Losing love of Karate due to excessive Kata at training sessions. rant

[EddieCyrax]

Sparring is the laboratory where you develop your individual fighting style, along with timing, power, and other attributes.

This how I feel about both Sparring and Kata.

These are not mutually exclusive. One does not have to pick one.

Two of many training methods.

Like arguing over push-ups and lifting sand bags.

 

[Hanzou]

No its a game or practice its NOT real and is nothing like a real fight

Yet we have numerous examples of people coming from styles that revolve around sparring performing just fine in real fights. Interestingly their sparring looks just as effective as their fighting ability.

I have no idea I dont train TKD, I dont know her, her teacher, or the situation she will be found in. You cant make a determination about what people will and wont do off a youtube clip. Well you can I guess but I wont.

So you don't want to make a determination of her fighting ability after watching her flail around in a safe environment, and repeatedly closing her eyes and turning her head away while punching a training partner?

Okay.

Anyway we will just agree to disagree since we are moving to far away from the OP's question and have moved to the effectiveness of Sparring which is a totally different topic to which Im sure we wont agree since to me Sparring is not very important and borderline useless

Well again, unlike kata, we have evidence to support sparring to fighting ability in a variety of martial arts and combat sports.

 

[EddieCyrax]

This how I feel about both Sparring and Kata.

These are not mutually exclusive. One does not have to pick one.

Two of many training methods.

Like arguing over push-ups and lifting sand bags.

And don't get me started on kettle-bells. -vampfeed-

 

[Hanzou]

This how I feel about both Sparring and Kata.

These are not mutually exclusive. One does not have to pick one.

Two of many training methods.

Like arguing over push-ups and lifting sand bags.

Well there are some martial arts that don't practice kata at all.

Martial arts that don't spar on the other hand? :uhoh:

 

[ballen0351]

Yet we have numerous examples of people coming from styles that revolve around sparring performing just fine in real fights. Interestingly their sparring looks just as effective as their fighting ability.



So you don't want to make a determination of her fighting ability after watching her flail around in a safe environment, and repeatedly closing her eyes and turning her head away while punching a training partner?

Okay.



Well again, unlike kata, we have evidence to support sparring to fighting ability in a variety of martial arts and combat sports.

Lol ok............

 

[EddieCyrax]

Well there are some martial arts that don't practice kata at all.

Ok.

Their choice.....as is the original poster of this thread....if they do not see the value, go to another school.

I see value in both. My school does both.

I do not see an argument here.

 

[Hanzou]

I do not see an argument here.

The "argument" is that some posters here are saying that kata produces a result that isn't seen while Karate exponents are sparring. There's something clearly missing in the training methodology if the goal is to resemble the kata while fighting.

 

[EddieCyrax]

The "argument" is that some posters here are saying that kata produces a result that isn't seen while Karate exponents are sparring. There's something clearly missing in the training methodology if the goal is to resemble the kata while fighting.

I would suggest the practice of kata improves the effectiveness ones sparring. Notice I did not say that their sparring contained the exact movements/patterns of their kata.

Their sparring should contain the structure/footwork/stance/power/etc......One should be able to see these things within their sparring and kata.

Can one achieve these things without kata???.....sure - with an attentive instructor.....

Look at a fighter who has trained for some number of years..... They move very different than a novice.....ideally black belt vs white belt......

Movement comes from experience.......kata is a training tool.....

I do not train TKD, so I can not speak to the kata application in the video you posted. This said, when I watch both practitioners i look to the footwork, body mechanics of their strikes, etc.

You would argue these are a result of sparring over time, and perhaps they are.

But then again perhaps it is a result of both their practiced sparring and kata over time.

Training methods......

Time to go do a few sit-ups to work core......or perhaps a plank is better....then again their are those nasty burpies....

 

[Hanzou]

I would suggest the practice of kata improves the effectiveness ones sparring. Notice I did not say that their sparring contained the exact movements/patterns of their kata.

Their sparring should contain the structure/footwork/stance/power/etc......One should be able to see these things within their sparring and kata.

Can one achieve these things without kata???.....sure - with an attentive instructor.....

Look at a fighter who has trained for some number of years..... They move very different than a novice.....ideally black belt vs white belt......

Movement comes from experience.......kata is a training tool.....

You will never hear me say that kata is not a training tool. The question is that if a martial art can be successful without kata practice, why does kata exist in some styles? Is it simply because of tradition? Is karate somehow more difficult to learn without kata practice?

I do not train TKD, so I can not speak to the kata application in the video you posted. This said, when I watch both practitioners i look to the footwork, body mechanics of their strikes, etc.

You train Karate right? What are your thoughts on this;

Considering that Kyokushin's kata looks like this;

 

[ballen0351]

The question is that if a martial art can be successful without kata practice, why does kata exist in some styles?

because the person that invented the style thought it was important.

Is it simply because of tradition?

Tradition and it works

Is karate somehow more difficult to learn without kata practice?

depends on what you want out of your karate.

 

[K-man]

Originally Posted by K-man
Again, total ignorance of karate. You obviously learned very little in the time you trained karate, which is understandable in that the competition you were training for was point sparring and competition kata.

The reality that a block is just a block and a punch is just a punch?

You're right.

I suppose the Koreans got it wrong as well, since they also call those techniques blocks within Korean karate (TSD, TKD, etc.).

Those sneaky Japanese, always trying to trick someone. :lol:

Again your lack of the ability to comprehend is letting you down. A punch is normally a punch unless it is grabbing and pulling but a 'block' is pretty much never a block. Why would I want to stop your attack? The very act of stopping one attack precipitates the next and means I have to defend against the second attack. I want to deflect or redirect your first attack in a way that you don't immediately realise your attack has been thwarted. In that fraction of a second I can counter. If karate is what you claim it to be it would be totally useless as it seems your time spent training karate obviously was.

Would those "beginners and kids" also include instructors and owners of dojos? Because throughout the US karate exponents also call them "blocks", and they're taught as blocks to students.

Just FYI: "To receive" can also mean to block or deflect, which is probably why they're translated as "blocks" in other languages. You're still "receiving" the technique if you're blocking/deflecting it.

The overriding point however is that those blocking techniques aren't very efficient, which is why you don't see them when two karate exponents are fighting each other.

I might suggest that the word 'Uke' was first misunderstood when the Americans were in Okinawa and Japan post WW2. They were taught 'schoolboy karate' by the Japanese and took it home believing like you that they knew everything. In the intervening 60 years many practitioners have realised that there is much more to karate than was originally shown. You obviously haven't kept up with the change. As to blocks, as I have often explained, why would I teach someone a technique that takes time when an instinctive move does a better job. Even my 5yo grandson can block a strike to his head without me teaching him to block. Blocking and deflecting are almost exact opposites when it comes to fighting. A block stops an attack. A deflection allows the attack to continue but off target.

As I said earlier, there are a lot of 'advanced beginners' teaching karate.

Originally Posted by K-man
I don't know which stances you are referring to but all our stances are utilised in grappling. In the fighting you are used to you would normally only see moto dachi. That was our sparring stance. Often in tournaments I would also use neko, but until you are actually grappling the other stances don't come into play.

Back stance, front stance, cat stance, horse stance, Crane Leg stance, Half-Moon, Sanchin, etc. Sorry, don't feel like looking up the Japanese names.

Interesting, since Karate is not known for grappling, and actual grappling arts don't teach grappling/throws in that fashion.

Seeing you have never trained grappling in your karate how would you know? For what it's worth here is a video of us training 'stances'.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gxyyK_9vZ6A

Originally Posted by K-man
Your 'archaic blocking system' is also at odds with reality. I teach that there are no blocks in karate, at least none that need to be taught. The techniques you are thinking of as 'blocks' might be used as a block, but again, I would never even think of using them that way and I would never teach them as blocks.

Then why are they literally called "blocks"?

As has been said, they aren't. The literal meaning is 'receive'. The techniques taught as blocks utilise two hands. I'll leave it to you to try to work out which hand is doing what.

Originally Posted by K-man
And to cap of the demonstration that you learned little from your time in karate, the 'chambered punch' is kihon. The reality is the punch is thrown from where ever your hand is. The chambered part is for grappling but no point in trying to explain that to you. You don't want to understand.

Nope, because its nonsense. The same type of nonsense that says the reverse punch when chambered quickly is actually an elbow strike if someone is behind you.

A reverse punch is a reverse punch, a hand pulled back to carriage can be many things including a backward elbow.

You are the perfect example of why I no longer teach children. They think they know everything when in fact they know very little. What you learned in your junior karate class was kihon. You never got to the next level.

 

[Hanzou]

because the person that invented the style thought it was important.

A person who lived over 100 years ago. Shouldn't the art evolve over time? For example, judoka revere Kano, but that hasn't stopped judo coaches from removing kata from its syllabus.

Tradition and it works

It "works" in what sense? Again, we have other styles, even some karate styles, that have abandoned kata completely and turn out just fine. If we're spending a good portion of class time on kata just because of tradition, shouldn't that class time be spent on something a bit more applicable to the development of overall fighting ability?

 

[donald1]

You will never hear me say that kata is not a training tool. The question is that if a martial art can be successful without kata practice, why does kata exist in some styles? Is it simply because of tradition? Is karate somehow more difficult to learn without kata practice?

I thought I'd go ahead and throw my 2 cents in. If I've learned anything in karate involving kata. When my instructor teaches kata a lot of the time he will teach us what it could be. I'm not going to too into detail but if in the kata you punch, kick, step then punch you could see what else is effective like punch, kick, step, elbow strike, backfist, then punch

Two man sets like bunkai are important but kata are just as important too
Best of luck

 

[ballen0351]

A person who lived over 100 years ago.

who did? Chojun Miyagi founder of Goju died in the 1953, Tatsuo Shimabuku founder of Isshin Ryu died in 1975, Masutatsu Oyama founder of Kyokushin died in the 1990s. All believed in the benefits of Kata

Shouldn't the art evolve over time?

Not if they are still effective and work. Also that would depend on what you want out of Karate

For example, judoka revere Kano, but that hasn't stopped judo coaches from removing kata from its syllabus.

Sport based schools do The Judo I was taught didnt remove anything.
Again it also depends on what you want out of Karate. And Judo isnt Karate its Judo

It "works" in what sense?

I dont follow? In every sense I need it to

Again, we have other styles, even some karate styles, that have abandoned kata completely and turn out just fine.

Your arguing a point nobody made. Nobody said you must train Kata or else your a faliure. Id argue your not learning the Karate the way it was designed by its founder but again it all depends on what you want out of Karate. You also speak of Karate like its one thing and its not

If we're spending a good portion of class time on kata just because of tradition, shouldn't that class time be spent on something a bit more applicable to the development of overall fighting ability?

Again your opinion is Kata doesnt develop overall fighting ability and I disagree


Look you came into the Karate section of this forum to tell Karate guys the bedrock of what they do some here for decades is basically crap. Its not going to fly here in the Karate section. Try that nonsense in a different section you may get a better response. You dont like Kata great dont do it. Your not going to change anyones mind here

 

[EddieCyrax]

You train Karate right? What are your thoughts on this;
Considering that Kyokushin's kata looks like this;

First Caveat: - I am only 5ish years in my training....I have a world still to learn.
2nd Caveat: - I am sure there are many others on this forum and more specifically on this thread that can provide much more insight than I.

But since you asked I will scratch the surface with only one small observation, but there are others.....

First video.... look at the practitioner's stances... Although they are moving they generally maintain their neutral bow... Feet apart/balanced...allows for weight transfer to either front/back/sides for defense/attack.... They base their feet to build structure when they move into attack. They are pulling their strikes as this is a friendly sparring session. They are clearly being playful here. This said - you can still clearly see the body mechanics

Second video - first kata shown (i know this as One Pinan in my style) - This is the first kata taught in my style. Purpose is to introduce and isolate neutral bow stance while moving. In addition it develops the concept of striking power through Force = Mass*Acceleration.... The combination of stance and the delivery of force. I am sure their is even more to it that others can explain.

If in the first video the practitioners fully engaged, ideally you would see where the stance/structure adds additional power to their strikes/kicks.

My instructors stances are extremely solid in everything they do (kata/sparring). They create incredible power from the stance/structure even while in motion.

You practice BJJ.....I am sure your instructors talk about base structure.....it is no different in stand-up......

 

[EddieCyrax]

Also notice in first video the yellow belt.....his stances are all over the place. He is in bad form/position throughout. Negates both is ability to defend and initiate an attack. If this was a real fight this would have robbed a lot of potential power in his strikes, and lack of balance would have potentially put him on the ground.

 

[jks9199]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
Asst. Administrator

 

[EddieCyrax]

I was the same at yellow.....all beginners have to learn....heck I am still learning....no disrespect intended to anyone in the video.....

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the goal is to resemble the kata while fighting.

I believe it should be the other way around. The form/Kata should resemble the fighting. If we want to evolve the MA, we should create "modern" form/Kata in such a way that each and every move should be exactly the same as you will use it in combat. Those form/kata should be used only for "teaching and learning". It should not be used for "training".

The following 2 form/Kata were created in the modern time. IMO, sometime the "modern" form/Kata is better than the ancient form/Kata.

Should Karate also create "modern" form/Kata?

 

[drop bear]

You will never hear me say that kata is not a training tool. The question is that if a martial art can be successful without kata practice, why does kata exist in some styles? Is it simply because of tradition? Is karate somehow more difficult to learn without kata practice?



You train Karate right? What are your thoughts on this;

Considering that Kyokushin's kata looks like this;

That cuts both ways. If a martial art can be successful with kata then everybody should be doing it.

Now let's look at this a bit. kyokashin kick differently to Thai. Two oposing methods two successful results. Even within our club we don't have one generic training method or one style of fighting.

So what is your clubs most successful submission. The one everybody should be spending the bulk of their time training?