conversation is sparring not kata.

[drop bear]

In sparring you have an idea that you can test against another person. Who may have the same idea. Or a different one.

it works or it doesn't. If it doesn't you can discard it or tweek it. Retest the idea with more sparring. Trial and error.

kata is given to you by a person of authority requiring you to follow their instructions. Because it is the way it is done and the way everybody else is doing it.

it might work it might not. That is not the point. It is not up to you to test the theory or disagree. It is up to you to be educated and follow the movements as instructed.

but that is not conversation.

 

[Chris Parker]

Oh dear lord…

In sparring you have an idea that you can test against another person. Who may have the same idea. Or a different one.

No. Sparring is the training methodology to attempt to to apply skills, which might be based on an "idea" you have (although not necessarily, or even regularly), or not.

it works or it doesn't. If it doesn't you can discard it or tweek it. Retest the idea with more sparring. Trial and error.

Which also suits other training methods, including...

kata is given to you by a person of authority requiring you to follow their instructions. Because it is the way it is done and the way everybody else is doing it.

No. You really don't seem to get what kata is, bluntly.

Kata is the tactical expression of the art. It is a training device designed to impart tactical lessons, not technical ones. It is educating you in the combative ideas and ideals of a particular system, not giving you a list of repeated actions as an end or aim in and of themselves. You do it that way because that is the way the art is expressed and learnt/understood, not because "that's the way everyone is doing it". And the "authority" in question is the art itself, as presented to you by your instructor.

it might work it might not. That is not the point. It is not up to you to test the theory or disagree. It is up to you to be educated and follow the movements as instructed.

No. You really don't seem to get what kata is, bluntly.

It is up to you to test it. That's the point of bunkai in many karate systems… and, when it comes to other kata forms (such as Japanese kata), testing is a big part of it. It has to "work" (within it's context and parameters), or there's no point… but, of course, first you need to get what it means for it to "work" in the first place.

but that is not conversation.

None of what you've mentioned here is conversation… but, to be blunt, yes, kata can be a "conversation", exactly the same way that sparring can be… but, in the context of this forum here, conversation is the communication between different people, using the medium of the typed word, with the aim of sharing ideas and insights, not fighting against others.

Conversation is not sparring.

 

[K-man]

In sparring you have an idea that you can test against another person. Who may have the same idea. Or a different one.

it works or it doesn't. If it doesn't you can discard it or tweek it. Retest the idea with more sparring. Trial and error.

kata is given to you by a person of authority requiring you to follow their instructions. Because it is the way it is done and the way everybody else is doing it.

it might work it might not. That is not the point. It is not up to you to test the theory or disagree. It is up to you to be educated and follow the movements as instructed.

but that is not conversation.

Sparring in the context of conversation is what gets threads locked. Discussion is just that. Discussing an issue in a civilised way. Once you are 'sparring', you are needling other people to get a response, something you have become quite adept at.

Now you ides of kata is quite bizarre. "Given to you by a person of authority requiring you to follow their instructions", is as far from the truth as it could be. Please at least stick to issues you have some knowledge of. Kata is not one of them.

 

[Touch Of Death]

You spar to work a lesson or lessons, and then you go work on forms to work a lesson or lessons. I hope that clears things up for you.

 

[Steve]

I think this is an interesting idea, and I see what you mean. I think there are several,kinds of conversation. A discussion is not a debate, and we run into trouble when we fail to distinguish them.

There are times when I'm debating, and I'd say that a debate is a kind of sparring. A discussion, however, is just that. Not sparring. At most, I'm sharing an opinion. I'm not trying to persuade anyone, and I'm not really interested in defending my position.

The issue around here is that we have conflict when some people are debating and others are trying to have a discussion. Further, I think some people think they're discussing the topic, when they're actually debating it, and they're not skilled enough communicators to realize it.

Bottom line is debate drives the forum. But there's a place for sharing opinions without pushing an agenda.

Edit. Just want to add that a lot of threads go south because of this. You can see in most threads that one side, the debaters, continue to push a position. The other side inevitably start focusing on the nature of the debate and not the subject of the debate.

If people who are interested in discussions would simply avoid being drawn into debates, there would be less conflict. Conversely, if people who are interested in debates would respect that sometimes a direct answer to a direct question is all you get, there would be less conflict, too.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[drop bear]

Sparring in the context of conversation is what gets threads locked. Discussion is just that. Discussing an issue in a civilised way. Once you are 'sparring', you are needling other people to get a response, something you have become quite adept at.

Now you ides of kata is quite bizarre. "Given to you by a person of authority requiring you to follow their instructions", is as far from the truth as it could be. Please at least stick to issues you have some knowledge of. Kata is not one of them.

poor sparring etiquette is what gets threads locked. It moves from a conversation to a fight. Or in this case a lecture.

interesting that you are giving me instruction from your position of authority. As opposed to having a conversation.

so lets look at kata. I don't know how you do it. But when I did it. My instructor,the person in authority. Gave instructions that we followed. It was not the place to work out an idea.

like the conversation we are having now.

 

[drop bear]

I think this is an interesting idea, and I see what you mean. I think there are several,kinds of conversation. A discussion is not a debate, and we run into trouble when we fail to distinguish them.

There are times when I'm debating, and I'd say that a debate is a kind of sparring. A discussion, however, is just that. Not sparring. At most, I'm sharing an opinion. I'm not trying to persuade anyone, and I'm not really interested in defending my position.

The issue around here is that we have conflict when some people are debating and others are trying to have a discussion. Further, I think some people think they're discussing the topic, when they're actually debating it, and they're not skilled enough communicators to realize it.

Bottom line is debate drives the forum. But there's a place for sharing opinions without pushing an agenda.

Edit. Just want to add that a lot of threads go south because of this. You can see in most threads that one side, the debaters, continue to push a position. The other side inevitably start focusing on the nature of the debate and not the subject of the debate.

If people who are interested in discussions would simply avoid being drawn into debates, there would be less conflict. Conversely, if people who are interested in debates would respect that sometimes a direct answer to a direct question is all you get, there would be less conflict, too.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

emotionally invested in their debates possibly?

for me i try to play the ball rather than the man. This thread has come from people playing the man. Which is generally considered pretty low class even in a debate.

 

[Hanzou]

Kata is a waste of time IMO. If you enjoy performing it, more power to you. Personally, I'm very happy that I chose a style that doesn't utilize it as a training tool.

And yeah, debates are a form of verbal sparring. Always have been.

 

[drop bear]

You spar to work a lesson or lessons, and then you go work on forms to work a lesson or lessons. I hope that clears things up for you.

the forms are like a notation made about your training. Once it is settled you know what works. You collate you findings into kata.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I think it hits the fan when certain people fail to argue the topic at hand and start making value judgments of the people they are talking to. You can tell by the types of questions they ask. It can be quite irritating. However, I am a troll at heart, and see it as a challenge.

 

[drop bear]

Kata is a waste of time IMO. If you enjoy performing it, more power to you. Personally, I'm very happy that I chose a style that doesn't utilize it as a training tool.

And yeah, debates are a form of verbal sparring. Always have been.

the thing is everybody has to find their own way. Otherwise we are all doing the same thing.

diversity is what makes a system like martial arts grow.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Kata is a waste of time IMO. If you enjoy performing it, more power to you. Personally, I'm very happy that I chose a style that doesn't utilize it as a training tool.

And yeah, debates are a form of verbal sparring. Always have been.

I'm sure it shows.

 

[drop bear]

I think it hits the fan when certain people fail to argue the topic at hand and start making value judgments of the people they are talking to. You can tell by the types of questions they ask. It can be quite irritating. However, I am a troll at heart, and see it as a challenge.

ditto. Because if I have a position i need to have more thought behind it than it feels right.

 

[Touch Of Death]

the forms are like a notation made about your training. Once it is settled you know what works. You collate you findings into kata.

I work a grave yard shift, mostly by myself; so, the whole damn night is a spontaneous kata.

 

[drop bear]

Oh dear lord…



No. Sparring is the training methodology to attempt to to apply skills, which might be based on an "idea" you have (although not necessarily, or even regularly), or not.



Which also suits other training methods, including...



No. You really don't seem to get what kata is, bluntly.

Kata is the tactical expression of the art. It is a training device designed to impart tactical lessons, not technical ones. It is educating you in the combative ideas and ideals of a particular system, not giving you a list of repeated actions as an end or aim in and of themselves. You do it that way because that is the way the art is expressed and learnt/understood, not because "that's the way everyone is doing it". And the "authority" in question is the art itself, as presented to you by your instructor.



No. You really don't seem to get what kata is, bluntly.

It is up to you to test it. That's the point of bunkai in many karate systems… and, when it comes to other kata forms (such as Japanese kata), testing is a big part of it. It has to "work" (within it's context and parameters), or there's no point… but, of course, first you need to get what it means for it to "work" in the first place.



None of what you've mentioned here is conversation… but, to be blunt, yes, kata can be a "conversation", exactly the same way that sparring can be… but, in the context of this forum here, conversation is the communication between different people, using the medium of the typed word, with the aim of sharing ideas and insights, not fighting against others.

Conversation is not sparring.

bunkai as you describe it would be the conversation though.

even as you describe kata. Doesn't make it a conversation. It makes it a lecture.

 

[Touch Of Death]

bunkai as you describe it would be the conversation though.

even as you describe kata. Doesn't make it a conversation. It makes it a lecture.

This is true, but you must understand that most people know what they know from a lecture, and are just repeating what they were told to think.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Conversation is neither sparring nor kata, but let's look at the metaphor for a little bit.

Your fundamental idea (please correct me if I am wrong) is that you can test your ideas in conversation through spirited debate. If you have flaws in your premises or your logic, then the person you are debating will point them out, just as in sparring your partner will expose the weaknesses in your attacks and defenses. So far, so good.

Now let's look at the ramifications and limitations of this approach ...

1) Not all conversation is debate. To extend the metaphor a bit, you only spar with people who have agreed to do so and who have agreed on the rules. If you start a "sparring" session by walking up to a random person on the street and throwing jabs at them, then you aren't sparring - you're starting a fight. You wouldn't do that in real life. Don't do it metaphorically on a board devoted to friendly conversation either.

2) Remember, the value of sparring is in learning, not "winning". The same thing goes in a debate. Here we have a problem. In physical sparring, you know for sure when you've been hit or tapped out. In debate, it's easy to be the kid in a game of cops and robbers who continually insists "nuh uh, you missed" every time he gets "shot."

If you want to have a chance of learning something about whether your ideas hold up to scrutiny in debate, then you need a few things to happen.
a) You need to understand clearly the points your "sparring "partner" is making. That doesn't mean jeering at a straw man position you make up and put in their mouth. That means you could paraphrase the other person's position in such a way that they would say "that's it. That's exactly what I'm trying to say."
b) You need to make your own points clearly enough that your "sparring partner" understands exactly what you are trying to say so that they can make their best argument against them. (Note - sarcastic quips don't work well for this purpose.)
c) You need to avoid provoking emotional responses. If you make the other person mad, then they aren't going to offer careful analysis of the weak spot in the third logical step of your argument. They're going to just start insulting you and you won't learn anything from that.
d) You need to be ruthlessly honest with yourself. There are no judges to call the points against you. You don't have the actual physical experience of being choked unconscious. You have to be able and willing to say "Huh, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe I'm wrong about this." Hint - if you never find yourself doing that then you aren't getting any value out of your debates and should probably stick to casual friendly conversation.

 

[drop bear]

This is true, but you must understand that most people know what they know from a lecture, and are just repeating what they were told to think.

which is not something i really do. Especially with martial arts. I am more of a take it apart and break it guy.

 

[Steve]

Some very good points here. I really like what tony said above.

I also want to recognize drop bears point about lecturing. Its a very good one, IMO. Lecturing can be as destructive to a friendly discussion as an unwelcome debate.

I personally don't enjoy discussing things with people who are lecturing me in return.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ballen0351]

which is not something i really do. Especially with martial arts. I am more of a take it apart and break it guy.

Then you would Love Kata, We spend days breaking a Kata down taking it apart and discovering new meanings