thoughts on Kata

There's no argument with me that a lot of karate being taught is total bs...I've said the same things numerous times...use the search button for god's sake. In fact, the article I wrote for Terry's mag entitled "Combat Reality" was addressed to the people practicing who had no clue as to what a real fight was going to be like.

As for the efficacy of kata etc sure, the system I teach now i.e. Fight Survival has no katas, as does krav maga et al...so what? Those systems are designed to be crash courses in how to survive and are derived from military systems designed to teach you what to do in the event your primary weapon is disabled or gone.

Karate is supposed to be way more is it not? The comparison I've always made it's the difference between a para-medic's course and medical school. There's tons of stuff you learn in medical school such as chemistry and biology that have no practical application when jumping out of an ambulance to deal with someone who's put their arm through a window. Are you suggesting medical schools drop the subjects?

Kata for me works as advertised. I've never had an issue dealing with multiple opponents...and I attribute that ability to kata training, specifically the way I was taught them, and the way I train them.

Bob Jones was a genius at breaking them down and pulling out the applications...I've been in sessions with him on one kata that went for four hours at summer camp while we went over all the moves contained within.

Nick

Nick...I don't disagree. (Although I know it comes off that way) but you would really have to know me or more about "everything" I've written otherwise what I say is taken out of context. While I wrote my Thoughts on Kata article I have also written about what I believe karate is and isn't and how the comparison to MMA is an unfair one and wrong. I have also written about why I left Shotokan and why I agreed with Kyokushin more.
I eventually gave up all traditional practice. It is now only a part of my whole and no longer a focus.
On the karate forum I hung around for over 10 years you should have seen the arguments I used to have with the MMA guys who wandered in. Not because I thought we (karate) was better but because I never understood the argument. Apples and Oranges. "But" I think that is kind of where I'm coming from. I try to point out what karate is and isn't. I think karate itself tried to sell itself as the end all to fighting for years which would have covered sport also...it isn't that.
One of my favorite karate men of all the founders of karate was Motobu Choki. One of the original pioneers of Okinawan karate.
He wrote this:
“The techniques of kata have its limits and one must come to understand this. The techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter, in the arena or on the battlefield. They were however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behavior."

Nick Hughes wrote:Karate is supposed to be way more is it not?

That, has been what I have been pointing out all these years. But I personally got to a point where I didn't want the "way more anymore." I didn't want it from the start but got used to it, I only got into karate to enhance my fighting. Then I stayed because It grew on me. It does become kind of "cultish" in a way. You kind of get hooked. There are other faster ways to learn how to fight and for some they may not realize that and get hunkered down in karate for many years. The sad thing is that if they aren't careful they will be stuck someplace ( a bad school) just wasting their time and one day get caught "thinking" they can handle a serious situation and get hurt.

Nick Hughes wrote:The comparison I've always made it's the difference between a para-medic's course and medical school. There's tons of stuff you learn in medical school such as chemistry and biology that have no practical application when jumping out of an ambulance to deal with someone who's put their arm through a window. Are you suggesting medical schools drop the subjects?Nick

I have always liked this particular anlogy... I think it puts it all in a nut shell.

Tommy_P

I can understand what you are saying... It sounds like you have been where many before you have been and that you have learned quite a bit from the traditional aspect and I would venture to say that it has moled you into what your are today. I would also venture to say that there is much that you value in your personal past experiences in the traditional aspect that you would not wish to throw away or forget, because it has made you what you are today.

So why rob someone of the same experiences?

I understand all the arguments... they have been covered here...

https://selfprotection.forumotion.com/physical-training-nutrition-f3/can-forms-training-enhance-technique-t5243.htm

SteveT wrote:

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.

Hi mate.

I wasn't having a dig at anyone in the JKA. It was more along the lines of those who think you were "not taught correctly" if you don't rate Kata. But who better than the JKA?

roadkill wrote: I would also venture to say that there is much that you value in your personal past experiences in the traditional aspect that you would not wish to throw away or forget, because it has made you what you are today.

Exactly

Brian S wrote:
I wasn't having a dig at anyone in the JKA. It was more along the lines of those who think you were "not taught correctly" if you don't rate Kata. But who better than the JKA?

Well, Bob Jones for one by the sounds of things...

Apparently so. His Kata really does teach you how to fight.

Apparently.

Ok, how about if I just stir the pot a little more. I wrote another article adressing another point of view I have on another common problem I see. Again, keep in mind I am aware that there are schools out there that teach kata diferently and some in a manner that is more productive than others. I only address what I see as fairly common vs my approach which is based on what I know and have learned about kata.
I wrote this aricle to dovetail into the other one that seemed to stir a little controversy. Maybe this will fill the gaps and show that I'm not completely "against" kata but more against how I see it being used or taught. As for my own training and use of kata...well, we've been down that road already I haven't practiced a solo kata in awhile. What ever I got out of kata as far as application goes.....well it's still part of me. it has been absorbed!!
Here is the new article:



Kata is said to contain many valid defenses and there are those who spend a lifetime extracting them. I too believe that there are many self defense techniques to be found within the various kata however I am not sure if I agree with some of the common practices of applying or learning them . Followed by that is my view of the disconnect with actual defense when it comes to “practicing “ the applications. That is usually my beef as far as kata is concerned; that and my belief that you can be just as skilled only knowing/practicing the defenses within kata rather than constantly doing the whole kata, solo.

If we look at Shotokan as an example we can see what I consider the wrong way to practice or learn kata application. Shotokan is notorious for this but they aren’t the only ones. If you read this and it sounds familiar, well then take a step back and rethink what you are doing or being taught. What I often see are people learning a kata and then breaking it down to try and figure out what each sequence or move is trying to accomplish. Often times they may be given explanations from their instructor who has already done the leg work and broke them down now passing on his findings. He may encourage them to now go on and find their own interpretations. While this method is not bad, as it promotes “thinking” thus learning (and if you work at something yourself you usually remember it) it isn’t how I believe a kata should be taught.

Why teach a kata and then try to figure it out? Shouldn't the techniques, and defenses using said techniques, be fully learned before the kata is dumped on you? The kata should only be a notepad to be taken home with you as a memory aid. If we were to view kata as a catalog of techniques and defenses then we could compare it to a book of tools. If we were to open a catalog in search of tools we would probably already know what each tool does or at least have an idea. If we had no clue what tools did what or what they were used for why would we bother to look for something to use? Or in the case of kata, if our idea of how to use certain tools was wrong. Using Shotokan again as an example let’s look at how they teach and use blocking. Take an inside to outside block which you may call uchi uke or soto uke depending on the school. They may use that to block or at times redirect a reverse punch or a lunge punch. It is used just as the term implies “to block.” Well for starters that is a bad translation of the word “uke.” The word translates closer to “to receive” or “reception.” This alone changes the whole concept of what you may be doing. Next you may be taught to use the block in step sparring where you move back blocking as your partner moves forward attacking. In my opinion this equals being chased and the one moving backward usually gets caught by the one moving forward; so that is wrong. I’ve simplified all this for the sake of space and time but it is kind of a simplified version of common methods. What I call this is teaching incomplete techniques. How can a student now be expected to page through a catalog and pick out a usable tool if he really doesn’t know how to use them? If he has been using the back of his screwdriver as a hammer or the claw on his hammer as a pry bar then how can he fully understand that catalog?

Techniques should be learned and taken to a definite end before moving on. I don’t mean blocking a punch and then following with a counter punch as in “the killing blow.” I mean learn it inside and out and with “reception” in mind. A block may now take on a new approach. It would have to consider your opponents balance, controlling him, taking into account his other possible avenues of attack, positioning, the what ifs and where to go in case it doesn’t work, to name a few. Many techniques may not even be blocks but more of a grappling application. More than that is distancing; without stepping back and away from the attack but rather now moving “in” the whole application will change. If you learn your basics in this manner they will fall better into the category of “Kihon” which is more along the lines of a “foundation.” The foundation is to support the kata. At this point you no longer have to look at a new kata and wonder what it means. By looking at the tools and how they are arranged you already know what the kata is saying. It then is only a catalog for you to page through. You already know the complete technique and by looking at it coupled with another technique it will say something to you. It will be a defense.

There are many kata and if you ask me, too many. Most of them are redundant and many are just someone else’s interpretation of the techniques of the guy before him. If I show you a kata and you learn the “principles” of the movements but find that, due to height or body structure, speed or lack of, you have to change a few things; all of a sudden we have a new kata. Next comes the repetitive use of kata and the need to always practice the kata as a solo form. Once you have a kata and learn its contents and the defenses it is trying to teach along with the principles behind the techniques, you need to practice those defenses endlessly with a partner. Then with different partners, then maybe with multiple partners. All of them should be resisting and not partners who help the technique work. They should try to prevent it and let you work it out to a decisive end point. After that it has been my opinion, although I meet with a lot of resistance, that the solo form is no longer needed. You already have the contents eaten swallowed and digested, why keep the box? The solo kata, in my opinion is a "cocoon" that should eventually drop off. Ok, that is another subject and one I covered already so I’ll skip that one. My point here is to give my view on kata practice and the problem I see within many schools when it comes to teaching it. That in turn leads me to view it at times as more harm than good. This then leads to the question on the need for kata or its worth.

Now we can circle all the way back to my point which has been “if” you are going to practice kata then do it right. What is right? Well, that is very subjective and will provoke many different responses. But for “ME” unless at the very minimum, the points I outlined above are met, it isn’t right. What I outlined above is just a drop in the bucket, simplified as I said. If you take into consideration stances and weight distribution, enbusen, line of attack/defense, deceptive techniques and a host of other “details.” Then there is a package there that many dojo don’t come close to addressing.

T. Pressimone

Ok, fire away




Tommy

I like your ideas, Tommy P .
I'm not practicing Shotokan, but there are solo forms studied in the school, so I will outline your ideas to the instructor and see what happens (to the rest of the students anyway, my own practice is now in hiatus).
Another thing I have heard is that solo forms aim to develop a "fighting mindset" through repetitive visualization. I do not know whether it is true or not, but from your other posts I'd say it is not something you would have needed. But people without fighting experience might still find them useful for this reason, I'd guess.

I visualize all day long I also visualize when I train and hit the bag, pads/shields etc. You can visualize while doing kata but first you need a clear idea what it is you're doing with each technique. There are many ways of doing things and everyone has there own preferences.

"For me" visualization on a bag or dummy or someone holding pads or a shield and moving about allows me to express anger and violence as well as explosiveness by actually directing all that into a target. I can visualize "that" as being a person or persons. "For me" visualization with kata is too sterile and too rhythmic and one move at a time. Kata has rules of performance. Taking the kata and performing it at various fast speeds as if you were really fighting would be better and many schools do this...I used too. But then again some do it fast only to "do it fast" with nothing more than coordination in mind. But even doing it that way doesn't wok for me as far as transferring the mindset and violence as well as melding that with 'impact" as in other methods, bag etc.. The bottom line is you have to find out what works for you. My only message to beginners out there has been to always ask "why." Then make an intelligent decision.

Tommy