set up an anti-SWAT tour as well eh?

Just FYI, we have training designed to deal with fluid unpredictable attacks but you don't throw someone into that until you've prepared them for it. As Joe Hubbard so rightly said, "You don't learn to swim in a tsunami."

Nick

PS: Should I get my money back from the workshop I did with Steve Morris? We did kata breakdown for about three of the five hours I was there?

Wow...there's really a lot to cover here! Now, I have been accused of repeating myself in my writing but this is part of the reason. I'm never sure of my writing style and I don't want people to misinterpret me. I didn't go to school so my writing is self taught...maybe I'm not clear. I repeat myself so people have more chance of reading me saying "I don't think karate is bad, I think how it is commonly taught is." And please take note of the word "commonly" that doesn't mean all

Now to the post. First off I think that the signals may be crossed between my kata article and the quote on the Anti bunkai thing...those are two separate articles.

Nick Hughes wrote:anti bunkai...hmmm, because in your opinion it's unfair to demonstrate how to get out of a particular grab by setting it up in advance?????

Not at all, without being familiar with me or most of what I write you wouldn't know that I have given examples of what I do like as far as bunkai goes. If I had to choose what I liked it would be Okinawan Goju. I like this better than the Japanese version and some of their older ways of training suit me better. Instead of Kihon, break into groups and work defenses from kata. But my argument usually focuses on my point that I don't believe you need kata to learn how to defend yourself. Look at Krav Maga, good for self defense but no kata. Of course there are the kata types out there that will say the techniques look just like such and such a kata....whatever. As for "karate." well karate "is" kata and my argument is that if you are going to do it then do it right.Wouldn't you agree that there are those out there teaching nonsense? Isn't that why you preach what you preach....to out do the charlatans?

How else would you demonstrate what the moves are for in a kata then? In other words, my instructor showed me that this particular move is designed to deal with this particular attack and I'm going to pass that along to my students so they understand what it is they're doing when they do the form (after all, one of the huge criticisms of the forms is most people are just dancing because they don't know what the moves are for right?)

Yes, Nick but I believe that all you need to teach are the "defenses." why carry the kata around anymore? To transfer the info/techniques? What about self defense systems that have no kata...invalid? You can demonstrate "karate moves" or techniques....just don't attribute them to a kata. Pass on the technique/defense only...for get about where it came from...that is more or less my point. I don't think the whole solo form does anything other than catalog moves and not even in a precise manner at that.

So you'd have me say, "ok, just start attacking me with anything at all, hopefully at some point you'll actually use the move this technique is designed to counter." Is that it then?

I have seen, as I'm sure you have also, the guy who demonstrates a defense against a haymaker for example. "take a swing" he says. The guy attacking . being a karate guy usually steps forward with the punch stepping with the right leg if doing a right punch. The instructor then goes on to show the defense. "I" don't punch that way and that isn't how it happens normally. Many, myself included swing like a boxer without stepping. When that happens the instructor quite often says, " no not that way punch like this." So what happens with that defense? Is it that specific? Kata techniques are principles and templates to be learned and used (and adjusted ) on the fly. Forget about " a punch" coming at you. I taught bunkai or defenses only as " a limb" coming at you." It could be a grab attempt a push a kick a punch a hairpull etc. The technique deals with movement not a static technique. Also the principles of "Float, sink, swallow and spit." This allows you to add in the "what ifs"

did ju-jutsu they taught us how to get out of a headlock - yeah, sorry, they set it up in advance again. We'd practice the move until we got it down and then we'd practice it some more for an upcoming test. Years later, working on the door, someone (unplanned don't ya know) grabbed me in a headlock, and I got out of it using the technique I'd been taught. Gee, I wonder how that happened?

That's great, I never said it can't work, only that there are variables that normally aren't taken into account. Your fighting ability may have been a help...what about the non fighter being picked on at school or work wanting to learn who can't relate to a fight? Example:
A commonly taught defense is one against a lapel grab or a choke. "Choke me the instructor says." Or Choke your partner. After the choke is applioed he will say "c'mon...really choke me." then what happens? The student "squeezes harder! That is a problem for me because it isn't real. A real choke would be violent and have push to it maybe slamming you backward into a wall or car. It wouild almost be stike like in it's attack. How about the lapel grab? Kata adresses this numerous times. But in class it is often tims practiced by someone grabbing the lapel while the defender applies the escape which is usually some sort of armbar or pressure against the elbow. This is because after they grab the lapel the elbow is facing the outside which invites a lock that hyper extends it using the joint as a fulcrum. Ok onto the street. That grab would come also like a push as in the choke and it may drive you back. It will be viloent. But the major point is this. When the instructor says "grab the lapel hard" the students squeeze tighter for a stronger grip hoping to thwart attempts at breaking it. However a real grab would twist material in your hand thus facing the grip so the palm side is up. "That" then points the elbow down! what happens to the nice defense you just practiced now that the elbow is out of position? This is my point....a technique has to be like a circle...no beginning and no end. if you know it completely then it flows and you know where to go without skipping a beat. It isn't "this defends that." (IMO)

So how would you teach a new student headlock defenses - given they're so common in the street - given that you can't just demonstrate it because that's planned and attacks in the street aren't? I'd really like to know.

I would teach the defense but not a kata around it. The move would end up looking different in kata and that makes no sense to me. I have a very basic defense I used to teach beginners against a headlock that looks exactly like a mawashi uke comon in Goju (as in the end of Sanchin kata). But is it from that kata? No way...I was doing that long before I ever experienced Goju. All it is is one hand guiding the head from under the nose while the other scoops the back of the leg. It could be atributed to mawashi uke...but why? I teach defenses but I don't relate them to kata or anything. I have a few applications of shuto uke but they are just that, defense against a limb coming at me. Do I need to call them knife hand blocks or that they come from a kata? I'm sure I do them much different anyway. Anyway, after I teach the basic headlock escape and all that might go wrong I then move into "fighting" rather than practicing the define over and over. ,But the fight will revolve around the headlock or whatever defense you're working. This way you learn it in action rather than a static point. You learn what to do when he switches up on you or hits you with the other hand or tries to unscrew your head. You fight revolving around the headlock.

What about this http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-85uxlIs9sE

He is one of the leading exponents of Okinawan Goju. What he demonstrates is supposedly right out of the cats mouth. Can you honestly say that stuff would work for real? If he is the one who "knows"
then how can a westerner have something better? We were taught by them. If what we have is better then it isn't what he has...it's our own.
I have my kata and I have my application and understanding of kata application. But I tossed it all. I still have applications or I should say "defense." But I don't attach them to kata or anything other than stuff I've trained and learned. I'm not anti kata but I am against how it is "often" taught and trained. I think that does more harm than good.

Funny, I've been to a few first aid courses and wilderness first responder courses and everything we learned was planned i.e. you come across someone with a bone sticking out of their arm and this is how you deal with it...how dare they? We all know accidents aren't planned. You should start an anti-first aid training course.

C'mon now Nick...I won't even answer that. Rethink that one buddy
Medical attention and fighting....I don't make the connection and I won't try.

PS: Should I get my money back from the workshop I did with Steve Morris? We did kata breakdown for about three of the five hours I was there?

Personally if I went to train with Steve and he decided to do kata breakdown, I'd leave. Personal choice.

Tommy

But Tommy_p! Surely you couldn't have changed so much, didn't you write this in reply to someone on another forum?

jade wrote:

I've never seen anyone doing bunkai or talking about bunkai in a way that inspires me to learn it......but then I've never had close contact with anyone that has studied it seriously.

I am open minded about this. Am I missing out on something worthwhile? Everytime I really look into it or enter into discussion I always end up feeling that it's all a bit impractical.

Why would it be impractical? What are your reasons for training? If it's sport than maybe you need no bunkai. If you want your karate to be able to protect you then practicality is what kata is all about.
Arm bars and locks, throws, strangles, neck snaps etc are all taught in the kata.
If you studied jujitsu you would practice these techniques in endless repetition. When you break down the kata you do the same (or should) but with karate you also have the finishing move.

You could conceivably work one kata endlessly learning the various applications and then the variations if those etc.

It's like learning to be a writer from a teacher, once mastered you don't write just like the teacher but you develop your own style of writing based on his principles. The possibilities are endless.
Learning to kick and punch sometimes gives a false sense of security. I've know at least one karate practitioner (black belt) who when caught in an elevator with no room to kick and punch was stumped.

IMO kata is someone else’s notes on fighting written in shorthand.
I look at myself as a fighter reading the notes of another fighter.

It's about self defense.

Tommy..it seems like you're not being straight up with all this anti-bunkai rhetoric, I smell something in the air..probably farmyard odour?

Wow
Good find because I think it makes my point a little clearer (maybe).
I still hold the same (for the most part) beliefs. And then, as now, I had my own views on kata and "how it is trained" (and understood). I disagree with most of those ways. I believed one kata could be a whole system on its own. My studies of Motobu Choki enlightened me a bit about taking the "principle' or flavor of a kata and expanding upon it rather than just "finding applications." So for example Naihanchi kata would produce techniques no found in the kata but that had a certain "Naihanchi-ness to them.

Once again, I'm not being misleading, just misunderstood. I am not against karate or its techniques or kata per se. I am against how a lot of trainees are being misled or may I be so arrogant as to say taught poorly. Hell I used to give the best arguments (I thought) "for" kata.
I argued that anytime you looked at a video or wrote notes on some training aspect or even if a wrestler practiced at home on his own to go over what he learned that day...that is all a form of kata. But, as I always say, I am always evolving. I still hold a lot of the same beliefs and ideas but they have evolved. Another level I suppose. Same principle but a more modern adaptation. My foray into the world of BJJ and MMA forced me to take another look at certain things also as far as that end of fighting was concerned. As for the street, well I still have my views and they may lay somewhere in between the two.

So I'll say it again I'm not saying kata is bad only that I don't believe it is "needed." karate however does need it if it wants to remain "karate." But if you are going to practice it you should do it right.
I still say most don't.


Tommy

The Kata I've seen seems very static, practiced with little or no fluidity and no relevance to a real fight as in shadow boxing. Is that the case? As I've said before I don't know much about Karate but we seem to be doing fine without Kata, as many arts are.

Mike tyson training... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6zlaIl0yh0 some good examples of shadow boxing, fluid movement etc Wheres the Kata clips?

Rob Mac wrote:The Kata I've seen seems very static, practiced with little or no fluidity and no relevance to a real fight as in shadow boxing. Is that the case? As I've said before I don't know much about Karate but we seem to be doing fine without Kata, as many arts are.

Well, that has been part of my argument but that isn't me saying kata is bad because of that (again, I get misunderstood). I have only said that I find that to be a problem as I see that as poor training. I think kata can and should be trained differently. I have written about stances and how they are practiced too static. I have shown how i believe they would work better. I have said that I believed that is how they were meant to work. See where I'm going? It isn't the kata or the stance that is bad....it is the modern interpretations as I see it.

Tommy

Show me it done properly then!!! I can't believe Nick, that someone with your experience in life marches up and down a hall as I've seen practiced. That doesn't happen. Give us the real deal.

Rob Mac wrote:Show me it done properly then!!! I can't believe Nick, that someone with your experience in life marches up and down a hall as I've seen practiced. That doesn't happen. Give us the real deal.

If you look at the Tyson clip you can see him going through many stance transitions as he moves sideways, back and forward. But they are just that, transitional. He doesn't freeze frame each one and practice them separately as in karate. At points they may set for a second but it is brief and it supports the technique. He even applies what could be called a horse stance or closer to a straddle leg stance against the bag. But they are fluid, they are mobile and they are more upright. What changes more than the foot positioning is his center of gravity and where and how he applies his weight rather than trying to get exact foot positioning, or a frame to hold up the technique. The stance has to work "in motion" and "with' the technique rather than separately. Otherwise there isn't a connection between body and technique (arm). Nor is there a connection to the ground.

I'm sure Nick has more to offer on this one, but I feel another circular argument coming on...

However, the simple truth is YES, the majority of karate being taught is crap, as is the majority of Kata practice, as is the majority of bunkai.

So where does that leave the debate! Personal experience maybe?

However, the inclusion of kata practice, regardless of its 'fighting enhancement', or not , is a small part of the bigger whole - for any 'decent' karate club... IMHO.

As for the bigger 'whole'? For me it really is..

Esprit d'equipe
Practical combat training
fitness
social interaction
Personally - some lifelong friends

I think it's all very well knocking the crap that's available out there, and I'm (sadly) first in the queue to do so. But I beleive the majority of people training in SD/SP/MA are not in it primarily for the purpose of learning how to fight.

The problem, as ever, is when people beleive they are training in something combat effective, when really they are practicing shite - but they have no reference to know what shite is, and, in all probability, will never have to use their 'shite' to find out.

So. I'm pro kata, in the context of 'karate' training, but, with a good instructor.


Having quickly read your post Tommy_p. Yes, all stances are 'snapshots' always have been, nothing new there..

Paul,
You have to consider that, as I often said on other forums, I had two ways of practicing. I had my traditional out of the box stuff and then I had my regular personal preference fighting stuff. When I was teaching Shotokan it started to get annoying for me. Here I was teaching a technique and saying this is how we do it in Shotokan. "BUT" originally it was "done like this" in the Okinawan systems that Shotokan came from, which actually works better. Then I would show how to adapt it to the street. "What?" Oh geez, why the hell does it have to be so difficult? I felt there was way too much of a disconnect. So now my Shotokan had "my flavor to it." Ahh...but that isn't really Shotokan anymore is it? Eventually I focused more on the Okinawan stuff and then eventually outgrew that also finding disconnects. Then it just became my interpretation of all the karate I knew plus other stuff. I got to the "what's the point stage.
Start a new style? I would never do that. So I switched to "just training" and didn't care what it was and where it came from. I gave up on kata and the more I learned about it the less I wanted it. It may very well be good for some and it is definitely part of karate and karate wouldn't be karate without it. But I don't believe it is "necessary" in these times; its antiquated and if it was possible to get rid of it then karate would do better without it IMO. So for me, I don't bother with it anymore....but then again I did it for years and looked deep into it...I think I understand it well. But I also think it is that understanding that has led me to abandon it as "no longer for me." I only try to get people to ask questions so they can be better informed about what they are doing. See more than one side.

Tommy

I did JKA Shotokan for (including a long break) 8 years. Started as a 13yr old until I was 18, went off and did other things, came back for a bit as an adult.

I learned a hell of a lot. There were sessions and weekend courses with Terry O Neil that opened my eyes as to what was possible. There were senior grade sparring sessions "after class" that were blood and snot specials and taught me about fighting spirit. We sometimes had kung fu and judo guys come in and spar with us. We did classes in the leisure centre toilets to learn about enclosed spaces; we did classes in jeans and shoes to see what didn't work out of a gi. We were encouraged to go to the local boxing gym to learn head movement and about getting hit. This was all KARATE. I'll never slag it off -- it was a good dojo with hard training and some effective fighters there. It wasn't perfect -- and that I think is the crux of the anti-karate, anti-kata stuff -- there was plenty of marching up and down and punching air and with hindsight a lot of it was superfluous and/or a total waste of time but at least the kihon could be used and practised in kumite. And perfect or not, it clearly worked in that a lot of the people there could have a scrap.

But I never learned anything from kata. I didn't really think about it at the time; it was just something you did to get your next belt. I studied some bunkai but I was never at the level of some of you guys and maybe I would have unlocked something but it remains the single biggest waste of my training time.

I don't think that classical kata, as generally trained, are useful or necessary these days. I'm not anti karate techniques but I think that the methods of disseminating those techniques are antiquated and useless.

The likes of Nick could teach the applications and moves perfectly well without needing to teach the kata first. After all, no-one's inventing new combatives kata to show moves are they? I'm sure kata CAN work as a way of teaching moves and counters; but I am not convinced that it's the best way of doing so, or anywhere near.

If only the JKA had "taught you correctly."

Let me give another example of something here that relates to what I'm talking about. Someone who I consider a friend as well as a great guy "Vince Morris." I visited his dojo a couple of times and before hand spent a few hours at his home one on one discussing karate.
The way he ran his class, which I think he considers traditional karate was a bit different than most and more like an Okinawan class. He works off of Shotokan kata but doesn't refer to his teaching as Shotokan karate.

The class consisted of bowing in, a short warm up and then immediately pairing off with a partner. He gives an attack and defense to work on and you do that many times over. Then he may switch to another. Afterward he explains what kata that is taken from with a little bit of insight into it, where to hit, pressure points etc. At the end of the class they go over the kata in its solo form once or twice...class over. Now that was great and he has some very interesting stuff. BUT if I went in there and went through the whole class, learning all the defenses he showed that day then I would be satisfied. I think anyone would. If I knew nothing of karate and kata then I could have left before he did the solo form to end class. What point did the solo kata have at that point? The meat of the class is what counted.....if I never knew where those techniques and defenses came from what's the big deal? Why do we even have to do the whole kata. The class of defenses was just fine.

Tommy

Brian S wrote:If only the JKA had "taught you correctly."

I don't keep up with karate goings-on and have no idea what "correctly" came to mean. But it all used to be fairly robust stuff where I was in the KUGB in the late 80s-very early 90s. There was never any hint of disapproval of how things were done at our place at all. We didn't do competitions because pulling punches and playing points tag wasn't our thing. Still enjoyed the trips down to Crystal Palace to watch Frank Brennan doing his stuff. We weren't Zen Do Kai but we used to enjoy walloping each other and the likes of Enoeda and O'Neill seemed to appreciate it at gradings.

We certainly weren't alone: I remember my mate's black belt grading up in scotland when two lads simultaneously belted each other in the mouth. Two teeth went flying, blood everywhere, and Enoeda got up, handed each lad (presumably) his own tooth back which they tucked in their belt and carried on with the kumite. No-one batted an eyelid. That WAS JKA, asI understood it. Flawed, yes, but still with its good points. As I say, dunno what's happened since, or in the States.