RIght.
So. Unless you have done study in a movement science you are really only going to have a layman's knowledge of movement.
And if I have? Or, more accurately, if one of our senior teachers used to be employed precisely in that field, and brought that knowledge and understanding into our schools and teaching, influencing and helping inform how I teach to today, what then? Do you fall back to another strawman? Or are you saying that every single person has to have done studies in "movement science"? Like everyone has to have done a PhD in English literature to write an email?
So. The point is. We kind of don't know if he gets it wrong or not.
Yes. We do. It's clear. He complains about what he thinks of as "dead drills", which are in reality lessons in body structural support to handle the recoil of a discharging gun, then ludicrously compares it to a badly done partial karate-style "kata" (which has the movement from position to position he's arguing isn't there in static postural teaching), going on about whether or not he'd just stand there in an actual firefight (which is not what the postural training is for)... then starts talking about the recoil force, and how you need to stand solidly to brace for it, going against his basic point in the first place.
The guy has no idea of what he's talking about. We know that. He gets his entire argument wrong, and he gets the reason for different training methods wrong.
Unless we have pressure tested it.
We'll come back to this, but... I don't think you have any idea what you mean by "pressure testing"... you keep changing what is being tested, and how. Positional structure? Tested by having some force applied to test the structural strength. That would be the pressure testing required. I mean... are you suggesting he just runs around randomly, firing a gun, and that's "pressure testing"?
Which is an important factor when we are critiquing his methods.
He didn't present any methods. He critiqued a standard, proven, and strong training method by insisting it was for something it's not.
What clip (that you posted) did you watch?
Yeah. You moved the goal posts. I was specifically talking about function.
Your exact quote is that "Because then you could say. Just because Kata is contained in a Combative traditions syllabus. Doesn't mean you can infer it has worth."
The completely broken syntax and bizarrely segmented sentences aside (do you ever proof-read anything?), you said that we couldn't say that something deliberately, specifically, and consistently included in these systems was done so because worth was found there... I mean... that really is the complete opposite of any form of logic, reasoning, or basic understanding, so... huh? I'd also point out that you made no mention of "function", nor defined anything in such manner... of course, it's painfully obvious from dealing with you over the years that you have little appreciation of anything beyond the limited "functionality" you think is found in your methods, so sure, I got your implication. I just wanted to point out (again) how little you grasp beyond your small-minded and limited understanding by pointing out that your own argument isn't borne out in reality.
Which was the whole point about gun fighting and dead drills.
Except... no. It wasn't. For one thing, the conversation wasn't on that at that point. For another, the clip didn't demonstrate anything to that effect, nor did it clearly identify anything outside of fantasy as to what makes the stance shooting "dead drills", so it presented a problem without identifying it clearly, then offered no real solution, then said you needed something to solve the problem the training he critiqued (poorly) initially was actually solving.
You have to remember that the misfiring synapses in your head when you're typing doesn't come out in the broken sentences that you post, so please forgive us for not being psychic about what the hell you think you're saying, 'kay?
If Kata is beneficial to a system because it preserves the historical integrity of that system.
No-one has said that. At all. You really do like just inventing your own arguments from others, don't you? That said...
I don't have an issue with that.
It is big of you to allow other systems to be, you know, other systems. WIth their own reasons for doing things. Now, if you could just get over yourself, that'd be great...
Yeah. Mostly I only accept scientific method.
Except you don't. We've covered it before, but your understanding of the scientific method is highly skewed and biased, and deeply lacking... making it, if not unscientific, highly flawed science. What you accept is small-sample, limited scope partial anecdotal evidence as the only valid form, while discounting all other evidences. Really, really not scientific.
Which is the most consistently usefull.
It may be, if you understood it. Of course, the complete discounting of other forms of evidence counts against you.
This is the most persuasive argument for that.
But you missed the entire part of how the science was done. It's not just a matter of keeping throwing things in the air, and seeing if they stay up when you shape them differently... it was a lot of understanding of aerodynamics, air movement, maths, lift and updraft, observation of nature, maths, experimentation of designs, maths, trial and error, and so on. The thing is, we built the plane. We have the plane. It's in the kata. It is, in a real way, the kata. But the kata aren't the flight, it's how to design the plane, and how to make sure it can fly. Of course, you still need a pilot... but, do you know how pilots learn to fly? They learn sequences... they do drills... they use kata.
I really don't think you have any idea what your argument actually is.
Huh? Basically yes, you think no-one before you had ever pressure tested an arm-bar? And you didn't know, therefore,if an arm-bar worked???? Are you going to hold to that?
When you are developing your own game within a system. You basically do that.
Well, no, that's a different thing again. Let's see if we can get through this...
"Pressure testing" can be done in a number of different ways for a number of different purposes. Pressure testing a technique can be done to see if a technique works, as intended, or can be done to see if you can effectively apply it. Those are two different things... one tests the principles of a technique, the other tests the person applying it... and your entire argument has been that the techniques themselves haven't been "pressure tested" in kata, which is the first type. You're now talking about a personal application testing... so, which is it?
If you're testing your ability to apply a technique, that's not pressure testing a technique, it's pressure testing your ability to apply a known, tried and tested technique... we know a rear naked choke works, because, you know, science... stop blood flow, person goes all sleepy... you don't need to test if that works. But your ability to do it? Now that can take some work to be able to do effectively and consistently... and this is the argument for "pressure testing" that Matt Thornton has termed "aliveness", and that you think is your "scientific approach" (it's not, for the record).
Except you keep talking about the idea that "no-one has pressure tested the techniques" in kata (meaning karate-style solo kata, because you have absolutely no idea what is contained by the term "kata")... which is implying that we don't know if the physical techniques will have the effect they are thought to have... I mean... you know we have ways of "pressure testing" that, yeah? Makiwara, tameshiwari... So, perhaps if you get straight what you think you mean by "pressure testing", that'd be great...
So its wonderful that there are all these techniques done by all these great guys.
You... do get what a martial art is, right?
But at some point I have to do that technique. And at that point it doesn't matter how good the reputation of that technique is. I still have to do it.
And what makes you think it's any different for us? Believe me, every Wednesday night, I'm doing the techniques, and yeah, it doesn't matter how good the reputation of the technique is, I still have to do it. And, if I do it wrong, or poorly, guess what? It doesn't work. But you know what we do? We pressure test it... by checking the positioning, the angling, the targeting, the timing, the distancing... then we vary the attack that it's going against, and make sure it still works... then we have the attack attempt to do something different again, and we can check how it works then. And, if at any stage, it doesn't work, we know that we either have it wrong, or we're doing it badly. And this is all done in kata. Because to do it in a free-sparring form would lead to way too much compromise, or it would lead to major injury... and we don't like either compromise.
If I can't do it in a roll. Then I can't use that technique.
Well, that's a very binary (and inaccurate) way of looking at things. If you can do it consistently in a roll, then that means you can do it consistently in a roll... that's really all. Can that transfer across to other contexts? Yep, absolutely. But here's the thing... if you do apply it in a different context, against a different type of threat, in a different situation, is that only because you did it in a roll? Or would you perhaps have been able to do it even if you hadn't achieved it in a roll? Perhaps... we can't definitely know... but the point is that you reinforce your understanding of the technique by doing it in a roll (as well as in more static drills... you know... kata), which is one way of doing it. We do it a different way. You don't know how our way works... that doesn't mean it doesn't, just that you don't know it or understand it. And, bluntly, you seem determined not to.
Produce anybody any good. And you validate your training methodology.
You don't know what "good" is in our arts. You've got some incredibly good examples of some of the things I do in this thread, but you don't know how to recognise it, so there's little point trying to show you what it is, or explain to you what you refuse to understand or hear.
And, frankly, I don't need to validate my training methodology. All of human history has already done that. You're only here because of it. We can only have this conversation because of it. And I really doubt you'll understand what I mean by that.
Carolyn wrestling is a good example.
She does look like a wrestling expert. Her methods are kind of weird.
But there is evidence they work.
Honestly, I have no idea who she is, or what the "methods" you're referencing are... which, in a way, is kinda the point. You have no idea what we do, or what our methods are. The difference is, I'm not about to comment on "Carolyn wrestling"...
The particular needs of those early karate masters who brought the art to Okinawa were not necessarily the same as the Chinese - right off the bat changes were made, some things dropped, others added so I think you're correct in your supposition. It became Okinawanized. Later, it became Japanized with goals, principles and techniques being changed.
For the most part, this search has been unsuccessful. Sometimes a unique move or two found in a karate kata can been seen in a Chinese form but the art has changed so drastically it's almost impossible to find an identical or even similar kata. In some cases, the Chinese lineage on which the kata were based on no longer exists.
Agreed. That's why I noted sanchin was an exception.
Half right. Shuri, being the capitol, was home to the aristocracy (Okinawan version of the Samurai class). Military and cultural missions were exchanged with China from this point. Throughout the 1700's and into the 1800's, royal security agents were among their number, including karate's godfathers, Sakugawa and Matsumura and others whose martial vocations put them in documented "real combat". Succeeding generations of students including a number of Shuri/Shorinryu karate masters took positions as higher level policemen.
The "regular" people who learned and taught MA were from the port city of Naha, the base of trade missions with China. While the Shuri people got some exposure to more northern China MA influences, the Naha practitioners were more restricted to the southern Fujian area Okinawa traded with. Theses two main streams (both in geography and purpose) contributed to the differences in "style" and eventually led to their divergence as discussed later below.
Note that SE Asia and to a lesser extent Japan were also contributors to karate.
Thanks for fleshing that out, appreciated!
I think kata are a combination of these two purposes - transmission of fighting technique as well as principles. Certainly, a kata is not a complete lexicon of karate techniques; even the collection of several kata in a given modern style falls short of this. I believe they are composed of fighting techniques chosen to embody the principles the kata seeks to teach: Evasion, breaking shizuke, takedowns, grabbing while kicking, hikite, redirection, etc. In other words, the selected physical techniques are used to be illustrative of the principles. Combined, they are "how to fight."
Speaking from a classical perspective, there's a bit of "modern" thinking going on here... the kata are transmission vehicles for the principles and concepts, including tactical applications, timing, distancing, targeting, and so on, which are expressed through "fighting (or not-so-fighting) techniques"... they're not two different things. As you say, a kata is not a complete lexicon of techniques, because it's not meant to be, and never was... it's a complete tactical approach, though, expressed through a selection of physical actions (techniques). Kata are "how to fight"... just not in a literal physical technique fashion...
This is related to the prior quote. Prior to the 1900's, "kata" was often synonymous with "style," each kata containing a set of principles stressed in the originating master's method of fighting. Students did often study with other teachers (who themselves exchanged ideas with each other). This type of cross training surely molded the karate we have today. Students may have gone to different teachers to learn something particular, but perhaps more often, the teachers taught what they wanted, teaching one kata to a student and a different kata to another, presumably based (in part) on the individual's nature).
Yep, agreed.
One of the first delineations was at the start of the 20th century when "Naha-te" and "Shuri-te" (as well as Shorin and Shorei) was used to describe the flavor of karate practiced in those two cities. While not meaning to pigeon-hole them into definitive styles, the horse was loosed out of the barn, and as you say by the 30's formalized styles evolved. Attempts were made by Mabuni Kenwa and other masters to "reunify" Okinawan karate, but it never really happened.
Yeah, I think once it went to Japan, and the "ryu" concept came into it, that was kinda it. Of course, from a Japanese "ryu" perspective, they are kind of "semi-ryu"... not really individually fully formed, as most share a large proportion of their syllabus with others... with some distinction being more political (especially initially) than technical (of course, that would change as systems crystalised).
Any way you look at it, our karate is a mishmash of influences, reworked several times over. In this respect it can be called MMA.
Eh, I kinda balk at the idea of arts that have various influences being called "MMA"... I think it diminishes the actual arts, and elevates MMA to be something far more than what it is...
If you do not have anything to determine successful.
That's kind of not my problem.
The fact that you have no comprehension of how we would determine "successful", and are completely unwilling to listen to any education, then think you're in any kind of credible position to make comment and critique kind of really is your problem. You not understanding what we do means absolutely nothing to us, you know...
Yes. You changed them challenging me on a comment I made.
And then he jumped on board that.
But...........
The goal posts were still changed. Without really suggesting you were doing that.
No, they weren't. The comment was that the kata contained in a combative system had been tested (with a form of pressure... you may not understand it, but it's still there), and that they had worth for the system. You said that that was not necessarily an assumption one could safely draw... and I pointed out how it absolutely was. The goal posts were still there. And you still have no idea what you're arguing about.
Not really.
Competition identifying good, is easy. People either win or they don't. And you can argue all the nuances of that.
Really? Surely it comes down to the parameters of the competition, yeah? I mean, I was okay at tennis... used to play every Saturday morning, would win as often as I'd lose, if not a bit more... but put me on a court with Serena Williams? Hell, put me in a competition with someone who played three grades above me, and what do you think would happen? Does tennis not "work" if I keep losing? Or is that testing something other than the game of tennis, and whether a forehand is actually a good technique or not?
Can you see how your scientific method isn't yet?
Now. If you don't do Competition. Then identifying good, is almost impossible. But that isn't my fault. And not my problem.
That is yours.
Your complete and utter inability to discern good without some shiny trinket plastic trophy isn't our problem, it's yours.
I agree, because the individual has to make it work for themselves. Itās not enough to just see it or understand it.
And, just out of interest, what makes you think that's not exactly what we're doing?
Tell you what, you guys grab a bokuto, to to a local SMR or ZNKR Jodojo, get a student to do Hiki Otoshi, then get a senior to do it. Tell me if you can tell the difference between "good" and "less good" then...
You are comparing a flawed system with no system though.
No, he's not. He's presenting valid questions for the qualifications of your pressure testing. There is no comparison there at all... and the implication of "no system at all" is, again, simply your complete unwillingness to even entertain alternate criteria and methods of assessment. And, as you like to say, that's not an "us" problem, that's a "you" problem.
She is meant to be an anecdote.
You are supposed to look at her with bias and discount her.
Yeah... I still don't know what I'm meant to be seeing there... I mean, I get the idea of wrestling being based in angles and leverage, and therefore "maths", but... that clip doesn't clear anything up at all...
Fine. I fight everyone at my gym and see what works.
Bare minimum incredibly flawed pressure testing with a tiny sample.
These guys specifically.
View attachment 33858
What is your method?
Oh boy... I mean, you're going to love this... I mean, you're not going to understand it either, but... the same? Just with far more consistency. And repeatability.
Well yeah.
The exact opposite of this.
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...
Except it's not, is the catch.
You learn a technique. You get with a partner, and drill it mechanically, then get into a random or semi-random situation, and see if you can figure out an opportunity to attempt it, then try. You (typically in the beginning) fail. You try again. You find another chance, and do it again. This gets repeated over and over, interspersed with basic drills to refine technique, and, eventually, get some kind of consistency. Of course, if you're constantly rolling with people significantly better than you, who aren't letting you learn, then, bluntly, you're rarely going to get success... you need to be rolling with either better people who let you do the techniques, especially early on, or people of equal or lower skill than you. Hmm.
Now let's look at us (Classical Arts, Koryu).
We learn a technique. We call it a kata. It will have (commonly) an attacking and defending side, so it's asymmetrical (which is, let's be clear, far more realistic if we're going to simulate real combat). Once it's learnt (which can be done pretty quickly in most cases... after all, real combative engagements rarely go for 5 minutes... it's more commonly seconds... so our kata are designed to get things done in that timeframe), we drill it to ingrain the actions and body mechanics, as well as the tactical approach. We then begin to increase the intensity (pressure) from the attacking side to ensure that things like distancing, angling, footwork etc are all solid. If not, we can slow down and fix what we need to, then increase again. We then begin to change timing, distancing, the attack angle, perhaps make the response random out of the options studied in the school, and so on. The basic idea is that the actions are repeated to the point that they get automated, with the body positioning, angling, distancing, and so on all coming to the fore, whether the actual technique is the same as in the kata.
Same idea, just far more consistent and repeatable.
I have kept this long debate tangential up until this comment, so here I go jumping in.
Okay.
You are defending a style/system that NEVER uses external measurements to gauge success? That is bizarre and senseless. It is very centrist and shows a deep lack of knowledge beyond a narrow field, which you may (or may not) be a brilliant expert in.
You want to know a little secret? No system uses external measurements to gauge success... it's always internal to the school. Rank is internal to the school. Competition is internal to that competitive methodology. Licencing (menkyo) is an authority within (internally) the ryu. And, if you want, I can use those measurements to gauge success... I hold Oku-iri Sho in Shindo Muso Ryu, I hold a Shodan in Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu through the Kawasaki Shibu (Sugino Dojo), I am Shibu-cho for Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, I am Keiko-cho for my line of Muso Shinden Ryu, I am Godan in my Jujutsu group... is that enough to gauge success or not (I'd say progress rather than success, but that's all)?
What I was meaning was that we don't concern ourselves with shiny baubles and plastic trophies to give some kind of ego-based validation... if we go back to my tennis past, all those effects meant was a particular performance at a particular time against particular people... which, in the grand scheme of things, is rather meaningless itself... to my mind, quite bizarre and senseless... as well as being rather centrist, and having no relevance or applicability outside of a very narrow context. The simple fact is that our form of internal measurement is not based on anything like who we're facing at the time... my rank and performance is the same regardless... which has a lot more weight behind it than just winning a competition. It also has a lot wider applicability.
My point is why would said opinion matter or carry any weight outside of said field? Someone like this has no authority to argue a point outside their field, which you appear to be doing.
You seem to have missed the way this conversation is going... Drop Bear is the one discussing outside of his understanding... I know how competitive training works (my background includes TKD, Karate, BJJ, and some time in boxing), as well as kata-geiko Koryu arts, and more. As a result, his opinion holds exactly zero weight... but I don't like having his ill-informed posts stand as being close to reality, so I put up the counters that are miles and decades out of his understanding, bluntly.
Do I care at all? No, beyond the senseless personal opinion blasts, so carry on.
Ah. So you came along to miss the point entirely, and make commentary on something you didn't care about? Cool.
No, actually Iām talking about scientific research. Asking questions about the parameters.
Yep! Actual scientific principles and concepts! I like it!
In that case. I will still say at its most basic is just trying the stuff out on people fighting back
Our biggest issue with that is that it leaves so much up to individual skill, and a lot of chance, which we don't rely on. Oh, and so you know, the kata we study has the opponent fighting back... quite a lot.
I agree with this. First we do it slowly and deliberately until we understand the nuances. Then we speed it up but donāt sink it past slight pain. Then we try it full speed with resistance. Then we freely attempt full speed various techniques with full resistance. Sometimes people get hurt. Me included. I feel like if we donāt risk injury by going full speed we never find out if it works for us in reality. It feeds confidence in the technique. But if we donāt start slow and methodically teach the movements, itās just slop and more injuries occur. A time and place for each method is best and safest, but is not the fastest way. There is a difference between teaching a foot sweep vs a nasty Chin na wrist lock. Even then I have had a student fully dislocate another students knee during a sweep. Wrists, fingers, elbows, shoulders have all been torn, dislocated or broken or injured in some way. What did we learn from that? To be sure, accidents happen, but sometime we trade efficiency for safety in the name of more training instead of recovery. There is no way to teach arm bars, wrist breaks, and finger jams without some pain and risk of injury.
Other than the fact that resistance is, in itself, unrealistic, so we typically do "responsive" actions, that's pretty much kata training (koryu) that you've described there...
Maybe itās a good idea to have a light sparring session where opponents can only use moves found in katas???
Maybe both can only use techniques found in say, Kanku Dai, or maybe one opponent is limited to techniques in Kanku Dai while the other uses Enpi or something.
It's not the techniques that kata teaches, though...
While many kata techniques are designed to defend grabs, others are striking attacks/counters and are suited for use in sparring - they were put into the kata to be used in combat. I have long advocated "putting the fight back into kata" and encourage others to see what kata moves can work in sparring. The last tournament I was in (at age 72) I landed a clean kick taken from my style's most "advanced" kata. My opponent did not recognize the setup. Afterall, who uses kata for fighting?
If you're doing karate, then you should always be using kata for fighting... just not "the moves" from them...
