Kata

[K-man]

Originally Posted by GaryR
- "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.

Sorry to butt in and interupt you gentlemen but this point needs clarification. I am only referring to karate kata here as I have insufficient knowledge of other systems. Memorising the kata is part of the initial stage of learning the kata. The memorising not only includes the sequence of techniques but also the angle and direction of the techniques. Within 'performing' the kata, this never changes and is as important to the master as it is to the beginner.

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.

​Karate kata are for self defence, no doubt. Even Sanchin and Tensho, which have a deeper meaning again, are for self defence. For example, there is a Bagua kata within Tensho.

Chris, you are absolutely, categorically and completely right (don't you love tautology? ) with regard to the sequence. Without the sequence it is not kata. You can't just pick individual techniques from a kata. You can pick any individual technique from your knowledge base but the kata gives you the sequence of techniques and the targets of those techniques. Now we are starting to discuss the aspect of Kyusho in kata, but I haven't seen Gary mention that.

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.

OK Chris, you probably can't see me from you place but I'm standing on the roof waving my arms in the air shouting "me, me, me" and the neighbours are giving me funny looks! If I wasn't using the exact sequence I wouldn't be using the kata. I think what you mean is that I would use the bunkai but not the kata. It is a very fine line and probably most of the time the bunkai is identical to the kata. (I don't really want to elaborate more here but that may come later.) Now, in fairness to Gary, what he has said is that you wouldn't use the entire kata but you break it down. That is simplistic but has some truth. But once you have taken that smaller sequence, you still must use it as it is trained.

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.

Mmm! I think it's time we had another coffee! (Seriously, give me a call )

There have been some interesting developments in the discussion. What it is doing, at least in the area of karate kata, is demonstrating the depth of some people's knowledge and the paucity of other's. :asian:

 

[K-man]

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.

What you see in the thousands of dojos with lines of students and what you see performed at its top level in world class kata competition is the 'Shu' form of kata. The difference is that you have the range of 'beginner' beginners right through to 'advanced' beginners. There are very few dojos that take kata to the next (Ha) level and a minuscule number training at the top (Ri) level. In fact, I would argue that you don't teach the Ri level at all. That is the level of self development. :asian:

 

[GaryR]

First, this is getting extremely repetitive. So I'm going to cherry pick a little. If I eliminate the “you don't understand” comments, the post is cut by at least 2/3. I will cut those comments when I quote you. We can agree that you don't think I understand anything on the topic and move on.


Next, I don't know that you understand either. You haven't demonstrated such supreme knowledge. Simply repeating that I do not understand does not prove you actually do, no matter how insistent you are.


Furthermore, our disagreements (that can even be discerned at this point) can be boiled down to a few crucial distinctions and issues, which I'll try and keep more succinct. If you want to agree to disagree pending any actual substance and evidence, fine, do that, but please, read carefully and stop the circles, I'll try and do the same.

I'm also going to attempt to maintain civility a bit more

Same here, attack the ideas, not the people. No reason for hostility, it's not productive.


This whole thing is becoming quite silly. If we remove the labels like “kata” from things, we are left with training methodologies and practices. These methodologies and practices can be analyzed based on their efficacy. People on these forums go the rounds on hundreds of pages on definitions, like “internal” etc. At the end of the day when gathered in a room people often go...oh yeah, we do something like that, but we call it X, not Y. The result can be the same, the aims can be the same, but the rhetoric differs.

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

I understand it is a subtle distinction, that is really my point. For the purposes of writing an article that applies to the masses, that distinction is irrelevant to me. In order to convey the message, the label is accepted as is so people can match what I am talking about with what people at large label it. If I had a dollar for every-time someone claimed to know what the meaning of “kata” was, I'd be a very rich man.

You've only ever looked at "what", not "why".

That is completely inaccurate. Evidenced by the fact I told you I would want to ask those depicted in the clips “why”. That is the most key question when looking at anyone’s training methods. The “why” matters so much more than the what for many reasons. Pleas save your “nuh-uh” comment, every dojo I've ever walked into, I have as several why questions, every clip I view, etc. comes with a “why” question.

That's a simple definition, yeah. [kata is a pre-set pattern].. but you have to look at what kata's purpose is, if you want to actually understand it.

I agree completely, you must know the purpose/goal. I've stated this before.

For more detail (hey, me giving elaboration that you say I haven't done), go to post #38. And, yes, kata-like.

Post 38 was from someone else and says only “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”


Perhaps you meant 37, so I'll snip what little substance I could find and discuss. Maybe we shall get somewhere.


You wrote--“Actually, kata teaches timing and distancing quite well, if you understand it properly. In fact, that's one of it's primary uses. It is not, however, designed to be a teaching platform for "basic footwork, movement, techniques and docrine".”


Two person kata for sure should teach timing and distance. In fact I would say most two-person exercises should. I say most because there are some tactile sensitivity drills that don't have that primary goal or effect in mind.


I teach basic footwork outside of any pre-set form or pattern. I also teach basic mechanics outside such—for example, LHBF has what is called the “9-joint walk”, which is purely an exercise in mechanics training, and not a kata/form.


You wrote--”Hmm, how to put this... Our kata (in fact, all Japanese kata) ARE the applications of the techniques. They are paired forms, with an attacking side (typically the more senior practitioner), and a defending side (although even that description is not entirely accurate...). There is no guesswork in terms of what this move is supposed to do, you can see it immediately... this throw is a throw, and you can tell because you've just thrown the opponent. This strike is a strike, and you can tell because you've just hit them, and so on. “


So you say kata is not the teaching platform for techniques, but they “are the applications of the techniques”. So are you saying that doing “the applications of the techniques” is not part of the learning process? Are you saying practicing throwing the opponent etc, is not part of the learning process, or contributes to the learning process?


That seems to be the end of the substance there, again, not really much elaboration as far as I'm concerned, but hey, it's a start. So back to the current post...

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.

It still doesn't seem like you do. The article has no cited examples so it cannot have such discernment, it was a general critique of the practice of what many call kata. Again, if I had a dollar for every-time someone said they had the true meaning, I'd be rich. So in the context of what articles I write, and what popular labels I assign, I don't care what you think the exact definition ought to be.

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.

So you want me to continue to write so you can offer vague disagreements? How about instead of working to get “closer” to what you've been saying, you just say it? Yeesh.

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.

I'm glad I gave you a laugh! I am talking about application skill, I'm not an expert in what is authentic Ninjutsu. That said, I haven't seen any of it that impressed me much. I've touched hands with guys that trace directly to Steven Hayes and Masaaki Hatsumi for starters, are they legit? Why don't you link me to whom you believe to be authentic and the best example of skill? I'm not talking about sparring competitions, I'm talking about private sessions exchanging knowledge and testing skills.

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

It is beside the point. Thus far I only have basic material on video. I haven't seen you move, do you have any video at all? You keep refusing to offer it, so I find it laughable you think you have such skill and yet refuse to demonstrate. I very much doubt you have ever touched hands with someone my level in my arts. Have you ever touched hands with Sam Chin, Luo de Xiu, Erle Montaigue, Wai Lun Choi, or anyone of the like? With the internal arts especially, feeling is believing, thus you could have no idea what your looking at. Perhaps we could make a deal to reimburse one another for plane tickets pending a match? I have friends in OZ, and there is a chance I'll be there in the next year or two, its one of my favorite places to visit. The US isn't a horrible place to visit either.

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.

Sure, but all too often Karate folks go from memorizing one to the next, it becomes rank fodder, and quantity, not quality. Since you seemingly do something vastly different than the majority, the critique is not your reality. Take your panties out of a bunch then!



[QUOTE=Chris Parker;1576364]as well as the transmission of martial arts. Who says they're about self-defence training? [/QUOTE]


They are called MARTIAL arts. If they are not about combat, what are they about, please enlighten me. Of course that is not their only benefit, but it is the reason for their existence as far as I am concerned, particularly my arts, I'm not a ninja historian, but I’m fairly sure combat/war/mercenary like reasons where the purposes for it.

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.

I'm not insisting one context is correct, you are. I'm simply saying what the majority call kata and am critiquing that. You are still arguing a straw man here.


“Depending on the intended reason”, yup, and in my critique I thought I made it clear that I was referencing to it in the context of combative use.

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.

You don't know what you're looking at. I've not seen a ninjutsu instructor in the world in person or on video (and I've seen plenty of video) I'd bet on against myself, or those whom I consider higher level Neijia guys. It's simply an inferior system. You still don't have a clip up, that speaks volumes, your a keyboard warrior insisting on superiority. Laughable.

No, that's the thing, Gary. Kata is not a beginners tool. It never has been.

Like I said, then you aren't at a high enough level to see that a pre-arranged set of movements in not a beginners tool, and that other tools supersede kata later on. As far as I'm concerned many Karate systems end where Neijia arts being ,combative skill-wise, and that has been the observation of many karate instructors I have trained, the quote is not my own. Of course, if you define kata exactly how you like it then the point may not stand, but the latter one does.

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. ... 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...

One or two to focus on would certainly be better, as I said, quality over quantity. But that is not really the case at large now is it? Often when you step in the door the first thing you do is “kata”, hence my critique stands, back to the same circle...

... especially as kata, when done properly, does teach flow, and does not stagnate the practitioner. In fact, it does the opposite.

Well, we can agree to disagree, I think perhaps what you consider “done properly” means applies to 1%, again, not the articles audience.

.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.

There you go! Was it really that hard to spell something out? Why don't you define what you consider “tactical expressions”. Better yet, demonstrate as well.

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.

Ok, well, again, then leave your empty critiques at the door. Why don't you link me to such article you feel mirrors your views then?

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.

I mentioned forms in the article, it applies to many CMA folks as well and their form practice.


Timos wrote--“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 wrote--“Yes, they are. And there are huge numbers of similarities...”


Hmmm, both the origin, and a “huge” number of similarities? Yeah, I'm sure the perspective is completely off as you say, lol. Talk about special pleading.

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...

Comprehension--”the act or action of grasping with the intellect”. In logic=”the totality of intentions, that is, properties or qualities that an object possesses.” Being aware of a term and comprehending it once known are different. I only speak a bit of Mandarin, not Japanese, nor are Japanese arts what I now practice, so I don't care to know / remember all of the terminology.

...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...

I don't think it a better or more congruent fashion, sorry. I also never said I was the only one that used those solutions. If you don't like the wiki definition, provide your own.

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

Well, most people are not practicing that way, nor using my solutions, or the similar ones, so yeah, I do.


I said--”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).

It is absolutely relevant. Your formal education level is likely material to your ability to comprehend these discussions and arguments. You have constantly missed what is being said, and you continue to fail to provide any appreciable detail.


Despite typing a whole paragraph in response, you still did not answer the simple questions, what is your education level and occupation?

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....

Ok, sorry, it appears there were 9 lines, a few of which were saying what kata is not. You don't need a read on exactly what I think to simply define what you think kata is, it's aims, etc. If every author required an understanding of what the readers knew on the subject before writing, there would be no textbooks or the like. If people can learn physics and medicine etc, via text, your explanations on the purpose of kata etc, is surely doable. Nice attempt at an excuse though, pathetic.

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?

Martial = “Of relating to, or suggestive of war.” , “characteristic of or befitting a warrior”. Do you forget it was you who brought up the context of war? Let me remind you...”including during the most intense times of war the country saw.” No, please spare me the knowledge you only have by way of reading history books or blogs.

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.

No, I don't, appeal to tradition is not the same thing as post hoc. Amusing you use the full phrase, not the normal abbreviation, yet completely miss the definition. This goes back to why I asked your education level. Clearly, you have overestimated your own intellect / knowledge. Post Hoc has to do with the issue of causation (it's a causal fallacy). It says that because A occurred, then B occurred. The appeal to tradition is merely saying that because A is old or traditional, A is better. These are different fallacies all-together. Your quote below is the latter, even assuming for the sake of argument it's not, the two fallacies are not the same. Nice try though, this is solid evidence of your lack of intellect, education, and reading comprehension. Just think, it you are wrong about this (and you are), what else in this thread are you wrong about?


“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 “

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...

Wow, still avoiding the heart of the demo question... I constantly asked for just Kata and eliminated bunkai in the last post. Incredible! You think because you lack it, you are in a better position to critique it! So the same must be true of kata? If someone lacks true kata in their system they are in a better position to see what they “should be focused on” instead? Do you see how that statement negates nearly every single point you have made? My BS flag just blew through the roof and is sailing through the air, you sir, are ridiculous.

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 did accept their definition, did you see an article I wrote titled whats wrong with Bunkai? No, you didn't. Did you see me argue back and forth with anyone on the meaning of the term, no you didn't.

It's not about demoing, Gary. That's the damn point. And link you to a video or more? I have.

It's about you explaining and demonstrating, that's the point Chris. I want to see exactly what result you have achieved, what type of training YOU consider kata exactly, and have you answer for yourself, and your own material. The people in those clips are not on here arguing. We can't ask them “why” and discuss it with them, I'm not going to assume your are qualified to answer for them. You did NOT link me to a video of yourself, which is what I asked for.


In conclusion, like your snide and incorrect use of basic fallacy arguments, you are wrong about my understanding on the subject here. You refuse to answer my call for demonstrative evidence and detailed explanations of your “kata” and any other training methodologies, and results thereof. When I answered your arrogant conjecture with a request for such evidence and explanation, I was met with countless evasions, and a video quiz—to which I gave detailed reasons for being inadequate and too over-broad for this discussion.


For the purposes of my article as it relates to mass relevance; I am not interested in what YOU deem the exact purpose and only true thing worthy of the label kata, I care to discuss common training methods and methodologies productively, no matter the name.


My simple definition of Kata? As I said, a pre-arranged sequence involving one or more persons. As soon as the sequence varies or is dynamic I would call it a drill or “free-form” practice. The purpose? Whatever the practitioner says it is. Whether that particular “kata” is the best suited path to achieving that stated purpose I assess on a case-by-case basis. It's that simple really. Agree or disagree, I have no need or desire to debate the meaning of the term further beyond the scope of that definition. Now, if you care to show your kata or drill, or whatever, describe its goal, and show how that goal was achieved, you will at least have a modicum of credibility. But as it seems, in your 4000+ post history you haven't managed this, so I won't expect it now. I'll just leave it at the fact you are demonstrably a keyboard warrior, more interested in going page-after-page without more than a dozen substantive lines.


Unless and until you are going to explain your view in detail and provide clips, please Chris, don't bother to waste much more of your time responding. Go fight another war with your keyboard.


Cheers,


G

 

[GaryR]

I broke this response out due to the repetition and complete lack of substance, hence ignoring most of it...

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.

Zero wasn't mentioning kata specifically, save your straw man. What fantasy are you living in? Unless you are referring to the rules of physics et al, of course there is such a thing as combat with no rules. We choose to have ROE in war, but that is a choice, not a necessity. I consider it no rules when someone is attempting to kill or injure you with no regard for their method, level of damage, or engaging in any formalities, like dueling, etc. Talk about war when you have been there.

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.

HA! Again I'll repeat this section of the last post--

Originally Posted by Chris Parker
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..."



Wow, still avoiding the heart of the demo question... I constantly asked for just Kata and eliminated bunkai in the last post. Incredible! You think because you lack it, you are in a better position to critique it! So the same must be true of kata? If someone lacks true kata in their system they are in a better position to see what they “should be focused on” instead? Do you see how that statement negates nearly every single point you have made? My BS flag just blew through the roof and is sailing through the air, you sir, are ridiculous.

Oh, and I've done more than spectate in a Japanese school, I've picked up a few BB's, and had very in-depth sessions post CMA with countless Karate instructors, so immersed I am.

 

[K-man]

Wow! Am I glad you cherry picked. I can only imagine the length of post if you hadn't.

 

[GaryR]

Wow! Am I glad you cherry picked. I can only imagine the length of post if you hadn't.

Hahahahahaha, riiiight!

 

[Aiki Lee]

Perhaps someone else should address some things just toadd some more weight to the arguments. Please forgive me when my words run together.

Next, I don't know that you understand either. You haven't demonstrated suchsupreme knowledge. Simply repeating that I do not understand does not prove youactually do, no matter how insistent you are.

Personally I think Chris’s comments show a soundunderstanding. Demonstrating something would not prove anything to anyone notfamiliar with the system being demonstrated. What would you be looking for inhis demonstrations of kata anyway? Combat efficacy? They are based on centuries old practices.The kata do not reflect what a fight would look like today, and perhaps didn’treflect what how an actual fight looked like back then in some cases either(Jumonji no kata, Chris?). The kata teach principles which are only noticeableto observers of the kata when they have first-hand experience with it.

This whole thing is becoming quite silly. If we remove the labels like “kata”from things, we are left with training methodologies and practices. Thesemethodologies and practices can be analyzed based on their efficacy.

Kata do are a form of training methodology and are meantto be trained in over and over again for decades. What makes kata differentfrom other training methodologies is why they are designed a certain way andwhat one should be focusing on when training them. If an instructor does notunderstand kata then he can’t make something up and call it kata just becauseit looks like one on a superficial level.
To use your analogy, a man with no business doing surgerytries to cut someone open and do a heart transplant is not doing surgery. Hehas neither the training nor the knowledge. To hack someone up with theintention of saving them is not the same as a trained surgeon doingmalpractice, just as someone with no understanding of kata trying to make theirown “kadda” is not the same as a person messing up a kata that has realpurpose.

I understand it is a subtle distinction, that is really my point. For thepurposes of writing an article that applies to the masses, that distinction isirrelevant to me.

The masses are not in position to know that thedistinction is rather important. Basically what the article does is cloudpeople’s minds with a false concept of what kata training is simply becausemost people either do it wrong or don’t really do it at all (in the classicalJapanese sense of the term), and your article gives the impression that katathemselves are pointless when in fact they are not. If a kata is pointless thenit isn’t a kata. Therefore people who “mess up” kata or make their own “kadda”are not doing kata no matter what they say.

In order to convey the message, the label is accepted asis so people can match what I am talking about with what people at large labelit. If I had a dollar for every-time someone claimed to know what the meaningof “kata” was, I'd be a very rich man.

The label is incorrectly applied. Kata has one Japanesedefinition applied to many arts not just martial arts. I’m pretty sure teaceremonies have kata. The Okinawans adopted the term when they adopted thelanguage as it was likely the closest concept they could use. Karate kata andJapanese kata express the essence of the art, everything else about them isdifferent. If you see someone practicing what they call a kata but it doesn’texpress the essence of the art then they aren’t doing a kata.
It’s been a long time since I practiced karate and I wasnot particularly skilled at it so if I attempted seisan kata or another Isshinryu kata I would mess it up. I would not be accurately doing the kata, I’d bedoing an imitation of the kata. There would be nothing wrong with the kata, theproblem does not lie with it but with me, the practitioner who does notunderstand it.

So you say katais not the teaching platform for techniques, but they “are the applications ofthe techniques”. So are you saying that doing “the applications of thetechniques” is not part of the learning process? Are you saying practicingthrowing the opponent etc, is not part of the learning process, or contributesto the learning process?

The point, I believe, was that one does not need toguess at the application like one does with bunkai. The kata is theapplication. Kata teach principles and those principles are performed in thekata the way they would be performed in combat with the expected alterationsdepending on the unique circumstances involved.

 

[Aiki Lee]

Same here, attack the ideas, not the people. No reasonfor hostility, it's not productive.

No. It’s not. Yet I still sense hostility because…

I'm not an expert in what is authentic Ninjutsu. Thatsaid, I haven't seen any of it that impressed me much.

From the forum rules:
1.10.2 NoArt bashing.

No one art is "the best", no one "style" is the best. Allhave their strengths and weaknesses. Do your research and find what best fitsyour ability and need.
Be careful how you word things. It sounds like you areinsulting ninjutsu, which may or may not be your intention.
That said, there is a lot of bad practitioners of artsout there. Just because a lot of people think they know what they are doingdoesn’t mean they actually do. You can find terrible examples of anything onyoutube.

I've touched hands with guys that trace directly toSteven Hayes and Masaaki Hatsumi for starters, are they legit? Why don't youlink me to whom you believe to be authentic and the best example of skill?

My teachers trained with Hayes, Hoban, and a bunch ofguys you don’t know so I won’t post their names, but unless you trained withsomeone who knew what they were doing it doesn’t matter who they can tracetheir training back to. What makes a person legit in ninjutsu is not just whothey trace their training to, but if they understand they training they received.

I'm not talking about sparring competitions, I'm talkingabout private sessions exchanging knowledge and testing skills.

What knowledge was exchanged and how were the skillstested? I’m legitimately curious.

I very much doubt you have ever touched hands withsomeone my level in my arts.

What do you mean by touched hands? Is that a sparringthing? What is your level in your opinion?

…feeling is believing, thus youcould have no idea what your looking at.

Sounds like kata training.

Perhaps we could make a deal toreimburse one another for plane tickets pendinga match? I have friends in OZ, and there is a chance I'll be there in thenext year or two, its one of my favorite places to visit.

I sincerely hope this is not a physical challenge. Thatviolates the rules 1.8 second paragraph.

Sure, but all too often Karate folks go from memorizingone to the next, it becomes rank fodder, and quantity, not quality.

Then they are not properly training kata. A kata not doneproperly is no kata at all. Sure a person moving up from the lower ranks won’tgrasp the meaning or value of kata in its entirety, but that doesn’t mean theyhaven’t gotten valuable lessons out of it and won’t discover more of the art’s “truth”in it as they master it. This of course, depends on if they are being properlyinstructed in it.

Since you seemingly do somethingvastly different than the majority, the critique is not your reality. Take yourpanties out of a bunch then!

What happened to -

Same here, attack the ideas, not the people. No reasonfor hostility, it's not productive.

Seems pretty hostile to me.

 

[Aiki Lee]

[QUOTE=Chris Parker;1576364]as wellas the transmission of martial arts. Who says they're about self-defence training?[/QUOTE]

They are called MARTIAL arts. If they are not aboutcombat, what are they about, please enlighten me.

Combat and self-defense are not the same thing.

I've not seen a ninjutsu instructor in the world inperson or on video (and I've seen plenty of video) I'd bet on against myself,or those whom I consider higher level Neijia guys. It's simply an inferiorsystem. You still don't have a clip up, that speaks volumes, your a keyboardwarrior insisting on superiority. Laughable.

Inferior how? I’m curious as to what makes you think itis inferior. I’m curious as to what you even mean by “system” when you sayninjutsu as if it were one thing. If I train poorly in your system and post avideo of me doing my attempts at it does that make your system inferior?


In most cases you are probably seeing people do katapoorly or randori poorly. Most people don’t understand their training just likemost karateka nowadays don’t seem to get it. Again, that is not a flaw of thesystem that is a teaching flaw of individual instructors and of the studentswho cannot grasp the concepts in the way they are presented.
Honestly, I think no matter what Chris posted, even if itwas the best damn thing you’d ever seen, you would still make only negativecomments about it.
And again, this is how you “attack ideas, not the people”,by calling Chris a keyboard warrior?

Like I said, then you aren't at a high enough level tosee that a pre-arranged set of movements in not a beginners tool, and thatother tools supersede kata later on.

It is a beginner’s tool and a master’s tool. Shu Ha Ri isinfinitely repeated not just with new kata but with past ones too as youcontinue to refine the movements and gain deeper understanding of theprinciples.

One or two to focus on would certainly be better, as I said, quality overquantity. But that is not really the case at large now is it? Often when youstep in the door the first thing you do is “kata”, hence my critique stands.

What they are doing may be of little value, but they aredoing it wrong if that is the case. Kata is not flawed only the student’sexpression of the kata can be wrong or a person’s though on what they think thekata is does not change what it is actually supposed to be.

There you go! Was it really that hard to spell something out? Why don't youdefine what you consider “tactical expressions”. Better yet, demonstrate aswell.

In the videos Chris already posted you can see kata with “tacticalexpressions” done by people who know what they are doing. You can also seepeople not doing kata but rather drills or in some cases nonsense.
Still looking for that “trick question” Rich mentioned.

 

[grumpywolfman]

This has been an intense thread with important lessons a person could learn from experienced martial artists. In order to commit to memory what I have learned, I've decided to place the various stances presented into two groups which I have condensed down in form to the letters "I" and "U."

 

[Chris Parker]

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

Kinda depends on which approach to the Pinan/Heian you're talking about.... Itosu created them (in the early 1900's), most likely from older Okinawan kata (some contention over exactly where from, though), and later Funakoshi adopted them for Shotokan. The Pinan sets were created specifically to be a simpler teaching method for school children, with the performance being a bit more "overt", rather than the more esoteric approach of the older forms. When Funakoshi adopted them, he changed the order, as well as the name (to make it more Japanese...), as well as other kata having a range of changes applied.

That said, when looking at the older kata, the approach and actions are rather distinctly separated from the more "modern" (20th Century) kata... at least, to my eyes and mind.

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

Hmm. While I don't disagree with any of that, that wasn't really what I was saying. My point was that, while a long string of solo movements can be a kata, it is not the definition of a kata. It's like saying that the definition of Italian food is spaghetti, rather than seeing that spaghetti is a form of Italian food, if that makes sense.

Sorry to butt in and interupt you gentlemen but this point needs clarification. I am only referring to karate kata here as I have insufficient knowledge of other systems. Memorising the kata is part of the initial stage of learning the kata. The memorising not only includes the sequence of techniques but also the angle and direction of the techniques. Within 'performing' the kata, this never changes and is as important to the master as it is to the beginner.

Yep, that's pretty much what I was saying... Memorizing is done so you can then actually train the kata itself. If you're still at the point where you're trying to "remember" the next move, you're not up to actually "training" it yet. Which means Gary's criticism of it being necessary to "memorize strings of movements" is ignorant of the detail that that's not actually the training idea or ideal of kata. You only do that so you can actually move on to the kata itself. Oh, and don't worry, I'm familiar enough with other systems and approaches...

Karate kata are for self defence, no doubt. Even Sanchin and Tensho, which have a deeper meaning again, are for self defence. For example, there is a Bagua kata within Tensho.

Hmm, they can be (for self defence), but are you saying that that's their primary function? I'd disagree there, and say it comes down to the specific kata itself (some, yes, others, no). But whether or not self defence is at the core of the kata in question, really, isn't part of the equation. The discussion of what kata is cannot be done by discussing individual kata, as you would, by definition, be ignoring or omitting far too much. Instead, the discussion has to be of kata training as a methodology, regardless of the individual kata itself, and it's purpose. Of course, that's a comment for Gary, I know you understand that, K-Man....

Chris, you are absolutely, categorically and completely right (don't you love tautology? ) with regard to the sequence. Without the sequence it is not kata. You can't just pick individual techniques from a kata. You can pick any individual technique from your knowledge base but the kata gives you the sequence of techniques and the targets of those techniques. Now we are starting to discuss the aspect of Kyusho in kata, but I haven't seen Gary mention that.

Ha, yeah... except even that's not getting to what I was saying. I'm saying that the sequence itself is the important thing... and, just to make things more confusing, the individual actions/movements/techniques don't really matter at all. You need to be able to look at what the sequence itself is telling you...

OK Chris, you probably can't see me from you place but I'm standing on the roof waving my arms in the air shouting "me, me, me" and the neighbours are giving me funny looks! If I wasn't using the exact sequence I wouldn't be using the kata. I think what you mean is that I would use the bunkai but not the kata. It is a very fine line and probably most of the time the bunkai is identical to the kata. (I don't really want to elaborate more here but that may come later.) Now, in fairness to Gary, what he has said is that you wouldn't use the entire kata but you break it down. That is simplistic but has some truth. But once you have taken that smaller sequence, you still must use it as it is trained.

Hmm, yes, you could very easily be using the kata, but not the exact actions as seen in the kata sequence itself. And, no, I wasn't referring to using the bunkai rather than the kata itself, I was literally meaning that the exact sequence (this stance with this block, followed by this step, and this strike, and this grab etc) aren't something that should be expected to be used in a real situation. And, no, you don't have to use it as it is trained... at least, not on a simple mechanical level. On other levels, absolutely.

Mmm! I think it's time we had another coffee! (Seriously, give me a call )

Well... I do have this week off, mate...!

There have been some interesting developments in the discussion. What it is doing, at least in the area of karate kata, is demonstrating the depth of some people's knowledge and the paucity of other's. :asian:

Ha!

What you see in the thousands of dojos with lines of students and what you see performed at its top level in world class kata competition is the 'Shu' form of kata. The difference is that you have the range of 'beginner' beginners right through to 'advanced' beginners. There are very few dojos that take kata to the next (Ha) level and a minuscule number training at the top (Ri) level. In fact, I would argue that you don't teach the Ri level at all. That is the level of self development. :asian:

Yep, absolutely true that the "ri" level is a personal journey, and not something that can be rotely "taught"... in fact, that's a large part of the point of it. "Ha" is an interesting development level, though... and it's seen again and again throughout all martial forms.... including in multiple forms of karate. Thing is, it's very difficult to say who's at what point ("shu", "ha", or "ri") by observing them... especially when looking at something like karate kata, where things are so structured. But, if you know how to look at it, it's a little more obvious... and certainly should be from within the system, when sufficient experience has been gained. I'm sure if I put a group of Goju Ryu practitioners in front of yourself, for instance, and had them all demonstrate, say, Geki Sai, you'd be able to differentiate who is simply following their instructors teachings (Shu), who had found a way to make the kata "theirs" (Ha), and who demonstrated deeper understanding (Ri). It would be seen in the movement, the timing, the speed, the rhythm, and more. And all of this is to do with the training of the kata, not just the "learning of the sequence", which is really not "training" it.

That said, I'd suggest that, if there really is a lack of "ha" in dojos, then they simply aren't "training" the kata, and are just limiting themselves to "learning" the sequence, and thinking that's the same thing. It ain't. "Ha" is essential... without it, there's no martial art there. We might need to discuss this concept a little more in person....

 

[TimoS]

while a long string of solo movements can be a kata, it is not the definition of a kata. It's like saying that the definition of Italian food is spaghetti, rather than seeing that spaghetti is a form of Italian food, if that makes sense.

Yes it makes perfect sense. There are people who treat these kind of sets as kata, but they are wrong.

 

[Chris Parker]

Himura has dealt with a fair bit, so I'm just going to deal with a few of the other things that leapt out at me.

This whole thing is becoming quite silly. If we remove the labels like “kata” from things, we are left with training methodologies and practices. These methodologies and practices can be analyzed based on their efficacy. People on these forums go the rounds on hundreds of pages on definitions, like “internal” etc. At the end of the day when gathered in a room people often go...oh yeah, we do something like that, but we call it X, not Y. The result can be the same, the aims can be the same, but the rhetoric differs.

You're right that this is getting a bit repetitive... but honestly, that's because you still keep making the same basic mistakes. Here's another one, where you seem convinced that the distinction is in the usage of the term (partially, but not entirely), instead thinking that, if we remove the terminology, we're left with the methodology, and would agree with you... uh, no. You have displayed constant misunderstanding of the methodology, which has led to your comments.

I understand it is a subtle distinction, that is really my point. For the purposes of writing an article that applies to the masses, that distinction is irrelevant to me. In order to convey the message, the label is accepted as is so people can match what I am talking about with what people at large label it. If I had a dollar for every-time someone claimed to know what the meaning of “kata” was, I'd be a very rich man.

We'll come back to this. The idea that proper definitions are irrelevant to you when you're discussing other people's practices is, to me, gigantically arrogant, woefully irresponsible, and desperately lacking in ethics.

That is completely inaccurate. Evidenced by the fact I told you I would want to ask those depicted in the clips “why”. That is the most key question when looking at anyone’s training methods. The “why” matters so much more than the what for many reasons. Pleas save your “nuh-uh” comment, every dojo I've ever walked into, I have as several why questions, every clip I view, etc. comes with a “why” question.

..........

I agree completely, you must know the purpose/goal. I've stated this before.

Okay, if you have always applied such questions, the question is begged as to why you show so little understanding of such. So, to help you make your point, can you explain what the purpose of kata is? And, before you say "it depends on the kata", no it doesn't. Kata as a training methodology has a very distinct purpose.

Post 38 was from someone else and says only “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”

Perhaps you meant 37, so I'll snip what little substance I could find and discuss. Maybe we shall get somewhere.

Yep, you're right, post 37.

You wrote--“Actually, kata teaches timing and distancing quite well, if you understand it properly. In fact, that's one of it's primary uses. It is not, however, designed to be a teaching platform for "basic footwork, movement, techniques and docrine".”

Two person kata for sure should teach timing and distance. In fact I would say most two-person exercises should. I say most because there are some tactile sensitivity drills that don't have that primary goal or effect in mind.

Nope, all kata (martially speaking). Solo or paired.

I teach basic footwork outside of any pre-set form or pattern. I also teach basic mechanics outside such—for example, LHBF has what is called the “9-joint walk”, which is purely an exercise in mechanics training, and not a kata/form.

And? That's just saying you use a different training methodology... don't know if you noticed, but so do many, many others....

You wrote--”Hmm, how to put this... Our kata (in fact, all Japanese kata) ARE the applications of the techniques. They are paired forms, with an attacking side (typically the more senior practitioner), and a defending side (although even that description is not entirely accurate...). There is no guesswork in terms of what this move is supposed to do, you can see it immediately... this throw is a throw, and you can tell because you've just thrown the opponent. This strike is a strike, and you can tell because you've just hit them, and so on. “

So you say kata is not the teaching platform for techniques, but they “are the applications of the techniques”. So are you saying that doing “the applications of the techniques” is not part of the learning process? Are you saying practicing throwing the opponent etc, is not part of the learning process, or contributes to the learning process?

Yes, no, and you missed the point.

It still doesn't seem like you do. The article has no cited examples so it cannot have such discernment, it was a general critique of the practice of what many call kata. Again, if I had a dollar for every-time someone said they had the true meaning, I'd be rich. So in the context of what articles I write, and what popular labels I assign, I don't care what you think the exact definition ought to be.

See, now here's the real problem with you saying that you're not caring about the definition... you've decided that, no matter what a particular system is doing, if they call it kata you can apply your critique... while at the same time deciding you can apply your own opinion of what their methods should be focused on??? The only way you can apply a single value/criteria to judge things on is if they are all the same thing... and not caring if they are, just what certain people decide to label them as, means that you can't actually do it. This is what I meant when I said this approach was ethically bad, as well as deeply flawed.

I'll put it this way... if I decided to start teaching something based in, let's say, a few months of BJJ, some Escrima, and some Army Combatives, but called it Taiji (because I didn't understand the name), would it be right to accept that I was actually teaching Taiji? And therefore you could apply a value of proper Taiji methodology to what I was showing, even though it would be obvious that what I was doing wasn't the same thing at all? That's what you're saying here.

So you want me to continue to write so you can offer vague disagreements? How about instead of working to get “closer” to what you've been saying, you just say it? Yeesh.

No, Gary, I was offering you an opportunity to expand the conversation....

I'm glad I gave you a laugh! I am talking about application skill, I'm not an expert in what is authentic Ninjutsu. That said, I haven't seen any of it that impressed me much. I've touched hands with guys that trace directly to Steven Hayes and Masaaki Hatsumi for starters, are they legit? Why don't you link me to whom you believe to be authentic and the best example of skill? I'm not talking about sparring competitions, I'm talking about private sessions exchanging knowledge and testing skills.

Because that has no bearing on your lack of understanding of kata as a training method. You're basically trying to say that A = Z, when it's really not the case.

It is beside the point. Thus far I only have basic material on video. I haven't seen you move, do you have any video at all? You keep refusing to offer it, so I find it laughable you think you have such skill and yet refuse to demonstrate. I very much doubt you have ever touched hands with someone my level in my arts. Have you ever touched hands with Sam Chin, Luo de Xiu, Erle Montaigue, Wai Lun Choi, or anyone of the like? With the internal arts especially, feeling is believing, thus you could have no idea what your looking at. Perhaps we could make a deal to reimburse one another for plane tickets pending a match? I have friends in OZ, and there is a chance I'll be there in the next year or two, its one of my favorite places to visit. The US isn't a horrible place to visit either.

I also hope that isn't a challenge, Gary... If you do find yourself out my way, and want to contact me to visit, that's one thing... but I have no reason to meet you for a "match". And, honestly, you should be happy about that. But, more to the point, you're still equating the wrong things with each other, mainly as you're just applying your own personal values, without any knowledge or consideration of what kata training is actually for, or about.

Sure, but all too often Karate folks go from memorizing one to the next, it becomes rank fodder, and quantity, not quality. Since you seemingly do something vastly different than the majority, the critique is not your reality. Take your panties out of a bunch then!

Drop the insults, Gary, we're trying to remain civil here (personal challenges and all, it seems), remember... But, again, that's not a fault of kata as a training method. It's, if anything, a fault of the teacher/dojo in question... and, really, it's then removed from the argument I'm making. If your article was actually about that (which is what you seem to think it was, although the actual article itself doesn't reflect that), I'd have little argument, and would be lamenting the poor teaching. But, again, that's not a fault of kata itself... and to think it is is to not understand it at all.

They are called MARTIAL arts. If they are not about combat, what are they about, please enlighten me. Of course that is not their only benefit, but it is the reason for their existence as far as I am concerned, particularly my arts, I'm not a ninja historian, but I’m fairly sure combat/war/mercenary like reasons where the purposes for it.

See Himura's answer. And yes, your history is sadly lacking.

I'm not insisting one context is correct, you are. I'm simply saying what the majority call kata and am critiquing that. You are still arguing a straw man here.

“Depending on the intended reason”, yup, and in my critique I thought I made it clear that I was referencing to it in the context of combative use.

You're insisting the context is self defence. It's not. And you still haven't been able to identify what makes something kata, other than "a series of pre-set movements" and "what other people choose to call a kata", neither of which is really correct. Again, without understanding (or even properly defining) what kata is, you are in no position to critique anything.

You don't know what you're looking at. I've not seen a ninjutsu instructor in the world in person or on video (and I've seen plenty of video) I'd bet on against myself, or those whom I consider higher level Neijia guys. It's simply an inferior system. You still don't have a clip up, that speaks volumes, your a keyboard warrior insisting on superiority. Laughable.

Seriously, put down the Kool Aid, Gary... you're coming across as delusional. And I've put up 10 clips. The fact that they don't feature me is irrelevant, and if you understood what you'd been told, you'd see why.

Like I said, then you aren't at a high enough level to see that a pre-arranged set of movements in not a beginners tool, and that other tools supersede kata later on. As far as I'm concerned many Karate systems end where Neijia arts being ,combative skill-wise, and that has been the observation of many karate instructors I have trained, the quote is not my own. Of course, if you define kata exactly how you like it then the point may not stand, but the latter one does.

Er, want to read that back? Are you saying that kata is NOT a beginners tool, or was that a typo? As for the rest, again, put down the Kool Aid.

One or two to focus on would certainly be better, as I said, quality over quantity. But that is not really the case at large now is it? Often when you step in the door the first thing you do is “kata”, hence my critique stands, back to the same circle...

The question there becomes "why is kata the first thing done in class?" There's a very good reason, and it's not that it's a beginners exercise (as, one more time, it isn't).

Well, we can agree to disagree, I think perhaps what you consider “done properly” means applies to 1%, again, not the articles audience.

I still think you're thinking of the wrong form of kata when talking with me, Gary...

There you go! Was it really that hard to spell something out? Why don't you define what you consider “tactical expressions”. Better yet, demonstrate as well.

It was already spelled out to you, Gary. I thought you were claiming that you were far more educated than I (or, at least, trying to imply it... ha!), did you really need things that blatant? As far as "tactical expressions", are you kidding that you'd need that explained??? But, if you want a demonstration... I already gave you 10 clips, which contain huge numbers of examples (6 clips worth, in fact...).

Ok, well, again, then leave your empty critiques at the door. Why don't you link me to such article you feel mirrors your views then?

See the Karl Friday quote Rich posted.

Timos wrote--“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 wrote--“Yes, they are. And there are huge numbers of similarities...”

Hmmm, both the origin, and a “huge” number of similarities? Yeah, I'm sure the perspective is completely off as you say, lol. Talk about special pleading.

No, no "special pleading"... just that your entire list of comments, your article, your arguments, and so on show that your understanding is superficial and lacking. Personally, I doubt TimoS suffers from the same issues.

Comprehension--”the act or action of grasping with the intellect”. In logic=”the totality of intentions, that is, properties or qualities that an object possesses.” Being aware of a term and comprehending it once known are different. I only speak a bit of Mandarin, not Japanese, nor are Japanese arts what I now practice, so I don't care to know / remember all of the terminology.

I really don't know how to express just how ironic this statement of yours is... firstly, you're responding to my pointing out a lack of comprehension of yours regarding my comments by giving me a definition of "comprehension"... and then go on to, again, completely fail to comprehend what you've been told. Couple this with you saying that you don't practice Japanese arts (anymore), or speak any Japanese, and therefore have no care to know or remember what the terminology is just makes me wonder how on earth you can justify attacking a Japanese form of training you are showing no comprehension of, and are saying you have no interest in knowing the genuine meaning of!

I don't think it a better or more congruent fashion, sorry. I also never said I was the only one that used those solutions. If you don't like the wiki definition, provide your own.

Again, you seem to have missed the comprehension of what I was saying....

Well, most people are not practicing that way, nor using my solutions, or the similar ones, so yeah, I do.

Are you genuinely that arrogant?

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

It is absolutely relevant. Your formal education level is likely material to your ability to comprehend these discussions and arguments. You have constantly missed what is being said, and you continue to fail to provide any appreciable detail.

And the irony abounds...

Despite typing a whole paragraph in response, you still did not answer the simple questions, what is your education level and occupation?

You're damn right I didn't answer the question, as it's bluntly irrelevant. My occupation is nothing to do with my martial training, nor is my education level. My martial education level, on the other hand, is relevant. And, from everything I've seen of you (your you-tube clips, your articles, your posts, and so on), it's rather beyond yours. Just sayin'....

Ok, sorry, it appears there were 9 lines, a few of which were saying what kata is not. You don't need a read on exactly what I think to simply define what you think kata is, it's aims, etc. If every author required an understanding of what the readers knew on the subject before writing, there would be no textbooks or the like. If people can learn physics and medicine etc, via text, your explanations on the purpose of kata etc, is surely doable. Nice attempt at an excuse though, pathetic.

Authors do have an understanding of their audience, though. That's what allows them to define and direct their writings. You're not doing well... I mean, what's your education and occupation? Not that it's relevant... unless you're an author, or a University Professor lecturing on Hoplology....

Martial = “Of relating to, or suggestive of war.” , “characteristic of or befitting a warrior”. Do you forget it was you who brought up the context of war? Let me remind you...”including during the most intense times of war the country saw.” No, please spare me the knowledge you only have by way of reading history books or blogs.

Which is completely removed and different to the idea of Army Combatives, Gary. Are you really missing what you're being told that badly?

No, I don't, appeal to tradition is not the same thing as post hoc. Amusing you use the full phrase, not the normal abbreviation, yet completely miss the definition. This goes back to why I asked your education level. Clearly, you have overestimated your own intellect / knowledge. Post Hoc has to do with the issue of causation (it's a causal fallacy). It says that because A occurred, then B occurred. The appeal to tradition is merely saying that because A is old or traditional, A is better. These are different fallacies all-together. Your quote below is the latter, even assuming for the sake of argument it's not, the two fallacies are not the same. Nice try though, this is solid evidence of your lack of intellect, education, and reading comprehension. Just think, it you are wrong about this (and you are), what else in this thread are you wrong about?

Yes, I'm aware of the differences between them, Gary, but as you missed what was said (I have never said that the reason for continuing it is specifically because it's traditional, but for other reasons), I thought I'd expand your idea to another (that, honestly, was closer to what you might have been aiming at).

Wow, still avoiding the heart of the demo question... I constantly asked for just Kata and eliminated bunkai in the last post. Incredible! You think because you lack it, you are in a better position to critique it! So the same must be true of kata? If someone lacks true kata in their system they are in a better position to see what they “should be focused on” instead? Do you see how that statement negates nearly every single point you have made? My BS flag just blew through the roof and is sailing through the air, you sir, are ridiculous.

And, again, you've missed the point. As I've said (a few times now), we don't have Bunkai as we don't need it. We have the applications, and can see directly what the reasons/effects/applications of the movements in our kata are... which makes it easy to see what the focus of Bunkai is. Not having any real experience in kata doesn't mean you understand it.

I did accept their definition, did you see an article I wrote titled whats wrong with Bunkai? No, you didn't. Did you see me argue back and forth with anyone on the meaning of the term, no you didn't.

Right... but you don't care to know or understand Japanese terms...

It's about you explaining and demonstrating, that's the point Chris. I want to see exactly what result you have achieved, what type of training YOU consider kata exactly, and have you answer for yourself, and your own material. The people in those clips are not on here arguing. We can't ask them “why” and discuss it with them, I'm not going to assume your are qualified to answer for them. You did NOT link me to a video of yourself, which is what I asked for.

You can ask me "why" in those clips.

In conclusion, like your snide and incorrect use of basic fallacy arguments, you are wrong about my understanding on the subject here. You refuse to answer my call for demonstrative evidence and detailed explanations of your “kata” and any other training methodologies, and results thereof. When I answered your arrogant conjecture with a request for such evidence and explanation, I was met with countless evasions, and a video quiz—to which I gave detailed reasons for being inadequate and too over-broad for this discussion.

Now, I thought you were supposed to be playing nice? One more time, you've been given the answers, but lack the experience to understand them, as well as lacking the basic desire to follow through on the answers you're being given. Go back to the clips. They were not posted without very real, and pertinent reasons for this discussion.

I'm really not kidding here, that's where your answers will begin. If you don't start there, you won't get anywhere.

My simple definition of Kata? As I said, a pre-arranged sequence involving one or more persons. As soon as the sequence varies or is dynamic I would call it a drill or “free-form” practice. The purpose? Whatever the practitioner says it is. Whether that particular “kata” is the best suited path to achieving that stated purpose I assess on a case-by-case basis. It's that simple really. Agree or disagree, I have no need or desire to debate the meaning of the term further beyond the scope of that definition. Now, if you care to show your kata or drill, or whatever, describe its goal, and show how that goal was achieved, you will at least have a modicum of credibility. But as it seems, in your 4000+ post history you haven't managed this, so I won't expect it now. I'll just leave it at the fact you are demonstrably a keyboard warrior, more interested in going page-after-page without more than a dozen substantive lines.

Yeah... that's wrong. On everything. Your definition of kata is lacking, your take on the difference between it and a drill is off base, your take on the very question of the purpose of kata is out, as is your belief... and, as for your take on me? Nope.

Unless and until you are going to explain your view in detail and provide clips, please Chris, don't bother to waste much more of your time responding. Go fight another war with your keyboard.

Clips have been provided, explanations have been given. You haven't understood them, as you've refused to accept that a clip that doesn't feature me might be your answer. Bluntly, get over your issues, and entertain the idea that I really have given you what you want already.

Zero wasn't mentioning kata specifically, save your straw man. What fantasy are you living in? Unless you are referring to the rules of physics et al, of course there is such a thing as combat with no rules. We choose to have ROE in war, but that is a choice, not a necessity. I consider it no rules when someone is attempting to kill or injure you with no regard for their method, level of damage, or engaging in any formalities, like dueling, etc. Talk about war when you have been there.

And, again, you miss the point of, well, everything... the context of Zero's comments, the context of the answer, the context of mine, and the realities of your answer.

HA! Again I'll repeat this section of the last post--

Oh, and I've done more than spectate in a Japanese school, I've picked up a few BB's, and had very in-depth sessions post CMA with countless Karate instructors, so immersed I am.

So, if anything, it means you attended sub-standard schools. Again, nothing to do with the issues of kata.

Gary, I'm going to say this once more. Go to the clips I provided. Answer my questions about them. Then, we can get you some more detail. But until then, you're not going to understand what you're being told.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Wow! Am I glad you cherry picked. I can only imagine the length of post if you hadn't.

That's a lot of cherries.

 

[TimoS]

Personally, I doubt TimoS suffers from the same issues.

Oh I don't know about that. After all, I'm still learning stuff, so I know that my understanding is still lacking :uhyeah:

 

[GaryR]

Oh boy, this is getting extremely redundant. Chris, you have managed to not really answer any of my questions, and are simply repeating the “you don't get it” statements.

Himura has dealt with a fair bit, so I'm just going to deal with a few of the other things that leapt out at me.

Perhaps I'll get to his statements later, not really into reading the word jumble right now.

You're right that this is getting a bit repetitive... but honestly, that's because you still keep making the same basic mistakes. Here's another one, where you seem convinced that the distinction is in the usage of the term (partially, but not entirely), instead thinking that, if we remove the terminology, we're left with the methodology, and would agree with you... uh, no. You have displayed constant misunderstanding of the methodology, which has led to your comments.

I simply don't know what methodology you personally assign the term. Whatever it is, I assure you I understand, and have seen it before. Like I said, if I had a dollar for every-time someone insisted their definition and understanding of Kata was correct I'd be a rich man. I have no reason to believe yours is correct, and I'm not going to continue to play 1000 questions in an attempt to find your definition, either you care to define what you think it is, or you don't.

We'll come back to this. The idea that proper definitions are irrelevant to you when you're discussing other people's practices is, to me, gigantically arrogant, woefully irresponsible, and desperately lacking in ethics.

No, it's not unethical to use the term in the way a vast majority of schools do, and critique it as such. On the contrary, I would find it unethical to define the term how I personally see it, and apply my critique to what others call the practice based on that. I would find that unfair, you do not.

Okay, if you have always applied such questions, the question is begged as to why you show so little understanding of such. So, to help you make your point, can you explain what the purpose of kata is? And, before you say "it depends on the kata", no it doesn't. Kata as a training methodology has a very distinct purpose.

Again, more insistence I have no understanding, and in the same paragraph you have to ask my understanding, absurd. I understand that many people have different ideas of the purpose of kata, ranging from “it teaches everything in the system”, to “it just teaches and refines principles of movement/mechanics, and fighting concepts”. The question as to why you think I “show little understanding of such” is not begged. Begging the question does not mean to ask or lead to, it means to avoid, many misuse the term, so don't feel too bad.

Nope, all kata (martially speaking). Solo or paired.

You don't practice all of the same tactile sensitivity drills that I do, so you cannot say. But no, timing is not one of the main goals in some of them. Believe it or not, you don't know-it-all, and have not done it all.

See, now here's the real problem with you saying that you're not caring about the definition... you've decided that, no matter what a particular system is doing, if they call it kata you can apply your critique... while at the same time deciding you can apply your own opinion of what their methods should be focused on??? The only way you can apply a single value/criteria to judge things on is if they are all the same thing... and not caring if they are, just what certain people decide to label them as, means that you can't actually do it. This is what I meant when I said this approach was ethically bad, as well as deeply flawed.

Ummm, no. You still don't get it. I ask the “why” behind their training. Then I judge what they should be focused on in order to better achieve that goal. Again, I'm not going to apply my own label and “why” to what they are doing, so I can't judge their practice through that lens, I think that unfair. We can agree to disagree then, no need to beat the horse to death here.

I'll put it this way... if I decided to start teaching something based in, let's say, a few months of BJJ, some Escrima, and some Army Combatives, but called it Taiji (because I didn't understand the name), would it be right to accept that I was actually teaching Taiji? And therefore you could apply a value of proper Taiji methodology to what I was showing, even though it would be obvious that what I was doing wasn't the same thing at all? That's what you're saying here.

Taiji is a specific style. Kata is a generic term that applies across the board to countless arts. Forms (which I mentioned also), expands the same basic term to Chinese and other arts. So if you wanted to mix all of the above and create your own form, great, call it that. Or call it a kata for all I care. I'm not stuck on labels, and as I said, part of the reason I re-named what I do, is to avoid the whole “that's not pure taiji” or “internal” type arguments.

No, Gary, I was offering you an opportunity to expand the conversation....

You have failed to take that opportunity yourself. I have given you my definition, it is you who have not reciprocated.

also hope that isn't a challenge, Gary... If you do find yourself out my way, and want to contact me to visit, that's one thing... but I have no reason to meet you for a "match". And, honestly, you should be happy about that....[yada yada yada, you don't get it]

Lol, I should be happy about that? OK, Chris, I don't think so, keep at the typing, it's apparently the limit of your ability to demonstrate your knowledge. If your not up for a real match, I am confident we could exchange ideas and get across our relative skills without anyone getting hurt, I'll buy the first round after-wards. You will find I'm much nicer in person than online, I get along with most people quite well, agree or disagree on things.

Drop the insults, Gary, we're trying to remain civil here (personal challenges and all, it seems), remember... But, again, that's not a fault of kata as a training method. It's, if anything, a fault of the teacher/dojo in question... and, really, it's then removed from the argument I'm making. If your article was actually about that (which is what you seem to think it was, although the actual article itself doesn't reflect that), I'd have little argument, and would be lamenting the poor teaching. But, again, that's not a fault of kata itself... and to think it is is to not understand it at all.

Apologies, the panties in a bunch was more in jest than an insult. You believe that every kata in every system is perfect, and is the perfect vehicle for those goals, this is wrong. Get off your high horse Chris. The article reflects what is happening, not your fairy-tale idea of every kata being perfectly designed.

See Himura's answer. And yes, your history is sadly lacking.

My history in Ninjutsu is most certainly lacking. Look at that, we agree on something!

You're insisting the context is self defence. It's not. And you still haven't been able to identify what makes something kata, other than "a series of pre-set movements" and "what other people choose to call a kata", neither of which is really correct. Again, without understanding (or even properly defining) what kata is, you are in no position to critique anything.

I am free to define which context I want to view the efficacy of a training methodology through, thank you very much Chris. In this case I chose to discuss kata as it makes a difference in fighting. There is really no valid counter argument to this.

Seriously, put down the Kool Aid, Gary... you're coming across as delusional. And I've put up 10 clips. The fact that they don't feature me is irrelevant, and if you understood what you'd been told, you'd see why.

Delusional, no, just experienced, surely I have traveled more than you, and walked into exponentially more schools and touched hands with more people. You're not really telling me much Chris, you have admitted that already. Really, these “you don't understand” comments are getting old, I get, you don't think I get it, yeesh.

Er, want to read that back? Are you saying that kata is NOT a beginners tool, or was that a typo? As for the rest, again, put down the Kool Aid.

Whoops, it was a typo. No kool aid, just the reality of experience, your free to prove me wrong at my expense Chris.

The question there becomes "why is kata the first thing done in class?" There's a very good reason, and it's not that it's a beginners exercise (as, one more time, it isn't).

Sure, it is the why. To me it is a beginners exercise. Have you stopped to think that most of your art may be considered a beginners exercise to me Chris? Or that what most Karateka are doing I consider to be beginner level respectively? As I said, it has been observed that my material starts where others ends. But you would have no reference point for that, there are not exactly that many people who can demo it, and you certainly haven't listed meeting or training with any of them. In fact, you avoided that question all-together.

I still think you're thinking of the wrong form of kata when talking with me, Gary...

As I said before, I've seen every form. I'm not picturing you doing anything in particular, you haven't really described it now have you?

It was already spelled out to you, Gary. I thought you were claiming that you were far more educated than I (or, at least, trying to imply it... ha!), did you really need things that blatant? As far as "tactical expressions", are you kidding that you'd need that explained??? But, if you want a demonstration... I already gave you 10 clips, which contain huge numbers of examples (6 clips worth, in fact...).

You admitted to botching the statement Chris. As for “tactical expressions”, I don't NEED it explained, I want to know what YOU think it means. For all I know, you are clueless. The people in the clips are not here to discuss, you are.

I really don't know how to express just how ironic this statement of yours is...

I didn't write an article using that term Chris. Ergo, it cannot show a lack of understanding. Get a clue and read more carefully. Wow.

Are you genuinely that arrogant?

Yes. But I prefer the term confident, and only to the point in which it is demonstrably warranted. I used to be much more humble, but as the years go by, the more I just have to tell most people basically, “no, you suck, let me show you why it sucks, and how to do better”. I try and do this more so in person than online, because online it can become an exercise in futility. People such as yourself refuse to take advantage of technology and exchange ideas via video, which is an infinitely better medium for these topics.

And the irony abounds...

The irony is your call for detail on something you wish to define, yet fail to do.

You're damn right I didn't answer the question, as it's bluntly irrelevant. My occupation is nothing to do with my martial training, nor is my education level. My martial education level, on the other hand, is relevant. And, from everything I've seen of you (your you-tube clips, your articles, your posts, and so on), it's rather beyond yours. Just sayin'....

Still dodging the question and getting testy! I think your education level and occupation has much to do with your ability to understand these discussions and convey your ideas properly. Doing is one thing, analyzing, and communicating is another. Moreover, I have no idea of your capacity to understand the biomechanics, physics, and neurophysiology of what is involved in combat and martial arts training. You may very well be able to mimic what you have been taught, and repeat what you have been told, as you think every kata is perfect--but I've seen nothing to indicate your understanding goes beyond that. Just sayin'

Authors do have an understanding of their audience, though. That's what allows them to define and direct their writings.

Authors do not require a diatribe from every reader in order to write instructional text. Students are often a blank slate, and gain plenty from textbooks. This goes back to your educational background. This concept seems to elude you, but it's very likely an excuse to not provide much substance in fear you may not be the one picking apart and critiquing.

You're not doing well... I mean, what's your education and occupation? Not that it's relevant... unless you're an author, or a University Professor lecturing on Hoplology....

Sure, I'll answer the question I posed. I have an A.S. in Avionics, a B.S. in Information Systems Technologies, and I also have a Doctorate of Jurisprudence--I was in the top of my class. I also have an extensive Professional Military Education; Airman Leadership School, Officer Training School, SERE (AKA “Spook”) school, Flight instructor school, Interrogation training, Biological and chemical warfare certs, Weapons expert certs, CRM training, and the list goes on, but you get the idea...


My informal education also goes beyond that: my ex-fiance' was an MD, and for years I helped her study. I also co-taught with a neurophysiologist ,who taught me a lot, and finally, I had a roommate who had a PhD in physics, whom I also helped study. As for my occupation, I am an Attorney.


Your turn, what is your education level and occupation?

Yes, I'm aware of the differences between them, Gary, but as you missed what was said (I have never said that the reason for continuing it is specifically because it's traditional, but for other reasons), I thought I'd expand your idea to another (that, honestly, was closer to what you might have been aiming at).

Nice try Chris. You can't even admit when you are blatantly wrong! You said “do you seriously think that I’m employing a post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning here?”. This was not trying to expand my idea, you were attacking my assertion that you were using an appeal to tradition fallacy. No, it wasn't closer, and if you think it was you should explain, but you can't, because you were wrong, lol. Keep back-tracking though, this is getting amusing!

And, again, you've missed the point. As I've said (a few times now), we don't have Bunkai as we don't need it. We have the applications, and can see directly what the reasons/effects/applications of the movements in our kata are... which makes it easy to see what the focus of Bunkai is. Not having any real experience in kata doesn't mean you understand it.

If I've missed the point, it is because you have poor writing, and cannot explain it. I quoted you mostly. For crying out loud, I've also repeatedly related that I understand you don't have Bunkai! It seems you missed the question mark at the end of my sentence--of course not having Kata in your system doesn't mean you understand it! I was applying your quote and reasoning re bunkai to kata to point out the irony. Get it yet?

You can ask me "why" in those clips.

I've repeatedly asked you to detail your “why” behind what you consider Kata. Go ahead, pick a clip and explain why.

Now, I thought you were supposed to be playing nice? One more time, you've been given the answers, but lack the experience to understand them, as well as lacking the basic desire to follow through on the answers you're being given. Go back to the clips. They were not posted without very real, and pertinent reasons for this discussion.

I'm really not kidding here, that's where your answers will begin. If you don't start there, you won't get anywhere.

I didn't think this was all that insulting, sorry, just being factual: “In conclusion, like your snide and incorrect use of basic fallacy arguments, you are wrong about my understanding on the subject here. You refuse to answer my call for demonstrative evidence and detailed explanations of your “kata” and any other training methodologies, and results thereof. When I answered your arrogant conjecture with a request for such evidence and explanation, I was met with countless evasions, and a video quiz—to which I gave detailed reasons for being inadequate and too over-broad for this discussion. “


I have plenty of experience to understand the efficacy and benefits of the training depicted in those clips. I don't need “answers” on them.


You still don't seem to get my position re; the video's, let me repeat what I've said on it, and you can stop asking-


---------“It's about you explaining and demonstrating, that's the point Chris. I want to see exactly what result you have achieved, what type of training YOU consider kata exactly, and have you answer for yourself, and your own material. The people in those clips are not on here arguing. We can't ask them “why” and discuss it with them, I'm not going to assume your are qualified to answer for them. You did NOT link me to a video of yourself, which is what I asked for.


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 [in which you perform] 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…”


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. “
---------------------------------------

Yeah... that's wrong. On everything. Your definition of kata is lacking, your take on the difference between it and a drill is off base, your take on the very question of the purpose of kata is out, as is your belief... and, as for your take on me? Nope.

Ok, so what is your definition then? How is it off base? Go ahead, I'm waiting. I'm curious, how many schools do you think would agree with my definition?

Clips have been provided, explanations have been given. You haven't understood them, as you've refused to accept that a clip that doesn't feature me might be your answer. Bluntly, get over your issues, and entertain the idea that I really have given you what you want already.

Clips of people who are not here to answer for them, and not the clips I've requested. As I said, I understand what I need to from those clips, you have no clue about that, as I have said nothing on the matter. You have admitted you really haven't provided an explanation, which is it Chris, go ahead and quote yourself with this explanation and complete answer...Have you ever stopped to think you haven't already said anything new to me? You have not provided any new insight or knowledge here.

And, again, you miss the point of, well, everything... the context of Zero's comments, the context of the answer, the context of mine, and the realities of your answer.

Ah, here we go again, your answer to everything, more conclusory conjecture, nice.

Gary, I'm going to say this once more. Go to the clips I provided. Answer my questions about them. Then, we can get you some more detail. But until then, you're not going to understand what you're being told.

Chris, I'm only going to go through this once more. First, see the above quotes re videos. Now again Chris, it's not up to me to define the goals / expected results of YOUR kata practice, only you can do that.


Chris, nearly your entire post is a big “nuh-uh, you don't get it.” I admit I don't fully get what YOUR kata practice results are intended to be, exactly what you do, and why, that is for you to decide, not me. With an explanation and demonstration I can however discuss and debate how and why those methodologies are, or are not the best way to achieve the stated goals.


If you want to discuss a clip, do so, tell me how it relates to your practice, why you think they are doing what they are doing, and why or why not it is useful. As the clip will be of someone else not here to answer, I will still not be able to know if you are correct as to the “why” or much else from their perspective. I've given my definition on the matter, right or wrong, according to you, that's that.

If you want the discussion to move on, you will have to do the defining. Like I said, you are quite the arrogant soul, especially given your 4000+ posts and refusal to provide any video of yourself despite how correct you think you are, and how much better than others you believe yourself to be. It's amazing really. Again, I challenge you to provide video of YOURSELF, otherwise you can say “nope” all you like, but the evidence demonstrates you are only a keyboard warrior afraid to show himself on film.


Best,


G

 

[jks9199]

Admin Note:

Thread locked, pending review.

jks9199
Asst. Administrator