conversation is sparring not kata.

[drop bear]

No. I don't say anything to sound "cooler"… I say them because they're accurate. When I say things are facts, I mean that they are facts.

so you are not sure what a fact is.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah… no. You're not really getting the way this works… it changes as my understanding and development in the art evolves.

so you make changes to the kata as your understanding of the technique increases.

 

[ballen0351]

so you make changes to the kata as your understanding of the technique increases.

Looks like you need to do less "sparing" and actually read what he is saying. Its not that hard to understand his point.

 

[drop bear]

Looks like you need to do less "sparing" and actually read what he is saying. Its not that hard to understand his point.

that he either updates kata or he doesn't. I don't think he has been clear.

 

[ballen0351]

that he either updates kata or he doesn't. I don't think he has been clear.

Then your not paying attention its pretty clear to me

 

[jks9199]

Attention All Users:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
Administrator

 

[drop bear]

Then your not paying attention its pretty clear to me

then explain it.

 

[Transk53]

Drop bear and ballen, please take it easy, this is a good thread

 

[ballen0351]

this is a good thread

Cant say I agree

 

[ballen0351]

then explain it.

You dont like, and you dont study Kata so I dont think I can in a way you will understand it. I think your "sparring" again and have no interest in the answer.

 

[Buka]

Everyone practices sparring differently, have a wide variety of approaches to it, not to mention experience and informed opinions. Katas are vastly different in every style, and also within the same style in different schools, and probably vary among different teachers in the same school.

The wide variety of experience and knowledge of forum members around here kind of reminds me of the United Nations. But, the discussion of "Conversation is sparring, not Kata" is purely metaphorical.

It's kind of like discussing - okay, open your sock drawer, picture your socks as what you believe are the best motor cars in the world and assign each sock to a particular vehicle make and model. Got all that? Good. Now, let's discuss what color the piece of paper in your glove compartment is.

Which piece of paper? That piece of paper right there.....the one next to your socks.

 

[ballen0351]

You dont like, and you dont study Kata so I dont think I can in a way you will understand it. I think your "sparring" again and have no interest in the answer.

I wasn't saying this to be a smart a__. I understand what Chris is saying perhaps because I train Kata and I enjoy kata and I've had the same "ah ha" moments that Chris has. So what he said makes complete sense. You don't study kata you don't like kata and quite frankly yiy don't understand kata so I can see why what he says isn't making sense to you

 

[drop bear]

I wasn't saying this to be a smart a__. I understand what Chris is saying perhaps because I train Kata and I enjoy kata and I've had the same "ah ha" moments that Chris has. So what he said makes complete sense. You don't study kata you don't like kata and quite frankly yiy don't understand kata so I can see why what he says isn't making sense to you

because his dogmatic approach to training influences his dogmatic approach to conversation.

kata is to be understood from its position of expertise raised almost to god hood. It is not wrong. It does not change. The person who practises kata just does not understand it well enough.

i can also see why that does not make sense to me. As i do a flawed system made up by people. Sometimes i am wrong,sometimes i am right and most times there is a grey area in the middle.

the ooda loop is a flawed system made up by people as well. If we want to tie up some of these derails.

and so conversation can achieve two purposes either we can identify the weaknesses and strengths through testing or we can repeat an adage untill it is perceived as fact.

sparring
kata.

 

[ballen0351]

because his dogmatic approach to training influences his dogmatic approach to conversation.

kata is to be understood from its position of expertise raised almost to god hood. It is not wrong. It does not change. The person who practises kata just does not understand it well enough.

i can also see why that does not make sense to me. As i do a flawed system made up by people. Sometimes i am wrong,sometimes i am right and most times there is a grey area in the middle.

the ooda loop is a flawed system made up by people as well. If we want to tie up some of these derails.

and so conversation can achieve two purposes either we can identify the weaknesses and strengths through testing or we can repeat an adage untill it is perceived as fact.

sparring
kata.

Nope.

 

[Chris Parker]

so you are not sure what a fact is.

I honestly don't know where you got that idea from… I'm fully cognisant of what a fact is… but here's the thing… if you think what I'm saying as facts aren't actually facts (not truthful statements and observations of reality), then I expect you can counter them with facts of your own? Either ones that stand on their own merit (oxygen is needed to survive), or those that require backup… I don't mind which.

so you make changes to the kata as your understanding of the technique increases.

No, not entirely… my performance and understanding of the kata is refined as my understanding of the technique, how it fits, what it represents, and so on improves. That can sometimes mean change, yeah… but that's the least common scenario, and is most commonly when I've gotten things rather wrong, and realised… so the "change" is to take it back to the way it's meant to be done.

that he either updates kata or he doesn't. I don't think he has been clear.

Update the kata? Nope. Update my understanding of it? Yep. Update my insight? Yep. Update my approach to it? Yep. Of course, a lot of this comes down to "what is a kata", which gets rather difficult to say in some of my systems…

I'll put it this way:

Koku of Gyokko Ryu Koshijutsu Advanced Ninjutsu Lessons - YouTube
(the new system won't let me do more than 5 at a time… you'll need to click on that link...)

(at 1:10 for that last one).

These are all clips of the same kata… Koku, the first kata in Gyokko Ryu… done in many different ways, by a number of different people, in different organisations, at different levels in their understanding. Is the kata the same? Well, yeah… but then again, there are obvious small and large differences… does that make them different? That depends on how you identify what the kata actually is…

By the same token, you can find different teachers of the same, or different systems teaching the same kata (at it's root), but there will be differences. Are they really different kata? Are the changes really "changes"? Or just specifics altering from one instructor to another?

I strive to always do the kata to the utmost of my ability, understanding, insight, knowledge, and skill. And, while the specifics can change… the kata never does. All that happens is that I refine my performance, refine my understanding, to the point where I can change all the specifics and still do the same kata… but someone at a different level might get all the specifics "right", but not do the kata at all. And all that leads us to is back to the question: What is kata?

because his dogmatic approach to training influences his dogmatic approach to conversation.

Well, to begin with, there's little "dogmatic" in my approach to my training… there really isn't. I have absolutely no interest in doing anything "just because" that's the way things are done… my interest is in understanding why that's the way things are done. The reasons for the structure, the sequence, the lessons…

Let's take it back to the kata above, Koku… the first step is to learn the basic structure and mechanics… which direction do you step with which leg? How do you do the block and strike? What is the attack like? What's the timing? After you've done that, you start to get at the smaller, individual lessons of the kata… the lesson of attacking the attacking limbs… of evading to the inside and outside… of positioning yourself behind the opponent, so that you can perform a "finish" against a target they can't protect, while at the same time, not letting them attack you… then, you start to look at the kata as a whole again, taking the entire sequence as a roadmap, of sorts… teaching you about leading an opponent… about how to be open, or guarded… how to choose… After that, you take an even broader look… you see where Koku sits within the system itself… how it relates to the kata that come after it (and the Kihon that came before). And each time you do this, you go back to the very beginning… looking at the structure and mechanics… ensuring that everything you do matches the way the kata is structured, and the lessons it's teaching… which can alter your timing, your angling, your positioning, your targeting, the exact force used, your breathing, your awareness of yourself and your opponent, and more.

That's starting to get at how kata training works. Just learning "punch, then block, then hit, then kick" really isn't anything to do with actually learning a kata. It's just what you have to do to get to it.

kata is to be understood from its position of expertise raised almost to god hood. It is not wrong. It does not change. The person who practises kata just does not understand it well enough.

Actually, you're not too far off there… of course, you've taken it to a ludicrous extreme, but in essence it's pretty much that. It comes down, really, to your perspective.

Many sport systems teach you, and encourage you, to focus on doing what you can to "win" in an individual sense… come up with your own way of doing things, and your own approach… your own tactics and preferred methods, within the construct and context of the chosen competitive format. If you do something that isn't what's taught in that system, but hey, it works for you, and you win the tournament, great, go for it! Thing is… that's kinda the opposite idea of kata training.

Kata training is a distillation of the tactical essence of the system already. You don't need to experiment and apply trial and error, that's already been done… you're being given the game plan already. It's all about learning the way that art chooses to do things… not trying to figure out how you would do them yourself.

Now, if you're just concerned about your own personal sense of "fighting ability", the first method could work fantastically for you… it's geared up for you to have a bit of free-rein, in order to try things out, and see what works for you. But if you're wanting to learn a particular approach, it's simply too random… there's no guarantee you'll actually get the skills the art is wanting you to have. In addition, if you're personally talented, you might do wonderfully well in the "sports" approach… but, if you're less-so, you might flounder. Sparring and sports methodology do rely a fair bit on personal talent after a certain point (and, to be fair, so do the kata-based systems), but the kata-centric will be more able to give the specific lessons intended.

And that's where it comes down to… I, frankly, couldn't care less about being a "fighter". I have no interest whatsoever in the idea. What is my concern is my ability within the construct of my chosen arts… if I'm concerned about being a "fighter", it's only within those arts. I don't train my Kenjutsu to be the greatest swordsman around, but I do train it to be the best practitioner of that system I can be… which does involve being a swordsman and focusing on what that means.

So, to take that back to what you were saying, yes, it's absolutely correct to say that the kata is never "wrong". It can't be. It is the art… the only way it can be "wrong" is to not be the art in the first place… in which case it wouldn't be there. The only side that can be "wrong" is the practitioner… and, if they don't get the kata, then yeah, they haven't understood it well enough yet. It's not the kata's fault. It's like a book on advanced physics or mathematics. If you don't have the requisite experience and knowledge to understand the book, it's not the book that's wrong… it's the person reading it.

Nothing about "god-hood", of course… you're reaching a little desperately there…

i can also see why that does not make sense to me. As i do a flawed system made up by people. Sometimes i am wrong,sometimes i am right and most times there is a grey area in the middle.

Actually, I don't think anyone has said you do a "flawed" system… I certainly haven't. And no, it's not "made up" by people… it's developed by exposure and application within it's context, by experience and experiments of people. Sure, some will come up with something semi-unique, and think they've made it up… but that's pretty much never the case.

What you are doing, though, is highlighting what I mean when I say that a sporting approach is too random and inconsistent for my tastes… it's too reliant on what you might come up with, or what someone else might come up with, rather than looking to what is known to work… of course, "work" is completely contextually reliant as well…

the ooda loop is a flawed system made up by people as well. If we want to tie up some of these derails.

Er, no, it's not. The OODA loop, for the last time now, is not a "system"… it's a construct, a way of explaining a process so that it can be understood, rationalised, identified, refined, and enhanced. You really are looking at it in entirely the wrong way.

and so conversation can achieve two purposes either we can identify the weaknesses and strengths through testing or we can repeat an adage untill it is perceived as fact.

sparring
kata.

And this is where it all falls apart… you're not allowing anything you're putting forth to be tested for strength or weakness… you're basically being a heavy bag here, which doesn't really change no matter how much it's hit… that's not sparring, it's not kata, and it's not conversation. But, of course, most importantly… conversation is the exchange of ideas and communication… it can involve "testing" such ideas, but not necessarily or by definition… as a result, conversation is simply not sparring. Some forms, sure… but as a whole? No, not by a long shot. Of course… you've been told that a number of times… so I might suggest you consider that idea tested, found to be full of weaknesses, and now you can leave it by the wayside.

 

[drop bear]

I honestly don't know where you got that idea from… I'm fully cognisant of what a fact is… but here's the thing… if you think what I'm saying as facts aren't actually facts (not truthful statements and observations of reality), then I expect you can counter them with facts of your own? Either ones that stand on their own merit (oxygen is needed to survive), or those that require backup… I don't mind which.

if you make the statement then it is up to you to support it. Sorry its a real rule. Otherwise it is not a real fact.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which is why i don't think you know what a fact is.

 

[ballen0351]

if you make the statement then it is up to you to support it. Sorry its a real rule. Otherwise it is not a real fact.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which is why i don't think you know what a fact is.

What statement do you disagree with?

 

[drop bear]

What statement do you disagree with?

that Chris understands what a fact is and who has the burden of proof when he makes a statement.its important because I could say Santa clause is real. You cant prove he isn't.

 

[ballen0351]

that Chris understands what a fact is and who has the burden of proof when he makes a statement.its important because I could say Santa clause is real. You cant prove he isn't.

So nothing related to the actual topic your being confrontational just to be confrontational

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Many sport systems teach you, and encourage you, to focus on doing what you can to "win" in an individual sense… come up with your own way of doing things, and your own approach… your own tactics and preferred methods, within the construct and context of the chosen competitive format. If you do something that isn't what's taught in that system, but hey, it works for you, and you win the tournament, great, go for it! Thing is… that's kinda the opposite idea of kata training.

Kata training is a distillation of the tactical essence of the system already. You don't need to experiment and apply trial and error, that's already been done… you're being given the game plan already. It's all about learning the way that art chooses to do things… not trying to figure out how you would do them yourself.

Now, if you're just concerned about your own personal sense of "fighting ability", the first method could work fantastically for you… it's geared up for you to have a bit of free-rein, in order to try things out, and see what works for you. But if you're wanting to learn a particular approach, it's simply too random… there's no guarantee you'll actually get the skills the art is wanting you to have. In addition, if you're personally talented, you might do wonderfully well in the "sports" approach… but, if you're less-so, you might flounder. Sparring and sports methodology do rely a fair bit on personal talent after a certain point (and, to be fair, so do the kata-based systems), but the kata-centric will be more able to give the specific lessons intended.

And that's where it comes down to… I, frankly, couldn't care less about being a "fighter". I have no interest whatsoever in the idea. What is my concern is my ability within the construct of my chosen arts… if I'm concerned about being a "fighter", it's only within those arts. I don't train my Kenjutsu to be the greatest swordsman around, but I do train it to be the best practitioner of that system I can be… which does involve being a swordsman and focusing on what that means.

So, to take that back to what you were saying, yes, it's absolutely correct to say that the kata is never "wrong". It can't be. It is the art… the only way it can be "wrong" is to not be the art in the first place… in which case it wouldn't be there. The only side that can be "wrong" is the practitioner… and, if they don't get the kata, then yeah, they haven't understood it well enough yet. It's not the kata's fault. It's like a book on advanced physics or mathematics. If you don't have the requisite experience and knowledge to understand the book, it's not the book that's wrong… it's the person reading it.

Interesting.

If I'm reading you correctly, your purpose for training is not to develop tools for addressing whatever your own personal needs in life are. Rather, it's to understand a given martial art for its own sake in its original context, much like a student of art history endeavoring to understand why Rembrandt used the techniques and made the choices he did while painting The Night Watch.

I've discussed elsewhere that I have a fundamentally different viewpoint than you seem to regarding martial arts styles as having a unitary ideal Platonic nature, but I can appreciate the historical benefits of trying to understand what the creators of an art were up to on their own terms.