Kata

[K-man]

Wow! I'm going to 'cherry pick'. It is as if you two bulls are fighting each other but from separate paddocks.

If I walk into a school and they say they are doing a "kata", I'm not going to argue with them on whether their definition is exactly on point. To them, what they are doing is kata, misuse or not. Hence the article applies to the reality of what is going on, what the majority perception is--not your ideal which you have still failed to demonstrate or explicate.

I agree with you. I have argued in the past that perception is the reality and been slapped around. But to the people you are referring, what they are doing is kata. It is just that their 'reality' is different to your 'reality'. Whether what they are doing has practical value is a different question.

If a doctor doesn't perform a surgery exactly correctly do we no longer call it a surgery?

No, but it may well be ineffective surgery!

I said--"Kata should be more about mechanics and principles of movement rather than a a catalog of discrete techniques."

To some people, kata is a catalogue of discrete techniques. We happen to look at that from a different perspective but it doesn't mean that they are 'wrong'. As Chris says below, considering kata as an encyclopaedia of techniques is not what kata is designed for, but to use it that way is not 'wrong'. It is just a wasted resource. If I am picking up my child from school driving a 60 seat bus, it is not 'wrong' but it may not be optimal use of the bus. '

You also seem to agree it's not about being a catalog of techniques. --"Kata is far from an encyclopedia of techniques, and that is actually pretty much opposite of what kata is designed for."

Originally Posted by GaryR
People get lost in what they think is Kata, they drown in it. It becomes a bible with lots of details they try and take literally yet still cannot really translate."

I think the term 'kata' here is in need of definition. 'Kata' as defined by Chris doesn't need translation. 'Kata' as defined by me needs knowledge and understanding to translate. 'Kata' as understood by many and I'm not sure that you are not in this category is, as you say, literally what you see with no need of translation. Based on this classification, 'kata' to Chris and me is really, really valuable, in fact essential. Kata to most people is just something you do because it is 'traditional'.

Your lack of reading comprehension is startling. The article was not titled "what kata should be", nor "my ideal kata". Again, and please slow down while reading this next bit--the article reflects what's wrong with kata as practiced in a majority of schools, not what you think it should be.

But what you wrote was;

"Most involved in the Martial Arts and even those of you merely window shopping can picture students in fancy uniforms lined up doing a long sequence of moves. They copy off the other students in front of them, all while watching the teacher to carefully mimic their movement when he/she is in view. Rank in a majority of schools is largely dependent on the requirement of the performance of such forms or Kata. This emphasis on kata for rank gives the student a very false sense of security, and compromises the integrity of the arts. I have walked into countless dojo’s across the globe and witnessed “Black Belts” lined up with very poor mechanics, and unable to spontaneously deviate from their Kata under any duress."

From a karate perspective, I have no trouble with students lined up and performing kihon kata and I have no problem with students performing kihon kata as a grade requirement. Kata for rank has nothing to do with a sense of security and actually is required to preserve the integrity of the arts. The very thing is, they must NOT spontaneously deviate from the kata. This is the 'Shu' form of training and in Japanese teaching it is the part where you strive for perfection because you in turn may be expected to pass the kata on to the next generation of students.

Well, lamenting that 95% of people have poor understanding certainly demonstrates my point of what is wrong with the training methods being used, and purported to be kata. If only 1-5% of people are truly doing "kata", my article is fair warning to the rest who think they are. I wrote the article for the 99%, not for the 1% with your "limit[ed]" idea of what it is.

Once again, from a karate viewpoint, I would suggest that greater than 99% of people 'doing' kata are performing kata to the best of their ability. It is the understanding of kata that is lacking, not the performance. So if you are writing for that 99% who don't understand the kata, then I would have preferred a title like "How I can help you get the most from your Kata", rather than "What's wrong with Kata?"


I agree that "anyone that thinks that kata teaches techniques has missed the point". That's not an ambiguous statement, it's absurd you can sit there and tell me I don't agree with that-especially given my prior statement about it not being about a catalog of techniques. Wow, just wow.

I would modify that statement to; "anyone that thinks that kata only teaches techniques has missed the point"

I remember, and do you remember my response? "Now this is just semantic quibbling with K-man and I's point. The point is that 95% of people THINK they are truly and correctly training "kata" with more of a benefit than they are actually getting out of it.

We have danced down this road before. The first part, that 95% of people THINK they are truly and correctly training kata, is mostly true, from a karate perspective. Again, from a karate perspective, I don't believe there is much benefit at all in correctly training kata alone, certainly not enough benefit to offset the amount of time spent studying it. The benefit comes from learning how to apply the kata to a real time conflict. Again, this is where the definition of kata needs to be very clear.

YOU are the one asserting that it is your definition of kata that is correct, and most are doing something that is not an accurate reflection. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to ask you to detail what you consider correct kata in purpose and practice. I never stated what you are doing is not kata training. I get Japanese arts are dominantly Kata based, and I also get that most are worthy of my critique for their version of the training methods they call "kata". It's part of reason there is an overwhelming lack of combat viability in the Japanese arts and it's practitioners; very often poor mechanics, poor fluidity, poor training methods, and poor execution.

While I agree that it is critical to understand how different people define kata, I think that regardless of that definition there are two groups. Those who see kata as essential and those that don't. There are also two types of people in the world with regard to chocolate, those who like it and those who don't. I don't see those who don't like chocolate running round bagging those who do. Yet here, you (Gary) don't like kata but seem intent on discrediting those who believe kata is essential. I won't buy in to the argument on combat viability at this time.

Of course you would take offense to a critique of Kata since that is apparently most of what your arts training is entirely based on...

As is mine.

Oh boy Chris, your reading comprehension is again seriously lacking. I made it clear in this thread, and the other that I was not referring to Kata as bunkai:

May be not. But whereas Chris' 'kata' includes the application (bunkai), my kata does not. Therefore in my karate, kata is like a lock and the bunkai is the key. Each is almost useless without the other. So to try and divorce kata and bunkai is not possible.

I said--"You missed the point. As I understand it Bunkai means to pick apart. It's the term used in disecting applications from Kata,isolating specific techniques. Sure that is important--but not my point, I didn't mention Bunkai"

But you should have as you can't discuss kata in depth without bunkai. As to your definition of 'bunkai' as picking apart ... I would have to disagree. Apart from the person who defined bunkai as 'disassembly' I haven't seen that definition elsewhere. To literally pick kata apart suggests that kata is a collection of individual bits that are not associated. My understanding is that every technique in kata is linked to the one preceding it and the one succeeding it. You might work on a short section of the kata but even then, that section is linked to the preceding and succeeding sections.

Of course there are Kata that "Don't have immediate applicability to combat", I never suggested otherwise. There ARE some kata that are less than optimal ..., are you saying that ALL kata are perfect and are the best way to accomplish the desired result? That is quite a grand assumption, it is completely wrong and shows you lack real world perspective, and that you are at best a sheep in all you practice.

Within Okinawan Goju, I don't believe there are any of our kata that don't have "applicability to combat". I certainly would agree that the "applicibility" is not immediate. So maybe I lack real world perspective but I can live with that.

Originally Posted by GaryR
Sometimes it is the fault of the Kata itself. Not all styles are created equal, not all forms are created equal, and not all movements in the forms are the most effective way of conveying the body method, principals, and methods attempted therein. I know we would all like to think our forms are perfect just because someone created the sequence a time long ago--but that is not the reality of it."

Not all kata are suitable for everyone. So pick the kata that are. Practising a kata, as in the bunkai, that doesn't work for you is a waste of time. But that is to do with the practitioner, not the kata, and it has nothing to do with the kata being perfect. It just isn't perfect for that person.

So again, you are saying that Kata is flawless, a perfect way of attaining it's goals, and nothing is the fault of Kata. This is demonstrably wrong. There are countless Kata (forms) throughout all of the styles...ridiculous statement. My take on it is the reality of the state of "kata" at large. You are the one asserting that your reality (and all Katas) are flawless, and the best way to attain the goals. Congratulations, my BS flag is now at full mast.

I took the flag down. I think Chris has a valid point.

You're both are making some good points but, Gary, I think that most of your argument is based on a flawed opinion of kata. If you like kata great. If you don't like kata fine. But why, if you don't understand kata, do you try to discredit it? I'm not saying that to be discourteous, but if you truly understood kata, there is no way we would be having this discussion.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

Sorry, double post.
:asian:

 

[Grenadier]

Sometimes, you'll see a dojo using kata in a way that simply isn't very effective. I've seen some dojo's try to teach Heian Shodan on the first day, and many times, a student gets frustrated.

When someone starts training in Karate, the most important part of the training, is to get the fundamental techniques in place first. There simply isn't much to be gained at that stage, by trying to have a student learning the techniques through the kata, since the student doesn't have enough of a foundation.

Once the basics are solidly in place, that's when it becomes a good time to use kata in someone's training. One needs to be able to do the techniques standing in place, also while twisting the hip (koshino-kaiten), and while moving forward / backwards before undertaking kata training. This ensures that the correct timing is also used.

Students can learn to refine and improve the techniques using the kata, and at that point, they can greatly benefit from practicing kata, since the improvements in their techniques will also carry over into their kumite as well. As a result, improvement in one aspect should help the other one.

 

[Chris Parker]

Lol I just found that book tonight I've ordered it so il see how it goes, really excited by this want to take it as far as I can

Phil, I hope you get something out of the book, but really, the approach to kata that it deals with is not the same as in your organization. It's like asking for a book to learn Romantic languages, and everyone suggesting French text books, when you're actually learning Italian. I'm not saying this to discourage you, quite the opposite, but if you really want to understand kata as you're being taught it, talk to your instructor. The book you've ordered deals with a aspects of Karate kata that simply aren't present in what you do.

Now, Gary. Again, this won't be short.

More quibbling. The use of the term is broad and varied, regardless of whether you consider the use correct or incorrect. But since you seem to know the only true definition, why don't you lay it out for us in detail? So far your posts lack any real substance in and of themselves on the topic.

To get down to it, the use isn't really that broad either. It's used to refer to pre-set patterns... that's it. The most familiar form of which is the karate-style string of solo movements, although that isn't the only (or most original) form. As far as substance, perhaps if you understood what I was talking about, you wouldn't think that...

I'm aware you are not reffering to Chi Sau, that is what I consider a two-person drill. Off the top of my head, small and large san-sau are paired forms.

Then can you describe what is involved, what the purpose of small and large san-sau are? From what I've seen, they're actually solo forms that are then applied as a paired training exercise, to explore the applications... and, although I'd class it as kata-like, I wouldn't call it kata. But perhaps if you can clarify the purpose, we might get somewhere.

If I walk into a school and they say they are doing a "kata", I'm not going to argue with them on whether their definition is exactly on point. To them, what they are doing is kata, misuse or not.

On that point, if it's not your place to tell them if what they're doing is properly kata or not, how is it your place to tell them if they're doing it "right" or not? How, with your lack of actual experience or understanding of the purpose of kata, are you in a position to say what's, in your words, "wrong" with it's practice today?

Hence the article applies to the reality of what is going on, what the majority perception is--not your ideal which you have still failed to demonstrate or explicate.

Actually, Gary, no, it doesn't. You may have wanted it to, but your words don't match your intent there.

The article represents critique of what many regard as kata, i.e. what happens in the real world with the term, and not Chris P's fairytale land of ninjas special forms. This is yet another conclusory statement, with no detail or reasoning to back it up. Again, why don't you write your own article on what kata is/should be?

Careful with the slurs, son. You really have no idea what you're arguing against.

But, to the point, no, your article does not represent a critique of "what many regard as kata". It is a critique of kata training, and is peppered, I would say filled, with comments that are critiques, not on peoples understanding of their practice, but on the practice itself. I quoted a number of them in the last post here, but to highlight a few again:

- "Trying to memorize long sequence of forms is counter-productive to such a goal."

Memorizing long sequences is not the goal of kata firstly, and secondly, in the context (the goal being training repeatedly until the skills bypass cognitive thought), you are 100% wrong. You're bluntly facing the wrong direction there, as that's one of kata's primary and main strengths as a training tool.

- "The only real reason for Kata in the Self-defense context is so students can grasp the concept on which the technique turns."

And this is based on, what, exactly? As, when you get down to it, kata begins far past that point. Frankly, this comment is just so outright wrong that it's hard to give all the ways that it is...

- "...beyond the beginner level of teaching the concepts, Kata has no place. No matter how many years one perfects such forms; it will still not adequately prepare someone for a fight. Rarely is a Kata’s movement actually used exactly as practiced in a form, and even more seldom is the exact sequence of moves used."

And, again, this is so far out of whack with what kata is that it's hard to know where to start with how wrong you are. But, as you clearly have no real experience with kata, and these things are understood through experience, it's difficult to explain just how out you are. But, to attempt to, kata is not a beginners tool. It is the essence of the art, the heart of the system, and it is the practice of the advanced practitioner. The ludicrous idea that anyone thinks that a kata's movements would ever be used exactly as presented is just... well... ludicrous. And no practitioner has claimed such a thing. To believe such an idea is to, well, not have the first clue about kata in the first place.

Belaboring the same point again, this is semantics. If a doctor doesn't perform a surgery exactly correctly do we no longer call it a surgery?

You wouldn't call a butcher a surgeon, Gary. And you need to work on your metaphors and analogies.... this one was terrible, and false.

Hmmm, you are contradicting yourself then.

You seem to agree it teaches mechanics--You stated: "There is a huge difference between kata and drills. One teaches mechanics, the other teaches tactical expression."

Okay, I'll cop to putting things in a confusing order, but I figured that it was obvious which was which... if you think simple drills teach tactical applications, you have really missed the point.

You also seem to agree it's not about being a catalog of techniques. --"Kata is far from an encyclopedia of techniques, and that is actually pretty much opposite of what kata is designed for."

What little you have said about kata has been self-contradictory, perhaps you should detail your own article instead of simply quote me and say over and over basically "nuh-uh".

Perhaps you need to read closer, Gary. And no, I have no intention of trying to make myself feel knowledgable or important by writing an article. I'm not really sure why you wrote yours, either... you said it was for your (CMA) site... where the dominant readership, I'd assume, don't practice kata in their arts, so it was really nothing more than a way for you to seem like you have something valuable to add to a discussion you have no place in, yeah?

Not even a decent attempt at spin.

It wasn't spin, Gary, it was observation based on your posts, your article, and your comments.

Your lack of reading comprehension is startling. The article was not titled "what kata should be", nor "my ideal kata". Again, and please slow down while reading this next bit--the article reflects what's wrong with kata as practiced in a majority of schools, not what you think it should be.

No, it doesn't. The majority of the article is deriding kata as a form of training, not deriding people training kata improperly. Your article wasn't titled "What's wrong with the way people train kata", it was "What's wrong with kata". It began with some negative stereotypes (and a negative title, "Window Dressing and Rank Fodder"), largely projected onto a nameless, faceless dojo, and then immediately launched into the beginnings of your comments that showed a deep lack of understanding of what kata is, how it is structured, and why it is done the way it is. That was followed by the second section ("Stop and Start: The Necessity of Continuous Movement"), the title of which alone showed (again) a lack of understanding of the methods of training kata, the progression as a student develops, and so on, and was simply a criticism (based on false understanding) of the kata method itself. Not the practice, proper or improper, but of the very practice of kata itself.

The third section ("Hit Me, Don't Quit Me") continued along that vein, criticizing kata in it's very structure, by assuming it's purpose and structure (which was, frankly, incorrect as well... kata does not teach a "tit for tat" mentality or approach, Gary), as well as a very false assumption of what people expect of kata. You then, incredibly arrogantly, proffer a solution to a non-existant problem (the problem only really being what you are expecting versus what kata really is)... which is essentially to abandon the kata itself. Say, here's some news for you... in these arts, there's a concept known as Shu Ha Ri... which already takes into account your apparent solution, but in a way consistent with kata and it's aims. Again, your lack of knowledge and understanding of this topic shines through.

You finally end by offering advice to "break up the kata" (do you really think that approach is news to anyone who train in karate-style kata?), and then to "create your own", in place of what you consider an ineffective method of training.

Seriously, other than the negative stereotypes given in the first section, the rest of your article wasn't about poor training practices for kata, it was a criticism of kata itself. And it was completely flawed in all of it's demonstrated understanding of the subject.

I read plenty well, mate.

Well, lamenting that 95% of people have poor understanding certainly demonstrates my point of what is wrong with the training methods being used, and purported to be kata. If only 1-5% of people are truly doing "kata", my article is fair warning to the rest who think they are. I wrote the article for the 99%, not for the 1% with your "limit[ed]" idea of what it is.

Garbage. Your article only goes to warn that you don't like, or understand, kata training. Bluntly, you don't even manage to identify what the issue with K-Man's 95% of schools really have.

Now you are just being ridiculous.

I agree that "anyone that thinks that kata teaches techniques has missed the point". That's not an ambiguous statement, it's absurd you can sit there and tell me I don't agree with that-especially given my prior statement about it not being about a catalog of techniques. Wow, just wow.

Context is key, Gary. I said I didn't think you have the first clue what I was talking about in regards to what was the important aspect in kata, as you have shown no insight to tell me that you might get it. It's integral to the training methodology, really... and denies pretty much all of your criticism in your article.

Where is this detailed explanation? You certainly didn't "cover it again" in this thread. If your not going to maintain at least some level of intellectual honesty and follow-through, this conversation is a race to the bottom.

I was referring to the fact that Himura had answered before me:

I’m not speaking for Chris, but I believe part of what hewas getting at is that in Japanese arts kata are not long sequences of solo routines but are instead choreographed exercises between partners meant to express a particular lesson. The Okinawan concept of kata in karate is not the same as kata in most JMA.

.....

A kata is a prearranged form of something.

......

These exercises when choreographed and meant to express a lesson are called kata in jujutsu.

I then provided a range of videos, which contained quite a lot of examples of kata (and a few that didn't) to see if you could get it. Sadly, it seems that you didn't.

I remember, and do you remember my response? "Now this is just semantic quibbling with K-man and I's point. The point is that 95% of people THINK they are truly and correctly training "kata" with more of a benefit than they are actually getting out of it."

Yet another "wrong direction", nuh-uh quote. Getting tiresome. All arrogant conclusions, and no substance.

You asked if I considered that I was in this mystical 5% with proper kata/bunkai, why don't I share. I was pointing out that, again, kata in my arts have no bunkai, no need of it, and you are thinking of a completely different training approach that really, really doesn't apply to me. In other words, you're still not understanding what you're being told.

Gee whiz, thanks again for that clarification. Once again you have overwhelmed me with new information. :s412:

Cute, kid. Perhaps you'll listen to some of it now?

I say again--"It seems you are more interested in arrogant deflections with quotes like the above instead of explaining in detail or demonstrating why you think what you are doing is the exception and not the rule."

For the twentieth time, Gary, what I am doing is not what you're lambasting. And you don't understand either.

YOU are the one asserting that it is your definition of kata that is correct, and most are doing something that is not an accurate reflection. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to ask you to detail what you consider correct kata in purpose and practice. I never stated what you are doing is not kata training. I get Japanese arts are dominantly Kata based, and I also get that most are worthy of my critique for their version of the training methods they call "kata". It's part of reason there is an overwhelming lack of combat viability in the Japanese arts and it's practitioners; very often poor mechanics, poor fluidity, poor training methods, and poor execution.

Son, you have no clue what you're talking about there. Kata training is, and has been the dominant method of transmission of martial arts (and other arts) in Japan for centuries... including during the most intense times of war the country saw. And, you know what, you're still thinking of the wrong form of kata... which is why I gave you the videos to watch.

Of course you would take offense to a critique of Kata since that is apparently most of what your arts training is entirely based on...

When you can identify the form of kata I'm talking about, then you might have a clue how far off you've been.

Oh boy Chris, your reading comprehension is again seriously lacking. I made it clear in this thread, and the other that I was not referring to Kata as bunkai:

No, you asked me (a number of times) to show what I consider "real kata and bunkai"... what I consider real kata, in my arts, doesn't have bunkai. And, again, I seriously doubt you'd recognize it as kata.

I said--"You missed the point. As I understand it Bunkai means to pick apart. It's the term used in disecting applications from Kata,isolating specific techniques. Sure that is important--but not my point, I didn't mention Bunkai"

Again in this thread I made the distinction--"perhaps you could link me to a video(s) where you demonstrate what you consider real Kata and Bunkai" Notice the word AND, not AKA. It was you who brought up bunkai folks doing it wrong, I simply wanted you to demo how to do that right as well.

Firstly, you're a little off in your take on bunkai... while it is a method of investigation, or exploration of the kata, it doesn't mean to isolate specific techniques. In fact, that's kinda the wrong way to go about it. As far as pointing out that you weren't equating kata and bunkai, that's not what I was saying was besides the point... it was that you seem insistent on the idea that I train in something that has it (bunkai). And there's no way to demo it being "done right", as it's a difference in approach, not mechanics.

I'm not going to comb through a bunch of clips and tell you why or why not I think they in whole or in part qualify as "Kata". I could really care less what they specifically call the training methods. I am not about to quibble over a definition--if they call it Kata, I'm going to critique it using that definition and practice, not superimpose my own first. It's sort of like the circular discussion of what "internal" means in my arts, or the "that's not the real Tai Chi" type arguments when someones practice doesn't exactly mirror their own. That kind of crap was a large motivator for me to stop calling what I do "taiji" or "Bagua" etc., I label and define my own material to avoid such ridiculous semantics.

So what you're saying is that you aren't willing to open your mind to a different take on things (by the way, the naming convention isn't quite what you are thinking either... in a number of the clips I gave). And you've done nothing but critique by superimposing your own views on things... as you've completely missed what the important things in kata are, or what would be appropriate to criticize in the first place.

It is you who is the stickler for the narrow definition. I asked to see a clip of YOU demonstrating what you believe to be good Kata, good bunkai, and why that is different from the majorities misunderstanding. I guess in your 4000+ post history you haven't managed this despite your alleged superior knowledge on the subject and skill?

You wouldn't recognize it, Gary. But for good examples, again, see the clips I already provided... of course, you didn't quite get what I was posting them for....

It is you who wanted a broader definition of JJ. BJJ and MJJ are ground-game arts and include the words JJ in their names. So again, I'm not going to argue with them over whether that is really JJ. They call it that, thus I include it in the category.

Please. Again, you're just showing a complete lack of understanding of, firstly, what you're talking about, and secondly, who you're talking to. You think I need to get a broader definition of Jujutsu because I pointed out that traditional forms don't have a "ground game"? Really?

Wrong again, I'm not off, see above quote and other thread where I very specifically distinguish bunkai from Kata. You seem to be seeing what you want to see, and not actually reading my posts...:s406:

Oh dear lord....

Gary. You continually ask me to provide myself showing kata and bunkai, despite my constantly telling you that there's no such thing as bunkai in my kata. None. Doesn't exist, don't need it. And, due to your take on things here, and the way you present things, I again suggest that you wouldn't recognize what I'd show as kata in the first place.

In part another contradiction. So when Himura suggests an alternate title you say "Yep, that's on the right track", but when I agree with him on that my understanding is lacking?

I wasn't disagreeing that you chose the title of your article poorly, Gary, I was saying the rest of your quote showed a lack of understanding of not only the structure of kata, but the range of methods that come under that term.

Of course there are Kata that "Don't have immediate applicability to combat", I never suggested otherwise. There ARE some kata that are less than optimal ..., are you saying that ALL kata are perfect and are the best way to accomplish the desired result? That is quite a grand assumption, it is completely wrong and shows you lack real world perspective, and that you are at best a sheep in all you practice.

You can only say if they're less than optimal if you understand their purpose. And I haven't seen that from you. With regards to "all kata are perfect and are the best way to accomplish the desired result", again, it depends on the desired result, or aim of the kata... but, in a very real way, yes. The fact that you can't see what the aim, or the method is, speaks volumes.

It wasn't meant to support that comment, that is why it was broken out in a separate response. I also never used the words "borderline useless", my critiques are much more specific--don't put words in my mouth.

The point was that your acceptance of Himura's statement denied your article's contention. Not what you keep trying to say the contention was, but the actual one, as summarized earlier. And while you never used that exact phrase, you did say: "counter-productive", "needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt", The only real reason for kata... is so students can grasp the concept of the technique", "beyond the beginner level... kata has no place", "no matter how many years... it still will not adequately prepare someone", "the anxiety of... trying to remember the kata produces tension", "Kata is almost necessarily training one in the tit-for-tat mentality", "is a reckless fallacy", "a big mistake", "should not be expected to hold up", "fails to take into account", "pre-planned tit-for-tat that kata pretends".... again, none of this was any type of critique of poorly trained kata, it was out and out a critique of the very methodology of kata itself... and was deeply, and desperately flawed from that perspective.

See above. Your little exercise only continues to prove the point I made earlier--"It seems you are more interested in arrogant deflections with [quotes like the above] instead of explaining in detail or demonstrating why you think what you are doing is the exception and not the rule.

I'll reiterate--"I don't have the time to survey your 4000+ posts--but if it even exists, perhaps you could link me to a video(s) where you demonstrate what you consider real Kata and Bunkai? If not, how about you create one? Every cell phone has a decent enough video camera these days."

You have time to mine for clips and post lengthy and vacuous critiques, yet you can't manage to post a video of yourself and any detail on what you consider to be real kata, the purpose of it, and real bunkai. Pathetic.

Seriously? Pathetic? Son, you really don't know what you're talking about. I provided clips that show a hell of a lot of kata, you're claiming it's me avoiding showing you what I mean by kata? Watch the clips. Answer my question. Then maybe you can learn something.

And, again, Gary, you will not get any video of my showing kata and bunkai... nothing I do has bunkai to it to show!!! And I've provided far better examples than I could take of myself, so you're just going to have to watch them to get some answers.

So again, you are saying that Kata is flawless, a perfect way of attaining it's goals, and nothing is the fault of Kata. This is demonstrably wrong. There are countless Kata (forms) throughout all of the styles...ridiculous statement. My take on it is the reality of the state of "kata" at large. You are the one asserting that your reality (and all Katas) are flawless, and the best way to attain the goals. Congratulations, my BS flag is now at full mast.

:bs:

There's a reason it's been used for 600 years or more, Gary. But, as you haven't clued into what it is, I don't think there's much I could say to educate you.

So let's move the discussion along, why don't you stop equivocating with your crap & conjecture and:

1) Provide a detailed explanation on what you believe the correct practice of kata entails and it's purpose (and what others are misunderstanding and why).

2) Why kata is flawless and the best way of achieving the aforementioned goals.

3) Provide video of yourself performing the categories of Kata, and video of you utilizing such skills in a simulated attack situation (even if not full power).

I bet it would take the same amount of time, or less, as clip hunting and managing to make all of those empty and inaccurate conclusions. Who knows, it may even be beneficial? Certainly more so than all of this hot air.

You know, if you didn't refer to my posts as "crap", without having a clue what they're saying, or making such comments as "pathetic" and "all of this hot air", I might have been tempted to try to explain it to you. Tell you what, I still am... I will answer, in as much detail as I possibly can each of these three points (except the last one... but will explain why) if you will go back to the videos I linked, and answer my question there. Deal?

PS: Thanks for the fun banter, amusing!

Right...

 

[Zero]

YOU are the one asserting that it is your definition of kata that is correct, and most are doing something that is not an accurate reflection. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to ask you to detail what you consider correct kata in purpose and practice. I never stated what you are doing is not kata training. I get Japanese arts are dominantly Kata based, and I also get that most are worthy of my critique for their version of the training methods they call "kata". It's part of reason there is an overwhelming lack of combat viability in the Japanese arts and it's practitioners; very often poor mechanics, poor fluidity, poor training methods, and poor execution.

Gary - OK, I can understand why you may be struggling to keep your cool in this never-ending trade of ripostes with Chris, but are you really saying that there is an "overwhelming lack of combat viability in the Japanese arts and its practitioners"? When you say "combat", do you mean just fighting, be that non-sanctioned or in the ring or do you mean only in a war zone? If you mean just plain simple fight ability, this comment is a nonsense, just ask anyone that has on a competitive setting or on an informal basis sparred or fought against high level Japanese practitioners. Also just look at old Pride or K1 as to their ability. There are also many accomplished non-Japanese karate practitioners which have been champions in stand up and mixed martial arts, too many to count. Many RBSD or SD trainers also have strong karate or japanese style (judo/jujitsu) backgrounds.

If you mean only with respect to a modern/contemporary military/war zone (fight to death, including armed combatants) environment then yes, there are "better", more streamlined/focused H2H systems on the bare essentials on what is needed but that could be said for many/most non-Japanese styles also, or are you saying BJJ or caipoera is better suited in a war zone or military setting? Please! I think a high level karate practitioner's "mechanics, fluidity and execution" rank equal with any other similar-level practitioner of other styles, be that tang soo do, TKD, win chun or muay thai.

The dominance of or focus on kata also varies from style to style and even teacher/dojo to dojo. I do Okinawan Goju Ryu but have been in numerous Japanese karate dojos where the time spent on or dependance placed on kata varies enormously!!

Another thing to understand is that even if you have a club where the kata applicaiton just stinks, you can have great fighters there. Either they simply don't focus on kata or they have good technique and skills but do not have an idea on kata application itself - this does not mean they can't whip your butt in a fight.

 

[Koryu Rich]

Chris,

Other than the obvious stand out dodgy ones there's one (legit) video in there that's a bit of a trick question, tut tut shame on you.

:rules:

 

[K-man]

Students can learn to refine and improve the techniques using the kata, and at that point, they can greatly benefit from practicing kata, since the improvements in their techniques will also carry over into their kumite as well. As a result, improvement in one aspect should help the other one.

I disagree with this totally. Depending on how you define kumite, I don't think kata has anything at all to with kumite. As I said, it depends on definition, but if the kumite is at sparring range as you see in point sparring I would question that it even worth wasting time on kata. There are dozens of drills that are far more beneficial. If you consider kumite to be at close range, that is grappling range, then kata might be extremely valuable, or totally useless depending on how you use the kata.

The only reason I can see for striving for perfection in kata, and the reason for using it as a grading requirement, it that it has to be passed on to the next generation of students as it was passed down to you. You might say here that competition is another reason but I dispute that claim too as a lot of people change the kata to produce a more flamboyant display to catch the judge's eye.

I'm not suggesting you should not strive for good technique in training. That is the first stage of the learning process. Unfortunately a lot of practitioners never progress beyond that point. :asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris,

Other than the obvious stand out dodgy ones there's one (legit) video in there that's a bit of a trick question, tut tut shame on you.

:rules:

Nothing is done without purpose, my friend... and what rules?

 

[Koryu Rich]

Nothing is done without purpose, my friend... and what rules?

I don't know, I liked the smilie that's all. :ultracool


Ow look a Dalek. :dalek:

 

[Chris Parker]

Cool.... the stairs natural prey....

 

[Koryu Rich]

I'd like to hear Gary's input on some of the clips that have been posted. Those arts can be very interesting and looking at the way they transmit the knowledge contained within the school can be a worthwhile discussion.

 

[Koryu Rich]

Cool.... the stairs natural prey....

Not anymore.

Levitate...LEVITATE!!!

 

[Chris Parker]

I'd like to hear Gary's input on some of the clips that have been posted. Those arts can be very interesting and looking at the way they transmit the knowledge contained within the school can be a worthwhile discussion.

Yep, agreed. That's really a big part of why I posted them, so we can get to the purpose and place of kata (in it's forms) within a system, and how to differentiate what is necessary, and what is a variable.

 

[Aiki Lee]

Chris,

Other than the obvious stand out dodgy ones there's one (legit) video in therethat's a bit of a trick question, tut tut shame on you.

Jeez, now I have to look through them again and see if Ican pinpoint that.

 

[Flying Crane]

The only reason I can see for striving for perfection in kata, and the reason for using it as a grading requirement, it that it has to be passed on to the next generation of students as it was passed down to you.

this begs the question: why? Why does it need to be passed on to the next generation, as it was passed down to you?

 

[K-man]

this begs the question: why? Why does it need to be passed on to the next generation, as it was passed down to you?

Quite simple. My teacher had no idea of the meaning of kata. Nor did his teacher. I doubt vey much if his teacher in Hawaii did either. Then we get back to Gogen Yamaguchi. How much he knew is a good question as is the limited time if any he trained under Chojun Miyagi. So the underlying bunkai of our kata has not been explored in 70 years but the fact that the kata has been handed down virtually unchanged in that time means, with contemporary knowledge, I have the opportunity to explore the kata in a way my teacher didn't have 30 years ago. I am not for one minute suggesting that I now have the mystical knowledge of the kata from 100 years ago, but I can pass on the kata I was taught so my students and their students have the same opportunity that was given to me. :asian:

 

[Flying Crane]

Quite simple. My teacher had no idea of the meaning of kata. Nor did his teacher. I doubt vey much if his teacher in Hawaii did either. Then we get back to Gogen Yamaguchi. How much he knew is a good question as is the limited time if any he trained under Chojun Miyagi. So the underlying bunkai of our kata has not been explored in 70 years but the fact that the kata has been handed down virtually unchanged in that time means, with contemporary knowledge, I have the opportunity to explore the kata in a way my teacher didn't have 30 years ago. I am not for one minute suggesting that I now have the mystical knowledge of the kata from 100 years ago, but I can pass on the kata I was taught so my students and their students have the same opportunity that was given to me. :asian:

In my opinion, if your teacher didn't understand the kata and could not teach it to you, then it is already too late. The transmission of information has been lost and it is very unlikely that you can discover it on your own.

If this was the case for several generations prior to you, then it was too late long before you came onto the scene.

You may be able to work up some other stuff of your own and that could be quite good in its own right, but the kata is lost. You are preserving something for the sake of posterity, that has become meaningless.

I train in a very traditional Chinese method, that is heavy on forms training as a way of both teaching the system and practicing and developing skills. But the forms must have meaning in order to be of any value. They are a tool meant to help us develop certain skills (application of technique is only one part of it) and as long as they are fulfilling that purpose then they are of value in the training. If they no longer function in that way, if we don't understand why we do them, if we don't understand how to do them properly, if we don't understand what the movement means and the purpose in using them to train, then there is no point.

My sifu has said that if you just want to learn to fight, you could study under him for one year and he could teach you to be a good fighter. And you would not need to learn any forms at all. So forms are not the only way to go about it. They are only useful when properly understood and properly practiced. Once that transmission of information has been lost, it's too late. Work on something else. There's no reason to keep forms as busy work, or to justify a promotion.

 

[GaryR]

Now, Gary. Again, this won't be short.

Wow, this thing is getting long. Why don’t you save some time and limit the animus to just one preface for the rest of your posts / comments with your opinion I am way off base. Nearly every segment of your posts ends with I have no clue re kata or something similar—it’s redundant, I get it. You also keep repeating I have no clue what you are talking about, I get that opinion as well, and I have repeatedly called for you to elaborate more, which you have not.

Originally Posted by GaryR
More quibbling. The use of the term is broad and varied, regardless of whether you consider the use correct or incorrect. But since you seem to know the only true definition, why don't you lay it out for us in detail? So far your posts lack any real substance in and of themselves on the topic.

To get down to it, the use isn't really that broad either. It's used to refer to pre-set patterns... that's it. The most familiar form of which is the karate-style string of solo movements, although that isn't the only (or most original) form. As far as substance, perhaps if you understood what I was talking about, you wouldn't think that...

There is no point in this game of semantics, it’s becoming circular. Let’s just go from the simplest definition-- that Kata is a pre-set pattern.


Originally Posted by GaryR
I'm aware you are not reffering to Chi Sau, that is what I consider a two-person drill. Off the top of my head, small and large san-sau are paired forms.

Then can you describe what is involved, what the purpose of small and large san-sau are? From what I've seen, they're actually solo forms that are then applied as a paired training exercise, to explore the applications... and, although I'd class it as kata-like, I wouldn't call it kata. But perhaps if you can clarify the purpose, we might get somewhere.

Kata-like eh—well, as a Kata by the above simple definition is a pre-set pattern, it is definitely kata--as it is a pre-set pattern. It can be taught initially without using a partner to get the movements down, but it’s not really practiced solo. There are many useful things that come from it; mechanics of the movements are pressure tested immediately, and timing, distance, and tactile sensitivity to attacks are benefited. It also assists in learning to adapt the movement to even the slight variables in a pre-arranged attack; after all, not every punch is exactly the same angle etc. even in two-person cooperative set.

Originally Posted by GaryR
If I walk into a school and they say they are doing a "kata", I'm not going to argue with them on whether their definition is exactly on point. To them, what they are doing is kata, misuse or not.

On that point, if it's not your place to tell them if what they're doing is properly kata or not, how is it your place to tell them if they're doing it "right" or not?

If I thought it was my place to categorize their training method for them, then I would necessarily be telling them how I thought their practice did or did not fit my criteria of the definition. Because I don’t feel it my place to put my own definition on their method, I don’t say “this is wrong therefore is not kata”, instead I say what’s wrong with the training methodology, and if they call that methodology “kata”, that statement necessarily becomes “what’s wrong with your kata”. Get it yet? :deadhorse

How, with your lack of actual experience or understanding of the purpose of kata, are you in a position to say what's, in your words, "wrong" with it's practice today?

You are again assuming I lack experience in Kata/forms and understanding. See paragraph one. I have extensive experience with forms / kata. Taiji for example has a 100+ move old yang form; I have been doing that for over 20 years. I’ve done loads of forms of different stripes.

Originally Posted by GaryR
Hence the article applies to the reality of what is going on, what the majority perception is--not your ideal which you have still failed to demonstrate or explicate.

Actually, Gary, no, it doesn't. You may have wanted it to, but your words don't match your intent there.

You are drawing an inference about my intent. My words are my words, intent goes to my state of mind, which you are not in a position to know. It is the reality that many schools line students up and do long forms and that those students cannot apply that material in real world combat, absurd you try and spin this into an intent issue.

The article represents critique of what many regard as kata, i.e. what happens in the real world with the term, and not Chris P's fairytale land of ninjas special forms. This is yet another conclusory statement, with no detail or reasoning to back it up. Again, why don't you write your own article on what kata is/should be?

Careful with the slurs, son. You really have no idea what you're arguing against.

Let’s dispense with the “son” like names, you’re not my father, if don’t want me to further degrade you, don’t talk down to me. I can’t have an exact idea, you haven’t demonstrated anything, nor provided anything in appreciable detail to argue against. I can assure you, whatever you are doing; I will have an idea what I’m arguing against. I’ve met and touched hands with several Ninjitsu instructors, all of whom were no slouches, many with more years in than you. There wasn’t a single one I couldn’t suck in like a tornado with and spit out broken, or melt through like butter. Using this clip as a reference point for skill --

, some were just as good as this guy, some better, and some not as good.

But, to the point, no, your article does not represent a critique of "what many regard as kata". It is a critique of kata training, and is peppered, I would say filled, with comments that are critiques, not on peoples understanding of their practice, but on the practice itself. I quoted a number of them in the last post here, but to highlight a few again:

As I said before, I take people’s word at face value what they are doing goes with their definition of kata, so I’m critiquing the training methodology of what most of the people using that definition are doing. This goes hand-in-hand with critiquing peoples understanding of such practice. Once you accept this distinction, most of your points are moot.


- "Trying to memorize long sequence of forms is counter-productive to such a goal."

Memorizing long sequences is not the goal of kata firstly, and secondly, in the context (the goal being training repeatedly until the skills bypass cognitive thought), you are 100% wrong. You're bluntly facing the wrong direction there, as that's one of kata's primary and main strengths as a training tool.

It may not be the goal, but it is often the fact of the matter, the person may very well be memorizing a long sequence. Sorry, but it can also be a weakness.

- "The only real reason for Kata in the Self-defense context is so students can grasp the concept on which the technique turns."

And this is based on, what, exactly? As, when you get down to it, kata begins far past that point. Frankly, this comment is just so outright wrong that it's hard to give all the ways that it is...

Once the concept is internalized, you don’t need to put the movement in a pre-arranged sequence to manifest it, or practice it. Practicing it in such sequence is not the most beneficial type of training in the self-defense context. You comment is so outright wrong it tells me you have not reached a high enough echelon of skill where you can understand what I’m saying.

- "...beyond the beginner level of teaching the concepts, Kata has no place. No matter how many years one perfects such forms; it will still not adequately prepare someone for a fight. Rarely is a Kata’s movement actually used exactly as practiced in a form, and even more seldom is the exact sequence of moves used."

And, again, this is so far out of whack with what kata is that it's hard to know where to start with how wrong you are. But, as you clearly have no real experience with kata, and these things are understood through experience, it's difficult to explain just how out you are.

Another assumption, see above. I have plenty of experience with it. Plenty of people try and use the exact movements, and regardless the pre-set sequence no matter what the context does not adequately prepare one for a fight, if you disagree, well, you are wrong.

But, to attempt to, kata is not a beginner’s tool. It is the essence of the art, the heart of the system, and it is the practice of the advanced practitioner. The ludicrous idea that anyone thinks that a kata's movements would ever be used exactly as presented is just... well... ludicrous. And no practitioner has claimed such a thing. To believe such an idea is to, well, not have the first clue about kata in the first place.

It’s a beginner’s tool so far as learning what it is supposed to teach. Once that is learned, doing only the kata is stagnating it, especially combatively. Once gotten down, the movements should free-flow, unplanned, not be pre-set. There are people who try to use the movements exactly, so no, it’s not ludicrous. There are plenty that don’t as well—see my bible interpretation comment which eludes to this fact.

Originally Posted by GaryR
Belaboring the same point again, this is semantics. If a doctor doesn't perform a surgery exactly correctly do we no longer call it a surgery?

You wouldn't call a butcher a surgeon, Gary. And you need to work on your metaphors and analogies.... this one was terrible, and false.

It’s a good analogy, a karateka saying he is doing a kata, and screws it up, is just like a surgeon doing a surgery, and screws it up. It doesn’t make the surgeon a butcher, he is not cutting meat to be eaten and sold, just like it doesn’t make the karateka a janitor.

Originally Posted by GaryR
Hmmm, you are contradicting yourself then.

You seem to agree it teaches mechanics--You stated: "There is a huge difference between kata and drills. One teaches mechanics, the other teaches tactical expression."

Okay, I'll cop to putting things in a confusing order, but I figured that it was obvious which was which... if you think simple drills teach tactical applications, you have really missed the point.

You’re putting words in my mouth again, I didn’t mention tactical applications or drills, I mentioned mechanics. Are you now saying the inverse of your statement is true and that drills teach only mechanics? You are the one who mentioned “drills” .. “Teaches tactical expression”, don’t try and attribute your words to me, and then tell me I’m wrong, that is just silly.

Originally Posted by GaryR
You also seem to agree it's not about being a catalog of techniques. --"Kata is far from an encyclopedia of techniques, and that is actually pretty much opposite of what kata is designed for."

What little you have said about kata has been self-contradictory, perhaps you should detail your own article instead of simply quote me and say over and over basically "nuh-uh".

Perhaps you need to read closer, Gary. And no, I have no intention of trying to make myself feel knowledgable or important by writing an article. I'm not really sure why you wrote yours, either... you said it was for your (CMA) site... where the dominant readership, I'd assume, don't practice kata in their arts, so it was really nothing more than a way for you to seem like you have something valuable to add to a discussion you have no place in, yeah?

I don’t need to read closer, you failed to address my actual statements, and your own contradiction…convenient. I liken a catalog to an encyclopedia; the analogies to me are very similar.

I also didn’t say you should write the article to feel important, just too simply convey your thoughts for the benefit of the community, and also because you are adamant about being right about your take on kata, writing at length on it would prevent these types of circular and vague disagreements.

CMA arts do practice kata (or forms as we call them), as you see I used the word forms in my article as well. Heck, most internal martial arts guys do a lot of forms. Taiji has the long and short forms, Xingyi has the animal forms, and five fist routines set in a pattern, and bagua has both linear and circular forms, as well as animal forms. So yeah, I do have a place in the discussion, you are obviously ignorant to those arts practices.

Originally Posted by GaryR
Not even a decent attempt at spin.

It wasn't spin, Gary, it was observation based on your posts, your article, and your comments.

It was spin, you’re trying to say my own derisive comment applies to myself, spin. If you agree with my point you agree, if you disagree, you disagree, trying to impute my own negative comment to myself is spin, I understand what I wrote, and why. You’re not in my head; your observations don’t go that far.

Originally Posted by GaryR
Your lack of reading comprehension is startling. The article was not titled "what kata should be", nor "my ideal kata". Again, and please slow down while reading this next bit--the article reflects what's wrong with kata as practiced in a majority of schools, not what you think it should be.
No, it doesn't.

The majority of the article is deriding kata as a form of training, not deriding people training kata improperly. Your article wasn't titled "What's wrong with the way people train kata", it was "What's wrong with kata". It began with some negative stereotypes (and a negative title, "Window Dressing and Rank Fodder"), largely projected onto a nameless, faceless dojo, and then immediately launched into the beginnings of your comments that showed a deep lack of understanding of what kata is, how it is structured, and why it is done the way it is.

It is deriding the form of training they are calling kata and actually doing. You define their training outside of kata if they are training it improperly, I do not. It’s not a lack of understanding; it’s accepting the label and critiquing the training method.

That was followed by the second section ("Stop and Start: The Necessity of Continuous Movement"), the title of which alone showed (again) a lack of understanding of the methods of training kata, the progression as a student develops, and so on, and was simply a criticism (based on false understanding) of the kata method itself. Not the practice, proper or improper, but of the very practice of kata itself.

Another “you lack understanding” like quote, again, the critique is on the reality of the training method. It is based on objective observation of what is happening, and why it is not optimal.

The third section ("Hit Me, Don't Quit Me") continued along that vein, criticizing kata in it's very structure, by assuming it's purpose and structure (which was, frankly, incorrect as well... kata does not teach a "tit for tat" mentality or approach, Gary), as well as a very false assumption of what people expect of kata. You then, incredibly arrogantly, proffer a solution to a non-existant problem (the problem only really being what you are expecting versus what kata really is)... which is essentially to abandon the kata itself. Say, here's some news for you... in these arts, there's a concept known as Shu Ha Ri... which already takes into account your apparent solution, but in a way consistent with kata and it's aims. Again, your lack of knowledge and understanding of this topic shines through.

What they expect and reality are likely two different things. Thus, it’s not a false assumption at all. I’m not saying what I am expecting of them; rather what is more beneficial in that context.

Keeping in mind the basic definition Kata is a pre-set pattern of movements, it would seem from the wiki definition (since you failed to expand on it, I’ll use that one), that the “Ha Ri” portion of the term is essentially abandoning doing the pre-set form, and thus abandoning the kata—it no longer becomes Kata. :

From wiki--“Next, in the stage of ha, once we have disciplined ourselves to acquire the forms and movements, we make innovations. In this process the forms may be broken and discarded. Finally, in ri, we completely depart from the forms, open the door to creative technique, and arrive in a place where we act in accordance with what our heart/mind desires, unhindered while not overstepping laws." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shu_Ha_Ri).

Hmmm, broken down and discarded. This is exactly what I was saying in my article, once past the beginner level “Shu”, one should break up and then the Ri is exactly what I meant as well when I referred to manifesting the movements in free-form. This only proves my point; the kata is beginner level and can be abandoned in a sense when you achieve a higher level. It would seem this point negates your entire problem with my core idea / methodology. Thanks.

You finally end by offering advice to "break up the kata" (do you really think that approach is news to anyone who train in karate-style kata?), and then to "create your own", in place of what you consider an ineffective method of training.

It may not be new, but it’s not that widely practiced well, sure, the kata is sometimes learned in isolated pieces, but all too often once learned it is practices as a complete whole, not in repetitive small sections, and doesn’t become functional. See last paragraph…

Seriously, other than the negative stereotypes given in the first section, the rest of your article wasn't about poor training practices for kata, it was a criticism of kata itself. And it was completely flawed in all of it's demonstrated understanding of the subject.

It’s a typical situation statistically, which I perceive as a con. Again, we are splitting hairs as far as I’m concerned with it being a criticism of the kata itself, or practice itself. As I mention later, there are problems with both.

I read plenty well, mate.

Reading and comprehending are two different things. Curious-- what is your academic background, and your occupation, mate?

Originally Posted by GaryR
Well, lamenting that 95% of people have poor understanding certainly demonstrates my point of what is wrong with the training methods being used, and purported to be kata. If only 1-5% of people are truly doing "kata", my article is fair warning to the rest who think they are. I wrote the article for the 99%, not for the 1% with your "limit[ed]" idea of what it is.

Garbage. Your article only goes to warn that you don't like, or understand, kata training. Bluntly, you don't even manage to identify what the issue with K-Man's 95% of schools really have.

I don’t remember that K-man identified the issues with the 95% himself. The point of the article WAS to warn about what I dislike, why I dislike it, and what should be done in place of that type of practice. What’s garbage is that you’re trying to act as an apologist and say that simply because I disagree with the efficacy of the training method many call “kata”, you claim I lack understanding. Seems like a theist insisting because I don’t believe in God, I lack understanding of it. It has nothing to do with belief in the ideal concept, but in the objective reality based on the evidence available.

Originally Posted by GaryR
Now you are just being ridiculous.

I agree that "anyone that thinks that kata teaches techniques has missed the point". That's not an ambiguous statement, it's absurd you can sit there and tell me I don't agree with that-especially given my prior statement about it not being about a catalog of techniques. Wow, just wow.

Context is key, Gary. I said I didn't think you have the first clue what I was talking about in regards to what was the important aspect in kata, as you have shown no insight to tell me that you might get it. It's integral to the training methodology, really... and denies pretty much all of your criticism in your article.

You still failed to address this point with yet another “you don’t get it” comment. The statement re techniques is not ambiguous, it needs no further context, I agree with the brief statement on its face, nothing more or less was said on either side on the matter. You haven’t shown me that you “get it” either, far from, so the feeling is mutual.

Originally Posted by GaryR
Where is this detailed explanation? You certainly didn't "cover it again" in this thread. If your not going to maintain at least some level of intellectual honesty and follow-through, this conversation is a race to the bottom.

I was referring to the fact that Himura had answered before me:

Ok, fair enough in part, but you did fail to follow through as far as I’m concerned you said “but we'll cover it again”, and you didn’t. I’m still waiting for more than two lines on the subject from you.


.....

Himura said—“A kata is a prearranged form of something.”

Great, I agree, now we are back to a nice simple definition as stated above.

I then provided a range of videos, which contained quite a lot of examples of kata (and a few that didn't) to see if you could get it. Sadly, it seems that you didn't.

I didn’t comment on the videos content, I didn’t even watch a single one all the way through, nor did I view all of them-- so to say I didn’t get it is a false assumption, based on nothing. I asked for a video of YOU, and how you practice Kata, not for a bunch of strangers. Anything in that video lump that had a prearranged sequence is Kata as far as I am concerned-but just because something appears to be pre-arranged doesn’t mean it necessarily is pre-arranged, it’s often very obvious what is pre-arranged, but not always. Like I said, if they say it’s kata, I’ll go with that, I don’t care enough to define it for them, I care to critique the efficacy of the training method as-is.

Originally Posted by GaryR
I remember, and do you remember my response? "Now this is just semantic quibbling with K-man and I's point. The point is that 95% of people THINK they are truly and correctly training "kata" with more of a benefit than they are actually getting out of it."

Yet another "wrong direction", nuh-uh quote. Getting tiresome. All arrogant conclusions and no substance.

You asked if I considered that I was in this mystical 5% with proper kata/bunkai, why don't I share. I was pointing out that, again, kata in my arts have no bunkai, no need of it, and you are thinking of a completely different training approach that really, really doesn't apply to me. In other words, you're still not understanding what you're being told.

Another equivocation and “you do not understand” comment. YOU brought up bunkai in this discussion, not me. You can easily demonstrate the kata then, I’m not trying to say anything that specifically applies to you personally, I am asking for you to demonstrate what does / does not apply to you and why.

Originally Posted by GaryR
Gee whiz, thanks again for that clarification. Once again you have overwhelmed me with new information.

Cute, kid. Perhaps you'll listen to some of it now?

Ok Dad, what I’m hearing is not new information, by repeating this information that is so basic it’s insulting, you have clearly demonstrated it is you who did not listen.

Originally Posted by GaryR
I say again--"It seems you are more interested in arrogant deflections with quotes like the above instead of explaining in detail or demonstrating why you think what you are doing is the exception and not the rule."

For the twentieth time, Gary, what I am doing is not what you're lambasting. And you don't understand either.

For the twentieth time Chris, I don’t know exactly what you’re doing, which is why I am asking for a demonstration and detailed explication. Your deflections are getting annoying.

Originally Posted by GaryR
YOU are the one asserting that it is your definition of kata that is correct, and most are doing something that is not an accurate reflection. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to ask you to detail what you consider correct kata in purpose and practice. I never stated what you are doing is not kata training. I get Japanese arts are dominantly Kata based, and I also get that most are worthy of my critique for their version of the training methods they call "kata". It's part of reason there is an overwhelming lack of combat viability in the Japanese arts and it's practitioners; very often poor mechanics, poor fluidity, poor training methods, and poor execution.

Son, you have no clue what you're talking about there. Kata training is, and has been the dominant method of transmission of martial arts (and other arts) in Japan for centuries... including during the most intense times of war the country saw.

Ok dad, you are using a basic logical fallacy here-appeal to tradition. Rub your two IQ points together and learn some basic critical thinking and logical reasoning. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html. Moreover, I’ve personally been in two wars, and during which have transmitted martial arts / armed and unarmed combat training to combatants. Have you trained people in war zones, or do you just get your conjecture from ancient books?

And, you know what, you're still thinking of the wrong form of kata... which is why I gave you the videos to watch.

I told you up front I accept a broad definition of kata training. So, no, I’m not thinking of the wrong form. I’ve seen plenty. What I’m thinking of is a pre-arranged sequence, be it trained using one or more persons. Typically this sequence is longer than just a few movements, but not always. Erle Montaigues 12 most deadly kata’s for example are short.

Originally Posted by GaryR
Of course you would take offense to a critique of Kata since that is apparently most of what your arts training is entirely based on...

When you can identify the form of kata I'm talking about, then you might have a clue how far off you've been.

I am critiquing what I have observed and identified, that objective observation is not “far off”. Until and unless I look at your training and compare our definitions and purposes, you can’t say what I have a clue about. Another arrogant deflection, I bet you feel special, lol.

Originally Posted by GaryR
Oh boy Chris, your reading comprehension is again seriously lacking. I made it clear in this thread, and the other that I was not referring to Kata as bunkai:

No, you asked me (a number of times) to show what I consider "real kata and bunkai"... what I consider real kata, in my arts, doesn't have bunkai. And, again, I seriously doubt you'd recognize it as kata.

This is another serious equivocation, ok, so your art doesn’t have bunkai (which puts you in even less of a position to say others aren’t doing it right as you did), but nonetheless, that shouldn’t prevent you from demonstrating Kata, I did not say the two HAD to be done together. Come on Chris, you know I’m asking for you to demonstrate what you are talking about, avoiding the issue with this my art “doesn’t have bunkai” BS is laughable.

Originally Posted by GaryR
I said--"You missed the point. As I understand it Bunkai means to pick apart. It's the term used in disecting applications from Kata,isolating specific techniques. Sure that is important--but not my point, I didn't mention Bunkai"

Again in this thread I made the distinction--"perhaps you could link me to a video(s) where you demonstrate what you consider real Kata and Bunkai" Notice the word AND, not AKA. It was you who brought up bunkai folks doing it wrong, I simply wanted you to demo how to do that right as well.

Firstly, you're a little off in your take on bunkai... while it is a method of investigation, or exploration of the kata, it doesn't mean to isolate specific techniques.

That was not my definition, it was from Wiki, I made that clear in that thread. I have never used the term, nor was that the topic of my article.

In fact, that's kinda the wrong way to go about it. As far as pointing out that you weren't equating kata and bunkai, that's not what I was saying was besides the point... it was that you seem insistent on the idea that I train in something that has it (bunkai). And there's no way to demo it being "done right", as it's a difference in approach, not mechanics.

I didn’t say it was mechanics, more words put in my mouth. Well, it seemed that you thought I was equating the two, it’s all beside the point—I simply want you to demonstrate what you are talking about. Another deflection with you bunkai spiel.

Originally Posted by GaryR
I'm not going to comb through a bunch of clips and tell you why or why not I think they in whole or in part qualify as "Kata". I could really care less what they specifically call the training methods. I am not about to quibble over a definition--if they call it Kata, I'm going to critique it using that definition and practice, not superimpose my own first. It's sort of like the circular discussion of what "internal" means in my arts, or the "that's not the real Tai Chi" type arguments when someones practice doesn't exactly mirror their own. That kind of crap was a large motivator for me to stop calling what I do "taiji" or "Bagua" etc., I label and define my own material to avoid such ridiculous semantics.

So what you're saying is that you aren't willing to open your mind to a different take on things (by the way, the naming convention isn't quite what you are thinking either... in a number of the clips I gave). And you've done nothing but critique by superimposing your own views on things... as you've completely missed what the important things in kata are, or what would be appropriate to criticize in the first place.

Your reading comprehension is again lacking. The above has nothing to do with what I will open my mind too. Quite the opposite, if you want to define kata as something and show me the practice, great! I’ll amend my critique on the term when I reference your exact school / style / teaching. I’m critiquing what is being done and called Kata en mass. I’m not watching a practice after walking into a dojo saying “that method is called X, not Y”.

Originally Posted by GaryR
It is you who is the stickler for the narrow definition. I asked to see a clip of YOU demonstrating what you believe to be good Kata, good bunkai, and why that is different from the majorities misunderstanding. I guess in your 4000+ post history you haven't managed this despite your alleged superior knowledge on the subject and skill?

You wouldn't recognize it, Gary. But for good examples, again, see the clips I already provided... of course, you didn't quite get what I was posting them for....

Wrong, I didn’t say what you were posting them for, nor did I refer to their contents. See above. Yet more arrogant deflections Chris.

Originally Posted by GaryR
It is you who wanted a broader definition of JJ. BJJ and MJJ are ground-game arts and include the words JJ in their names. So again, I'm not going to argue with them over whether that is really JJ. They call it that, thus I include it in the category.

Please. Again, you're just showing a complete lack of understanding of, firstly, what you're talking about, and secondly, who you're talking to. You think I need to get a broader definition of Jujutsu because I pointed out that traditional forms don't have a "ground game"? Really?

I didn’t say what definition you needed if I remember correctly. I am not showing any lack of understanding; I am merely stating I consider BJJ and MJJ to be in the category I define as JJ, nothing more, nothing less, simple.

Originally Posted by GaryR
Wrong again, I'm not off, see above quote and other thread where I very specifically distinguish bunkai from Kata. You seem to be seeing what you want to see, and not actually reading my posts...
Oh dear lord....

Gary. You continually ask me to provide myself showing kata and bunkai, despite my constantly telling you that there's no such thing as bunkai in my kata. None. Doesn't exist, don't need it. And, due to your take on things here, and the way you present things, I again suggest that you wouldn't recognize what I'd show as kata in the first place.

I don’t care if it’s in your kata or not. You are completely missing my point. Demonstrate your training method, kata, picking your nose…whatever you do. I’ll accept your label as is. Either my articles critique applies to your practice, or it doesn’t, but it does apply to what I observe most people say and do as kata. You keep repeating this “I don’t do bunkai” when asked to show what you do. How many more times will you repeat yourself to avoid the real reason you won’t put a kata clip up?

Originally Posted by GaryR
In part another contradiction. So when Himura suggests an alternate title you say "Yep, that's on the right track", but when I agree with him on that my understanding is lacking?

I wasn't disagreeing that you chose the title of your article poorly, Gary, I was saying the rest of your quote showed a lack of understanding of not only the structure of kata, but the range of methods that come under that term.

What you seem to be saying was that if I titled my article as Himura suggested, you would say I was on the right track and not wrong here. That was my point. Amusing you claim I don’t get the range of methods when it seems from the get-go my definition was broader than yours.

Originally Posted by GaryR
Of course there are Kata that "Don't have immediate applicability to combat", I never suggested otherwise. There ARE some kata that are less than optimal ..., are you saying that ALL kata are perfect and are the best way to accomplish the desired result? That is quite a grand assumption, it is completely wrong and shows you lack real world perspective, and that you are at best a sheep in all you practice.

You can only say if they're less than optimal if you understand their purpose. And I haven't seen that from you. With regards to "all kata are perfect and are the best way to accomplish the desired result", again, it depends on the desired result, or aim of the kata... but, in a very real way, yes. The fact that you can't see what the aim, or the method is, speaks volumes.

Seriously, how many times do you need to repeat yourself that you don’t think I understand, yada yada, as an argument? So you are saying they are all perfect in the ways intended then. That is absurd, you are simply wrong, not all kata are perfectly designed and are the best way to achieve their aim. We haven’t even discussed any specifics of a single kata, and its purpose for you to make such assumptions. All of these vapid conclusions you are reaching speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by GaryR
It wasn't meant to support that comment, that is why it was broken out in a separate response. I also never used the words "borderline useless", my critiques are much more specific--don't put words in my mouth.

The point was that your acceptance of Himura's statement denied your article's contention.

No, it didn’t. Kata can be flawed in several respects- a) as poorly trained, b) a specific kata itself, and c) the methodology.

…you did say: "counter-productive", "needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt .... again, none of this was any type of critique of poorly trained kata, it was out and out a critique of the very methodology of kata itself... and was deeply, and desperately flawed from that perspective.

Ok, let’s take this one relating to real world combat preparation--"no matter how many years... it still will not adequately prepare someone..”. That is true of the methodology of kata as a whole. A pre-arranged sequence no matter what the form in which it comes, will not adequately prepare you for real world self-defense, period. If you think otherwise, you are delusional, and have no business teaching a Martial art.


Originally Posted by GaryR
See above. Your little exercise only continues to prove the point I made earlier--"It seems you are more interested in arrogant deflections with [quotes like the above] instead of explaining in detail or demonstrating why you think what you are doing is the exception and not the rule.

I'll reiterate--"I don't have the time to survey your 4000+ posts--but if it even exists, perhaps you could link me to a video(s) where you demonstrate what you consider real Kata and Bunkai? If not, how about you create one? Every cell phone has a decent enough video camera these days."

You have time to mine for clips and post lengthy and vacuous critiques, yet you can't manage to post a video of yourself and any detail on what you consider to be real kata, the purpose of it, and real bunkai. Pathetic.

…Seriously? Pathetic? Son, you really don't know what you're talking about. I provided clips that show a hell of a lot of kata, you're claiming it's me avoiding showing you what I mean by kata? Watch the clips. Answer my question. Then maybe you can learn something.

Yes son, pathetic--epically pathetic. I’m not claiming anything, it’s a fact--you have not provided a clip of yourself doing any kata, or demonstrating the intended result. You have over 4000 posts that likely display the same level of arrogance and certitude that you are correct, yet you couldn’t link me to a single clip of your primary training vehicle and a detailed explanation of such?

Apparently you didn’t understand my point the first time, so I’ll repeat—“I'm not going to comb through a bunch of clips and tell you why or why not I think they in whole or in part qualify as "Kata". I could really care less what they specifically call the training methods. I am not about to quibble over a definition--if they call it Kata, I'm going to critique it using that definition and practice, not superimpose my own first…”

And, again, Gary, you will not get any video of my showing kata and bunkai... nothing I do has bunkai to it to show!!! And I've provided far better examples than I could take of myself, so you're just going to have to watch them to get some answers.

So just show the kata as I’ve said before, simple. I didn’t ask for an example of other people’s training methods, they are not here to answer for themselves, nor are claiming anything regarding them. YOU are here claiming to be correct, and that kata are perfect, so I want to see your clips. I’ve seen the training methods in each of those clips before, call them what you will, but I’ve seen them—I don’t need any answers from them. I’m sorry that you lack the skill to get your point across better via video, perhaps then you have no business pretending to know-it-all, and that kata are a perfect training mechanism? I wasn’t very impressed by what I did watch of the hand-to-hand clip, so if you can’t do better, you should be practicing more than you are vomiting on the keyboard.

Originally Posted by GaryR
So again, you are saying that Kata is flawless, a perfect way of attaining it's goals, and nothing is the fault of Kata. This is demonstrably wrong. There are countless Kata (forms) throughout all of the styles...ridiculous statement. My take on it is the reality of the state of "kata" at large. You are the one asserting that your reality (and all Katas) are flawless, and the best way to attain the goals. Congratulations, my BS flag is now at full mast.

…There's a reason it's been used for 600 years or more, Gary. But, as you haven't clued into what it is, I don't think there's much I could say to educate you.

Another use of the logical fallacy stated above Chris. One reason was transmission/preservation of systems, but now we have other means of preservation…like video. Your second sentence isn’t cogent, I don’t understand, so you can’t tell me? Absurd, it’s apparent you are not here to attempt to educate anyone to your point of view, just to berate those who do share info you disagree with using vacuous conjecture.

Originally Posted by GaryR
So let's move the discussion along, why don't you stop equivocating with your crap & conjecture and:

1) Provide a detailed explanation on what you believe the correct practice of kata entails and it's purpose (and what others are misunderstanding and why).

2) Why kata is flawless and the best way of achieving the aforementioned goals.

3) Provide video of yourself performing the categories of Kata, and video of you utilizing such skills in a simulated attack situation (even if not full power).

I bet it would take the same amount of time, or less, as clip hunting and managing to make all of those empty and inaccurate conclusions. Who knows, it may even be beneficial? Certainly more so than all of this hot air.

…You know, if you didn't refer to my posts as "crap", without having a clue what they're saying, or making such comments as "pathetic" and "all of this hot air", I might have been tempted to try to explain it to you.

I call it like I see it, you repeat over and over I don’t understand, yet you provide no detail of what it is you think I’m supposed to understand any why. You just admitted you haven’t attempted to explain it-which is why your posts are crap and conjecture. Telling someone over and over and over and over they don’t get it, and not explaining or demonstrating “it” is blowing hot air and is pathetic. Welcome to reality.

…Tell you what, I still am... I will answer, in as much detail as I possibly can each of these three points (except the last one... but will explain why) if you will go back to the videos I linked, and answer my question there. Deal?

That’s one step forward and three steps back. As many times as you have called me clueless it’s only courtesy to provide those items. You claim kata to be perfect, and that you are correct on all of the foregoing…well, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. You have provided none, not even decent rationale.

Don’t act like you’re doing me any favors--I can guarantee, agree or disagree, you are not going to explain to me anything I haven’t heard before and/or do not already know from experience. You have been equivocating on this the entire thread, and there has not been any real discussion because of that. I’ll repeat, I don’t care what’s in the video clips, unless I can ask the people in the clips questions like “do you consider that kata?” “Why”? “What is the goal(s) of that specific kata”? The exercise is nearly pointless, and will do nothing to further this discussion.

…I will answer, in as much detail as I possibly can each of these three points (except the last one... but will explain why)..

Chris, no explanation you can give will be sufficient. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a video is worth 30 frames per second. It has its limitations certainly, and one cannot form a complete conclusion re skill from it, but it would spring the discussion light-years ahead of the current one on how/why you’ve reached your staunch conclusions, etc.

…Gary, you will not get any video of my showing kata…

What are you afraid of? Maybe people will see someone with 4000+ bloviating posts who is only a keyboard warrior? That the result doesn’t match your heavy rhetoric? Moreover, are you afraid that that the discussion may move past your empty insults, certitudes and vagaries into actual examples that can be discussed with specificity? That might just make it a little harder to repeatedly claim I don’t understand when we go into details and can picture what is really going on.

Let’s try this again. Answer what you like, it’s a free internet after all, but if you only want to answer two, #1 and #3 would be nice, and if you only want to answer one—do #3 for a good starting point of discussion. If you’re not going to provide #3 don’t even bother to respond, we will just have to agree to disagree, and I will assume you are just full of hot air and a pathetic keyboard warrior…your choice:

1) Provide a detailed explanation on what you believe the correct practice of kata entails and it's purpose (and what others are misunderstanding and why).

2) Why kata is flawless and the best way of achieving the aforementioned goals.

3) Provide video of yourself performing the categories of Kata, and video of you utilizing such skills in a simulated attack situation (even if not full power). State briefly the aim(s) of each kata before doing it.

This thing is getting hairy, why don't you wipe the slate of this mess and just go through those questions and ditch the circular tirades?

G

 

[GaryR]

Gary - OK, I can understand why you may be struggling to keep your cool in this never-ending trade of ripostes with Chris, but are you really saying that there is an "overwhelming lack of combat viability in the Japanese arts and its practitioners"? When you say "combat", do you mean just fighting, be that non-sanctioned or in the ring or do you mean only in a war zone?

Thanks for understanding brother, hopefully the tirade will come to an end and be productive!

When I say combat I mean no rules, real fighting, and fighting in a war zone, yes. My focus is not in ring / competitions, one of my specialties is military armed/unarmed combat, I was contracted by the DOD to teach at home an in war zones to give you some perspective on where I am coming from.

If you mean just plain simple fight ability, this comment is a nonsense, just ask anyone that has on a competitive setting or on an informal basis sparred or fought against high level Japanese practitioners. Also just look at old Pride or K1 as to their ability. There are also many accomplished non-Japanese karate practitioners which have been champions in stand up and mixed martial arts, too many to count. Many RBSD or SD trainers also have strong karate or japanese style (judo/jujitsu) backgrounds.

I would definitatly put money on more Japenese Karateka than TKD folks in a competition. There is an overwhelming amount of Karate schools, it's how countless people get a start. But often the MMA, K1 doesn't end up looking like the original style. Some are good fighters in spite of their style, not because of it.

If you mean only with respect to a modern/contemporary military/war zone (fight to death, including armed combatants) environment then yes, there are "better", more streamlined/focused H2H systems on the bare essentials on what is needed but that could be said for many/most non-Japanese styles also,

I agree "better" should be in quotes here. Teaching should be matched to the situation, and the time-line to reach the desired goals. But the bare essentials of most Japanese or Korean systems pales in comparison to the basics of say Xingyi or Bagua. Streamline both and train them in a real context and the Chinese systems will wipe the floor with the Japanese/Okinawan/Korean systems. Expand the timeline and the gap of combat viability will further widen, I would say there is however a period in-between beginner / advanced where the Karate systems come closer in combat viability, but do not surpass it assuming both are utilizing all of the best training methods native to their systems. I'm sorry if this is offensive, I mean no personal disrespect. (one of my senior students,a great guy, who is now a Colonel, was a Goju BB when he came to me. He is the first to admit I was light-years ahead in all of the skills mentioned here B/C of the style and training methods native to our systems, and that was more than a decade ago, he is also a decade older than I. )

...or are you saying BJJ or caipoera is better suited in a war zone or military setting? Please! I think a high level karate practitioner's "mechanics, fluidity and execution" rank equal with any other similar-level practitioner of other styles, be that tang soo do, TKD, win chun or muay thai.

Absolutely not, BJJ and especially caipoera are from from war zone material. More of an argument can be made for BJJ, but if you are hand-2-hand things are already FUBAR, and if your on the ground, well you are well beyond FUBAR. A very basic ground-game can be taught in a weekend, enough for any soldier.

Most high level Karate practitioner's don't even come close to good mechanics and fluidity compared to some of the Chinese arts. I have demonstrated this to countless Karate instructors much to their dismay. The body connection / mechanics, and more fluid movements to a high extent are not simply native to the material. Just look at the one-inch punch compared to a reverse punch in efficiency, power, and body connection. Moreover, the WC/JKD one-inch punch is somewhat lacking compared to the good Neijia version FWIW. Again, sorry to seem so dismissive, it's not a conclusion I have come to lightly, and there are always exceptions due to personal ability, but they are too few and far between to be relevant.

The dominance of or focus on kata also varies from style to style and even teacher/dojo to dojo. I do Okinawan Goju Ryu but have been in numerous Japanese karate dojos where the time spent on or dependance placed on kata varies enormously!!

I agree for sure. The less dependent on Kata for combat viability the better, especially after the beginner levels. My article applies to those who rely on it more than less. I wasn't making stylistic generalizations, just addressing it as a training method as it relates to high level skill / combat viability.

Another thing to understand is that even if you have a club where the kata application just stinks, you can have great fighters there. Either they simply don't focus on kata or they have good technique and skills but do not have an idea on kata application itself - this does not mean they can't whip your butt in a fight.

Definitely, you can have good fighters where the Kata application stinks, that fact really kind of proves my point!

Sorry to be so blunt here, it may be best just to leave this discussion at that. I don't want to offend more people than I already have. We are all brothers and sisters in the arts, and should strive to help one another progress, regardless of background and style.

Respectfully,

G

 

[Koryu Rich]

To highlight what Chris has in mind.

The following is from Legacies of the Sword by Karl Friday.

To fully appreciate the function of pattern practice as a teaching and learning device, it is important to understand just what is supposed to be taught and learned, and the relationship of this knowledge to kata. The essential knowledge -the kabala- of a ryuha can be broken down into three components: hyoho - or heiho ("strategy"), te-no-uchi ("skill" or application of skill"), and waza ("techniques" or "tactics").

Hyoho refers to something along the lines of the "essential principles of martial art," wherein "essential" is taken in its original meaning of "that which constitutes the essence." As such, "hyoho" designates the general principles around which a ryuha's approach to combat is constructed: the rationale for choosing defensive or offensive tactics, the angles of approach to an opponent, the striking angles and distances appropriate to various weapons, the proper mental posture to be employed in combat, the goals to be sought in combat, and similar considerations.

"Te-no-uchi" constitutes the fundamental skills required for the application of hyoho, such as timing, posture, the generation and concentration of power, and the like. "Waza" are the situationally specific applications of a ryuha's hyoho and te-no-uchi, the particularized tactics in and through which a student is trained. Waza, te-no-uchi, and hyoho are functionally inseparable; hyoho is manifested in and by waza through te-no-uchi.

Kata, then, are compendiums of waza, and as such are manifestations of all three components. Most importantly, they are the means by which a student learns and masters first te-no-uchi and then hyoho.

keep in mind this will be in relation to old systems of Japanese martial arts.