Kata

[Sukerkin]

I absolutely do want to practice it but I want to know why I'm doing , when and how to do it so i can benefit from it, as I said I want to practice at home and kata is something can be done alone so I'm very keen

:chuckles: Take no offence, Phil, those words weren't aimed at your goodself but rather the aggregation of the many times the sparring-vs-kata debate has arisen .

 

[Flying Crane]

sparring-vs-kata debate

really, I don't see it as a "vs" issue. Rather, it's an "and" issue. I don't understand why some people want to see them as opposed to each other (I'm not saying you do, Suke, that's just me sayin'). They are both useful tools that have a place within the training methodology. They build different aspects of the skills and help each other to reinforce one's development.

 

[Chris Parker]

The definitions are as broad as the practice and use itself.

This'll be covered as we go, but, no, the definitions aren't that broad. What the term is used to apply to, it seems, can appear that way, but again, it just isn't that broad.

How is your "form of kata" different than the rest?

I train in Japanese arts. In Japanese arts, aside from a very small number of notable exceptions (mainly due to safety concerns), kata are performed paired, as Himura said. There is no question of the "application", or the "bunkai" of the actions... you can see the immediate result with your partner.

How is it a more accurate use of the term? I think those answers may actually answer the OP question instead of just being conclusory conjecture.

How is it more accurate? Kata (&#24418 is a Japanese term, meaning "form", or "shape". It is not a Korean term, nor an Okinawan, or Chinese one. It has been co-opted by a range of other arts from other cultures, and applied to other forms of training exercises, even to the point where this alternate training approach (using the same term) is taken as being the actual definition of the method.

Not a lack of understanding at all, simply the reality of it as it applies to the overwhelming majority. As K-man said, that article applies to 95% of people doing kata. Would you disagree with that statement? Do we have any reason to suspect the OP's school is among the 5% exception? Or that you are among that 5% exception for that matter?

Yes, a lack of understanding of what kata is. Your entire article/post was criticizing improper and lacking training, and still missing the structure of kata training, turning it into a criticism of a method you don't understand. When it comes to K-Man's comments, yeah, I'd disagree. Mainly as I'd consider that saying that 95% aren't training kata... they're missing a range of essential facets. Anyone that thinks that kata teaches techniques has missed the point. Additionally, I don't think even some of the most respected bunkai folks have actually hit upon what kata is about.

As far as the OPs school, frankly, there have been a range of assumptions about what he trains, and what he has in his system under the term "kata" that makes most of this rather pointless for him. And as for myself? You wouldn't even recognize what I consider kata....

For the sake of clarification--When I think JJ I think mainly locks/throws, and grappling. Solo practice is better spent doing other things than grappling yourself. For a newb to attempt to learn JJ skill through solo practice is just delusional, it's not going to happen. One needs to prioritize their training methods by efficacy and efficiency, to grapple oneself as a use of your spare time is anathema to development.

Cheers,

G

Then you need to have a broader understanding of what jujutsu is, or can be. Solo training is not only possible, it's essential in traditional methods, and there are a range of methods of doing such... and, while traditional jujutsu is kata-based (it is the primary method of teaching and training, when all is said and done), it's not what you're thinking of as "kata". My arts have some 6 Jujutsu systems in them, I am familiar with the syllabus and methods of at least another dozen or so, and I train dominantly solo at home. But, when it's all over, the only person who can give the OP any assistance in training at home is his instructor. No-one here (unfamiliar with his system or training methodology) can offer any real advice that can be applied, as everyone is coming at it via a filter which is completely opposed, in cases, to the OPs actual system.

Kata is for teaching and learning. It's not for training. Drills are for training. You can create a set of "solo" drills (not from your Kata) that you can train home by yourself. The best "solo drills" are the "partner drills" without partner.

This is completely wrong. Kata are the art (in the arts it's used). It is specifically for training. And, when it is used in an art, it is indispensable.

For example,

if you want to train the striking art,

- kick to your opponent's groin,
- parry his leading arm,
- punch to his face.

That will be a simple 3 steps kick, block, punch combo. You can train this on your heavy bag or just do solo into the thin air.

If you want to train the throwing art, you can add:

- pull your punch back,
- wrap your opponent's leading arm,
- push his neck,
- back kick his leg/legs, and
- take him down.

That will be a simple 4 steps combo (all the moves after the 3rd step should be combined as 1 move). You can also train this on your striking dummy (shown below) of just do solo into the thin air.

http://imageshack.us/a/img801/6973/dummyg.jpg

This clip can also give you some idea.

Leaving off how bad the video is, what on earth makes you think that you can offer techniques for someone else, training in something completely different to you? Who says that what you're suggesting is going to suit, or fit what the OP trains in? Seriously, this smacks of not really getting anything at all....

It is a training tool and to most an ecyclopedia of information on stances, blocks, strikes, foot work, breathing, and joint locks. I think a lot of people only do it because of tradition but for me it was tool to use to learn my art.

No, it's not. Kata is far from an encyclopedia of techniques, and that is actually pretty much opposite of what kata is designed for.

I am sure grappling arts would be hard to do at home without a partner but I would think just practicing foot work hip postion, and arm or hand postion would be helpful to a grappler. Just sitting around thinking about wrist locks and remembering to grab the knife edge of the hand and putting your thumb in the right place of the back of your partner hand would be good to practice at home. May take some imagination though.

Again, the OP needs to talk to his instructor... you're on the right track, though.

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

Close....

The form of kata you are discussing in that thread(karate I believe) has not been properly trained by the majority of schools inmy opinion. Still there is nothing wrong with kata and it is important; it’sjust people don’t know what it is for and are turning it into something uselessas opposed to a cornerstone of the art.

Yep, agreed there.

People have already pointed out how footwork drills arean example of solo training in a JJ system. Don’t you ever shadow box? This would be the same thing and helps a person focus on moving smoothly. It certainly doesn’t replace paired exercises though.

Actually, footwork drills can be quite an essential part of jujutsu training, for the record...

How can you learn something if you do not train it? Your comment doesn’t make sense to me. Kata in karate is meant as a way of expressing and passing on the art. Everything important in karate should be evident in the kata.

Yes, but people miss what the important things are... thinking it's to do with the techniques, for example...

How is this in anyway different to a kata?

There's no coherent strategic approach.

These are just very short kata you have developed. There is no difference between kata and drills. A kata is a prearranged form of something. Anytime you work on something not spontaneous in martial arts, I would say you are doing something along the lines of a kata.

There is a huge difference between kata and drills. One teaches mechanics, the other teaches tactical expression.

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

Close.... and on the right track. Again, the OP's art might not be using the same terminology in that way....

it is not easy to find instructors who teach good kata application. To see what you are looking for check out Iain Abernethy, who has lots of good kata related material. Another good reference is 'The Way of Kata' by Lawrence Kane and Kris Wilder. :asian:

Knowing the OP's system, to be blunt, sources such as that wouldn't be particularly relevant....

 

[GaryR]

This'll be covered as we go, but, no, the definitions aren't that broad. What the term is used to apply to, it seems, can appear that way, but again, it just isn't that broad.

It can appear that way because different people assign different meaning and definitions of what they consider "kata", sure *your* definition is surely the correct and only true one, but that doesn't negate the spectrum of varying opinion and practices that people put under that umbrella of the term.

I train in Japanese arts. In Japanese arts, aside from a very small number of notable exceptions (mainly due to safety concerns), kata are performed paired, as Himura said. There is no question of the "application", or the "bunkai" of the actions... you can see the immediate result with your partner.

What percentage of schools do you figure practice kata as mostly paired? We too in the Chinese arts have countless two man "forms".

How is it more accurate? Kata (&#24418 is a Japanese term, meaning "form", or "shape". It is not a Korean term, nor an Okinawan, or Chinese one. It has been co-opted by a range of other arts from other cultures, and applied to other forms of training exercises, even to the point where this alternate training approach (using the same term) is taken as being the actual definition of the method.

Japanese eh? Gee whiz, all this time I thought it was from the rural part of Madagascar?
You can file the rest of this comment under exactly what I meant when I said "broad".

Yes, a lack of understanding of what kata is. Your entire article/post was criticizing improper and lacking training, and still missing the structure of kata training...

It was criticizing improper and lacking training--The point of the article was in the title "What's wrong with kata". What kata is for 95-99% of folks, and what is should be are two entirely different things. Kata should be more about mechanics and principles of movement rather than a a catalog of discrete techniques. You can't bridge form and function of you have no "form" (no Shen fa) to begin with. People get lost in what they think is Kata, they drown in it. It becomes a bible with lots of details they try and take literally yet still cannot really translate.

...turning it into a criticism of a method you don't understand.

I understand full well what Kata SHOULD be. The article explicates and reflects an understanding of the ACTUAL state of things. The reality is that people need to recognize the poor excuse for what people teach as Kata is a systemic problem-- instead of act as apologists whilst providing nothing of real substance.

When it comes to K-Man's comments, yeah, I'd disagree. Mainly as I'd consider that saying that 95% aren't training kata... they're missing a range of essential facets.

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

Anyone that thinks that kata teaches techniques has missed the point. Additionally, I don't think even some of the most respected bunkai folks have actually hit upon what kata is about.

We are in agreement here. Again, you keep demonstrating why my article is applicable to most.

As far as the OPs school, frankly, there have been a range of assumptions about what he trains, and what he has in his system under the term "kata" that makes most of this rather pointless for him.

Definitely could be pointless for him. Garbage in, garbage out. If he wants more specific perspective he needs to provide more detail.

And as for myself? You wouldn't even recognize what I consider kata....

I've seen and done enough of the spectrum of what is considered kata (or forms as we call them), that I guarantee what you're doing would recognizable as such. Perhaps you would fall into the 1-5% of people who would be doing something more useful and close to the "true" definition, but since you really won't demonstrate or explicate much, who knows?

You are here telling everyone they are wrong about kata, that 95%+ aren't really doing it, and are "missing a range of essential facets", including "the most respected bunkai folks". So if you truly believe you are in this top 5% of people doing what is really supposed to be Kata / bunkai, why don't you do the community a service and share?

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

I 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.

Then you need to have a broader understanding of what jujutsu is, or can be. Solo training is not only possible, it's essential in traditional methods, and there are a range of methods of doing such... and, while traditional jujutsu is kata-based (it is the primary method of teaching and training, when all is said and done), it's not what you're thinking of as "kata". My arts have some 6 Jujutsu systems in them, I am familiar with the syllabus and methods of at least another dozen or so, and I train dominantly solo at home. But, when it's all over, the only person who can give the OP any assistance in training at home is his instructor. No-one here (unfamiliar with his system or training methodology) can offer any real advice that can be applied, as everyone is coming at it via a filter which is completely opposed, in cases, to the OPs actual system.

Perhaps so; I'll add that to my to-do list--narrower and only true definition of kata needed---check. Broader definition of jujutsu needed---check. :salute:

Semantics aside, of the nearly 20 jujutsu systems you apparently know (or are familiar with), there probably isn't a whole lot I am unfamiliar with, though the quality of my ground-game aspect is wanting due to a lack of practice in that realm. I find it hard to believe that among those nearly 20 systems, you can't offer any real advice that wouldn't oppose the OP's system? Convenient you seem to know-it-all, but find a reason not to demonstrate or explicate any real detail.


I am definitely willing to accept you ARE in fact doing what should be truly defined as "Kata" and Bunkai . Thus, I really hope to see some video in which you demonstrate what you think kata / bunkai really is. Surely it would be more beneficial to the OP and the community at large than the assumptions and arrogant conjecture you have provided thus far.

Best,

G

 

[Aiki Lee]

Actually, footwork drills can be quite an essential part of jujutsu training,for the record...

I’m quite aware of that and didn’t mean to imply it wasn’t.Solo training is of equal importance to kata and randori. They must all bepresent in my opinion.

There's no coherent strategic approach.

I would say that depends on the purpose of the drill.

There is a huge difference between kata and drills. One teaches mechanics, theother teaches tactical expression.

But do they have to be mutually exclusive? Mechanicsshould be sound when performing kata and the strategic reason behind themechanics should not be forgotten when drilling movement. I agree that onewould be more focused on one aspectthan the other, but I don’t think they are that different from each other.If I’m practicing an iai kata on my own I am working on both mechanicsand need to remain aware of the strategic purpose behind the movements,correct? In this case it is both a drill and a kata is it not?

It was criticizing improper and lacking training--The point of thearticle was in the title "What's wrong with kata". What kata isfor 95-99% of folks, and what is should be are two entirely differentthings. Kata should be more about mechanics and principles of movement ratherthan a a catalog of discrete techniques. You can't bridge form and function ofyou have no "form" (no Shen fa) to begin with. People get lost inwhat they think is Kata, they drown in it. It becomes a bible with lots ofdetails they try and take literally yet still cannot really translate.

Instead of “What’s wrong with kata” shouldn’t it be morealong the lines of “What’s wrong with theway people practice kata”?The details of kata in any art should be of highimportance so the details matter a great deal. They should reflect the tacticaland strategic lesson taught in the kata. Every movement should have purpose. Iagree that I see people get worked up over how far you twist your fist or howfar your feet should be from each other without knowing why that is important.But just because someone doesn’t know why it’s important doesn’t mean it’s notimportant.

I understand full well what Kata SHOULD be. The article explicates and reflectsan understanding of the ACTUAL state of things. The reality is that people needto recognize the poor excuse for what people teach as Kata is a systemicproblem-- instead of act as apologists whilst providing nothing of realsubstance.

What would providing something of real substance entail?

Perhaps you would fall into the 1-5% of people who would be doing somethingmore useful and close to the "true" definition, but since you reallywon't demonstrate or explicate much, who knows?

I’m curious where you are pulling these numbers from.95-99% do kata wrong? 1-5% do it right? How big of a study sample do you have and areyou in position to know why they are doing kata the way they do it? I agreethat perhaps lot of commercial schools likely don’t know what they are doingwith the kata, but that is the fault of the instructor either not understandingit properly or not teaching it properly, not the fault of the kata itself.

 

[GaryR]

?Instead of “What’s wrong with kata” shouldn’t it be more along the lines of “What’s wrong with the way people practice kata”?

Certainly that would also be an appropriate title. But certainly I would classify some kata, even as traditionally taught, to be less than optimal training in almost all aspects except for maybe discipline. This is a very broad statement however, and it would have to be broken down and discussed via a specific Kata and it's respective alternatives to highlight the point appropriately.

... But just because someone doesn’t know why it’s important doesn’t mean it’s not important.

This is true. But someone, especially the teacher should know why it's important.

What would providing something of real substance entail?

Well, much more than Chris P provided for sure, especially given he purports to know the true meaning and practice of it. Most of what he said was basically equivalent to nuh-uh. As I said, a video breakdown of what his kata looks like, and his bunkai would be sufficient for sure since he claims it is soooo different that what we may expect and is the true way.

I’m curious where you are pulling these numbers from.95-99% do kata wrong? 1-5% do it right? How big of a study sample do you have and are you in position to know why they are doing kata the way they do it? I agree that perhaps lot of commercial schools likely don’t know what they are doing with the kata, but that is the fault of the instructor either not understanding it properly or not teaching it properly, not the fault of the kata itself.

The 95% figure came from K-man, and confirmed (semantics aside) by Chris P. My sample size easily exceeds 1000 schools. I used to travel for a living globally and made it a point to walk into as many schools as possible and touch hands with people. I am in the position to know for several reasons, one of which being the simple route--ask! Folks in one of my main arts (Taijiquan) are among the most guilty of not being able to use their forms well, and not being so willing, or great at explaining the meaning. Moreover, the proof is in the pudding; even folks who are not so hot at explanations and are instructor / BB level consistently fail to demonstrate under decent pressure the principals their forms attempt to teach them.

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


Best,

G

 

[DennisBreene]

I think in some cases we have been overly caught up in semantics. My style is Korean and old school. Kata was often used as a short hand for forms in general even though our specific forms were Hyung. We were aware that kata specifically referred to Japanese styles. We also learned the applications of our forms and were considered an advanced school in the area of forms. A tradition the Grand Master has continued and added to (including 2 person forms). The overarching philosophy in our study of form was to train in the various aspects of purposeful movement in a fighting sequence. The layers of understanding and accomplishment increased as the practitioner advanced and I personally don't see that there is a true end point in what the practice of form can teach. It doesn't matter to me which style or school is the point of origin. It does matter that the practice of form be respected and encouraged. I think this is best served by promoting the positive aspects of form and relinquishing the urge to denigrate and overly criticize those practitioners who may be on a less "advanced" path in understanding form.

 

[Chris Parker]

This might take a bit...

It can appear that way because different people assign different meaning and definitions of what they consider "kata", sure *your* definition is surely the correct and only true one, but that doesn't negate the spectrum of varying opinion and practices that people put under that umbrella of the term.

No. The detail of people using the term when it doesn't actually apply doesn't change what the term is. But more to the point, kata is kata... there really isn't any more to it.

What percentage of schools do you figure practice kata as mostly paired? We too in the Chinese arts have countless two man "forms".

If they're Japanese arts, pretty much all of them. The major exceptions would be Kyudo, Shurikenjutsu, and Iai, mainly due to safety concerns... although they do feature kata as the primary teaching and training methodology, it's not paired... but then again, many Iai systems include paired forms of the kata with bokken, referred to as kumitachi.

Oh, and I'm really not referring to anything like Chi Sau here... can you provide some other form from Chinese systems?

Japanese eh? Gee whiz, all this time I thought it was from the rural part of Madagascar?
You can file the rest of this comment under exactly what I meant when I said "broad".

Cute. The point is that the term is Japanese, so it's the Japanese arts definition that should be taken into account. As for the rest, mis-use is not the same as there being broad definitions. So, no.

It was criticizing improper and lacking training--The point of the article was in the title "What's wrong with kata".

Oh, I read the article (and it's title) a number of times... and it's deeply flawed in intent, expression, and understanding.

What kata is for 95-99% of folks, and what is should be are two entirely different things.

No, kata is kata. If it's not being transmitted properly, it's no longer kata, and is just a sequence of actions.

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

No, it's not. Principles and mechanics should be taught separately from kata, and then form the basis of the kata's study. You're missing the point of kata still.

You can't bridge form and function of you have no "form" (no Shen fa) to begin with.

Sure... except that's not what kata is designed to teach.

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

To be frank, that sounds like it's describing your take on kata... which isn't really accurate.

I understand full well what Kata SHOULD be. The article explicates and reflects an understanding of the ACTUAL state of things. The reality is that people need to recognize the poor excuse for what people teach as Kata is a systemic problem-- instead of act as apologists whilst providing nothing of real substance.

No, you don't get what kata should be. Some examples of quotes from your article that show a deep lack of understanding of kata:

- "Trying to memorize long sequence of forms is counter-productive to such a goal."
- "The only real reason for Kata in the Self-defense context is so students can grasp the concept on which the technique turns."
- "...beyond the beginner level of teaching the concepts, Kata has no place. No matter how many years one perfects such forms; it will still not adequately prepare someone for a fight. Rarely is a Kata’s movement actually used exactly as practiced in a form, and even more seldom is the exact sequence of moves used."
- "By nature, learning long forms tends to require the students stop and start their movements / techniques over and over again. This is a product of trying to put long sequences into memory, recalling the next move or series of moves, and worrying about how the move “looks”, or how perfect the “form”. Moreover, the anxiety, even subconscious of trying to remember the Kata produces tension, and breaks the chain of relaxation and fluidity required to maximize combat potential.

Continuous movement is critical. Never assume a certain attack and defense will be effective. Never assume change of movement, direction, or method will not be required. Never assume that a certain sequence of movements will be successful. Making these assumptions can mean the difference between life and death. Continuous movement makes it more likely the opponent will not be able to recover, turning the tables and forcing them to react to you is more desirable than being behind the eight ball on movement. I call such principle “Counter Offensive Tactics”, but that is another article altogether." (Sure, it's a long one, but it's all bad...)
- "Kata is almost necessarily training one in the tit-for-tat mentality, and two-step, three-step fragmented methods. Teaching that for every exact attack, there is a counter, and such counter can be executed in sequence is a reckless fallacy. Even predicting the response of the attacker in such sequence, and that your long sequence will counter is a big mistake. Some natural responses can be expected, like someone putting their hands up to protect the eyes and face, or flinching to protect the groin. But the natural response of the foregoing should not be relied upon, and certainly a long chain of methods should not be expected to hold up so well in a dynamic chaotic attack."
- "Many who train and rely on Kata are left to think the techniques will work the same way every time. This fails to take into account that every real world attack is different, small variables such as body position, angle of attack, timing, speed, and even the environment come into play--which requires the Martial Artist learn to apply their concepts in almost infinite variation. Manifestations of techniques are often on the fly, spontaneous, and not pre-planned tit-for-tat as Kata pretends."
- "If you insist on learning a long kata, break it up into smaller pieces. Learn to transition seamlessly from one technique to the next without pause. Change up the order of the techniques, and if you have to start/stop often, you have learned too many moves, and strung more together than practical."

Hell, I could have just quoted the entire article... after all, this is about three quarters of it.

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

No, K-Man has an understanding of kata, and was lamenting the poor understanding in many schools; you have little to no understanding of kata, expect it to be one thing (when it's actually quite different), and don't see what you think martial arts are about being catered for. I, on the other hand, am limiting the idea of people training kata to those actually training kata. Not those who are training something that's little more than an imitation.

We are in agreement here. Again, you keep demonstrating why my article is applicable to most.

Uh... no, Gary. We are not in agreement here. I really don't think you have the first understanding what I'm talking about, for one thing. And your article is fundamentally flawed as an attempt to critique a practice you don't understand.

Definitely could be pointless for him. Garbage in, garbage out. If he wants more specific perspective he needs to provide more detail.

Really missed the point... What I was saying was that his system doesn't have kata the way you're describing or discussing them. As far as him providing more detail, to be honest, he's quite a new student in his system, and likely doesn't have the experience or exposure to be able to differentiate.

I've seen and done enough of the spectrum of what is considered kata (or forms as we call them), that I guarantee what you're doing would recognizable as such. Perhaps you would fall into the 1-5% of people who would be doing something more useful and close to the "true" definition, but since you really won't demonstrate or explicate much, who knows?

You've actually already been told what I am referring to as kata, but we'll cover it again, as you're still on the completely wrong page.

You are here telling everyone they are wrong about kata, that 95%+ aren't really doing it, and are "missing a range of essential facets", including "the most respected bunkai folks". So if you truly believe you are in this top 5% of people doing what is really supposed to be Kata / bunkai, why don't you do the community a service and share?

I'm not saying that 95% aren't doing it (I said I disagreed, remember?), I'm saying that if they're doing kata, they're doing kata... if not, they're not. That's it. Oh, and the last sentence/question there shows that you, still, haven't clued in on what I'm talking about... and still are looking at kata from the wrong direction.

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

Kata is a Japanese term for a training method found in Japanese arts. I train in Japanese arts that are dominantly, if not entirely kata based. If you can't see how that would have me consider that what I'm doing is actually kata training, I really don't know how simpler to explain it to you.

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.

Oh boy. Listen, Gary, I pretty explicitly stated that the idea of "bunkai" doesn't even enter into Japanese kata training, so to insist on that again and again just shows that you don't understand kata, especially not in the form I'm discussing. But we'll try an experiment... I'm going to link a range of clips, and I'm going to ask you to identify which ones contain kata training... in clips where there are a range of different methods shown, I'm going to ask if you can identify if any of it is kata, and if so, which section. Let's see how we go....

I've deliberately avoided karate kata, by the way.

Perhaps so; I'll add that to my to-do list--narrower and only true definition of kata needed---check. Broader definition of jujutsu needed---check. :salute:

Semantics aside, of the nearly 20 jujutsu systems you apparently know (or are familiar with), there probably isn't a whole lot I am unfamiliar with, though the quality of my ground-game aspect is wanting due to a lack of practice in that realm. I find it hard to believe that among those nearly 20 systems, you can't offer any real advice that wouldn't oppose the OP's system? Convenient you seem to know-it-all, but find a reason not to demonstrate or explicate any real detail.

Are you sure about that? I mean, the vast majority of Jujutsu, and pretty much everything aside from BJJ that I've trained in, have really little to nothing with regards to a "ground game"... are you sure you know what Jujutsu actually is? And yes, I can offer advice that doesn't oppose the OP's system (mainly as I'm fairly familiar with what they're training in), which I have... it is to talk to their instructor.

I am definitely willing to accept you ARE in fact doing what should be truly defined as "Kata" and Bunkai . Thus, I really hope to see some video in which you demonstrate what you think kata / bunkai really is. Surely it would be more beneficial to the OP and the community at large than the assumptions and arrogant conjecture you have provided thus far.

Best,

G

No such thing as "bunkai" in Japanese kata, mate... you're still way off in your understanding.

I’m quite aware of that and didn’t mean to imply it wasn’t. Solo training is of equal importance to kata and randori. They must all be present in my opinion.

Depends on the system as to what it utilises, but cool.

I would say that depends on the purpose of the drill.

Yeah, I was commenting on the specific ones described, as well as the context they were described in.

But do they have to be mutually exclusive? Mechanics should be sound when performing kata and the strategic reason behind the mechanics should not be forgotten when drilling movement. I agree that one would be more focused on one aspect than the other, but I don’t think they are that different from each other. If I’m practicing an iai kata on my own I am working on both mechanics and need to remain aware of the strategic purpose behind the movements,correct? In this case it is both a drill and a kata is it not?

Hmm. Sure, mechanics need to be sound... but you don't learn mechanics from the kata. They should be developed first, then applied within the context of the kata. So while you do need to ensure your mechanics are correct and strong throughout the kata, that's kind of a given, really... and is still not the point, or the aim, of training in kata.

Instead of “What’s wrong with kata” shouldn’t it be more along the lines of “What’s wrong with the way people practice kata”? The details of kata in any art should be of high importance so the details matter a great deal. They should reflect the tactical and strategic lesson taught in the kata. Every movement should have purpose. I agree that I see people get worked up over how far you twist your fist or how far your feet should be from each other without knowing why that is important.But just because someone doesn’t know why it’s important doesn’t mean it’s not important.

Yep, that's on the right track.

Certainly that would also be an appropriate title. But certainly I would classify some kata, even as traditionally taught, to be less than optimal training in almost all aspects except for maybe discipline. This is a very broad statement however, and it would have to be broken down and discussed via a specific Kata and it's respective alternatives to highlight the point appropriately.

Then you don't get what the kata are for. There are a range of kata that don't have immediate applicability to combat, but that's incredibly different to saying that they are "less than optimal training in almost all aspects except for maybe discipline". Frankly, Gary, it's comments like that that show just how lacking your take and understanding of kata really is.

This is true. But someone, especially the teacher should know why it's important.

Sure. But that doesn't support your comments about kata itself being borderline useless.

What would providing something of real substance entail?

Well, much more than Chris P provided for sure, especially given he purports to know the true meaning and practice of it. Most of what he said was basically equivalent to nuh-uh. As I said, a video breakdown of what his kata looks like, and his bunkai would be sufficient for sure since he claims it is soooo different that what we may expect and is the true way.

I'll wait to see your response to the above videos to see if you can pick what I'm talking about first.

The 95% figure came from K-man, and confirmed (semantics aside) by Chris P. My sample size easily exceeds 1000 schools. I used to travel for a living globally and made it a point to walk into as many schools as possible and touch hands with people. I am in the position to know for several reasons, one of which being the simple route--ask! Folks in one of my main arts (Taijiquan) are among the most guilty of not being able to use their forms well, and not being so willing, or great at explaining the meaning. Moreover, the proof is in the pudding; even folks who are not so hot at explanations and are instructor / BB level consistently fail to demonstrate under decent pressure the principals their forms attempt to teach them.

Not "confirmed" by myself, Gary. It was a figure that K-Man used to indicate how few he feels train in kata properly (with actual understanding of what they're doing, and why... I'd probably still argue with him... and have!... but that's another argument entirely...). As for the rest, bluntly, I'm still doubting you have any real clue what you should be looking for...

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

Best,

G

No, it's not the fault of the kata. You're wanting kata to be something it isn't. That's the real issue with your take on what it is.

 

[Zero]

This might take a bit...


[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
Hmm. Sure, mechanics need to be sound... but you don't learn mechanics from the kata. They should be developed first, then applied within the context of the kata. So while you do need to ensure your mechanics are correct and strong throughout the kata, that's kind of a given, really... and is still not the point, or the aim, of training in kata.

This is important and what is missed by many (and certainly in some clubs I have had experience with). You work on and perfect the individual techniques themselves, execution, accuracey etc and then use them within the kata, howevevr, the kata is not the place where you should be learning the correct application and mechanics of each individual technique or even the techniques themselves. Don't get me wrong, you are executing them correctly within the kata but the kata is not the forum for learning each application/strike.
I am not so heaviliy into kata myself and when younger and until recently (and bereft of a better appreciation and understanding) actually questioned what it could offer. But Chris' statement (if I read it right) is my experience of the matter...but I study Okinawan Goju Ryu in itself.

 

[Mauthos]

Even though there has been a vast amount of dicussion previous to this regarding the understanding of kata I wonder if I have a rather different take on it.

Kata is important in any style which it is taught in, in my opinion and believe me I find that impressive that I have said that considering how against kata I was when I initially started my martial arts journey, so much so that I gave up traditional karate and took up kick boxing.

Many years later I started Kenpo and found that I liked the kata, it was a great way of training, but at first I did not have any real understanding as to why I had to perform what I saw as particular sequences of movements. I eventually progressed onto short form 3 and long form 3 which are the first forms that are pretty much comprised of certain SD techniques taken from the Kenpo syllabus.

For me it gave me a greater understanding of the kata, I understood what each of the moves were for and why I was doing it and my kata improved the more I trained the SD techniques. I suppose in a way that it was almost like performing Bunkai (sp?).

Therefore, for me I did find that each helped each other, training the techniques improved my kata and practising the kata improved my techniques.

For me at least that makes kata just as important as the techniques although I fully understand that in a 'real' situation I may not perform my 'moves' exactly as they are performed within a kata, but then that also means I will not be performing the moves exactly like my techniques either.

Anyway, as this is the first time I have seen this topic, it is very interesting to see peoples views regarding kata especially from someone who for many years could not see the point of it and actively detested practising them.

 

[K-man]

I’m curious where you are pulling these numbers from.95-99% do kata wrong? 1-5% do it right? How big of a study sample do you have and areyou in position to know why they are doing kata the way they do it? I agreethat perhaps lot of commercial schools likely don’t know what they are doingwith the kata, but that is the fault of the instructor either not understandingit properly or not teaching it properly, not the fault of the kata itself.

My figure, plucked from the air, seems to be causing concern. Let me clarify my position. The OP's listed art is jujutsu. I have no knowledge of jujutsu kata although there are grappling techniques in Goju kata. And apart from Aikido, my knowledge of other MAs is superficial. So when GaryR posted his first reply to the thread, referring to his article and a previous thread, I felt the need to respond and it was specific in that my 95% referred to Karate practice. (And, I believe my figure to be conservative.)

I wrote ...

If you read GaryR's article it is probably true in 95% of karate schools. But there are other schools that recognise the true value of kata and teach in that way.

"The value of kata" in this context refers to its use as a fighting system.

In actual fact, although I disagree almost totally with GaryR's article, I can understand why he has reached that understanding. I am not saying that 95% of karate schools don't teach kata properly. Probably 99% of them do. But teaching kata and teaching the application of kata are two totally different things. It is the understanding of kata in karate that I find almost totally lacking and that is for several reasons that I have elaborated in other threads. If you have not been exposed to the teaching of application by an experienced instructor, you could be forgiven for agreeing with GaryR's article. But those of us who have been exposed to that type of teaching would have a totally opposing view.

Chris is coming from a different perspective. If my understanding of his Ninjutsu is correct, the kata handed down in his style come with the understanding of the kata. Unfortunately this did not happen with karate. In fact I have read numerous times where karate masters specifically asked their students not to pass their understanding on to Westerners. So from my perspective and from Chris' perspective, Gary's article is deeply flawed as I pointed out in a previous thread and Chris has done in this one.
:asian:

 

[chinto]

really, I don't see it as a "vs" issue. Rather, it's an "and" issue. I don't understand why some people want to see them as opposed to each other (I'm not saying you do, Suke, that's just me sayin'). They are both useful tools that have a place within the training methodology. They build different aspects of the skills and help each other to reinforce one's development.

I agree, sparring teaches distancing and timing , kata teaches movement , basic footwork, techniques and doctrine.

 

[Phil_n.ireland]

How can I learn kata properly and be sure that I am?

 

[Flying Crane]

How can I learn kata properly and be sure that I am?

That's the million dollar question. I also believe that the vast majority of people do not practice kata properly and that is because they do not understand it properly and were never taught how to understand it properly. And now those people are teaching it to the next generation. Once that understanding is lost, it is all but impossible for someone to discover it on their own.

All you can do is find the best teacher that you can, and you need to trust him. And if you find someone else who you believe is better, then you need to train with him.

 

[Janina]

All you can do is find the best teacher that you can, and you need to trust him. And if you find someone else who you believe is better, then you need to train with him.

Agreed. You should never under estimate the meaning of skillful teacher who can teach you the proper way to practice your art. I think that trust, like Flying Crane said, is important part of proper teaching. Just do the best to adopt what your teacher tells and then analyze it carefully yourself piece by piece. With experience you start to see difference in techniques and can decide if the teacher you have practiced with is the best for you..

 

[Phil_n.ireland]

Found this caption on wiki does this seem like a far description or real kata or is this the version that you say 95% of people do which is wrong

The basic goal of kata is to preserve and transmit proven techniques and to practice self defence . By practicing in a repetitive manner the learner develops the ability to execute those techniques and movements in a natural, reflex-like manner. Systematic practice does not mean permanently rigid. The goal is to internalize the movements and techniques of a kata so they can be executed and adapted under different circumstances, without thought or hesitation. A novice’s actions will look uneven and difficult, while a master’s appear simple and smooth.[2]

 

[Chris Parker]

I agree, sparring teaches distancing and timing , kata teaches movement , basic footwork, techniques and doctrine.

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". In fact, I have no idea how it could be said to be teaching "docrine"... as that is a reference to written teachings. Footwork, movement and techniques are contained within kata, but it's more that they are used to allow the kata to teach what they're designed to teach, rather than the kata being designed to teach those aspects themselves... so your idea is backwards.

How can I learn kata properly and be sure that I am?

Found this caption on wiki does this seem like a far description or real kata or is this the version that you say 95% of people do which is wrong

The basic goal of kata is to preserve and transmit proven techniques and to practice self defence . By practicing in a repetitive manner the learner develops the ability to execute those techniques and movements in a natural, reflex-like manner. Systematic practice does not mean permanently rigid. The goal is to internalize the movements and techniques of a kata so they can be executed and adapted under different circumstances, without thought or hesitation. A novice’s actions will look uneven and difficult, while a master’s appear simple and smooth.[2]

Phil, I'm going to be blunt here, as I've kinda danced around this issue for yourself throughout the thread...

Your system, the WJJF, is a wholly modern creation of Robert Clarke, with no real traditional basis to it at all... the kata, such as they are, were created by Clarke and other seniors for the organization, taking templates from karate, but without actually being based in them at all. In other words, you are not doing anything close to traditional kata with any of the basis that any of this conversation actually applies to. The only people who can tell you if you are doing your systems kata "properly" are your instructors and seniors... which is why I have repeatedly said for you to ask them. Your kata, indeed, your form of kata, is only found within your group, and nothing anyone says here will do anything other than highlight the lack of actual basis that exists in your systems approach to the concept. It is different to, in some major ways, both traditional karate kata and traditional jujutsu kata, while at the same time, there are attempts to imitate both.

When it comes to the Wiki description, honestly, no, it's incorrect (or, rather, desperately incomplete to the point of being inaccurate). It is written from a single perspective (nothing to do with your organization's approach), and as such, is not truly indicative of what kata is about outside of that single perspective's take on things.

So, one more time, as what kata means in your organization is distinctly different to all other perspectives here, nothing anyone has said is really of value, or is even relevant to your methods of kata practice. You have one source to go to, and it's not the internet. Talk to your instructor to ensure you're doing things properly within the context of your system.

And, just to address something here...

Chris is coming from a different perspective. If my understanding of his Ninjutsu is correct, the kata handed down in his style come with the understanding of the kata. Unfortunately this did not happen with karate. In fact I have read numerous times where karate masters specifically asked their students not to pass their understanding on to Westerners. So from my perspective and from Chris' perspective, Gary's article is deeply flawed as I pointed out in a previous thread and Chris has done in this one.
:asian:

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. Again, I'm going to refer to the clips on the previous page, and see if people (mainly Gary, but all are welcome to have a comment) can pick which are kata, which aren't, and why.

 

[Phil_n.ireland]

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

 

[GaryR]

This might take a bit...

No. The detail of people using the term when it doesn't actually apply doesn't change what the term is. But more to the point, kata is kata... there really isn't any more to it.

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

Oh, and I'm really not referring to anything like Chi Sau here... can you provide some other form from Chinese systems?

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

Cute. The point is that the term is Japanese, so it's the Japanese arts definition that should be taken into account. As for the rest, mis-use is not the same as there being broad definitions. So, no.

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

Oh, I read the article (and it's title) a number of times... and it's deeply flawed in intent, expression, and understanding.

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

No, kata is kata. If it's not being transmitted properly, it's no longer kata, and is just a sequence of actions.

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



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

No, it's not. Principles and mechanics should be taught separately from kata, and then form the basis of the kata's study. You're missing the point of kata still.

Hmmm, you are contradicting yourself then.

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

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

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

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

To be frank, that sounds like it's describing your take on kata... which isn't really accurate.

Not even a decent attempt at spin.

No, you don't get what kata should be. Some examples of quotes from your article that show a deep lack of understanding of kata.....

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

No, K-Man has an understanding of kata, and was lamenting the poor understanding in many schools; you have little to no understanding of kata, expect it to be one thing (when it's actually quite different), and don't see what you think martial arts are about being catered for. I, on the other hand, am limiting the idea of people training kata to those actually training kata. Not those who are training something that's little more than an imitation.

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

Uh... no, Gary. We are not in agreement here. I really don't think you have the first understanding what I'm talking about, for one thing. And your article is fundamentally flawed as an attempt to critique a practice you don't understand.

Now you are just being ridiculous.

Before you stated:

Anyone that thinks that kata teaches techniques has missed the point. Additionally, I don't think even some of the most respected bunkai folks have actually hit upon what kata is about."

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

You've actually already been told what I am referring to as kata, but we'll cover it again, as you're still on the completely wrong page.

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

I'm not saying that 95% aren't doing it (I said I disagreed, remember?), I'm saying that if they're doing kata, they're doing kata... if not, they're not. That's it. Oh, and the last sentence/question there shows that you, still, haven't clued in on what I'm talking about... and still are looking at kata from the wrong direction.

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

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

Kata is a Japanese term for a training method found in Japanese arts.

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

I train in Japanese arts that are dominantly, if not entirely kata based. If you can't see how that would have me consider that what I'm doing is actually kata training, I really don't know how simpler to explain it to you.

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

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

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

Oh boy. Listen, Gary, I pretty explicitly stated that the idea of "bunkai" doesn't even enter into Japanese kata training, so to insist on that again and again just shows that you don't understand kata, especially not in the form I'm discussing.

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

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

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

But we'll try an experiment... I'm going to link a range of clips, and I'm going to ask you to identify which ones contain kata training... in clips where there are a range of different methods shown, I'm going to ask if you can identify if any of it is kata, and if so, which section. Let's see how we go....

I've deliberately avoided karate kata, by the way.

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

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

Are you sure about that? I mean, the vast majority of Jujutsu, and pretty much everything aside from BJJ that I've trained in, have really little to nothing with regards to a "ground game"... are you sure you know what Jujutsu actually is? And yes, I can offer advice that doesn't oppose the OP's system (mainly as I'm fairly familiar with what they're training in), which I have... it is to talk to their instructor.

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

No such thing as "bunkai" in Japanese kata, mate... you're still way off in your understanding.

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

Originally Posted by GaryR
Certainly that would also be an appropriate title. But certainly I would classify some kata, even as traditionally taught, to be less than optimal training in almost all aspects except for maybe discipline. This is a very broad statement however, and it would have to be broken down and discussed via a specific Kata and it's respective alternatives to highlight the point appropriately."

Then you don't get what the kata are for. There are a range of kata that don't have immediate applicability to combat, but that's incredibly different to saying that they are "less than optimal training in almost all aspects except for maybe discipline". Frankly, Gary, it's comments like that that show just how lacking your take and understanding of kata really is.

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

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

Originally Posted GaryR
This is true. But someone, especially the teacher should know why it's important"

Sure. But that doesn't support your comments about kata itself being borderline useless.

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

I'll wait to see your response to the above videos to see if you can pick what I'm talking about first.

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

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

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

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

No, it's not the fault of the kata. You're wanting kata to be something it isn't. That's the real issue with your take on what it is.

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

:bs:

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

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

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

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

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


Best,

G

PS: Thanks for the fun banter, amusing!

 

[K-man]

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. Again, I'm going to refer to the clips on the previous page, and see if people (mainly Gary, but all are welcome to have a comment) can pick which are kata, which aren't, and why.

This is why I said that we were coming from different perspectives. To say "all Japanese kata ARE the applications of the technique" is a little confusing to people who may not understand the difference between Okinawan karate and karate that has been modified in Japan. I would call Yamaguchi's Goju Kai, Funakoshi's Shotokan and Oyama's Kyokushin Japanese Karate. If you really want to be pedantic, ALL karate is Japanese as Okinawa has been 'Japanese' for about 200 years and karate, as such was developed within that timeframe.

In Karate, almost all kata is NOT paired, unless you are making the point that there is an imaginary opponent. Even then, I would suggest Yamaguchi's Taikyoku kata are more a collection of techniques in sequence than a combination of techniques with martial integrity. Funakoshi's kata, even the basic Heian, were designed by Itosu (Pinan kata) to teach practical combination of techniques.

Then there is the enormous difference between Chris saying;

"Our 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."

and Goju Ryu kata where I would say;

"Our kata do not contain specific applications of the techniques. They are individual forms where the person performs a series of techniques where he/she may or may not have an understanding of the applications of those techniques. There is no indication as to the application of the kata as it is not visible to the untrained eye."

The Japanese introduced 'pre-arranged sparring' which is exactly as Chris has described. Basically that is a choreographed set of exercises with an attacker and defender where there is a given attack followed by a set sequence of techniques from each person. Each person must learn the 'attack' and the 'defence'. Generally the exercise is performed at so called 'sparring distance'.

We have 'Oyo Bunkai' where there is no choreography. There may or may not be a given attack and the response is to engage from some point within the kata and proceed from that point with techniques in sequence from the kata. The attacker is restricted in the actions he can take because the exercise is conducted at close range. Either the attacker defends with a predictable response or he gets hit. His reaction sets him up for the next strike and so on. Only the person practising the bunkai needs to know it. And the bunkai is an individual thing. Everyone can have their own bunkai that is at their level of understanding. All I ask is that it is pressure tested to ensure that it fits the principles and will work in the way it is intended.

Although this post is basically in response to Chris, it is not aimed at Chris, because he understands exactly what I am saying. I am just restating my position so others can see there is even debate over what constitutes 'kata' and how how you can 'use kata'.
:asian: