Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Cool. The point we were making, though, is that just because the training method isn't properly utilised in your dojo, or others, doesn't invalidate the training methodology itself that said, I personally feel that kata training is one of the least properly understood training methodologies out there (as seen in karate and similar systems), while simultaneously being the most important in those arts.
With regards to "children's karate", I don't know that it's restricted to just the early US Gi's who were given that when Funakoshi went to Japan, he wasn't the best karate-ka around, nor the most knowledgable and many reports suggest that he didn't teach, or emphasise, much beyond "here is the sequence of moves" when it came to kata. Then you have specific kata that were developed specifically for children, such as the Gekisai forms, and the Heian/Pinan forms (which were simplified from earlier kata to make it easier for young children to remember/perform). In a real sense, most karate around is "children's karate" when looked at in this light, if we're to use such terms.
My point was that you were exposed to a different contextual "practicality" so it wasn't that your earlier training necessarily lacked it (it may have, it may not), but it may have been addressing a different form of practicality that wasn't recognised.
Well first of all it wasn't my instructor. It was a 12 year old brown belt who went on to become a 14 year old black belt.
When you were in your 20's? Well, firstly, labelling a 12 year old kid who is doing what he thinks is correct a "twerp" might not be the most charitable thing you could do but, more realistically, I'd question what real education you would receive from someone that young sure, they might have had some idea of how it was supposed to be done (the kata), but I'd question the level of their understanding as to "why" as a result, I'm not overtly shocked that such a training experience was not optimal for you but again, that's not the fault of kata training, but of the lack of any real depth or understanding in the way it was presented to you (in that instance).
Just a reminder here, my arts are largely grappling based not ground, but grappling (as the term itself is defined) as well as having a striking component. My point is that, well, no, it's not different. You, on a personal level, get more readily identifiable feedback in your grappling system that doesn't mean anything other than that you get more readily identifiable feedback there. I can just as easily point out where there's an issue with a students form when they're doing something solo, with a partner, striking, grappling, ground work, weapon work, or anything else. And even when they think they've got it, and are in the right position, I can tweak it and improve it or point out where they think they're safe, but aren't.
With regards to your side-mount example, sure, I can see how you can come to that conclusion but it's going to have as much to do with who you're rolling with at the time or if you're even rolling at all (or just running drills). Someone less experienced, for example, might not know to turn to their side or how to and let you get away with something that doesn't necessarily "work" at it's optimal level. To pick up on that, a coach standing over you, telling you to adjust your hips, or your arms, or whatever, is the same as the kid telling you to mind your elbows. Of course, the immediate results might be far clearer to you in your grappling form but that doesn't mean that the kata correction was less practical, effective, or correct.
Again, that's very subjective speaking personally, I get a lot of feedback from doing things solo and can recognise when my balance is off, when I'm open where I shouldn't be, when my power is lacking, and so on.
Ah, well, that's getting to it, isn't it? Why would you be reverting to something that isn't what you're learning when you free spar? To me, that's a complete failure of the training and one reason I'm not fond of sparring, particularly early on...
Okay, cool. I'd suggest that that's not the reality there the idea isn't of a collection of techniques, it's more that it's giving you tactical applications of techniques. The techniques you should already have the execution of down what kata gives you is the consistency and understood/developed methods of applying them rather than relying on random, inconsistent personal explorations.
But here's the thing in sports, personal explorations are the standard each person is trying to find what helps them be successful against others trying the same thing but when learning a particular approach/system, you don't want the results to be so random, which is where kata comes into it. The problem is when both are seen as the same thing or when one is seen as being even related to the other which is where you've been coming from. Kata is about learning the approach and tactical methodology of the system itself learning to do the art the way it's intended sparring/sports methodology is about trying things to see what works "for you" which is far more random in it's ability to generate success.
In other words, kata is teaching you karate sparring isn't. The two are almost completely unrelated.
Cool, thanks. Of course, as you know, many won't consider that a "high rank" we'd be more looking at 5th Dan and higher but that's where I thought you were meaning.
