Explaining Kata/Forms to Those Who Don't Do Them

[Bill Mattocks]

In my experience very few karate instructors understand kata and some of the utter nonsense that is taught becasue of this lack of understanding is laughable. Associations write the syllabus, not individual clubs or instructors, so they teach kata even though they don't properly understand it.

I do not have the direct experience you do, but I believe you are correct.

This is why, despite begin rubbished as long a go as 1938 by Mabuni (and in spite of common sense) many karate instructors today still teach "the turns in kata are you turning to face a new opponent". That is what they were taught by their instructors, and that is what they teach, and then their students become instructors and perpetuate the same nonsense to their students.

I do not necessarily think it is wrong to teach that the directional turns in kata are to face a new opponent (begin a new sequence of defense and attack), but it's just the beginning. I have found it difficult to absorb very technical explanations when I am just beginning to learn; a simple basic explanation will suffice whilst I start to peel the onion of that particular kata. Turns are so much more than just an imaginary facing of a new opponent, but you have to get to the point where you can see that first somehow.

Yes they will find an alternate use for it, but that is like buying a Ferrari and then use it as a plant pot. You have this awesome highly useful and sophisticated piece of machinery, and you use it to grow Fuchsia's simply because you haven't learnt to drive.

If you have kata, use it for what it is designed for, don't use it for something else. If your goal is something else, then come up with another way of training specially deigned to address that goal.

This particular problem, in my limited understanding, is that far too many instructors began teaching well before they had advanced beyond a basic and rudimentary understanding of kata themselves, so they had little to pass on.

It is not so much that what they teach about kata is wrong; it is that it is incomplete, because they have breadth but not depth. Everyone is in a hurry to get teaching and become a 'sensei' or 'master' and start earning a living or passing on what they think they know.

I assist in teaching. By that I mean I show basics of the first few kata to kids, under the supervision of my sensei. I work on feet position, hands, turns, balance and breathing with them. I do not teach them that a kamei can be used as an armbar tie-up, for example. It's just a kamei for now. And I also have much to learn, so even though I know more than the beginners, I still don't know much.

 

[lklawson]

If you have kata, use it for what it is designed for

Which is what, again?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

The Double spear hand strike downward 0:17 is actually part of a technique that is used to prevent a takedown but it's not complete.

Can you please elaborate? What is the full move, what takedown does it prevent, and how does it prevent said takedown?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Koshiki]

Yes they will find an alternate use for it, but that is like buying a Ferrari and then use it as a plant pot. You have this awesome highly useful and sophisticated piece of machinery, and you use it to grow Fuchsia's simply because you haven't learnt to drive.

What if you live in an area with excellent public transport, prefer to bike everywhere, and have a fuel efficient daily driver should you need it, and you purchased the Ferrari specifically because you thought it would make a fascinating lawn ornament, vines climbing the sides, flowers spilling from the windows?

Sure, it's not what I would do with a Ferrari. But then, if I somehow acquired a Ferrari, What I'd do with it is sell it. I'm not really into flashy, fancy cars. Give me nice, reliable antique Beetle, that'll run forever if you don't neglect it.

My point was that if someone joins a Karate class for exercise, I'm not going to force them to study Bunkai and engage in close-quarters contact sparring without gear. My point was, that if someone is a huge fan of Passai, and wants to dedicate their life to learning the nuances of the motions of every version they can find, ignoring application, I'm not going to deride them because they don't use kata as I like to.

My point was, there are many ways to appreciate and find worth in the Martial Arts, and I'm not about to tell anyone who has a different goal that their goal is wrong, simply because it's not my goal.

Frankly, I haven't figured out what my goal is yet.

 

[Tez3]

My point was that if someone joins a Karate class for exercise, I'm not going to force them to study Bunkai and engage in close-quarters contact sparring without gear

However, going to a karate class just for the exercise is pretty pointless for a number of reasons. In class instructors will teach karate as per it's curriculum, that usually includes kata, sparring/kumite, one/three step if done and perhaps weapons, you don't choose just to do the bits you fancy and say I'll sit this section out. They don't say well I'll do the kata because the moves are cool but I'll not bother with the Bunkai thank you. If you teach Bunkai it come as part of the package same as sparring, if you spar full contact or just points the student doesn't get to chose in class, they choose before joining when they come for a look and to see what you do.
Having gaols is good but to best meet your gaols in martial arts you have to find a place where the people train and think as you do, that doesn't mean anyone is better just that training for exercise isn't best done in a place that trains a lot of Bunkai.

 

[Koshiki]

However, going to a karate class just for the exercise is pretty pointless for a number of reasons. In class instructors will teach karate as per it's curriculum, that usually includes kata, sparring/kumite, one/three step if done and perhaps weapons, you don't choose just to do the bits you fancy and say I'll sit this section out. They don't say well I'll do the kata because the moves are cool but I'll not bother with the Bunkai thank you. If you teach Bunkai it come as part of the package same as sparring, if you spar full contact or just points the student doesn't get to chose in class, they choose before joining when they come for a look and to see what you do.
Having gaols is good but to best meet your gaols in martial arts you have to find a place where the people train and think as you do, that doesn't mean anyone is better just that training for exercise isn't best done in a place that trains a lot of Bunkai.

Oh obviously yeah. I mean, don't walk into a school and demand to be taught only the bits you want. Search around until you find the school that teaches what you want. There are plenty of schools that train kata only as a way to practice balance, speed, coordination, and the rest of the curriculum is some form of unrelated light sparring game.

Find the school in which the curriculum fits your aspirations. And, no matter what that curriculum is, as long as its use of kata is in line with what you want out of kata, I would call that a legitimate use of kata.

But no, I wouldn't, say, attend an Iain Abernethy seminar and repeatedly ask questions about how the motions promote Qi flow, or how to develop my Faijing. (I know you like him) I also wouldn't walk into a KKW competition dojang and try to get instruction in close-quarters bunkai, or take up boxing and then become affronted when the other guys at the gym tell me to stop kicking their legs and sweeping.

But I also wouldn't walk into a Florist's looking for a breaker bar and a 36mm socket... Fortunately, Home Depot sells flowers too.

 

[Tez3]

But no, I wouldn't, say, attend an Iain Abernethy seminar and repeatedly ask questions about how the motions promote Qi flow

I would lol, just to see his face. He's a good sport though. It's worth going to the seminars just for the craic. They are more than Bunkai though, it's what I call good old fashioned martial arts too.

 

[Steve]

I don't know what an 'arm drag' is so don't know how it would 'set up your single leg'. To me that makes no sense because I have no idea what you are talking about, I do have an idea what 'rooting leg' is but as we don't use that expression could well be wrong. You seem to want katas to be very literal and not to have to work at them to find your self defence moves.
I think your idea of kata is different from mine and others.

With as much experience as yiu have, I'm 100% sure you would know it if you saw it. It just must be called something different in the UK. I recommend doing a quick search on YouTube.

 

[drop bear]

However, going to a karate class just for the exercise is pretty pointless for a number of reasons. In class instructors will teach karate as per it's curriculum, that usually includes kata, sparring/kumite, one/three step if done and perhaps weapons, you don't choose just to do the bits you fancy and say I'll sit this section out. They don't say well I'll do the kata because the moves are cool but I'll not bother with the Bunkai thank you. If you teach Bunkai it come as part of the package same as sparring, if you spar full contact or just points the student doesn't get to chose in class, they choose before joining when they come for a look and to see what you do.
Having gaols is good but to best meet your gaols in martial arts you have to find a place where the people train and think as you do, that doesn't mean anyone is better just that training for exercise isn't best done in a place that trains a lot of Bunkai.

Fifo?

 

[oftheherd1]

This has been an interesting thread to read, and see how others think about kata/forms.

When I studied TKD, I of course learned kata. I don't recall now how many, but I think probably something like 6 or 8. I think we looked at it as learning moves in a structured way. And it was structured. Senior belts would watch us closely and correct any move or stance when we stopped, as we went from one move to the next, before putting it all together; straighten the wrist horizontally or vertically, keep the trail leg straight, whatever. We learned how to obtain maximum power, and always search for new maximums. In those forms, there wasn't a lot of doubt what kicks, strikes, or blocks were in the form, or what was to be kicked, struck, or blocked (leg or arm). I don't know about others at the time, but I generally took it to be using kicks, strikes and blocks in a manner that helped learn and practice them, and improve my application of them. It wasn't until several years after I stopped taking TKD, that it occurred to me that the forms also had multiple attacker aspects (contrary to the opinion stated above). Not that anyone else mentioned it.

Later, when I began studying HKD, I was a little surprised there were no forms. I was greatly surprised to learn there was no rigid way to do a technique. They taught what had been learned as the best way to perform a technique, but if a person could demonstrate a way they worked better for them, it was allowed; the result was more important that the method. Granted, that was rather rare, but it was accepted. I do fancy now that I can sometimes see grapples in forms since having studied HKD. Not necessarily just how we did them, but close enough I think that might be the actual meaning of some moves that don't always seem to have a reason for being.

So, forms to me were learning tools to be mastered, with the hope we could better perform strikes, kicks, and blocks. Not too exciting, esoteric, nor zen-like.

One thing above that caught my eye was putting dodging into forms. As I learned forms and in 1 and 3 step sparring, the goal was to deflect an incoming attack, not bob and weave. We might move back or to the side, but to simply move the head would have been considered a poor way to avoid being struck, since it would have affected balance. I'm not saying what I was taught is superior to anyone else's way, not that I wouldn't try to dodge a head strike if I found a block wasn't working, but just that was the way we learned, and it seemed to make sense.

 

[Tez3]

Fifo?

What does that mean?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Can you please elaborate? What is the full move, what takedown does it prevent, and how does it prevent said takedown?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I'll try to explain it. The full move is to 1st. do the double spearhand downward, in the same manner that the guy in the video did. 2nd. Raise both arms creating a circle until your hands meet above your head. Similar to the way the arms move when doing jumping jacks.

Purpose of the move is to prevent a shoot or tackle aimed no higher than he waist and no lower than the knees. The 3rd part which is related to the stance isn't added in the form. I think it was left out intentionally. When the technique is done correctly it will lock both of your arms behind your back in a very painful manner. When the instructor showed me it felt like both of my shoulders were about to pop out of my sockets. I think one of my shoulders would have been dislocated if he had actually locked the technique and did it with force.

To give you an ideal of how it feels. Bend over forward 90 degrees at the waist. Do a reverse dumbell fly palms facing down (without the weight.) With the arms extended, pull your arms back as far as you can, when you reach your limit have someone come and continue to pull your arms back until your hands are touching.

The more energy that the person puts into the shoot the more damage the technique will cause.

 

[ShotoNoob]

Ah, I must have miscommunicated. I didn't mean that studying a traditional art will make one a knowledgeable expert on self-defense. My point was that some people use kata for a variety of reasons.

\
Right ZacK. This quite popular in American martial art usage.... Kind of a corollary of the MMA theorem that picking & choosing by thre practitioner / competitor which evolve a better style...
\
IMO, and following on Bill's line of thought.... we as a group as too quick to judge the TMA model... thinking we know better or can somehow come up with the better 'angle.' OTOH more commercially speaking, if one is operating a martial art school.... attempting to go against the egos of your customers is not sound salesmanship... So letting students assume your position is practical business...

Some use kata for "real world" fighting. That could be friendly sparring with another practitioner, that could be partaking in nonsense in a bar, that could be many things. The point I was making is not what they are learning from the kata, but what they are trying to learn, using the kata as an aid.

In fact by TMA priciples, kata is a comprehensive system; it essentially is the TMA system. That said, however, doesn't make kata the easiest way to learn; or to isolate out all the complexities and principles encoded in kata.
\
This is the genius of Ginchin Funakoshi, of deliberatly separating the major training goals inherent in kata, into 3 major training categories: the now famous (1) kihon, (2) kata, (3) kumite. Funakoshi is not the sole TMA author of this model.... he popularized to a greater extent than most other TMA styles.

Some use kata for excercise.

Some use it for mental distraction.

Some just use it for plain old enjoyment.

My point was that all these things have worth, and that one or the other is not the "right" way to use kata.

\
Well all your points have truth. However the whole truth is that kata is a comprehensive traditional martial art exercise which prepares one for self defense...
\
Kata's fundamental purpose is expressly to develop & train the martial art base.... defined by three essential human qualities.... Tang So Do spells this out quite clearly in that style's manuals.... though it was CMA that defined the theory more than 1000 years ago, TMU.
\
So if you are training kata for a specific skill or objective, that's fine and well & good. But you can't say you are doing kata to TMA standards; IOW really doing kata at all....

If I came off as claiming that kata will teach you self defense, I apologize. My intent was to communicate that it is entirely possible to train kata for decades and still to get a lot out of it, even if you're not training for Self Defense.

\
We want to separate TMA from doing other 'stuff.' The goal of traditional kate or TMA in APPLICATION is self defense. The applied goal. The strengths that accrue from proper TMA training can be used in any aspect of the human endeavor.... just as you listed...

To clarify even farther, Self Defense is not, in any real way, why I train in the martial arts.

\
I'll agree & completely and absolutely with your decision. IOW, you (one) never have (has) to use, or apply, or even be interested in self defense; in order to train & reap the human benefits that can accrue from TMA.... "Do" is separate from "Jutsu" by choice of the practitioner.... And you have made your own personal choice... thumbs up!!!
\
EDIT: Zack my bold, italicized text defines kata (&TMA); and what kata (&TMA) is not...

 

[Koshiki]

I'll try to explain it. The full move is to 1st. do the double spearhand downward, in the same manner that the guy in the video did. 2nd. Raise both arms creating a circle until your hands meet above your head. Similar to the way the arms move when doing jumping jacks.

Purpose of the move is to prevent a shoot or tackle aimed no higher than he waist and no lower than the knees. The 3rd part which is related to the stance isn't added in the form.

Whether or not what you're describing would be my favorite takedown defense, the point about altering established forms is a valid one. For example, there are places in many traditional karate kata, for example, a "block" is executed, and the practitioner then turns away. There are many reasons and explanations why this makes sense, but in my school, several of these have a strike inserted after the "block." I can only assume someone in my oh-so-murky lineage thought, "huh, why would you block and not counter? I'll stick a punch in so it makes sense."

In some cases, this added strike will completely disrupt otherwise excellent interpretations of the form, and I'm left internally screaming at the ignorance that may have prompted someone to change the form. However, sometimes I can view the same section and find that the throw or whatever may be assisted by some softening, and that added punch is a reminder that you can always, "Hit 'em first, if they're a big guy. Then do the throw." Other times, the addition of a strike, whether or not it's viewed as a strike skew the whole sequence off in a completely different, but valid direction.

But whichever way you do it, changing existing forms can and does risk losing the principles therein. I mean, feel free, but it's not the route I would go...

I'll agree & completely and absolutely with your decision. IOW, you (one) never have (has) to use, or apply, or even be interested in self defense; in order to train & reap the human benefits that can accrue from TMA.... Do is separate from Jutsu by choice of the practitioner.... And you have made your own personal choice... thumbs up!!!

I wouldn't call myself a "Do" guy, rather than a "Jutsu" guy. Let me clarify.

I train in the martial arts with the intent and mindset of effectively dealing with unwanted physical violence. That's how I try to train. Realistically. But I don't train that way because I feel I am in danger and have a need to protect myself. I mean, if something is cool and fun, but seems worthless in terms of self defense in a martial art context, I have limited interest. Again, not because I feel that I am in danger, but because that is the pursuit I enjoy. Karate, for me, is about applicable, realistic fighting outside of a sport context. If I want to protect my well-being, I'll look elsewhere for 99.5% of that. If I want to be a better person I'll look elsewhere. If I want to achieve some sort of spiritual realization, I would look elsewhere.

Kata's fundamental purpose is expressly to develop & train the martial art base.... defined by three essential human qualities.... Tang So Do spells this out quite clearly in that style's manuals.... though it was CMA that defined the theory more than 1000 years ago, TMU.
\
So if you are training kata for a specific skill or objective, that's fine and well & good. But you can't say you are doing kata to TMA standards; IOW really doing kata at all....

\
We want to separate TMA from doing other 'stuff.' The goal of traditional kate or TMA in APPLICATION is self defense. The applied goal. The strengths that accrue from proper TMA training can be used in any aspect of the human endeavor.... just as you listed...

I agree with you. Kata is, expressly and traditionally, as you say, intended to develop and train the martial art base.

And I also agree that if you view kata as something other than applied self defense, than you are not practicing kata traditionally.

And I also agree that I separate such practice from traditional karate. It's simply not. It's every bit as worthy as traditional karate, but it;s not my cup of tea and it's not traditional.

And again, the goal of traditional karate is certainly civilian self defense. No argument from me there. And that is how I try train.

I'm just saying that I don't train because I personally feel I need better martial skill in order to preserve myself. It's a tricky distinction to make, but there's a difference between self defense being what you train for, and self defense being why you train.

 

[ShotoNoob]

Ah, I must have miscommunicated. I didn't mean that studying a traditional art will make one a knowledgeable expert on self-defense. My point was that some people use kata for a variety of reasons.

Some use kata for "real world" fighting. That could be friendly sparring with another practitioner, that could be partaking in nonsense in a bar, that could be many things. The point I was making is not what they are learning from the kata, but what they are trying to learn, using the kata as an aid.

Some use kata for excercise.

Some use it for mental distraction.

Some just use it for plain old enjoyment.

My point was that all these things have worth, and that one or the other is not the "right" way to use kata.

\
There's no need to apologize. My response was satirical. To clear up any miscommunication... .which is very easy for me to cause... any one really over the internet.. .. typing in blogs....
\
FIRST EXAMPLE: A lot of kata critics, as well a certain TMA practitioners equate kata to 'dance.' IOW, kata practitioners move around in a choreographed fashion.... dancers move around in a coordinated, choreographed manner... Walla, kata is dancing really....
\
IN effect, completely wrong. Dance is a physical recreational exercise, which objectives are physical recreation & social interacton yielding personal enjoyment. Kata has a physical exercise component. Kata, however, goes beyond memorizing and then mixing up some dance steps.... kata is really about developing unity between one's whole body & mind, where mental discipline exacts precise control over all physical actions.... Kata's applied objective is about developing the strength of the physical body & mind, the melding them together to create power which power can them be expressed against an assailant to protect oneself or another....
\
Dance is like fun; kata is work, real hard work..... Can dancers work hard... sure.... The level of mental intensity devoted & generated in kata is far above the relaxing end product of dance... even if we are speaking of the meditative quality of that mental work... .compared to basically normal thinking while dancing....
\
SECOND EXAMPLE: Boxers and again some martial artists compare shadow boxing to kata... equate the two.... Again, superficially share outward similar physical expression.... Again, in effect, completely wrong... Shadowboxing has the boxer, whomever, randomly throwing physical techniques in succession @ varying paces. It is a purely physical activity where the mind is just repeating physical moves in the form of techniques and random combos.... etc... Sure, the colloquial muscle memory is developed along with physical strength and technique....Compared with mental activity in kata; however, Shadowboxing is practically mindless...
\
Kata is a prescribed pattern of physical movement express;y designed to engage the entire body into action effecting martial techniques.... Those movements embody tactical principles as well as tactical applications. In kata, the mind is working constantly to exert discipline to precisely move the body to create mind / body unity -- a body physically,strong, well coordinated, and capable yet ruled by mental discipline @ all times... Incorporated into that mental disciple is a host of heightened mental abilities, not the least of which is KIME.... putting one's entire strengths & intent into a precisely controlled martial technique designed to incapacitate the opponent....\
\
My understanding.... good luck with that...

 

[ShotoNoob]

Whether or not what you're describing would be my favorite takedown defense, the point about altering established forms is a valid one. For example, there are places in many traditional karate kata, for example, a "block" is executed, and the practitioner then turns away. There are many reasons and explanations why this makes sense, but in my school, several of these have a strike inserted after the "block." I can only assume someone in my oh-so-murky lineage thought, "huh, why would you block and not counter? I'll stick a punch in so it makes sense."

In some cases, this added strike will completely disrupt otherwise excellent interpretations of the form, and I'm left internally screaming at the ignorance that may have prompted someone to change the form. However, sometimes I can view the same section and find that the throw or whatever may be assisted by some softening, and that added punch is a reminder that you can always, "Hit 'em first, if they're a big guy. Then do the throw." Other times, the addition of a strike, whether or not it's viewed as a strike skew the whole sequence off in a completely different, but valid direction.

But whichever way you do it, changing existing forms can and does risk losing the principles therein. I mean, feel free, but it's not the route I would go...

\
Zack, I agree.

I wouldn't call myself a "Do" guy, rather than a "Jutsu" guy. Let me clarify.

I train in the martial arts with the intent and mindset of effectively dealing with unwanted physical violence. That's how I try to train. Realistically. But I don't train that way because I feel I am in danger and have a need to protect myself. I mean, if something is cool and fun, but seems worthless in terms of self defense in a martial art context, I have limited interest. Again, not because I feel that I am in danger, but because that is the pursuit I enjoy. Karate, for me, is about applicable, realistic fighting outside of a sport context. If I want to protect my well-being, I'll look elsewhere for 99.5% of that. If I want to be a better person I'll look elsewhere. If I want to achieve some sort of spiritual realization, I would look elsewhere.

\
Fine. So you are training for the potential for self defense. I think we are on the same page.... The "Do" was used by me as an analogy to confirm that the TMA base skills are distinguishable from the practical applications of same... IOW, to be more correct... Jutsu is at a minimum implicit in "Do;" and express in all TMA practice training form... It's the TMA base that gives rise to the effectiveness of the technique.

I agree with you. Kata is, expressly and traditionally, as you say, intended to develop and train the martial art base.

\
Not only is that hard for most to understand.... it is now really hard to properly approach & 'master.'

And I also agree that if you view kata as something other than applied self defense, than you are not practicing kata traditionally.

\
Even the super-simple physically Taikyou kata call for blocks and punches.... actual fighting technique.... The real value, however, is creating a simplified physical design to point out & isolate the base TMA skills.... That' is why the Okinwan karate creators label the Taikyoku series as "First Cause."
\
Of course, applied fighters who only focus on physical technique... and we have this mindset here @ MT, ridicule the Taikyouku kata as kiddy stuff... Who, they say, would walk around with one hand plastered @ the waist; the other hand in a down block by the knee.... literally begging to be punched in the face by the rapid shadow-boxing trained boxer..??? Not us 'smart' Americans.....
\
Completely missing the point of the Okinawan Master/// base, not applied fighting technical form. The low block facilitates whole body coordination, flexibility, mental discipline directing the body to act with physical & tactical integrity in it's movement. Tactical integrity.... Low block in principle defends against low attack,,, in principle.... If attacked low, defend low. Defend all vulnerable zones of the body. How vulnerable is the knee area?
\
The opposite hand is chambered at the waist... completely prepared to execute the next technique... a straight punch.... again from the waist (how many styles of any kind talk about engaging and incorporating the waist in generating power?) developing full ROM flexibility, exercise, coordination, with mental discipline controlling every micro-inch of action.... establishing the tactical working objective (you yourself just mentioned) of having one move flow into the next complimentary move... here the 'kiddy' block - then strike.... defend then attack...
\
And I'm only getting started.... kata is very sophisticated, it's a mental discipline....

And I also agree that I separate such practice from traditional karate. It's simply not. It's every bit as worthy as traditional karate, but it;s not my cup of tea and it's not traditional.

\
Fine, a personal choice.

And again, the goal of traditional karate is certainly civilian self defense. No argument from me there. And that is how I try train.

\
The Okinawans... and later really the Japanese... this was the cultural value they also made most explicit....

I'm just saying that I don't train because I personally feel I need better martial skill in order to preserve myself. It's a tricky distinction to make, but there's a difference between self defense being what you train for, and self defense being why you train.

\
Got it.... nice distinction....
\
EDIT: on the latter, and one all the self defense specialists here will be happy to entertain....

 

[ShotoNoob]

Because it's in the syllabus.

In my experience very few karate instructors understand kata and some of the utter nonsense that is taught becasue of this lack of understanding is laughable. Associations write the syllabus, not individual clubs or instructors, so they teach kata even though they don't properly understand it.

This is why, despite begin rubbished as long a go as 1938 by Mabuni (and in spite of common sense) many karate instructors today still teach "the turns in kata are you turning to face a new opponent". That is what they were taught by their instructors, and that is what they teach, and then their students become instructors and perpetuate the same nonsense to their students.

Yes they will find an alternate use for it, but that is like buying a Ferrari and then use it as a plant pot. You have this awesome highly useful and sophisticated piece of machinery, and you use it to grow Fuchsia's simply because you haven't learnt to drive.

If you have kata, use it for what it is designed for, don't use it for something else. If your goal is something else, then come up with another way of training specially deigned to address that goal.

\
So what is the purpose of the "turns" in kata.... seems to me like your panned explanation is one of many logical, tactical conclusions.
\
Literally dying to know....

 

[ShotoNoob]

How do you know it's not and you've just been misinterpreting it? I've been told countless different interpretations for various movements in kata. What is the "X-Block" which is part of more than one kata? Is it a knife block, as so many once claimed? A lapel cross-choke (nami-juji-jime) as is now the popular interpretations? A double knife-hand (shuto) neck strike? All of the above as needed? Something else? What about the classic "high block?" I've seen three or four different interpretations of what that "really is."

\
How do you know it's not you misunderstanding.... aren't these moves you speak of symbolic of applied tactics & martial principles...???

Maybe it was (is?) and teachers with no experience applying it didn't transmit that application to their students and it got "lost?"

\
Clearly a possibility... other explanations abound about why kata / kata technique is imperfect... People are flawed is the broad reason...

Maybe you don't have to.

\
To train & master a discipline, we have to come to some conclusion about what we are doing....

This is why I conclude that kata is what it needs to be for each person, teacher, or lineage.

|
COMPLETELY WRONG IN PRINCIPLE.... We don't make up science... we prove it, prove it's principles, then apply it... Otherwise, it becomes a hippie, feel good fest.... and here's the result

Certain Martial Talk heavies are convinced I'm the Star in the YT video....
\
EDIT: My favorite editorial comment is that the female black-belt standing in the center watching.... is hoping,,, NO PRAYING, I won't ask for her phone number after class...

 

[Koshiki]

\
So what is the purpose of the "turns" in kata.... seems to me like your panned explanation is one of many logical, tactical conclusions.
\
Literally dying to know....

Judging by whoever felt the need to add punches before turns if they weren't there already, you're turning to face the next of ten to twelve, patiently waiting opponents....

 

[geezer]

Hmmm. Some interesting ideas being expressed. I wonder how close Shotonoob's views on kata are to Bill Mattock's? They seem to track pretty closely. I've already expressed my view regarding it's value as one of four components of the specific TMA I train (WC) which are 1. form, 2. two-man drills (lat sau) 3. sticking hands (chi-sau) and 4. sparring (nuk-sau/guo-sau). To develop completely in this art you need to balance all four areas.

Shoto, my only question is whether or not your definition of a TMA isn't rather narrow, and perhaps based more specifically on your understanding of certain Okinawan and Japanese traditions? After all, TMA in general (Chinese, Japanese, Okinawan, Korean, Southeast Asian, Filipino, Malaysian, Indonesian, Indian, Nepali, Tibetan, Mongolian, etc., and of course. European, and others?...) are extremely diverse. I confess ignorance here, but from what I have encountered, it is unwise to make hard and fast assumptions about anything, including the function and relative importance of kata/forms ...assuming the the art even uses forms at all.

I fully appreciate that the point of this thread is for those of us that do emphasize kata/forms in our training to share the why behind that emphasis. But honestly, that emphasis will differ from art to art, culture to culture. Similarly, concepts such as Kime from Japanese TMA may have analogous concepts in other cultures TMA, or they may not... I can only conclude that there are many paths and many goals in the martial arts. It is not for me to judge others by my yard (meter?) stick.