Learning Versus Understanding

[Bill Mattocks]

One of the things that often trips up beginners in the martial arts is the difference between learning something and understanding it.

For illustration, let's take a simple upper body block. It's a fairly easy move to learn, and it's relatively common to many different martial arts styles, although the nuances may vary quite a bit. Imagining that a blow is coming toward's one's head, one raises their arm to get it in-between the incoming punch and their own head, and stops the punch. This is the basic block.

Now, one can see this in a book, or on a video, or be shown it by someone else, and they think they know how to perform the block. It's an easy misunderstanding to have.

How to Understand Basic Karate

Unfortunately, there is a world of difference between 'learning' to perform the block, and 'understanding' how to perform the block.

Some nuances that expand learning can be taught online as well. Tips such as crossing the center line with the rising block so that if one guesses wrong about which side the opponent is throwing the punch with, it will still be blocked. Or how to 'set' the block so that one does not get punched in the face with one's own fist as the block collapses under the opponent's power.

An in-person instructor will make additional adjustments that one typically doesn't see in a book or online, because they require adjustments that are based on the student's physical attributes. Things like the angle of the blocking arm, the height of the elbow relative to the student's body, how the feet connect the flow of incoming power to the floor, the bend in the knees, when to begin the block and what to do with the block once it is applied (such as follow up actions, like grasping and pulling, etc).

All of these things contribute to understanding, but they do not by themselves, constitute understanding.

The only way to gain understanding is to do the technique with a qualified instructor and a partner (who can be the instructor themselves) who force the student to either make the technique work, or get hit.

This has to be done over and over again, day by day, week by week. Adjustments will continue to be made, and there will slowly be a series of eye-opening 'ah hah!' moments involved. They might be small revelations, but they'll be there.

Little things like watching the opponent's midsection and not their eyes, to detect the beginning of the incoming punch. where the 'lock point' is for your individual block, where you can trust your block to handle the incoming blow and not even worry about it. The pacing that takes the place of 'only speed' so that the block is there at the right time, but not in a panic move. The sinking into the floor feeling that redirects the power of the incoming blow so that the arm doesn't have to be super-strong to absorb it. The 'spring tension' in the body that spreads out force.

All of these things, and more, contribute to the beginning of understanding a technique, rather than just learning it. They all take time, lots of time, and repetition, lots of repetition. Often one practices with a willing and trained partner who will at your request bring up the power and speed of the attack until it overmatches your ability, but forces you to improve. Incremental improvement is the goal.

So what is 'understanding' versus 'learning' then? Just lots of reps and tips until the technique gets locked in and works every time?

Actually, no. It's more than that. Being able to do a technique is one thing. Doing it well is something else. But true understanding means more than even that. It means you have begun to master things that go far beyond the technique itself.

In the case of our example, the upper body block, it means we begin to not just see, but begin to be able to demonstrate, how the block can be modified and used in other ways. Perhaps it is not simply a block, but can be a trap, a redirection, a strike. A combination of all of those things. Perhaps it can be applied even through the attack does not come in the form one expected. For example, a student is expecting a roundhouse punch, but instead a high kick is thrown, or a straight punch, or some other form of attack; the student who has some understanding of the technique is not trapped; they can use their technique anyway and it will work.

Eventually, an experienced and dedicated student will hopefully begin to think and move in terms of the abstractions that the technique represents, the parts it is made of, instead of just in terms of the bare mechanics of what the various body parts do.

There is no instruction book for this, and even though instructors who are well-qualified can talk about it and explain and demonstrate, this is something that either becomes a part of a student or it does not.

Nor does it really become part of the student's conscious thinking, like "Here comes the attack. I am going to do X and then Y and then Z, unless the opponent does A instead of B, etc etc." It becomes instinctive and part of the student's natural body movement. "Attack comes, I defend, attack failed," is about as far as it gets into one's conscious thinking.

Understanding begins when the technique is so natural and normal to the student that they can apply any part of the movement at any time for any situation and depend upon it to function as the student wanted it to. When techniques taken as a whole begin to blend together such that a 'block' technique immediately becomes a 'trap' technique to respond to the actual attack as needed, and without thinking about it. The arms move, the body repositions itself, the modified technique is applied and works.

It's the difference between learning to play a song by reading the sheet music and learning to play music by understanding how chord structure and notes work together to flow in a free form, on the fly, and still sound like music to the ears.

Understanding is not a destination; to the best of my knowledge, one never arrives at mastery. One simply continues to improve their understanding for as long as they live and continue to train diligently towards that goal. Personally, I am the furthest thing from a master - perhaps it is honest to say that I have begin to perceive some of what I may yet achieve in time, if I keep training hard. I can say that I have 'learned' to apply an upper body block. I am beginning to understand the technique in that I am starting to be able to use it when I need it for whatever comes my way as an attack. I am beginning to understand that attack, defense, it's all the same thing. Some people say a block is a strike and a strike is a block, but it's even more than that. Everything is everything. That's what it is. The question is whether or not a student can apply that, turn that concept into reality.

Keep training, and strive for understanding to complement learning!

 

[Tez3]

Many years a go when my husband was in the RAF he was doing his CVR(T) course, it was driving Spartans and Scorpions ( small tanks). He did all the practical stuff but had to learn all the book work too so I would spend ages with the book asking him questions. I know how to drive one ( with levers) how to stop, reverse, change the tracks etc. etc. If you put me in one though I can't do any of it, it was all book 'learning'

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Many years a go when my husband was in the RAF he was doing his CVR(T) course, it was driving Spartans and Scorpions ( small tanks). He did all the practical stuff but had to learn all the book work too so I would spend ages with the book asking him questions. I know how to drive one ( with levers) how to stop, reverse, change the tracks etc. etc. If you put me in one though I can't do any of it, it was all book 'learning'

You might do better than you think, or at least be able to figure out what to do as you thought about it.

There are those who know everything and understand nothing, but most of us are somewhere in the middle, I think. We know more than we understand, but if we're lucky and work hard, our understanding is something we keep moving towards, to make our learning useful.

 

[Danny T]

I feel there is more to it than just learning and understanding.
It is having the ability to do. Can you actually function or apply what you have learned and understand on a theoretical level. Can you actually apply your upper block movement and structure as more than just a block.

 

[Steve]

One of the things that often trips up beginners in the martial arts is the difference between learning something and understanding it.

For illustration, let's take a simple upper body block. It's a fairly easy move to learn, and it's relatively common to many different martial arts styles, although the nuances may vary quite a bit. Imagining that a blow is coming toward's one's head, one raises their arm to get it in-between the incoming punch and their own head, and stops the punch. This is the basic block.

Now, one can see this in a book, or on a video, or be shown it by someone else, and they think they know how to perform the block. It's an easy misunderstanding to have.

How to Understand Basic Karate

Unfortunately, there is a world of difference between 'learning' to perform the block, and 'understanding' how to perform the block.

Some nuances that expand learning can be taught online as well. Tips such as crossing the center line with the rising block so that if one guesses wrong about which side the opponent is throwing the punch with, it will still be blocked. Or how to 'set' the block so that one does not get punched in the face with one's own fist as the block collapses under the opponent's power.

An in-person instructor will make additional adjustments that one typically doesn't see in a book or online, because they require adjustments that are based on the student's physical attributes. Things like the angle of the blocking arm, the height of the elbow relative to the student's body, how the feet connect the flow of incoming power to the floor, the bend in the knees, when to begin the block and what to do with the block once it is applied (such as follow up actions, like grasping and pulling, etc).

All of these things contribute to understanding, but they do not by themselves, constitute understanding.

The only way to gain understanding is to do the technique with a qualified instructor and a partner (who can be the instructor themselves) who force the student to either make the technique work, or get hit.

This has to be done over and over again, day by day, week by week. Adjustments will continue to be made, and there will slowly be a series of eye-opening 'ah hah!' moments involved. They might be small revelations, but they'll be there.

Little things like watching the opponent's midsection and not their eyes, to detect the beginning of the incoming punch. where the 'lock point' is for your individual block, where you can trust your block to handle the incoming blow and not even worry about it. The pacing that takes the place of 'only speed' so that the block is there at the right time, but not in a panic move. The sinking into the floor feeling that redirects the power of the incoming blow so that the arm doesn't have to be super-strong to absorb it. The 'spring tension' in the body that spreads out force.

All of these things, and more, contribute to the beginning of understanding a technique, rather than just learning it. They all take time, lots of time, and repetition, lots of repetition. Often one practices with a willing and trained partner who will at your request bring up the power and speed of the attack until it overmatches your ability, but forces you to improve. Incremental improvement is the goal.

So what is 'understanding' versus 'learning' then? Just lots of reps and tips until the technique gets locked in and works every time?

Actually, no. It's more than that. Being able to do a technique is one thing. Doing it well is something else. But true understanding means more than even that. It means you have begun to master things that go far beyond the technique itself.

In the case of our example, the upper body block, it means we begin to not just see, but begin to be able to demonstrate, how the block can be modified and used in other ways. Perhaps it is not simply a block, but can be a trap, a redirection, a strike. A combination of all of those things. Perhaps it can be applied even through the attack does not come in the form one expected. For example, a student is expecting a roundhouse punch, but instead a high kick is thrown, or a straight punch, or some other form of attack; the student who has some understanding of the technique is not trapped; they can use their technique anyway and it will work.

Eventually, an experienced and dedicated student will hopefully begin to think and move in terms of the abstractions that the technique represents, the parts it is made of, instead of just in terms of the bare mechanics of what the various body parts do.

There is no instruction book for this, and even though instructors who are well-qualified can talk about it and explain and demonstrate, this is something that either becomes a part of a student or it does not.

Nor does it really become part of the student's conscious thinking, like "Here comes the attack. I am going to do X and then Y and then Z, unless the opponent does A instead of B, etc etc." It becomes instinctive and part of the student's natural body movement. "Attack comes, I defend, attack failed," is about as far as it gets into one's conscious thinking.

Understanding begins when the technique is so natural and normal to the student that they can apply any part of the movement at any time for any situation and depend upon it to function as the student wanted it to. When techniques taken as a whole begin to blend together such that a 'block' technique immediately becomes a 'trap' technique to respond to the actual attack as needed, and without thinking about it. The arms move, the body repositions itself, the modified technique is applied and works.

It's the difference between learning to play a song by reading the sheet music and learning to play music by understanding how chord structure and notes work together to flow in a free form, on the fly, and still sound like music to the ears.

Understanding is not a destination; to the best of my knowledge, one never arrives at mastery. One simply continues to improve their understanding for as long as they live and continue to train diligently towards that goal. Personally, I am the furthest thing from a master - perhaps it is honest to say that I have begin to perceive some of what I may yet achieve in time, if I keep training hard. I can say that I have 'learned' to apply an upper body block. I am beginning to understand the technique in that I am starting to be able to use it when I need it for whatever comes my way as an attack. I am beginning to understand that attack, defense, it's all the same thing. Some people say a block is a strike and a strike is a block, but it's even more than that. Everything is everything. That's what it is. The question is whether or not a student can apply that, turn that concept into reality.

Keep training, and strive for understanding to complement learning!

I think there is a lot of truth in this, but it really depends on how "true understanding" is gauged. Your definition of 'true understanding' is unachievable if you have neither the opportunity nor the intention of applying the techniques repeatedly in the context in which they are intended to be applied. You may achieve some degree of facility, but the mastery you are alluding to is not possible for most people, regardless of with whom or how they train. To be clear, this isn't because people are incapable. Rather, it's because people will often lack the opportunity. In other words, if you never fight (which I think is a laudable and also realistic expectation), you will never achieve mastery of fighting skills.

This is my fundamental concern with "self defense' training being conducted by people who have a gap between their depth of training and their depth of experience.

Now, all is not lost. I have said in the past that the issue isn't what people are learning. Instead, it's what people think they're learning. Committed, serious study of Goju Ryu Karate will lead to mastery of Goju Ryu Karate. Performing kata under someone who is expert in that kata will result in the skill and understanding of that kata.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I feel there is more to it than just learning and understanding.
It is having the ability to do. Can you actually function or apply what you have learned and understand on a theoretical level. Can you actually apply your upper block movement and structure as more than just a block.

That's my point. I don't think that there is understanding on a theoretical level. One begins to understand as one applies what they have learned, and it becomes part of their natural body response and movement. If you can't apply the technique, you cannot in any way claim to understand it, in that sense.

For example, I teach a beginner how to perform an upper body block. They 'know' what to do when I attack them with a punch to the head, for example. And as we practice it in slow motion, they can do it. But as I increase speed and power, my attack sails through their block or collapses it entirely. There is more they have to 'understand' about blocking, such as how to set the block, how to absorb the energy, etc. As they learn that, their understanding increases, but it goes in parallel with being able to actually do it. And then eventually it goes beyond simply stopping the incoming attack and their understanding expands as they begin to use the core principles of the technique to do whatever it is they want or need to do. I throw the punch and they trap it instead of merely blocking it, redirect my blow or take me off-balance, and all using the same core principles, because their body 'knows' how to do it and can do it. This is what I refer to as 'understanding' the technique.

So you could say I entirely agree with you, but I include being able to do the technique in 'understanding' it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think there is a lot of truth in this, but it really depends on how "true understanding" is gauged. Your definition of 'true understanding' is unachievable if you have neither the opportunity nor the intention of applying the techniques repeatedly in the context in which they are intended to be applied. You may achieve some degree of facility, but the mastery you are alluding to is not possible for most people, regardless of with whom or how they train. To be clear, this isn't because people are incapable. Rather, it's because people will often lack the opportunity. In other words, if you never fight (which I think is a laudable and also realistic expectation), you will never achieve mastery of fighting skills.

This is my fundamental concern with "self defense' training being conducted by people who have a gap between their depth of training and their depth of experience.

Now, all is not lost. I have said in the past that the issue isn't what people are learning. Instead, it's what people think they're learning. Committed, serious study of Goju Ryu Karate will lead to mastery of Goju Ryu Karate. Performing kata under someone who is expert in that kata will result in the skill and understanding of that kata.

I get what you're saying, but I have a couple of issues. First, I agree with you that you have to have an environment conducive to enhanced learning that leads to understanding, yes. I am fortunate to have such an environment for training, so perhaps I should have made it more clear that not everyone has the opportunity to train in such circumstances.

As to kata, well, I must respectfully disagree. Kata taught properly does lead to precisely the kind of understanding needed to defend oneself. I fear that few teach kata properly, which leads many to believe it has no self-defense application. Understanding kata is understanding karate which is understanding self-defense and the application of controlled violence for a defined purpose. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Steve]

I get what you're saying, but I have a couple of issues. First, I agree with you that you have to have an environment conducive to enhanced learning that leads to understanding, yes. I am fortunate to have such an environment for training, so perhaps I should have made it more clear that not everyone has the opportunity to train in such circumstances.

As to kata, well, I must respectfully disagree. Kata taught properly does lead to precisely the kind of understanding needed to defend oneself. I fear that few teach kata properly, which leads many to believe it has no self-defense application. Understanding kata is understanding karate which is understanding self-defense and the application of controlled violence for a defined purpose. Just my 2 cents.

Perhaps. I'll borrow from something I wrote a few years back. I don't believe one can be an expert in "self defense" without significant, practical, real world experience applying the techniques in context. You CAN become an expert in a system. Call it Mattock-fu, include whatever techniques you want, apply measures for proficiency and teach people to an expert level in your system. Because THAT'S what they're learning and applying. They are not defending themselves in your class. They are applying a system.

I've used the analogy of a pilot in the past. There are pilots and then there are experts pilots. Let's say you have a guy who can do anything in a simulator, but has never flown an ACTUAL plane. Can a person truly understand the skills of piloting an airplane without ever flying a plane? I would say no. In order to make the leap between learning and understanding, there's a lot of hours logged in the pilot's seat of an actual plane. You mention it yourself. Repetition, repetition, repetition.

Would that person be competent as a flight instructor? I would say that there might be some limited, specific things he could competently share, but I'd be very uneasy if the pilot of my 747 to Orlando was brand new off the simulator having learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane, who himself learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane.

Sure, you can learn skills in a simulator. I've said this many times in the past, but it's relevant here. There's something called Bloom's taxonomy and it's very simple. People learn things in predictable stages:

Knowledge -> Comprehension -> Application -> Analysis -> Synthesis -> Evaluation

Most martial arts training stops somewhere between comprehension and application. You seem to be getting at the difference between knowing how to do something (everything up to about application) and the development of deep expertise, which is what occurs after you can do something and have truly synthesized the skills.

But, in business, as in ANY human endeavor, competence is the FIRST step toward expertise. In other words, a person who is an expert must be competent, but not every person who is competent is an expert. And if you don't DO something, you will never get to the point of being an expert in it.

Which leads full circle back to my suggestion that if you are learning kata, there may be application outside of the kata, but the true expertise is internal to learning the kata. In order to make the leap you are referring to, Bill, where someone is learning a deeper context of self defense, I believe one must have some degree of expertise in the kata, and ALSO a well of experience in real world violence. Some people have this, but most, even many who are TEACHING self defense, do not.

 

[Buka]

I fear that few teach kata properly, which leads many to believe it has no self-defense application.

I'm curious, Bill. What leads you to think this? I don't mean to take that one sentence out of the context of your post, but it's the one I'm curious about.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Which leads full circle back to my suggestion that if you are learning kata, there may be application outside of the kata, but the true expertise is internal to learning the kata. In order to make the leap you are referring to, Bill, where someone is learning a deeper context of self defense, I believe one must have some degree of expertise in the kata, and ALSO a well of experience in real world violence. Some people have this, but most, even many who are TEACHING self defense, do not.

I snipped your excellent response only because I can find nothing with which to disagree; I think we agree and perhaps it is just our choice of words that makes it appear as if we do not.

Regarding kata again, I can only say that in my very limited experience the good fortune I have had in instruction and instructors, I can't agree with your conclusion.

What my previous experience as an MP in the Marines taught me was that one of the keys to 'street fights' if you can call them that is simply to trust your training and to remain calm. Deliberate movement overcomes wild crazy swinging every time. You can still get clocked; hell, you can get killed by someone who is utterly unskilled, you could fall down and hit your head on a rock for that matter. But if you are calm and deliberate, you're generally ahead of the game. If you have training, even more so.

With regard to kata, I just keep finding deeper and deeper core principles embedded within them that directly apply to every aspect of self-defense. From power generation to leverage to body movement and so on. My gosh, even the smallest things like generating power by rolling the ridge of muscle at the top of one's abdomen under the rib cage, done in many katas, has resulted in one of my dojo partners commenting that he doesn't like to spar me, because punching me in the gut is like hitting a brick wall and it hurts his hands. Me, Mister fat-boy blubber gut. Everything is everything.

Beyond what I've experienced, seen, and had explained and demonstrated to me, I have a very deep 'feeling' that there is so much more here that I have only scratched the surface of. I have learned to trust my instincts; I know in my heart that this is the real deal, and I'm not one to follow fad or fashion, I've never been a part of a cult of personality. When it's real, you just know it.

Didn't mean to turn this into a discussion of the efficacy of kata, but since you brought it up, that's how I personally feel about it. If I could do nothing else but train kata, I found find that more than sufficient for all purposes, from self-defense to self-enlightenment.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

more than just a block.

Agree! It's more than just a block. The "upward block" is like raising the curtain with one hand, you then walk under it. It can be used as offense, raise your opponent's "head guard", you then punch his chest when you step in. Your "upward block" can be considered as "plow the way" when you enter.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm curious, Bill. What leads you to think this? I don't mean to take that one sentence out of the context of your post, but it's the one I'm curious about.

I think it is because I am gifted with such amazing instructors, who themselves were trained by a legendary karateka.

More to the point of your question, I used to go to a lot of seminars. Most, to be quite honest, were atrocious, although I did not know that at the time as a newbie. What I 'learned' was more or less garbage for the most part. However, there are a few seminars taught by people whom I have come to respect to the utmost, whose seminars I will gladly attend. What amazes me is how many people who hold high rank and have trained for many years are utterly gobsmacked when shown techniques found within the katas we all do that they had never seen before. In my dojo, we see and learn all of them; these seminars for me are simply intensive workouts of what we are already taught, not new material (for the most part). But so many others find it so novel, I have to conclude that they're simply not being taught at a high level. I say this with humility and respect for them; I do not know what they know, and I am no expert myself. It's just an observation on my part.

I find I spend a lot of time nowadays thinking about and practicing kata. As I do, I seem to make discovery after discovery. Nothing that hasn't been known for a very long time by very many people, of course, I'm not blazing a new trail here, but things which serve to open my eyes and which directly apply to all aspects of my karate - even to how I order my life.

Simple example, although to many it may seem weird. I am known for popping off at business meetings where I work. I hear something I object to, I say something, and often not a very kind or respectful thing. Sometimes it's appreciated and sometimes it is seen as quite rude (and it is), even when I am technically right. Then I started thinking deeply about the 'settling movement' in kata, where you really dig down and grip the floor before you move. You drop your center, you adjust your base and perhaps your stance. Your shoulders drop, your arms relax, and your eyes and ears open. You breathe out and pause, then you explode. But the explosion always has purpose, direction, intent, and it's devastating. Believe it or not, I am trying hard to apply that technique to simply responding to things in business meetings. Before I pop off, I settle. Drop weight, relax, open eyes and ears, pause. Then, if need be, explode. But say the right thing, at the right time, to the right people, in the right way. Much more effective and it doesn't tend to get me seen as a loose cannon.

Kata is everything. Believe it or not. At least to me. And that makes me think if others are not seeing this, they can't be getting the training I am getting.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Kata is everything.

I think "strategy" is more important. A strategy can be mapped into different techniques. For example, a "side kick, back reverse punch" can be considered just as a "kick punch combo". That kick can be any kick and that punch can be any punch.

If you have learned a Kata that has "side kick, back reverse punch", you should be able to figure that you can also do:

- side kick, palm edge strike,
- turn back kick, spin back fist,
- foot sweep, hook punch,
- ...

It may be interested to see how many strategies that's used in your Kata than to see how many techniques that's used in your Kata.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think "strategy" is more important. A strategy can be mapped into different techniques. For example, a "side kick, back reverse punch" can be considered just as a "kick punch combo". That kick can be any kick and that punch can be any punch.

If you have learned a Kata that has "side kick, back reverse punch", you should be able to figure that you can also do:

- side kick, palm edge strike,
- spin back kick, turning back fist,
- foot sweep, hook punch,
- ...

It may be interested to see how many strategies that's used in your Kata than to see how many techniques that's used in your Kata.

With respect, I think strategy is surface-level. Important in the beginning. Eventually it is all movement. What matters is moving effectively and kata informs this.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

With respect, I think strategy is surface-level. Important in the beginning. Eventually it is all movement. What matters is moving effectively and kata informs this.

When you throw a skip in left side kick at your opponent's cheat, your opponent can use his arm to block your side kick and spin your body to your

- left, you can then right punch at his face.
- right, you can then right spin back fist at his face.

Since after your side kick, your next move doesn't depend on you but depend on your opponent's respond, IMO, it's "strategy - borrow your opponent's blocking force, spin your body, and strike back" and not just "moving effectively". Of course we may use different words that mean the same thing.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Kata is everything.

I'm on board with this. Kata/form is where it starts. Kata/form is the seed. If the kata/form is incorrect then how can anything that grows from it be correct?

If the kata is the technique to be used in fighting, then it only makes sense to that performing kata correctly means that technique during fighting will be performed correctly.

Performing kata is step 1. Applying technique from kata is like step 50. There's a lot that goes on in between. It's not a 2 step process which is what many people assume at first.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Performing kata is step 1. Applying technique from kata is like step 50.

I would like to think in the reverse order.

First you decide what finish move that you want to use (for example, a neck choke). you then try to find a path that can help you to reach there (such as a front kick, foot sweep, leading arm jam). It doesn't matter whether this combo sequence is in any form/Kata or not. The advantage of this approach is your MA skill doesn't have to be restricted by the form/Katas that you have trained. You will have much more freedom this way. There are many entering strategies that can help you to apply your "finish strategy" depending on your opponent's different responds.

entering strategy -> finish strategy

 

[Steve]

I'm on board with this. Kata/form is where it starts. Kata/form is the seed. If the kata/form is incorrect then how can anything that grows from it be correct?

If the kata is the technique to be used in fighting, then it only makes sense to that performing kata correctly means that technique during fighting will be performed correctly.

Performing kata is step 1. Applying technique from kata is like step 50. There's a lot that goes on in between. It's not a 2 step process which is what many people assume at first.

Are katas and forms synonymous?

 

[Tez3]

When you throw a skip in left side kick at your opponent's cheat, your opponent can use his arm to block your side kick and spin your body to your

- left, you can then right punch at his face.
- right, you can then right spin back fist at his face.

Since after your side kick, your next move doesn't depend on you but depend on your opponent's respond, IMO, it's "strategy - borrow your opponent's blocking force, spin your body, and strike back" and not just "moving effectively". Of course we may use different words that mean the same thing.

I have to admit I'm curious and please don't take this as an attack, it's just something that I find odd. You always post lists of techniques to do in whatever thread you post on, in answer to just about everything, is there a particular reason for this? This thread is about 'learning v understanding' but you have posted techniques to use again. I realise it's probably to make a point but it seems your point is about strategy not 'learning v understanding'? It's probably me but I don't understand why the techniques all the time.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Are katas and forms synonymous?

I believe so, yes.