Okay....
Technical - what is literally correct.
Functional - how most people use the words and define the arts accordingly, even if it's not what's literally correct.
Yeah... that's not really clearer. "Technical" doesn't mean "what is literally correct", it refers to mechanical methodology, so I'm still not sure what exactly you're saying there... additionally, "functional" typically means "well suited to the function", or "having a preference for the efficient application"... nothing like "how most people use the words"...
It ts a very niche science and almost nobody understands it.
So that isn't exactly a big call to make.
What? You present a guy who, clearly, has no idea what he's actually arguing about, I point out that he doesn't know what he's arguing about, and you say it's a niche science, and almost nobody understands it, so saying your guy gets it wrong isn't a big call? So why did you put him there as an example?
Do you have a single idea how to present an argument?
But it is also shows that people are moving away from static drilling. And especially the very static drilling of kata.
No, you clearly don't.
No, it doesn't. It shows a guy who doesn't understand the training concepts belittle the training concepts, then show how to train those training concepts. It has nothing at all to do with, nor does it indicate, "people are moving away from static drilling", nor does it even suggest that kata is "static drilling", and it absolutely doesn't have any implication that people are moving away from kata training due to it being "static drilling". You have zero argument here, just someone who thinks he's come up with something new because he never had any understanding of it in the first place.
Especially in fields where performance matters. Eg sports.
Right... because this is the only context that matters, naturally. You get that this thread is about the differences and delineation between classical (or traditional) and modern martial arts? And one of the distinctions has been that classical tend to not have much in the way of competitive aspects? So you're expecting them follow what you think is important (or not) in an area they don't even inhabit? Huh?
Oh, and who says that these drills aren't used in "fields where performance matters"? ALL areas where you have to train something will feature some degree of what you think of as "static drills"... because that's where you refine technique and technical ability. Runners spend a lot of time working on the launch, not just doing 100 metres all the time. Basketballers spend hours on free-throws. Every sports team works on particular drills to run plays and sequences, offensive, defensive, and so on. What do you think all of those are? How did you learn the techniques in your BJJ and MMA? Did you just get on the floor with someone, and randomly find an arm, and try to do something with it? Or were you taught how to get into position, how to grip, how to shift your body for best leverage, and work on getting the lock/choke/pin/escape to a point where you can do it, then try in when rolling? Cause, you know what you were doing there...?
Kenetic linking is the new cool kid in performance movement. I am trying to convince one of our kids to study it so he can explain it to me.
www.myotherapy.org.au
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The new "cool kid"... dude, how far behind the times are you up in QLD? Kinetic chaining (kinetic linking) has been a major part of how I've been teaching for the past 20 years... I was first introduced to it in the mid 90's by my teacher... you are literally decades behind me....
The issue is you don't train anyone any good. So I basically discount what you say.
Your ignorance is really showing here... for one thing, you haven't trained anyone that I've heard of, so... what value do you bring? More importantly, you wouldn't have any idea what "good" is in my field, so your opinion counts for less than squat. You have no clue at all about anything your very basic understanding and unsophisticated grasp of martial arts doesn't already have, or anything that doesn't match your preconceptions, so it's really easy to discount everything you say. Still, I try to help, and offer you better information that you have... your stubborn refusal to be party to that is, frankly, your lacking.
So you have explained ad nausium all these methods that are superior. But have no evidence of any of it working.
Superior? Only in the context and application that it's designed for. And you have seen no evidence only because you've had no ability to take in anything at all. Ever. Again, your ignorance and stubbornness is your own issue.
And I haven't met a Ninja I have been impressed with.
That you know of... of course, your little petty digs are, again, irrelevant here. You have no knowledge of what is involved in the modern Takamatsuden arts, wouldn't recognise them if you saw them, and they are not what is being discussed... so who cares if you've been "impressed" or not by a fantasy in your own head?
Where I can look at people who are churning out successful fighters. Or successful athletes. Or even people trained in sports sciences. Or literally any evidence based field. And see what they do.
What on earth does that mean? "Successful fighters"? Athletes? Sports sciences (do I mention that, if we do go back to the Wayne Roy Ninjutsu days here, one of our senior instructors in Sydney worked at the NSW Institute of Sports, leading to a number of developments in how we taught and trained in the 90's)? What, pray tell, does any of that have to do with systems that are not sports, do not have anything external to indicate "successful" in... you might as well say that you have no interest in hearing about how to make a pizza from anyone who makes a pizza, because you've only ever eaten burgers, then complaining that the pizza makers have no idea how to make food.
And I will probably pay more attention to that. Than you.
Then you don't know what you're actually paying attention to. You're just saying you'll pay attention to people doing what you do, the way you do it, and completely closing yourself off to the idea that the world is bigger than what you know. And that, really, is on you.
And I don't think that should be an unreasonable position.
What is unreasonable in your position is that you are insistent that completely different methodologies, in completely different systems, with completely different aims, completely different criteria for assessment, and completely different reasoning and contexts, should fit your narrow views and expectations, especially when you've been told how out of whack with reality your views often are in these discussions. THAT is where your position is unreasonable.
It still puzzles me why people question kata pressure testing... Like, they wouldn't be in the school's syllabus if they weren't found to be useful... under pressure... after being tested...
Hmm... it's nowhere near that simple, though...
Back when I competed , it was the kata competition that gave me the biggest mental pressure
That's one form, yep. There are others, of course, which is where I think the discussion is directed, but this mental pressure is certainly one form, and shouldn't be discounted or forgotten.
As far as karate goes, there is little physical pressure testing of kata in most schools. In order to test something, one must know what it's supposed to do, and most do not know the actual application of many of the moves. Some moves have become so changed over the past century that it's hard to discern the original intent other than the obvious basic blocks and punches.
Very true. Of course, this is where bunkai comes in... despite the common usage, bunkai is not application... it's "break down". In other words, it's not how the kata are supposed to work, it's a process where you break the kata down in order to examine it and find applications. This is where the pressure testing should come into that type of kata found in karate and similar systems... when that's the reason for them. Of course, it's not always the case that the kata are there for combative reasons... which is, again, where Drop Bear is failing to grasp what kata is in the first place.
But even when the intent is known, seldom are kata pressure tested. This is because they have come to be seen as relics or exercise, separate from actual fighting. But there is no reason why kata technique cannot be pressure tested (as they were long ago). IMO this is a long-neglected practice that should be reinstated in every karate dojo.
There's a few things I'd break down from this... firstly, is the intent known (in karate kata)? Second, seeing them as "exercise", or separate from actual fighting isn't necessarily misunderstanding them... we'll come back to this. Thirdly, were they "pressure tested long ago"? The answer to that might not be what you expect... Personally, I agree that it's a neglected practice that should be reinstated, as, frankly, karate is the kata, the rest is more of an add-on, kind of a support system that has been redesignated to a position of higher prominence than it really should have... this does, of course, require having some understanding of what martial arts are, and how they operate, in the first place. Sadly, that is also a long neglected part of the puzzle... as the "fighting" side of things has taken prominence, largely due to a very superficial understanding of the subject in the first place.
An exception to this is in some schools is sanchin kata. A pressure testing of sorts is performed (shime) to test, not technique application, but body structure and its resistance to impact on legs, torso and arms. This reveals weakness in stance, tension, balance and overall body and mental control. Strikes can range from moderate to heavy and are delivered as the practitioner does the kata.
And this should start to give some idea of what the purpose of the kata are... as it's not always about fighting (at least, not directly).
Check out some videos. I recommend goju or Uechi ryu sensei doing the testing. I've seen one with 2 x 4's being broken against various parts of the body.
Yep. Sometimes, though, it seems that the testers are also kinda going through the motions... with it bordering on torture at times. When done properly, though, it gets you to the idea of what the purpose actually is.
I think you do more kata than you realise. I think everyone does.
I'm guessing 100,000 full kata during my time in TMA.
I think Haruhiko meant that you (inclusive, but not necessarily yourself specifically) are engaging in some form of what would be described as "kata" training even far beyond the formal kata in class...
You pressure test something to see if it works rather than assuming it works.
Yeah... that's not an answer to the (crossed out) question, though... that's saying why you think you pressure test, not what you think pressure testing actually is.
So you do literally the opposite of assume that if its in the schools syllabus it must be there for a reason. And you go find out for yourself if it works.
Well, yeah... if it's in the syllabus, then it should be there for a reason. Of course, you then need to know the context and reasoning specific to the system and it's kata (or any other aspect). Going to find out for yourself is not necessarily a part of it, though... depending on what the activity is, the reasoning, and so on...
You do literally the opposite of assume that someone must have pressure tested it.
So, are you assuming that no-one has pressure tested an arm-bar before you tried it in a roll? Or is pressure testing something different to what you're presenting here? Cause it is, you know.
I'm revising this to 85,000 as I didn't fully factor in some years of retirement.
Those years do get away from us...
Kata degraded over the generations due to repurposing in response to new goals, changes by modern teachers who didn't realize the deeper applications and by natural drift, to name a few reasons. Today's kata are often substantially different from when first developed.
Did they? I'm not so sure about that (and, for clarity, I'm talking about kata in karate here). While I don't dispute that much of the original purpose of a number of the aspects and applications of the kata have not been accurately transmitted, the question becomes when it was lost, and if it was there in the first place. Realistically, it's entirely possible that much of that was not present when the arts were brought from China to Okinawa in the first place... and there have been any number of practitioners, seeking to understand their art deeper, have travelled to China to find almost identical kata to the ones they train still being taught.
All this points to the need to explore kata, delve into their history and pressure test the techniques as they currently exist.
Hmm... exploring kata should be the corner-stone of your practice of karate... delving into the history is a big part of that... pressure testing the techniques as they currently exist, though? That depends on exactly what the techniques are, and what they're supposed to do... earlier, you mentioned Sanshin, as found in a number of systems, such as Goju and Uechi-ryu... like the forms for Wing Chun, the purpose of this kata is about structure, biomechanics, and such, so pressure testing (for combative application) is kinda beside the point.
If they don't pass the test, the application being used is wrong and further study and testing is needed.
Or they're not intended for such application in the first place. A lot of older kata weren't, so shouldn't be looked at in that fashion.
The old traditional kata were pressure tested by authentic warriors who knew well what real combat was.
Were they? According to...?
I mean, historically, karate was trained by the nobility and royalty in Okinawa, not the regular people, and certainly not the warriors facing "real combat". Additionally, and I can't really emphasise this enough, the purpose of kata were almost never "here's how you fight"... so they wouldn't require pressure testing in this context. Instead, the important points of the kata are that they properly convey the lessons they are intended to convey... which might have some combative application, but more commonly in the form of principles rather than specific directly transferable techniques.
As developed, kata was combat training. Modern karate separated the art into kata, kihon and kumite whereas in the early days they were entwined and fully synergistic.
Well, yeah, kata is combat training, just not combative techniques that are directly applicable in the main. And, while modern karate has these three divisions, it's not true to say that in the early days they were entwined, as, simply, neither kihon nor kumite really existed in the practice. When it is said that a kata was an entire system (of karate), that is a very accurate statement... most masters wouldn't do a "style", they would know a small number of kata, each (or, in some cases, each small collection of kata) encompassing an entire system of knowledge transmission, so students would go to particular teachers to learn those particular kata... it was only in the early 20th century, really from the 30's onward, that the idea of "styles" came into being, dominantly with specific lineages of teachers who had collected (often overlapping) sets of kata.
You should be able to challenge dogma with pressure testing.
Except you're not challenging dogma... you're reinforcing one particular dogma (in this case, that "pressure testing" is some kind of universal litmus). All you're really doing is dismissing anything that you can't apply this "pressure testing" idea to, which denies a huge amount of what martial arts do and offer.
Evidence should sway belief
The problem is that you only accept one form of evidence for your limited belief system. Different evidence exists for different beliefs, you know...
This should not rely on your status within an organisation.
None of anything said relied on any status within an organisation... Haruhiko simply stated that they are likely to be more aware of the meaning and reason for kata in their arts than you are. Frankly, that's not an inaccurate statement.
That’s not post hoc reasoning.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this". It refers to the mistake of assuming that because one event (B) follows another (A), that A caused B.
I wasn’t making a claim about sequence.
My claim is:
If a kata is retained in a combative tradition’s syllabus, it is reasonable to infer it was considered useful within that tradition.
That’s a conditional inference (K → U), not a sequential claim. Post hoc concerns the latter.
If you think syllabus inclusion doesn’t imply prior functional value, that’s the argument to make. But labeling this post hoc misstates the structure of my claim.
Without getting into the various Latin terms now being thrown around, I'm going to focus on one particular aspect here (bolded).
Moving back to the original idea (Classical versus Modern), and taking it to the idea of koryu (Classical) kata, then we start to get into the idea of exactly what kata are for in the first place. While it is absolutely the case that each kata being retained is considered useful within that tradition (if it moved to past-tense, then the systems would typically drop the kata entirely, or, at least, change it to ensure that it retained value... just part of how these are living traditions that are not "fixed", nor "stuck" in any way)... but it's important to understand what the actual implication or inference really is.
The purpose of kata is to transmit information and lessons that make up the educational concepts of a system (speaking martially). These lessons can be to do with body positioning and biomechanics, or to do with distancing, targeting, behavioural concepts, social expectations, cultural or spiritual information, historical values, political affiliation, and more. You may notice that I didn't mention combative application, as, in the main, that's just not their job. Instead, they are designed to give a much wider education, mental, spiritual, and physical, that can then aid in combative situations and application... however, and this is going to be a surprise to quite a few, I think, the reality is that martial arts, especially at the upper level, were not really ever about actual fighting. And, if all you are concerned about is the fighting part, then you're not a martial artist, and you're not doing martial arts. It's like thinking that you're educated after your first week of kindergarten, and therefore not needing to go any further... just repeating that first week of kindergarten over and over...
Correlation doesn't equal causation is pretty close though.
Not really, as that's not what post hoc ergo propter hoc infers... as it's not about correlation, it's about sequential events.
Because then you could say. Just because Kata is contained in a Combative traditions syllabus. Doesn't mean you can infer it has worth.
Well, yes, you can. You absolutely can infer that because kata is contained in a combative tradition it has worth (to that system). You just refuse to understand what that worth is, or what it can be.
Training methodology is just that. Whether that training method is the most efficient or effective might be at the crux of this discussion. The goals of said methodologies can vary even if they appear to run parallel initially. IMO there is no one size fits all for martial arts training, otherwise there would be no discussion as to the worth of any one methodology and less debate over competition. Value of a product can likely be found to varying degrees depending on the goals and abilities of the individual.
This is all true. The main thing to ensure is clear, though, is that the idea of "most efficient or effective" always has the caveat of "according to the system and it's values and aims".
Its worth is implicit in that it's contained within the syllabus.
Yep. But then you have to look at why it's contained, and what that worth is. Sometimes it's about building on mechanical lessons from earlier kata... or exploring variations in actions... or footwork... or a different sense of timing or distancing... or a new philosophical expression... or any of any number of other reasons... and I still haven't said "combative application"...
When we look at the kata of a koryu, they are typically grouped in different sections of the school, and are positioned in specific orders in order to give a particular progression for the study of the school. The early kata typically focus on mechanical concepts, with various principles that are of high value to the school being emphasised... the mid-range ones work on a more refined timing and distancing... the upper level are commonly far more direct, and come much closer to actual application. Note that: the upper levels, when a student may have been training for a decade or more, is where the idea of actual combative application starts to get focused on. Now, exactly what do you think we think of the value of "pressure testing" in the way a sporting system does things? It's precisely meaningless.
Now, granted, schools aren't all the same, and naturally they need cultivating. Nakayama Hakudo-sensei basically did away with what he regarded as redundant kata because the core teachings were repeated in other kata which he kept. There's a word for that — 尾へ (adapting to change if I recall, pronounced "oh-(h)en".
He, and Oe Masamichi when he restructured his line of Tosa Eishin Iai into Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu...
So this happens, and masters and students are (hopefully) cultivating, as stewards of their generation, the school so that it can be passed on as a living tradition.
Yep. This is how it works. Ellis Amdur, with his Araki Ryu, is constantly pressure testing (in various manners, not necessarily in any kind of free-form sparring) his Araki Ryu kata... and, if they don't work as they're meant to within the context of the school, if they fail due to outside factors including exhaustion or (potential) injury, they are re-worked, or they are dropped. I know of a number of lines of koryu who are creating new kata to further explore aspects of their study as well. This is also not covering the idea of altering the way kata are performed for pedagogical reasons, teaching ease, or simply because people are making a particular mistake, and this is used to correct it. The point is, kata are not static, they are not locked, and they are always being assessed in any number of ways... which, itself, is pressure testing. Just not a form that Drop Bear would recognise.
Back to the kata thing.
I've done a lot of reading and I can count on one hand the amount of members in this thread that would appreciate koryū kata as more than just a "pattern for instruction".
I have more reading to do.
Yes... on all counts. I would even say that quite a number of people in this thread aren't able to even appreciate kata (koryu or otherwise) simply as a "pattern for instruction"...
I did karate for 20+ years but my god I have had no idea how to write “kata” or any other terminology used within the context of karate, maybe I would recognize “karate”..and “do” written in Japanese .
空手道... or 唐手道? Hmm...
So how is “kata” written in Japanese ? I googled(rather used Bing) that question and noting comes up, I ask - how to say “form” in Japanese - the I get this :
形 (Katachi) - shape, type
形態- form' or 'shape'
Is this the same as for “kata” in the Japanese MA’s ?
Ah, now this gets a bit fun... and a bit complicated. Like the versions of karate-do I put above (which, so you know, are the common current version, meaning "way of the empty hand", and the older, original form, meaning "way of the Chinese [Tang] hand/technique"), there are a few different ways it can be written. Each have very similar meanings, but have some subtle variance, depending on the one chosen...
The most common characters are: 型, 片, and 形. Let's go to an email I sent my students a little while ago for some detail (rather than me just rewriting it all again...)There are a couple of different kanji used to express the concept of "kata"; 型, 形, or sometimes 方. While each can be read as "kata", and contextually have largely similar meanings, there are some subtleties between them. The first, and most common, particularly in modern arts, is 型. This term means, literally, "type", "shape", or "mold", and has a common implication of fitting to the shape of the technique, or art. In following this approach to kata, you should typically strive to be as technically perfect as possible. The second form, 形, has a common translation of "shape", or "model", and is more typically found in older arts. It's implied concepts are very similar to the first, to the point that they are often interchangeable, however is often seen as a bit "looser", allowing the student to simply get themselves into the shape (roughly), rather than being necessarily exactly as shown. The final form, 方, is more unusual, and has a meaning of "method", or "way of doing". Used as a short-hand version in some old scrolls, this term simply implies a particular manner of performing a technique. As you can see, we are moving further from simple rote repetition and mimicry, and through to an integrated manner of experiencing the concepts of the technique.
There are a couple of different kanji used to express the concept of "kata"; 型, 形, or sometimes 方. While each can be read as "kata", and contextually have largely similar meanings, there are some subtleties between them. The first, and most common, particularly in modern arts, is 型. This term means, literally, "type", "shape", or "mold", and has a common implication of fitting to the shape of the technique, or art. In following this approach to kata, you should typically strive to be as technically perfect as possible. The second form, 形, has a common translation of "shape", or "model", and is more typically found in older arts. It's implied concepts are very similar to the first, to the point that they are often interchangeable, however is often seen as a bit "looser", allowing the student to simply get themselves into the shape (roughly), rather than being necessarily exactly as shown. The final form, 方, is more unusual, and has a meaning of "method", or "way of doing". Used as a short-hand version in some old scrolls, this term simply implies a particular manner of performing a technique. As you can see, we are moving further from simple rote repetition and mimicry, and through to an integrated manner of experiencing the concepts of the technique.
Of course, it would be remiss not to point out that there are other terms also used by some schools; the term "kajo" is perhaps the most prominent of them all, meaning "selection", or "chapter" (as in a book), although other terms include "seiho" (powerful methods), "hojo" (methods of performing), "goho" (strong methods), or simply "ho", as in ukemi no ho (methods of receiving). However, outside of the nuances particular to the schools that use these terms, the essential idea is still that of kata.
To add to that, from another email I sent...
Kata is one of the most well-known martial arts terms, even outside of martial arts. However, as with many Japanese terms, things can get a bit confusing when we begin to write things down, as there are a number of different ways to write the word, each with their own subtle differences in meaning. The first, most frequently used kanji is 型, which is a combination of three smaller characters, tairaka, symbolising a growing plant, katana, symbolising a sword or blade used to shape the growth of the plants, and the ground in which the plant is growing. Together, the overall meaning is one of creating, or shaping, the direction of growth and development of the subject. It also implies a shape that has been nurtured and defined by the external efforts put into it, both of which are very informative definitions and contexts to think about when looking at the practice in martial study.
The second common character used to symbolise "kata" is 形. You can, again, see the tairaka character (on the left side of this character), but the right side is based on a radical for water. In this case, the character has the implication of being shaped by the environment in a natural way, rather than by exerting external pressures and influence. As you can see, the basic idea is the same, and both characters can be translated as "shape" or "form", which shows the huge amount of cross-over for these concepts, however, they do have some differences.
Hopefully that helps a bit.
Yes, and as long as it’s called Martial arts competition it would be judged sort of out of that perspective?
Out of which perspective?
Yes, I know. The essence of it…all
Yep. I figured you did... but wanted to make sure others got what it was actually about.
Yes I can see that that especially those into Koryu martial arts will think along such lines, also when having in mind such as - kyokushin promoted as toughest karate.
But I think Oyama did realized the deeper aspects of things
Not really following you there... what would you think koryu practitioners would think? I don't doubt that Oyama-s had some lofty ideals, however that particular quote is not really meaningful in any way... it's conflating an influence on martial arts that barely existed, and has no influence whatsoever on Kyokushin or other karate forms... he may have had some "deeper insights", but this was not one of them. It's a soundbite, that is hollow and empty, and only there to make practitioners feel better about what they're doing, despite there being absolutely no basis for any claim whatsoever.
