Kata

[Sukerkin]

Good Small Gods Above and Below, gentlemen! Did I not once read somewhere that brevity is the soul of wit? We are seeing precious little brevity here :lol:.

Please bear in mind that, no matter how much we may disagree on some things, it is best to at least give the semblance of respect and politeness to each other ... until we know each other better at least . It is also worth bearing in mind that this is the Internet and the "TL : DR" abbreviation came into existence for a good reason :chuckles:.

 

[Koryu Rich]

One problem with asking Chris to show elements of kata in a simulated attack is that the viewer would need to be familiar with the kata in question, or the type of art, a verbal explanation may not be sufficient and the expression of that kata may only be for an instant or it may be more generalised via distance or timing.

Gary, have a look at those videos Chris put up.

 

[GaryR]

One problem with asking Chris to show elements of kata in a simulated attack is that the viewer would need to be familiar with the kata in question, or the type of art, a verbal explanation may not be sufficient and the expression of that kata may only be for an instant or it may be more generalised via distance or timing.

That is why I also asked Chris to show the kata in question first. I think Chris is verbose enough to cover it :uhyeah:.

Gary, have a look at those videos Chris put up.

See my other comments. I'll add, that's a lot of material to discuss third hand. I want to see and discuss a Chris specific Kata, use, and explanation thereof, not play 20 questions with tons of internet clips.

Best,

G

 

[jks9199]

Folks,
MartialTalk isn't in the business of proving or verifying anyone's credentials. Let the various readers judge for themselves, based on posting and whatever else someone chooses to make available. It's also not a place for taking snide shots at each other. If you can't discuss things politely and courteously, without using demeaning names and taking shots at each other, find a way to do so.

In other words:

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite & respectful.

jks9199
Assistant Administrator

 

[K-man]

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.

Possibly you are right. But having devoted the best part of ten years to learning to decipher and use kata as a fighting system, I feel I am getting a pretty fair understanding. There are people out there who have good ideas, there are similar skills in similar systems and there is a lot of literature.

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

Not so. As long as it was passed down accurately it is not too late. In fact the kata passed down through Japan was changed a little, but I was able to rectify that when I changed to the Okinawan form.

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.

The kata was never lost, just the application. It is only meaningless to those who cannot comprehend it.

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.

I agree the forms must have meaning, but they can have multiple applications.

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.

Exactly. I would even say that, in the single person kata, they do not teach application of technique.

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.

And the same could be said for any martial art.

So forms are not the only way to go about it.

No. Forms have nothing to do with learning to fight. You learn to fight without the form then if you want to you can use the form to make you a more effective fighter.

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.

I disagree totally with this statement. You could only make it if you had no understanding of kata.

Let me give an analogy. My great great grandfather was French and a great poet. He had composed a very beautiful and amazing piece of poetry that the family preserved through the generations. His son was also French and he copied the poem and recited it at family gatherings. He moved overseas and his children although they had no need of French learned a little and continued, at family gatherings, to recite the poem in French. Their children in turn, had no understanding of French at all, but they continued the tradition of reciting this verse in French. By this time, some of the family had said tradition is bunkum and dropped passing it on but some of the descendants kept on passing it down. Then one day one of the descendants was curious as to the meaning of this poetry so he began to learn French. He was amazed at what he now understood. The poetry now not only sounded beautiful as it always had been, but now he understood the meaning of the poetry. (My great great grandfather was neither French or a poet ... it's just a story. )

But the parallel is there when we look at kata. Do you need it? No. Can you learn to fight without it? Sure. Is it a waste of time and effort? For some people, yes. If people learn how to 'read' the kata is it valuable? Absolutely.

Now let me ask you a question. What does the English word 'set' mean? This is not a trick question. 'Set' is the English word with the most meanings. There are 462 in the dictionary. So how do we understand what it means? It depends on context. Now let's look at kata. We see a gedan barai. What does it mean? Well, most people would say it is a lower 'block'. I would say, "it depends". In a kata it could be a lower tettsui strike, it could be a neck crank, it might be an arm bar, it might be a take down. The one thing I will guarantee it is NOT, is a 'block'. But how do we know what it means? The answer is context. What comes before and what comes after? Once you start to understand kata they are like books. But they are very special books because the story told can have multiple beginnings and different endings. It is a different story for a tall person than a short one. It may be different depending on the practitioner's strength.

Kata is like an onion. You peel of one layer and find another, then another and another. If it wasn't for kata I think I would have stopped training many years ago. Kata gives meaning to what I teach.
:asian:

 

[chinto]

Let me give an analogy. My great great grandfather was French and a great poet. He had composed a very beautiful and amazing piece of poetry that the family preserved through the generations. His son was also French and he copied the poem and recited it at family gatherings. He moved overseas and his children although they had no need of French learned a little and continued, at family gatherings, to recite the poem in French. Their children in turn, had no understanding of French at all, but they continued the tradition of reciting this verse in French. By this time, some of the family had said tradition is bunkum and dropped passing it on but some of the descendants kept on passing it down. Then one day one of the descendants was curious as to the meaning of this poetry so he began to learn French. He was amazed at what he now understood. The poetry now not only sounded beautiful as it always had been, but now he understood the meaning of the poetry. (My great great grandfather was neither French or a poet ... it's just a story. )

But the parallel is there when we look at kata. Do you need it? No. Can you learn to fight without it? Sure. Is it a waste of time and effort? For some people, yes. If people learn how to 'read' the kata is it valuable? Absolutely.

Now let me ask you a question. What does the English word 'set' mean? This is not a trick question. 'Set' is the English word with the most meanings. There are 462 in the dictionary. So how do we understand what it means? It depends on context. Now let's look at kata. We see a gedan barai. What does it mean? Well, most people would say it is a lower 'block'. I would say, "it depends". In a kata it could be a lower tettsui strike, it could be a neck crank, it might be an arm bar, it might be a take down. The one thing I will guarantee it is NOT, is a 'block'. But how do we know what it means? The answer is context. What comes before and what comes after? Once you start to understand kata they are like books. But they are very special books because the story told can have multiple beginnings and different endings. It is a different story for a tall person than a short one. It may be different depending on the practitioner's strength.

Kata is like an onion. You peel of one layer and find another, then another and another. If it wasn't for kata I think I would have stopped training many years ago. Kata gives meaning to what I teach.
:asian:

yes well put! and if you work hard on understanding that kata, there are lots of answers for each movement.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm going to break these up, for the sake of ease of reading and the requested brevity... I'm also going to attempt to maintain civility a bit more... hopefully....

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.

Well... yeah. Mainly as you continue to show no actual understanding beyond a very superficial observation. You've only ever looked at "what", not "why"... and there's actually been a fair bit of elaboration, but you seem to have missed exactly what that was. Part of it was the clips posted, by the way.

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.

That's a simple definition, yeah... but you have to look at what kata's purpose is, if you want to actually understand it. That's a big part of where you fall down.

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.

That definition (in Himura's comments that I quoted) was just a part of the definition of kata, Gary. That you've decided that, being a simple definition, it's applicable as the entire answer is to, again, fundamentally miss what you're being told. For more detail (hey, me giving elaboration that you say I haven't done), go to post #38. And, yes, kata-like.

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

Yes, I get what you're saying. You apply no critical or clinical discernment. That, bluntly, is another failing of yours in this discussion. Training practices aren't kata just because someone decided to use that term... again, the videos I chose were chosen (in a couple of cases) to demonstrate that. I really did pick the clips very specifically in order to see what you could pick out of them, and (hopefully) aid in your understanding... which might help avoid such "articles" in the future.

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.

No, Gary, I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading your words, and gaining insight from there. If you have real experience and understanding, we wouldn't be having this discussion in this way... you might still not like kata, or believe in it's value, but that would be fine if you got what it was in the first place.

But to take it to your Taiji methodology, can you describe what makes the form a "form", rather than just a sequence of actions? What's the purpose of it? That'll take us closer to what I've been saying.

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.

I can see intent pretty easily, Gary... it spills out with each letter typed. Your words, your entire article, is nothing but an insight into your understanding and intent... and I'm not talking conscious intent here. As far as your statement on what you feel reality is, you really missed what I was saying. My point was that that was the only part of your article that matched your claimed intention in writing it... the rest was an ill-informed criticism of the very method and idea of kata training itself.

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.

Oh dear lord... that gave me quite a good laugh there, Gary. So you know, the clip you picked is a teacher from one of the most well known fraudulent groups out there... there is nothing there of any authenticity whatsoever. It's also spelled "ninjutsu", not "ninjitsu", so I'm going to suggest that you've never actually come across any actual teacher of the art.... mainly as they (we) just aren't interested in what you're talking about. We don't go in for cross-matches and sparring and the like... so you wouldn't have had any chance to do anything of the kind.

Oh, and I've seen you move. Don't make me reduce this to a case of telling you you'd have little chance of "sucking me in like a tornado and spitting out broken"... it's firstly besides the point, and secondly damn laughable.

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.

Taking people at their word is fine... but if you're going to be so critical of a method you clearly don't understand or have any real definition of yourself, some education and discernment would go a long way. And, frankly, nothing in that idea makes my points moot, it makes your critiques baseless, as there's no filter or reference point to compare with.

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

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.

Speaking for karate-style kata (one more time, vastly different to what I've been talking about), the idea of memorizing is only the initial stage of learning the kata, and only applies before it is really trained. So, no. Unless the student doesn't ever actually train it, this critique is not the reality.

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

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.

And here you show complete ignorance of kata training, Gary, as well as the transmission of martial arts. Who says they're about self-defence training? That's a context you've insisted upon for kata, not one inherent in the training methodology itself. Additionally, your idea that there isn't a need to put the movement in a pre-arranged sequence is incorrect, depending on the intended reason and purpose of doing so. As for the last sentence there, mate, again, I've seen your skill. You've got a way to go. Besides, all I said was that actual kata training begins well beyond what you're describing in your article... how you can turn that into an indication of my not having reached a high enough echelon of skill, I have no idea. You're reaching. And missing.

- "...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."

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.

Examples of people trying to use actual sequences from kata in self defence, please. Not bunkai/oyo waza, actually trying to use it in self defence. Hell, just provide an example of someone (other than you) saying that they believe exact sequences from kata should be used.

Gary, I've been in this game for three decades. And, in all my time, I have never known a student or instructor of any art that thought, believed, or taught such a thing. In fact, it's only ever been kata-degraders (who universally don't understand it) who've made such a claim.

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.

No, that's the thing, Gary. Kata is not a beginners tool. It never has been. In karate terms, it would commonly be years of training before a student would be taught any kata... and particular teachers would focus on one, maybe two kata themselves. It's been said that each kata (or, in certain cases, groups of kata) are complete karate systems in and of themselves. The idea of multiple kata that we see today is more a result of cross-pollination between teachers and students and an early attempt to standardize karate, as well as common ancestral systems, particularly many Japanese forms coming from Shotokan. In traditional Japanese arts, kata are the primary method of transmission for the art... and, again, what kata you are exposed to (taught) changes as your experience and skill develops. They are not for beginners, when all is said and done.

As far as the rest of your comment (what it all "should be"), bluntly Gary, that is what I'm talking about when I say you don't show any understanding of kata training itself. All of that is your value system, and has nothing to do with the discussion of what kata is, or what kata is for... especially as kata, when done properly, does teach flow, and does not stagnate the practitioner. In fact, it does the opposite.

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.

No, it's really not a good analogy, Gary. And it misses the point entirely.

 

[Chris Parker]

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."

Did you seriously miss where I said I'd cop to typing them in a misleading order, Gary? Really? I'll spell it out for you then: Drills teach mechanics, kata teaches tactical expressions. I'm owning up to being at fault for you misunderstanding the first time (although I thought it was obvious which was which), but to continue to say this after I'd clarified? Are you sure you're reading things properly?

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.

Gary, if you're going to accuse me of putting words in your mouth, try not to do the same with me. Please point out the word "only" in any of my comments there. The rest is down to your misunderstanding, my lack of putting things in a clearer order, and your insistence on seeing things incorrectly.

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".

Right. I'm going to challenge you to point out the contraditions, Gary. There haven't been any, other than a misunderstanding over the phrasing of one sentence. But, as you seem to insist, please list them, and I'll clarify.

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.

Then you need a larger vocabulary.

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.

I train Japanese arts. We know what kata is, we know the value of them, the purpose of them, and so on. There is no need for an article from me on such matters, especially when people such as Ellis Amdur, David Hall, and Prof. Karl Friday (quoted by Rich) have done so much better, and expressed things so eloquently before me.

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.

I'm more than familiar with the idea of forms within Chinese systems, Gary, but they're not really the same as kata, when it all comes down to it. Additionally, the point I was making was that your article, such as it was, in no way made any comment on Chinese systems, just on the Japanese/Korean/Okinawan arts. In other words, you were talking to one audience (your CMA guys) about non-CMA expressions... and getting much of it wrong.

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.

Yes, it applied to you. You are lost in what you think kata is, without understanding it. You are lost in what you think it should be, without taking the time to understand it's actual purpose. I don't need to spin that, it's pretty obvious that the irony abounds in your statement.

No, it doesn't.

Please. I went through the entire article, pointing out what you were actually saying (not what you thought you were saying, but what the words actually say), as well as using your actual words to demonstrate that.

In other words, yes, it does. And if you don't think it does, you really need to work on expressing yourself better.

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.

No, Gary, I said if they're not training kata, they're not training it. Not that if they're doing it badly, they're not really doing kata. It's a subtle distinction, but it's a vital one. And labels should only be accepted if they apply... otherwise, I have a "genuine Rolex" to sell you....

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.

And completely ignores the purpose of kata, the principles of it, the reason it exists, the methods of measuring it, and more, in order to apply your own false measurements and make blanket (and inaccurate) statements about the training form itself. It's not based on anything objective, Gary, it's based on your very subjective take on what it "should be" for, not what it is for.

Again, this is exactly what shows your lack of understanding. Gotta love the way you try to argue against it by providing more evidence, though.

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.

I'm sorry, did you read that back before posting??? Your article asserts that students are taught "that for every exact attack, there is a counter, and such counter can be executed in sequence", and "Many who train and rely on Kata are left to think the techniques will work the same way every time." You then continue to point out that real life isn't so neat... well, really?!? What makes you think that wasn't understood? What makes you think that any student or teacher expects that "such counter(s) can be executed in sequence (in self defence)"? Or that "the techniques will work the same every time"? So yes, your idea of what is expected is a false assumption, as it's not backed up by any practitioner or instructor I've ever encountered. However, what it does show is what you expect of training (in any form, in this case, kata), which is that it should be immediately applicable and representative of a self defence encounter or real combat. Dude, not even close.

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.

I'm going to mention again that you've questioned my reading comprehension here... then point out that the reason you had the term "Shu Ha Ri" to look up was that I told you it was an integral concept and part of kata study that you were unaware of, that dealt with many aspects you were thinking were your own solutions, but in a better, and more congruent fashion. So who are you talking to when you say that it sounds like some of the ideas you were putting forth? Oh, but don't take what Wiki says as being definitive, or even really correct, for the record...

But my point was that you don't need to offer these solutions, as it's already addressed. You seem to have missed that.

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…

Of course it's practiced as a complete whole, Gary... it is a complete whole. To look at the individual parts the way you're thinking is to actually move away from functionality in training kata. It moves it back towards just being about the mechanics, which, as I've said, is to miss the point entirely.

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.

Then you really don't get anything about it.

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

That has relevance? You've constantly missed what's being said, can't see what your own article is actually saying, haven't listened to K-Man previously, or myself now, and you're seeing fit to question me on my academic background??? To sate you, though, my career is based around personal interaction and use of language to both collect and disseminate information.. and my academic background is more than adequate (although, bluntly, I have far exceeded what my listed education would imply).

 

[Chris Parker]

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.

But if you have no real understanding of the type of practice that you're "warning" against, what value does your critique really have? I've shown how you've missed vital aspects of the training approach (Shu Ha Ri), your comments are focused not on what kata's purpose is, but your own desire and values, and you've failed entirely to grasp that in the five pages of this thread, and the three of your previous one. I say you lack understanding because everything you've written screams that. And I'm far from an apologist here, in fact I haven't apologized for any training practices at all (nor do I intend to). What I have been doing is trying to show you how lacking your take is, and therefore how misguided your opinions are in this subject.

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.

"Failed to address the point"? The point was that you had, again, misinterpreted what you were being told, and went off in the wrong direction. That wasn't the part I was calling your understanding out on. Got it now?

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.

Post #38. I can offer more, but only when I can get a read on exactly what you think kata is, and what it's for, as well as how it achieves it (or doesn't). That's what the clips are for, Gary... as well as actually being "more than two lines" in answer to your questions. But you still seem to want to ignore that....

.....

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.

That was only part of what Himura said... and is only part of the contextual meaning of kata. See the whole board....not just the pieces....

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.

And, honestly, this is where the issue is. Seriously, watch the videos. They were all chosen for very specific reasons (Rich hinted at one or two already), and lead directly into a conversation of what kata really is. If you can't do that simple, single thing, then there's no way you're going to understand what could be said.

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.

Why/how would I be able to demonstrate kata that aren't part of my training, Gary? Additionally, as I've said, my comments on the "Bunkai masters" (not bunkai itself, it should be understood) is in the way they're looking at things, not in what they're doing... and, in that, a video from me, and especially of me, is rather useless.

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.

When you start listening, I'll add. But until I feel you have some grasp of what I've said so far, there's little point.

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.

Watch the clips I provided... seriously, that's your answer, in some cases.

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?

You really want to go there? Do you want me to describe just how much training army combatives is not the same as teaching or transmitting martial arts? Do you really want me to pull apart your history in this matter? Do you seriously think I'm employing a post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning here? And here's a clue for you... just because something can possibly be looked upon as a logical fallacy doesn't mean it actually is one... especially when, as in this case, the tradition isn't the backup, the history is.

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.

Yeah... again, you're just showing that you don't get what I'm saying. Go to the videos, then we can talk.

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.

You have, then, apparently observed and identified little. I'm not questioning that you've done a lot of observation, but the identification seems rather lacking. But to look at what I train in to compare, once again, go to the clips I provided.

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.

You constantly asked for kata AND bunkai... er, no, not from my arts. Oh, and for the record, the very lack of it in my systems means that I am in a better position to see what should be focused on... but that's getting to the purpose of kata, and you need to understand what kata is first. And, again, I have demonstrated it... by providing a range of clips.

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.

It's not about demoing, Gary. That's the damn point. And link you to a video or more? I have. Out of the 10 videos I provided, 6 of them show my forms of kata (in some cases in the specific arts I study... in others, in related or similarly structured ones), with 4 not. That's a really, really, really big clue as to what you should find in the clips, when you get to watching them.

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.

Then you really should accept that, if you are going to argue something with people who deal with this idea regularly, but don't actually know what it is, perhaps you should listen to them, rather than arguing and relying on Wiki for education.

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.

And, again, you missed not only what was being said, but what you were saying yourself.

 

[TimoS]

I'm more than familiar with the idea of forms within Chinese systems, Gary, but they're not really the same as kata, when it all comes down to it.

But aren't the Chinese forms sort of the basis of karate kata? Or at the very least the Okinawan kata are heavily influenced by Chinese forms, i.e. long sequences of moves performed solo

 

[Chris Parker]

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”.

The practice and the definition is in those clips, Gary. The clarification can only begin when you've started by watching and commenting on them. When it all comes down to it, although the structure and outward form is different between arts, what makes it kata is the same in all forms (where it actually is kata). I'm trying to help you be able to identify it. So far, you are refusing to open yourself up to such education.

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.

The fact that you stubbornly refuse to watch them shows that you didn't see what I was posting them for, Gary.

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.

Sure. I point out a larger view of the term (beyond things like BJJ), you tell me that I need a broader definition, but you weren't telling me what definition I needed... right....

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?

Your critique doesn't apply to kata practice, Gary, that's the point. You are so far off in your understanding, expectation, and so on that it couldn't. This, and the previous thread, have been about showing you that, and you still haven't listened.

And as far as "the real reason (I) won't put a clip up", the reason is simple. There's no need. You're asking to see something that you can't see. You would need to see the teaching of a kata over many, many years to see what I'm talking about. It cannot be seen by just showing a kata or two... but to begin the conversation of what kata is, you need to have a baseline... which is what the clips I posted are about.

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.

Broader is not better. And I wasn't commenting on the alternate name for the article in my comments to you (you seem desperate to apply my agreement or disagreement to parts of posts I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with). I was saying to Himura that that was closer to what you were intending, that's all. You agreeing with that part didn't make your article any better, though.

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.

You haven't addressed, commented on, implied knowledge of, or shown any understanding of the purpose of kata, Gary. In fact, all your posts have shown a deep lack of such. And, until you understand what the kata are about, you cannot comment on whether they are well suited, ill-suited, perfectly suited, or flawed.

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

a) Sure. b) No c) Way off base.

Again, until I see something that indicates you have the faintest clue about either b or c, I'm going to continue to call you on the lack of understanding. After all, there is a fourth way of kata being flawed... and that is that it is not understood properly. Hence, well, this thread and your article.

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.

Again, hundreds of years of serious bloodshed and warfare with kata being the primary and dominant method of training.... mate, this single statement shows you have no grasp on what we're discussing.

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.


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…”

Have you seriously not even entertained the fact that I've actually done exactly that, using better examples that I could show? Seriously, watch the damn clips! Your answers are there!!!

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.

If you can't answer the questions I posed about the clips, you aren't in any position to understand what I'd put on film. You know why? It'd look the damn same, Gary. Why? Because I deliberately linked clips that represent what I do! Got it?

Watch the clips. Answer the questions. Then we can discuss. They're there to give me a baseline to know how to explain things to you. Right now, you have no chance of getting what you'd be told.

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.

Uh, no, again. Back in the day, the reason wasn't for preservation of a system (in many cases), it was because it was how the practitioners survived. And yes, you can't be educated until you have a clue what you're being educated about. It's rather esoteric, really... and is best done via experience, rather than observation. But you haven't gotten that yet either...

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.

The way you see is flawed, though, Gary. And things are repeated when they aren't heard. There's actually been plenty of explanation, but you haven't recognized it.... so asking for more detailed answers when you haven't gotten the basic ones is an exercise in futility. Show me that you have some base of understanding (by, you know, watching the videos and answering my very simple questions), and we can move on. But so far, it's been stymied due to your lack of growth in this subject.

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.

There's nothing extraordinary about claiming that, due to training almost exclusively in kata-based systems, I have an understanding of kata... nor is there anything extraordinary about claiming that a method, honed over centuries to be specific to a set of requirements, suit those requirements. The detail that you can't see what those requirements are, what the purpose is, and more, doesn't mean that you are able to understand what you would be told.

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 highly doubt that you would have been exposed (properly, to the degree that you understood what was being said) to what I'd tell you. Mainly as you've missed it entirely throughout everything you've posted.

You really don't need to ask the people in the clips, though. Whether or not they consider them kata (here's a clue... some that use the term aren't doing kata, as they, like you, have missed the point... some that are doing kata use different terminology, for a range of reasons... some that fit your description of "pre-arranged drill" aren't kata, and wouldn't be considered such, despite your definition... and so on), and the goal of the specific kata is besides the point. As far as "why", that is a question for you so that I can get a baseline of where you make your distinction, if you do.

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.

Well, 25 frames per second here... and 24 for film.... but, more to the point, if you can't get it from the clips already posted, video of me doing the same thing won't help at all.

Oh, and my "staunch conclusions" are from, you know, decades of training 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.

Please. There's no fear, mate. I just understand the worth of such things, and in this case, there isn't any.

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

Watch the videos. Answer my questions on that first. Why? Well, if we're going to go for politeness, I asked first. But, more importantly, your questions (and the answers) will make far more sense after you go through mine.

 

[Koryu Rich]

The interpretation of that shu ha ri article is a bit misguided I think.

shu ha ri is a continuing process one goes through when studying the kata and the ryu, you don't simply stop studying the kata when you are at "ha".

 

[Chris Parker]

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.

There is no such thing as "no rules" combat, even in a war zone. Higher stakes, certainly, but this whole "no rules, for realz" thing is fantasy. Additionally, that has absolutely nothing to do with the value or practice of kata... all it does is confirm that you're looking at things from the wrong side of the fence.

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.

And, what do you know, you missed the reality there as well... and, again, this is nothing to do with kata.

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. )

How much Kool Aid are you drinking there, Gary?

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.

Ah, gallons of it. Right.....

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.

And missing the point and methodology entirely. Kata is not a beginners exercise.

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

No, it just proves that you're looking at the wrong things.

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

Right....

To highlight what Chris has in mind.

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


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

THIS!!!

One problem with asking Chris to show elements of kata in a simulated attack is that the viewer would need to be familiar with the kata in question, or the type of art, a verbal explanation may not be sufficient and the expression of that kata may only be for an instant or it may be more generalised via distance or timing.

Gary, have a look at those videos Chris put up.

AND THIS!!!!!

That is why I also asked Chris to show the kata in question first. I think Chris is verbose enough to cover it :uhyeah:.

Sure. But do you have understanding to hear it? I doubt that. But to be frank, I haven't at any point been discussing kata in terms of specific kata... I've been discussing it as a methodology of training in general. Taking a single specific kata really isn't enough, nor necessarily applicable, and is certainly not anything other than a tiny sample that doesn't show what I'm talking about. You need to be able to see kata as a whole.

See my other comments. I'll add, that's a lot of material to discuss third hand. I want to see and discuss a Chris specific Kata, use, and explanation thereof, not play 20 questions with tons of internet clips.

Best,

G

It wouldn't help, Gary. It's like saying you want to understand Italian culture, so show a plate of spaghetti.

But aren't the Chinese forms sort of the basis of karate kata? Or at the very least the Okinawan kata are heavily influenced by Chinese forms, i.e. long sequences of moves performed solo

Yes, they are. And there are huge numbers of similarities. But the connection to Japan, and the native Japanese methodology influenced the karate forms and structure to a great degree, which, in ways, took them away from the Chinese origins. Then there's the focus of Chinese systems historically, part of which is influencing Gary's take on things, and is part of why he doesn't really understand what kata is.

I'll put it this way. The definition of kata does not include, at any point other than as an example of one expression, the idea of "long sequences of moves performed solo". That is really the most superficial description, and is a largely inaccurate one. In other words, just because there's a long string of solo actions doesn't make it kata... nor does a lack of such mean it's not.

The interpretation of that shu ha ri article is a bit misguided I think.

shu ha ri is a continuing process one goes through when studying the kata and the ryu, you don't simply stop studying the kata when you are at "ha".

Damn straight!

More to the point, the concept of Shu Ha Ri means that you can't understand kata by walking into "literally 1,000's of dojo" and seeing a mass class going through a sequence. You really do need to immerse yourself in the experience to get what it is.

 

[Koryu Rich]

Another point to consider is that kata are at various levels within the "school" so even advanced students (aka not beginners) will undertake new kata. Also they will go back to fundamental kata and be taught deeper meanings that are often contained at higher levels.

A kata is not just what you may see at one time it will go hand in hand with kuden to form a deep learning experience.

 

[TimoS]

Yes, they are. And there are huge numbers of similarities. But the connection to Japan, and the native Japanese methodology influenced the karate forms and structure to a great degree, which, in ways, took them away from the Chinese origins.

Are you referring to Sokon Matsumura studying Jigen ryu? Because if not, I would like to know more. I can't remember other influences, except of course the fact that the Japanese occupied Okinawa

 

[Chris Parker]

That's a part, but I am more referring to the more modern forms, including the more modern kata... older Okinawan ones are a bit different in some forms (think of Sanshin no Kata)....

 

[TimoS]

That's a part, but I am more referring to the more modern forms, including the more modern kata... older Okinawan ones are a bit different in some forms (think of Sanshin no Kata)....

Maybe I'm just missing your point entirely (most likely explanation), because I'm not sure what you mean by modern. The most recent ones that I practice are the two Fukyugata, from around 1941. They, along with Pinan, are the only ones that I would classify as modern from those that I'm familiar with. Of course e.g. Uechi ryu has some modern kata also, but since I'm not familiar with them, I can't really comment those.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yep, that's what I was referring to as modern.

 

[TimoS]

Yep, that's what I was referring to as modern.

Okay, now I'm really confused What kind of influence have the Japanese systems then had on these modern kata and where did it come from? I'm assuming you're not referring to e.g. Pinan kata, since those are just old Okinawan kata repackaged

 

[TimoS]

I'll put it this way. The definition of kata does not include, at any point other than as an example of one expression, the idea of "long sequences of moves performed solo". That is really the most superficial description, and is a largely inaccurate one. In other words, just because there's a long string of solo actions doesn't make it kata... nor does a lack of such mean it's not.

Well, yes, of course the Okinawan kata format includes the applications of the moves (or let's say that should include, because without them the system isn't whole), so it isn't just the solo form, far from it. The contents of the kata, how to use them is more important than the mere form. But since I'm really only familiar with the Okinawan kata, I simplified my question to say that the kata is a long series of moves performed solo, which is partially true, just not the whole truth