More Discussion on Kata

[Flying Crane]

I am interested in getting people's thoughts on how kata (forms, poomse, however you want to call them) was taught to you, and how you feel it should be taught.

I am interested in this for a very specific reason. I recently read two books, Kata and the Transmission of Knowledge by Michael Rosenbaum, and The Way of Kata by Lawrence Kane and Kris Wilder. Actually, I am only about half way thru the latter, so my perspective may not be completely accurate based on their writing.

Anyway, the second book in particular claims to give the information needed to analyze kata from any system, and decode and uncover the hidden applications found within. The authors claim that if you understand certain principles, then you will know how to approach a more in-depth study of kata application.

I have personally found very little of value in what I have read so far. What they are holding out as Principles and Rules for analyzing kata, just doesn't seem very earth-shattering to me. And this has got me to thinking...

My first martial system was Tracy Kenpo. The kata found in this system, starting with Short Three, then Long Three, Long Four, Long Five, and Mass Attack (there are also kata numbers Six, Seven and Eight to my knowledge, but I never learned those so I cannot include them in my discussion) are all constructed with very specific self defense techniques. What I mean by this, for the many non-kenpo people out there, is not simple things like punch, block, kick, step, etc. Rather, the techniques are complex combinations of movements designed to defend against a specific type of attack. So for example, a defense against a punch would involve an evasion step, some kind of intecepting or blocking/guarding technique, and a series of counter attacks. The entire sequence of movements is part of one technique. These forms are made up of up to 15 or so of these SD techniques, usually done on both sides, with a transitional movement between them.

Before we learn the kata, we have already learned the SD technique by itself, and have practiced its application. The kata then becomes a way to catalogue the techniques for easy practice when you are by yourself and do not have someone to practice with.

Given this situation, in kenpo, we have a strong understanding of the application of all the movement within the katas. Of course pieces of movement can be reanalyzed and new applications can be derived, but a very strong application for the movements within the kata is taught from the beginning.

Now for a different perspective. When I was in college, I trained for a short time with a Tae Kwon Do group at the university. When I was being taught the kata, I asked the instructor about application of the movement. He was unable to give me any answer other than a very simple "well, this is a punch, and this is a block" kind of things. I asked him if the kata is teaching me to use the block and punch in any specific way, or against any specific type of attack, and he was unable to answer that.

Kenpo contains many many SD techniques, many of which are found within the katas, and many of which are not. In my opinion, it has too many SD techniques, and it is easy to get bogged down in them. However, on the plus side, having the experience of dealing with so many SD techniques, I think a Kenpo person has the ability to interpret movement and see applications in kata where other people may miss it. When my Wing Chun sifu was teaching me the sets from that system, there was a movement for which he confessed he did not know an application, and he is a 30+ year practitioner of the art. I was able to see an application almost immediately.

So from reading the two books, and from the experiences I have outlined above, my question is: How are kata taught in other systems? Are they taught as vague and abstract movement, or are concrete examples of useage ("bunkai", I believe it is referred to in Japanese systems) given when the movement is taught? If so, is it simple like the answers given to me by the TKD instructor above, or is it more in-depth to understand the movement and how it might be applied to a real attack?

Given the amount of discussion lately surrounding the value of kata, I can understand how people might get frustrated with kata if they are not taught a healthy understanding of how the movement can be applied. I can see where people would regard it as a boring and unneccesary exercise that is only very remotely related to combat at best.

So, please fire away. I would like to hear people's experiences, thoughts, and opinions.

Regards,
Michael

[Navarre]

I would hope that any system would teach the principles behind the kata. I suspect that several do and many more do not, at least to the extent that they should. My original system, Ko Sutemi (which Egg is still actively practicing), is very heavy on kata. They are requirements for belt tests and are practiced often in class. Unfortunately, most of the schools I have seen do not properly analyze the concepts behind the kata. In the school I attended, we were given a breakdown of the moves and an idea of what we were doing in the theoretical situation, but that is all. It is a bit perplexing because I still consider my training at that dojo to be the finest I ever received. I was a good fighter with a powerful set of physical skills built on a foundation of spiritual training. I worked my kata daily and still see the physical benefits of doing so. I never found it boring. So, perhaps the question in my mind is if one can gain benefit from kata without the bunkai. Given my personal experience I will say yes. I have always viewed kata as merely another tool to advance myself overall, not as a purpose within itself. However, it would also stand to reason that I could have gained even more if time had been taken to analyze the kata to its core.

[Navarre]

I see it as analagous to preparation for a regular school test. Too often we practice only what we need to pass the exam. The teachers even teach this way, focusing on the material they know will be on the test. By focusing on the test and the items to be demonstrated we lose out on many of the subtleties of the application. Yet we still gain some benefit from this approach, just not as much as we should. I believe that this may be more than just an analogy. Those of us who attended US public schools have been indoctrinated with a teaching methodology that prepares us to demonstrate material to advance but not always required us to truly internalize the concepts within the material or how to apply it. Perhaps that is unfortunately being reflected in martial artstraining as those students open martial arts schools.

[MJS]

Kata was taught to me in a similar fashion as to the way you described above...here are the moves, with little to no explaination as to what the moves were. Fortunately, there were others that were able to provide detailed explainations as to what was being done. Once I had a better idea of application, I was able to come up with different variations on my own.

IMO, this is probably one of the reasons why people do not like kata and say that it has no value. Just like anything in our training, its key to understand what we're doing, rather than just go through the various moves, clueless as to what is being done.

Mike

[arnisador]

I too was taught the sequence with little connection to applications--in Isshin-ryu and in Goju-ryu. (Connections to applications were a bit clearer in Uechi-ryu and were emphasized in iaido and Modern Arnis.) I remember being angry when I learned at a George Dillman seminar about some of the applications--not pressure points, just basic bunkai. I felt like my instructors should have told me about this!

[CuongNhuka]

To add to what Navarre said, kata has many purposes. Fighting technique is only one. For instance, something Shotokan karate-ka will definitely know is the Pinan kata set. About half way into the form you turn to face south (assuming you started north facing) and land in what in Coung Nhu is called a left lead back stance (called kotusu-dachi in Japanese). At the same time you perform a mid level block with the right hand. And then drop the hand so the fingers of both hands meet at your left hip. The direct application is turning to the south and blocking a mid level strike (duh). A more in-depth application is a neck break (fun thing to think about) that is actually the formatted application (the purpose it is meant to have, or something). Or another one, is catching a mid level kick, and basically flipping your opponent so that there face is pointing the ground. The next move would then drop them on their butt (a punch straight forward).
Another set that Shotokan karate-ka would be familiar with is the Taekikyu (apologies for misspelling). Most directly the set develops basic skill in blocking, striking, movement, and leg strength (through the Isometric stance). But with a little looking, poking, prodding, and careful study you could probably find well over a thousand applications that range from direct blocks and strikes to lethal chokes and neck breaks.
Another Shotokan set is Juttae (apologies if I misspelled that); the set of forms is mostly (from what I understand) about developing footwork and hand combinations. Or if you take a somewhat literal interpretation of the name (means ten hands), that it's about developing multi opponent fighting skill. I've also heard that they develop defense against the Bo staff (about six foot long). I only know 1 of the set (it's the only one taught in Coung Nhu and as I understand it, there is ten in set).
Empi and Chintae are others, but I haven't been taught them and there for i'm not very familiar with them. One I am somewhat familiar with is Sui Nim Dao, from Wing Chun Kung Fu. Every movement has its principals, it's hidden truths, and it’s secret messages. But the whole form "hides" the biggest. Sui Nim Dao develops body strength. That is the main purpose of the form. A purpose that many who see it don't seem to understand.
For this reason (getting on topic now), I feel forms are a very important part of training. The point of katas are what they show as much as what they don't. Some develop footwork, some strength, others hand/leg skills. It depends on the form, how well (and for that matter how) it’s trained. They were trained to me as the major part of a work out (half your daily training and a third of your test in Coung Nhu is one kata or another). We learn in them in pieces, one direction today, next class or week the next. I think that is probably the best way, but that’s just me. Any ways, what ever floats your boat.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John

[Flying Crane]

To add to what Navarre said, kata has many purposes. Fighting technique is only one. For instance, something Shotokan karate-ka will definitely know is the Pinan kata set. About half way into the form you turn to face south (assuming you started north facing) and land in what in Coung Nhu is called a left lead back stance (called kotusu-dachi in Japanese). At the same time you perform a mid level block with the right hand. And then drop the hand so the fingers of both hands meet at your left hip. The direct application is turning to the south and blocking a mid level strike (duh). A more in-depth application is a neck break (fun thing to think about) that is actually the formatted application (the purpose it is meant to have, or something). Or another one, is catching a mid level kick, and basically flipping your opponent so that there face is pointing the ground. The next move would then drop them on their butt (a punch straight forward).
Another set that Shotokan karate-ka would be familiar with is the Taekikyu (apologies for misspelling). Most directly the set develops basic skill in blocking, striking, movement, and leg strength (through the Isometric stance). But with a little looking, poking, prodding, and careful study you could probably find well over a thousand applications that range from direct blocks and strikes to lethal chokes and neck breaks.
Another Shotokan set is Juttae (apologies if I misspelled that); the set of forms is mostly (from what I understand) about developing footwork and hand combinations. Or if you take a somewhat literal interpretation of the name (means ten hands), that it's about developing multi opponent fighting skill. I've also heard that they develop defense against the Bo staff (about six foot long). I only know 1 of the set (it's the only one taught in Coung Nhu and as I understand it, there is ten in set).
Empi and Chintae are others, but I haven't been taught them and there for i'm not very familiar with them. One I am somewhat familiar with is Sui Nim Dao, from Wing Chun Kung Fu. Every movement has its principals, it's hidden truths, and it’s secret messages. But the whole form "hides" the biggest. Sui Nim Dao develops body strength. That is the main purpose of the form. A purpose that many who see it don't seem to understand.
For this reason (getting on topic now), I feel forms are a very important part of training. The point of katas are what they show as much as what they don't. Some develop footwork, some strength, others hand/leg skills. It depends on the form, how well (and for that matter how) it’s trained. They were trained to me as the major part of a work out (half your daily training and a third of your test in Coung Nhu is one kata or another). We learn in them in pieces, one direction today, next class or week the next. I think that is probably the best way, but that’s just me. Any ways, what ever floats your boat.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John

Sounds to me like you have learned, or figured out, some deeper applications to the movement. This is what I was getting at. I am willing to bet that you are one who sees kata practice as time well spent. But I also bet the reason for this is because you understand the applications.

[Flying Crane]

I too was taught the sequence with little connection to applications--in Isshin-ryu and in Goju-ryu. (Connections to applications were a bit clearer in Uechi-ryu and were emphasized in iaido and Modern Arnis.) I remember being angry when I learned at a George Dillman seminar about some of the applications--not pressure points, just basic bunkai. I felt like my instructors should have told me about this!

Did this realization change your feelings about kata?

[Flying Crane]

Kata was taught to me in a similar fashion as to the way you described above...here are the moves, with little to no explaination as to what the moves were. Fortunately, there were others that were able to provide detailed explainations as to what was being done. Once I had a better idea of application, I was able to come up with different variations on my own.

IMO, this is probably one of the reasons why people do not like kata and say that it has no value. Just like anything in our training, its key to understand what we're doing, rather than just go through the various moves, clueless as to what is being done.

Mike

was there any change in your attitude toward kata, as the purpose of the movement became more clear?

[Flying Crane]

I see it as analagous to preparation for a regular school test. Too often we practice only what we need to pass the exam. The teachers even teach this way, focusing on the material they know will be on the test. By focusing on the test and the items to be demonstrated we lose out on many of the subtleties of the application. Yet we still gain some benefit from this approach, just not as much as we should. I believe that this may be more than just an analogy. Those of us who attended US public schools have been indoctrinated with a teaching methodology that prepares us to demonstrate material to advance but not always required us to truly internalize the concepts within the material or how to apply it. Perhaps that is unfortunately being reflected in martial artstraining as those students open martial arts schools.

I would say you have hit on a few truths here!!

[arnisador]

Did this realization change your feelings about kata?

I already appreciated many positive things about kata--stance training, building good, solid technique, etc.--but now I really saw huw much technique was buried in there, and what I could learn by studying rather than just practicing the kata. I started at 14 and didn't know, wasn't told, to study--just "do your kata". I thought that what I saw on the surface was what was there. Now I know much better!

[MJS]

was there any change in your attitude toward kata, as the purpose of the movement became more clear?

Yes. Once I began to look deeper into them, it certainly made them more enjoyable to do, as well as challenge me to keep thinking of new applications as I was performing the movements.

Mike

[beauty_in_the_sai]

My instructor in ITF TKD taught me forms like so: He would teach me half or one-third of the form depending on how big it was. Then, after I got that part down, we did the first part again with the second part attached. After awhile, I got it. I rather like the way my instructor taught me. It's alot harder to remember a whole form when you first learn it than a section of a form.

Becky :)

[Navarre]

I learned the same way, Becky. I agree that it makes it easier to learn all the moves that way. ... I think the question is more about if kata training has been too focused on the physical moves and not enough on the principles behind those movements.

[Eric Daniel]

IMO, this is probably one of the reasons why people do not like kata and say that it has no value. Just like anything in our training, its key to understand what we're doing, rather than just go through the various moves, clueless as to what is being done.

Mike
I have been told that there is value in form, "Form's have no value" told by Bruce Lee was directed toward his students that "relied" on forms, but to his students that were boxers, he taught them form. So Do forms have value? I think they do to an extint.I agree that we should understand what we are doing, rather than just going through various moves, clueless as to what is being done.
Sincerely, Eric Daniel

[ppko]

I too was taught the sequence with little connection to applications--in Isshin-ryu and in Goju-ryu. (Connections to applications were a bit clearer in Uechi-ryu and were emphasized in iaido and Modern Arnis.) I remember being angry when I learned at a George Dillman seminar about some of the applications--not pressure points, just basic bunkai. I felt like my instructors should have told me about this!I believe most of us were taught this way, when I first started I was in Shotokan and the only breakdowns we got were block, block, block, and sometimes punch, elbow, kick. When I first got into DKI I was astonished as to what they were doing with these katas that I gave up, but it was explained to me that most people here don't do enough research and just don't know enough to give a good break down, I was not angry but rather like a kid in a candy store.

[Navarre]

Certainly katas have value. They train our body in the execution of techniques through massive repitition. They develop power, focus, concentration, balance, and form.

Although I value katas greatly as a part of my own training, I do not however consider them essential to martial arts training. They are simply a component of some systems and not others.

I think the biggest detriment of katas is when they are focused on *as* the art and not as part of the art. They are a tool to develop certain skills. These skills can be developed in other ways as well.

So, if kata are a part of your system, that's great. If not, that's okay too.

However, if you practice katas I do think you need to really break down and analyze the techniques therein or you miss a lot of what katas can teach.

[Flying Crane]

I learned the same way, Becky. I agree that it makes it easier to learn all the moves that way. ... I think the question is more about if kata training has been too focused on the physical moves and not enough on the principles behind those movements.
I also agree, I have learned some very lengthy Chinese forms that have taken me months to learn. My sifu would teach me a few steps each week, and eventually I would learn the entire set. I think that most forms are probably too long to learn all at once. You need to "capture" what you have been taught, take it home with you, and be able to practice without someone else guiding you every step of the way. Once you have become reasonably comfortable with the previous sections, you are ready for another piece.

[Flying Crane]

There have been some interesting replies so far. I am thinking that probably a big part of a person's attitude toward kata depends on how kata is taught to him/her. Perhaps the 'traditional' way to teach kata was to teach the movements, and then let the student wrestle with it and get from it what he can. I don't think this is the best way to teach kata. I think that enough application needs to be taught so that the movement makes sense in the student's mind. If it is just abstract movement, then I can understand how a student would develop a negative attitude toward kata. Understanding the movement will also ensure that the movement is done accurately. If you don't know what the movement is for, it is easy to get sloppy and drift from the original intention of the kata. Just imagine what kind of kata you end up with after several generations, when no one really understood what they were teaching!I also believe it is also good for the student to wrestle with kata on their own, and get their own understanding of what it contains. But this is a higher level. Before this, the student must be given enough understanding to appreciate what kata practice gives them.

[arnisador]

I think the biggest detriment of katas is when they are focused on *as* the art and not as part of the art.

Yet, it's very common to hear people say that. I think of Tai Chi as an extreme example, where ofte the form and maybe push hands are all that is taught, but in Karate I was often told that it's all kata, kata is all.

Yet I think that has to be understood as meaning that one must study them and extract things from them and practice those techniques, not that ll one should do is the kata.

[Flying Crane]

Yet, it's very common to hear people say that. I think of Tai Chi as an extreme example, where ofte the form and maybe push hands are all that is taught, but in Karate I was often told that it's all kata, kata is all.

Yet I think that has to be understood as meaning that one must study them and extract things from them and practice those techniques, not that ll one should do is the kata.
I would give a great big "Bingo!" to that. My White Crane sifu teaches me mostly just forms, after he taught me the basic striking and movement techniques. He says it is all in the forms. All the application is there, ya just have to pull it out. I think it is important to take the movement from the kata and practice the application with a partner. I am in agreement, that simply doing nothing but kata is not going to develop skills to their fullest potential. Drilling application is essential.

[beauty_in_the_sai]

I learned the same way, Becky. I agree that it makes it easier to learn all the moves that way. ... I think the question is more about if kata training has been too focused on the physical moves and not enough on the principles behind those movements.


Well as for that, I think it largely depends on what style you're in and more importantly, what school. My TKD school taught what every move in the form was for. I've seen schools that don't do that though.

[Navarre]

I've seen schools that don't do that though.

Sad but true. Sometimes we find we examine the kata in ever-deepening layers as time goes on.

For example, in our fifth kata there is a move where the opponent is grabbed by the wrist, pulled 360 degrees around our body (we spin as well), and then pull them back into a reverse punch with the opposite hand.

When I learned the kata, this is how the move was explained. This is a kata for mid-level.

At some point, after black belt I think, I started thinking that move didn't make any sense. How was I going to swing a person in a complete circle around my body without resistance let alone pull them back into an a punch? I largely wrote the kata off as impractical and dubbed it "the stupid kata".

Now however, over 10 years later, I again find myself examining the subtleties of this form. Now that I've had exposure to jujitsu and aikido, I am beginning to wonder if there was more to the move than I originally thought.

Using a wrist lock combined with the momentum of the punch and multiplied by my own rotation, could this technique have a realistic application? If so, it wasn't explained to me by my sensei who, by his own admission, didn't prefer the kata aspect of our system. Perhaps the technique has been slightly lost then in the interpretation.

I do however find it interesting that this kata is introduced at mid-level ranking...about the same time that we martial artists should begin evaluating our own techniques to understand the subtleties contained therein. Maybe I'm just a slow student. lol

But either way, the very fact that I continue to examine and re-examine a kata I learned in 1984 makes a powerful statement as to the true importance of the kata.

[arnisador]

I've had similar experiences. When I studied Uechi-ryu, I thought the techniques in the kata were impractical. Years later, having had more exposure to more arts (and long since having moved on to other arts as I had moved away from where I had been studying Uechi), I reconsidered. I got some Uechi-ryu videos--out of my own curiousity--and looked again at those kata, and saw much greater practicality. In fact, I'd now be interested to try the system again! I regret not appreciating it at the time. It's amazing what some time, experience, and knowledge can do for your perspective!

[FearlessFreep]

I think moves in kata are taught in the order of what you should be physically capable at that point. I think really understanding them takes a *long* time.

[CuongNhuka]

Sounds to me like you have learned, or figured out, some deeper applications to the movement. This is what I was getting at. I am willing to bet that you are one who sees kata practice as time well spent. But I also bet the reason for this is because you understand the applications.

That's one of the main reasons I like doing kata. Other then it devolops many skills, and can be used in a self defense situation with just a little looking. That, and, I really don't like sparring (anouther focus of training/tests). Although I am getting better. I still wont win any tournaments, but I am getting better.
And to the rest of you, many interesting posts and comments. I have a story that becky reminded me of (I think is kinda funny). I'm going to think about if it would be a good idea to post it, so you guys remind me and I'll let you know a little later what I decided on.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John

[marlon]

I was going to start a new thread when i found this one. The purpose of learning bunkai is to teach us applications or to teach us that motion can be applied in different ways? Many i have met use thier taught knowledge of bunkai almost as another form within the form rather than using it to free themselves and learn to apply the motion of the body in differin ways. This second way is more conceptual and therefore helps to increase understanding and development and the other while expanding the student somewhat limits them to a clone of their teacher or founder of the system. Correct bunkai is application that makes sense and can be used effectively against a non compliant attacker.

Rspectfully,
Marlon

[Flying Crane]

The purpose of learning bunkai is to teach us applications or to teach us that motion can be applied in different ways?

I think both are correct. Effective application is the most obvious, but as you find different applications for the same movement, it should open your mind to the greater possibilities. The sky is, literally, the limit, if you are willing to roll up your sleeves, do some hard work and really analyze the kata. This is done without your instructor's input, so that you discover your own interpretations. Of course it is good if your instructor has already given you some applications because it helps to open your eyes to what you are looking for. But you need to go beyond what you have been shown and figure it out for yourself.

[marlon]

Perhaps the nature of life in the past caused teachers to teach only the students who were showing signs of 'getting it' on thier own and this is why they did taught the way they did. Many things were 'secret' out of fear of being killed literally

Respectfully,
Marlon

[twayman]

It is interesting to read the posts on this thread. First off to those of you that have (or had) instructors that taught you the moves and no application, you missed a lot. Either your instructor was never shown the application or did not stay in the art long enough to learn the application. Either way I mean no disrespect it’s just sad.

Ok, I hear a lot of agreement on pulling the application from kata, which is very good. Think of a kata like an onion… the skin is the kata, pull back the skin and you still have the onion just a deeper level. Kata same way.

Keep in mind kata is a fairly new concept. Back in the day when the technique you learned would determine if you made it home the next day was needed rather quickly. No time to learn long structured kata. The technique that worked (theory good practical technique made it home, bad impractical technique died in the field) was passed on in order to pass on the lesions individual technique was later structured into kata. Now, the process is learning the application from the kata is just “getting back do the roots” of the technique. Also, keep in mind that the old masters only had a few kata that they would pass on but, knew them very well. A kata set can be seen as housing the teachings of an entire system and would take an entire life time to fully understand.

Things I find interesting are how many of the same technique turn up in different kata sets. If you see it again and again this should shed some light on what is being divulged. Also, there is more than one way to view a technique… those who say “it is this way only” are also missing the boat.

[FearlessFreep]

I used to think the Taeguek forms (Taekwondo),at least many of the early ones I know, looked really ugly because of all the short stances. They just didn't look cool or anything. Then I realized that in a lot of self-defense training you are working at a close range and lot of times to counter an attack you will be using short stances and short movements. That made the forms make a lot more sense