When the kata is applied to self defense

[Gerry Seymour]

Which is why you should be capable of restraining yourself from destroying your opponent unless it is absolutely necessary. This is the genius of Jigoro Kano by the way, because Judo (and Bjj) teaches you to control, not obliterate your opponent. Of course you can if you deem it necessary, but it is so out of bounds of your training that it is unlikely to occur unless it is absolutely necessary.

And one of the things I love about that approach is that it actually reduces the likelihood of continued attack, because both prioritize control above finish. Getting the throw (in Judo) is generally less important than controlling them so they can't get one on you. And then they follow takedowns to control so they don't have to do that all over again.

 

[now disabled]

Which is why you should be capable of restraining yourself from destroying your opponent unless it is absolutely necessary. This is the genius of Jigoro Kano by the way, because Judo (and Bjj) teaches you to control, not obliterate your opponent. Of course you can if you deem it necessary, but it is so out of bounds of your training that it is unlikely to occur unless it is absolutely necessary.

All MA teach that not just Judo lol every MA learns discipline and control ...and guess what that is what the Kata and the Kihon waza are for ....as if ya learn em and keep repeating them you keep getting that bit better as they are the base


Steve will maybe get this bit .....how many times did you strip and reassemble a weapon ? ....and even after you could do it did ya stop doing it just because it was basic stuff....I would expect not lol as you can always get better at the basics............


Just like the MA no one ever should ever feel that the basics are irrelevant or they are not to be used or cannot be used and there are contained within Kata and the kihon waza nice little nuances that when you got the basics down then you can see them

Also if you don't understand what a movement in a Kata is for or how it can be applied then ask the teacher that is what they there for

 

[Hanzou]

I guess that depends how you view kata. If it's just a collection of movements being trained, then if someone who does good BJJ-style groundwork finds useful movement references in the kata, then those movements are there. If we accept "bunkai" as application of the movements (rather than distilling the original intentions of the kata creator), then the groundwork is in that bunkai. I'm not sure what the translation/meaning of bunkai is, but I tend to see this (using movements as reference) as a better use than trying to dig back to original intent. If someone takes one of my kata and says, "Right there, that sequence of movements has the right transitions and positions for X technique", then I"m okay with that, even if that technique isn't one I am aware of.

I have no problem with that. My issue is with people who have never trained in Bjj or grappling, and proceed to pretend that kata contains an entire grappling curriculum within it. That's when we've entered silly time. If you train in Bjj, and then apply Bjj principles to karate, I have no issue. In fact, I think that's a great idea.

 

[Hanzou]

All MA teach that not just Judo lol every MA learns discipline and control ...

That is an interesting argument to make considering that YOU believe there are no rules in a "scrap".

 

[now disabled]

That is an interesting argument to make considering that YOU believe there are no rules in a "scrap".

There are not rules in a scrap lol ...what I was saying is that all MA teach discipline in the student and restraint it not just Judo .... how the individual applies that restraint is down to them not the art itself ....and that also leads to how the individual is themselves some have more restraint than others

 

[now disabled]

I have no problem with that. My issue is with people who have never trained in Bjj or grappling, and proceed to pretend that kata contains an entire grappling curriculum within it. That's when we've entered silly time. If you train in Bjj, and then apply Bjj principles to karate, I have no issue. In fact, I think that's a great idea.

I'm sure there are styles of Karate that do have grappling in them

Again what is your definition of grappling ?

 

[now disabled]

Which is why you should be capable of restraining yourself from destroying your opponent unless it is absolutely necessary. This is the genius of Jigoro Kano by the way, because Judo (and Bjj) teaches you to control, not obliterate your opponent. Of course you can if you deem it necessary, but it is so out of bounds of your training that it is unlikely to occur unless it is absolutely necessary.

You are aware that Kano did send quite a few of his students to Ueshiba ? ... as and I guess there must have been a reason for that and there is also a very very well know judoka that ummm studied and taught Ueshiba's art that competed in the first all japan judo tournament in front of his Emperor ... must be a reason why Kano sent his students to Ueshiba ??? and why a well know 5th dan Judoka became eventually a very very well known Aikidoka

 

[oftheherd1]

I have been in and out of this thread over the last couple of hours since I am at work. Fascinating. I only got about half way through the video posted by the OP when starting the thread. I had to also blank out the sound. Take that into consideration if you think you need to.

First, he shows a cross arm block at the beginning, but there is no application of it. There may have been earlier in the instruction. I would like to see how he used it against a punch since that seems to be most of what he is teaching.

BTW, for whatever it may or may not be worth, did anyone notice this teaching is for what I assume is the school's Black Belt Club? Some seem to have trainee tabs and others instructor tabs. These aren't expected to be white belts, and are in fact are wearing black belts. We might presume less instruction is needed if he is simply combining previously learned strikes or techniques in some new way. That might affect my comments below, as well as the OP's.

I have been amazed nobody has directly commented on what might be missing from the application of the techniques in the video. I would suggest that some of the blocks should not just be blocks. The blocks to the arm are wrong for blocking the arm only; they are too close to the elbow. However, if they are used to strike the elbow with a good strike to the proper area, they cause great pain along with the block. So you have a block and great pain. That arm will be impossible to use for a while, or the opponent won't want to use it for fear of more pain. I never see the instructor pointing that out, much less demonstrating that part.

And I didn't see too much explanation of the strike to the upper ribs near the inner arm. Again, that can cause a lot of pain. That is a normally protected area and there are nerves there not accustomed to being struck, so a good place to strike. What I would not like is his 'fist' when he strikes. I think he is trying to create a sort of point with his thumb and index finger. Personally I would prefer a dragon punch as more effective, but if he can make that work, it is not wrong. I also would have put more rotation in my wrist for the slap under the chin (just me perhaps). Some of what he is teaching is good grappling defense.

There is a short clip around 9:15 to around 9:50 or so that might be a portion of a kata. I couldn't think so for any reason other reason than he has everybody sort of line up facing their mirrors and do a couple or three moves. Just me personally, I wouldn't use that to make the comment that a whole 12 something minutes of individual techniques were proof of a kata.

Anyone agree or disagree?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

There are so many confounding variables, we'd literally need a controlled experiment to tell. Any comparison "in the wild" also includes other variables in training, instructional quality, time commitment, effectiveness of techniques, fitness, etc.

I briefly mentioned earlier in this thread, they have done this sort of study to test aggression/ delinquent behaviors, and it's been raised in a couple studies. All someone would need to do is replicate those, and change what is being measured.

 

[oftheherd1]

Yes it does. Those rules are called "laws". Break those laws and you could spend quite a long time in jail, whether you were defending yourself or not.

Don't you think those are different scenarios for the differing 'rule' sets. If in a sport setting I intentionally apply a grapple for which the only outcome is a destruction of an opponent's elbow and shoulder, I have broken the sport rules and will no doubt be disqualified, maybe fined, and depending, also sued. If I apply that same technique on the 'street' without provocation, I may be arrested and/or sued.

However, if I am defending an attack against a person with a club and destroy the attacker's elbow and shoulder, I am very unlikely to be arrested, and probably won't be sued either.

 

[Steve]

All MA teach that not just Judo lol every MA learns discipline and control ...and guess what that is what the Kata and the Kihon waza are for ....as if ya learn em and keep repeating them you keep getting that bit better as they are the base


Steve will maybe get this bit .....how many times did you strip and reassemble a weapon ? ....and even after you could do it did ya stop doing it just because it was basic stuff....I would expect not lol as you can always get better at the basics............


Just like the MA no one ever should ever feel that the basics are irrelevant or they are not to be used or cannot be used and there are contained within Kata and the kihon waza nice little nuances that when you got the basics down then you can see them

Also if you don't understand what a movement in a Kata is for or how it can be applied then ask the teacher that is what they there for

I've said this many times, but it bears repeating. There isn't anything wrong with doing kata. I don't even have a problem finding new application in bunkai.

Drop Bear hit the nail when he observed that kata (and drills such as in the OP) presume success. In sport, most similar drills build on failure. In other words, in the OP, the first punch lands and knocks the guy off balance, then up into the jaw, parry the second punch, and voila. In an art such as bjj or mma, the drill would have started with you punching and other guy defends, so you chain together tecjniques. If it works, great. If it doesn't, move on. This is why people often compare BJJ to chess.

The other concern is that any of these drills, without application by the individual, will be unreliable. A
Person can intellectually understand anything. Drills and kata are training. They can be useful, but are only step 1 on a path to proficiency.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have no problem with that. My issue is with people who have never trained in Bjj or grappling, and proceed to pretend that kata contains an entire grappling curriculum within it. That's when we've entered silly time. If you train in Bjj, and then apply Bjj principles to karate, I have no issue. In fact, I think that's a great idea.

Agreed. I'm not wild about the idea of kata containing curriculum of any type. It's a useful training tool, but the knowledge is held in people's heads. Someone with poor grappling skills won't get them from kata, nor will someone with poor punching skills.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You are aware that Kano did send quite a few of his students to Ueshiba ? ... as and I guess there must have been a reason for that and there is also a very very well know judoka that ummm studied and taught Ueshiba's art that competed in the first all japan judo tournament in front of his Emperor ... must be a reason why Kano sent his students to Ueshiba ??? and why a well know 5th dan Judoka became eventually a very very well known Aikidoka

I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion of kata.

 

[now disabled]

Drills and kata are training. They can be useful, but are only step 1 on a path to proficiency.

Yup

They are the base that you work from the reference point ...

How they are applied well that is down to how the teacher teaches and how the students apply them and also to a certain point if the students don't get it them if they ask

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I've said this many times, but it bears repeating. There isn't anything wrong with doing kata. I don't even have a problem finding new application in bunkai.

Drop Bear hit the nail when he observed that kata (and drills such as in the OP) presume success. In sport, most similar drills build on failure. In other words, in the OP, the first punch lands and knocks the guy off balance, then up into the jaw, parry the second punch, and voila. In an art such as bjj or mma, the drill would have started with you punching and other guy defends, so you chain together tecjniques. If it works, great. If it doesn't, move on. This is why people often compare BJJ to chess.

The other concern is that any of these drills, without application by the individual, will be unreliable. A
Person can intellectually understand anything. Drills and kata are training. They can be useful, but are only step 1 on a path to proficiency.

I prefer the chain of failures, too. On a side note, I recall someone saying recently this fail-and-respond was built into kata in their style (or maybe just their school), but I've entirely forgotten who. @lansao, was it you mentioning this to me?

 

[now disabled]

I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion of kata.

ok

 

[pgsmith]

I have no problem with that. My issue is with people who have never trained in Bjj or grappling, and proceed to pretend that kata contains an entire grappling curriculum within it.

This is something that I have trouble understanding. There are quite a few people that relish the idea of being what I call "karate cops". These people get offended when someone shows sub-par techniques in a video, or get upset when someone makes unsubstantiated statements about their abilities or self defense prowess. The reality is that there are probably a great many more substandard "self defense" schools than there are seriously good ones. All they warrant, in my opinion, is a passing chuckle for some of their claims. I am unable to really grasp why some people spend so much effort and thought on what others are doing. Seems to me that this large amount of effort would be better spent improving ones own training rather than worrying about others.

I can see expressing an opinion to refute someone else's statements if one feels those statements are erroneous. However, I don't understand the need to hammer at someone else's training and practice simply because one doesn't consider it effective. Seems like a lot of effort with no reward.

Just my (substandard) thoughts on it.

 

[Hanzou]

Don't you think those are different scenarios for the differing 'rule' sets. If in a sport setting I intentionally apply a grapple for which the only outcome is a destruction of an opponent's elbow and shoulder, I have broken the sport rules and will no doubt be disqualified, maybe fined, and depending, also sued. If I apply that same technique on the 'street' without provocation, I may be arrested and/or sued.

However, if I am defending an attack against a person with a club and destroy the attacker's elbow and shoulder, I am very unlikely to be arrested, and probably won't be sued either.

Obviously. As I said, you better be able to explain it to the cops that you needed to destroy an elbow or a shoulder. The cops may question if such extreme force was needed, and you could still face legal action since the destruction of an elbow or a shoulder can cause life-long damage.

 

[Hanzou]

This is something that I have trouble understanding.

You have trouble understanding why I would be concerned about martial arts instructors lying to their students?

 

[FriedRice]

The last time Kata worked for real in real life....and since then and before that, nothing::