The value of kata

[newGuy12]

Yes, I understand. Thank you Sir.

I hope that you daughter will give good submission holds and win all of her matches! You can show her extra techniques!

Aloha!

 

[Kacey]

If kata/tul/forms/hyung/patterns/whatever you call them doesn't work for you, don't do them. For me, tul are a piece of training, along with line drills, step sparring, free sparring, hol-sin-sul (specific self-defense application), etc. - specifically, tul are a way for me to practice sequential movements without a partner, something that allows me to explore movements determined to be useful and of interest by the founder of a style - in this case, Gen. Choi Hong Hi, founder of Ch'ang H'on TKD.

If you don't like them - don't do them. But that doesn't mean that they are useless/meaningless/etc. for everyone else as well as yourself.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Breathing is just like forms. It's comepletely and totaly useless if you don't understand why it is your doing it.

 

[Sukerkin]

Probably the best precis of the place and importance of kata I've ever read, Cuong - excellent :applause:.

I would add another instance of my own 'tuppence' to this but having gone quite a few times round the block with this topic (the last being what seems like only a few minutes ago) I'm sure that if anyone's interested in what I have to say they can find it via the 'Search function'.

 

[Brian S]

I have given up on trying to justify kata training to no kata types.

It perplexes me why they are so concerned that others are doing kata. They are not wasting their time so why do they feel compelled to tell me I'm wasting mine?

Well, something is missing in their training and they can't get their minds around it. They simply must know why we do kata and defend it so.

Kata can't be explained on paper. You have to practice it right, train it right, and test it right. For all this you have to have a qualified instructor in your presence. Apparently, they do not.

 

[meth18au]

I have given up on trying to justify kata training to no kata types.

It perplexes me why they are so concerned that others are doing kata. They are not wasting their time so why do they feel compelled to tell me I'm wasting mine?

Well, something is missing in their training and they can't get their minds around it. They simply must know why we do kata and defend it so.
.

Dear Sir


Not all "no kata types" feel that way, nor do most people even feel the need to discriminate between "kata" arts and "non kata" arts. I also don't feel anything is missing in my training because of a lack of kata.


Aren't we all just martial artists? When language is used that separates martial artists into "kata artists" and "non-kata artists", this is what promotes the whole idea of 'sides'. These threads then become futile because it becomes a verbal slanging match between certain people on both "sides"- and the intelligent comments get overlooked because of this situation. I see this as preventing any useful debate- an in-group and an out-group- on both "sides" of the arguement.


I hope no offence is taken. But I'm a martial artist.....not a "non kata" artist.....

 

[Nomad]

I might say the same about people that think sparring is shallow in comparison

Quite probably. I've never professed to be expert at either, but simply view kata and sparring as complementary tools with slightly different but interconnected goals in mind.

 

[Flying Crane]

Why some people seem to want to claim kata are the best training method for everything anyone could possibly want is beyond me, it isn't. It is a fairly specific one, used for fairly specific purposes.

Ah, I meant to stay out of this, yet another debate over the worth, or lack thereof, of kata. But Andrew's comment brought something to mind and I decided to comment.

I don't think anyone who is a proponent of kata would suggest that it is the only training method needed. Kata is simply one tool, among many, that are useful in training in the traditional arts. That's the thing. Nobody says, if you do kata you need do nothing else. It's still a good idea to work on a heavy bag, work realistic applications on partners, etc. Kata just helps build a foundation in traditional arts, upon which the other training methods can better stand.

 

[exile]

Actually, I think I'd go even further than Michael and deny that kata are a training method at all. A training method starts from some analysis of strategy and tactics for the activity in question and gives you concrete activities that let you develop the skills necessary to implement those strategic and tactical goals. Take Alpine slalom ski racing. The keys to slalom racing are (i) minimize the radius of your turns, and (ii) take the line that lets you initiate the turn as high above the next gate as possible. To implement (i), you need to develop the art of carving your turns, while terminating the carving in time to flatten the ski very briefly to get the carve for the next turn, in the opposite direction, under way. To implement (ii), you need to be able to step your turns, so that when you shift your weight—early!—to the new outside ski, you also move that ski uphill, giving yourself the maximum turning space to get your line really close to the upcoming gate. But to train these skills is a fundamentally different kind of thing from the skills themselves. When I was racing and instructing, we used all kinds of tricks and routines to get our students to carve their turns: very wide stance parallel turns, one-leg turns, graduated length skis, graduated steepness slopes, etc. We had training methods for skiing, for teaching skiing, for racing, but the goal of these methods were (i) and (ii), because they represented the constraints on the activity that had to be satisfied to the maximum extent possible if you were going to win the race (or be an effective non-racing skier; we made no distinction between racing and recreational technique).

Kata are the same thing. They aren't a training method; they're the physical embodiment of certain combat principles and tactics that you then have to train effectively in. In the UK, the British Combat Association takes heavily realistic scenario-based training to be the right way to train the SD principles embodied in the kata. What kata are is not a training method, but a fighting method; the way you learn that fighting method can involve visualization, bag work, two-partner training, multipartner noncompliant training with heavy padding, or with only light padding, for those who like to live dangerously... but what's being trained is a different beast than the method by which it's being trained. It's like: there's all kinds of algorithms to carry out a Fourier transform, and some are better than others for any given piece of computational hardware, but regardless of which algorithm you use, you're still carrying out the same mathematical operation. The algorithm which realizes the operation is like the training method, but the operation itself is what the kata correspond to.

 

[still learning]

Hello, Kata ( Japanese name) for sets of movements of Karate techniques practice in a percise way.

Kata's for most martial artist is : Pinan or Heian sets....NOTHING else

When we practice or training.....(this is NOT call kata!) ...just practice or training.

ONE can train and practice "KATA". Many people do not under stand this what the term Kata means?

You can make ski lessons into a Kata? ..ski kata number one, (same set of movements, ski kata two ....same set of movements-different sets, and so on!

Kata? ....when one says Kata? ....Pinan one....most of us know what to do.

When we practice kicking and punching...this is practicing...."Jap, punch, kick..drills..and change the drills to round house, jab, punch...and etc..

You can train and practice KATA! Is "kata" a noun? or a verb?

Aloha ( NO english)

 

[Flying Crane]

Kata's for most martial artist is : Pinan or Heian sets....NOTHING else

...ooohh, methinks you are gonna get a lot of disagreement here...

 

[Kacey]

Kata's for most martial artist is : Pinan or Heian sets....NOTHING else

Kata, tul, palgwe, patterns - whatever you choose to call them - are used in different ways by different arts, and even within arts, are used different ways by different instructors, and are understood differently by every person who
performs them.

It may be true, in your experience, that for most martial artists kata are, indeed, Pinan or Heian sets - for myself, I've never done one - and I know quite a few tuls.

I have also, as both a student and an instructor, modified tuls and exercises to suit my own needs at the moment, as well as created a fair number of training routines that were designed to teach a particular skill or skill set. If I, as an instructor, require my students to perform a particular set of movements repeatedly, in the same fashion each time, how is that different from a tul? How is modifying a tul to meet the needs of the student (as either a student or an instructor) different from modifying a set of movements used in sequence for a particular purpose?

We have - not just you and I, but many people on this thread - a definition of "pattern" that varies, as I said, from style to style, organization to organization, school to school, instructor to instructor, practitioner to practitioner. It is quite apparent from your comments that you have little, if any, use for kata - and that's your choice. It is not, however, my choice, nor is it the choice of many of the posters on this board. That does not make you wrong, or me wrong - it makes both of us right, for the circumstances in which patterns are used (or not used) by each of us - and that's okay with me.

 

[newGuy12]

/* please forgive me for being off topic here */
I just HAVE to thank you people, each of you, for being who you are. You people will live and die without ever realizing just how special you are.

Even when there is disagreements, even though I am so new to this board, what an interesting group of people we have assembled here in our little virtual community, and I mean that most sincerely.

Its not often that it is so clear to me just how interesting human beings can be. A rat or a dog, they would not have any idea what we write about here, let alone be so passionate about it.

So many times I have read these forums, and it has filled my brain up with awe and wonder, even when I do not agree with what is written. It seems as though there must be something that can be said, some awesome point made, that could make it all so clear to everyone just how we are NOT really in disagreement, but there is only a misunderstanding.

However, it just simply escapes me. Its just not there.
/* thank you all for allowing this off topic post*/

 

[jks9199]

I've never, in more than 20 years, done a Pinan or Heian. But I've done about 10 different forms, and worked with several beyond that.

I'm not sure what Still Learning is saying. I'm confused; has he suddenly come round to believe in forms? Or is he mocking them by calling every exercise consisting of repeated movement sequences a form or kata?

 

[tellner]

I find it difficult to agree with anything Still Learning says. But he has a point. When he talks disparagingly about forms and katas almost everyone says "You do jab, cross, hook, uppercut. Isn't that a form? Isn't that the same as a kata?" If you want to be that broad, then "One foot in front of the other" is The Walking Kata. But it's still disingenuous. Because then they say "Any patterned movement is a kata. That patterned movement is good. So whatever patterned movement we do is good." The more honest ones will admit that there's a real difference between a short combination and a whole hyung. But most of them won't.

So yes, he has a point. What he does is qualitatively different. It's not accurate or honest to conflate that and, say the 108 kuen of Wah Lum Praying Mantis.

 

[still learning]

Hello, Since I am unable to explain what a KATA is? and many of you do not see this point of view? ....that is OK.

Each of us have their own beliefs....each has a right to choose your paths......I am NO longer a sheep....I question many things that is being taught in the martial art world.

Why? does this work? ...why do we do this? Why? Why? and questions....

IS THERE A BETTER WAY to learn what we are learning in the martial art world? It there a better to remember the many techniques and moves?

Is there a faster way to build speed? ..reactions? ...Is there a more effective form of teaching?

Still learning is seeking A NEW PATH OF LEARNING....that is why there is so many arts...each seeking the truths of self-defence...yet all of them have weakness in many parts? ...one reason why so many new arts are being form....each seeking the truths or the best way!

Can we do better than what is taught today? Off course! There are better ways to improve everything .....

Learning the martial arts...can be endless

S/L may be seen as thorn to some.....maybe hit in the head too many times.......I know what I am seeking....still learning is NOT a sheep anymore...

Musahi Miyamoto was always seeking to improve his swordman ship....than a change in point of his life...and wrote "The five rings"...

Aloha, So many things in life was once true....until one day new things are learn and found to truer...that can change too!

 

[newGuy12]

Well, I for one, am so ready for the robotic sparring partners! Can you imagine? You can lay into one of those full power, and nobody cares. Its a robot! What a great idea!

 

[Brian S]

Dear Sir


Not all "no kata types" feel that way, nor do most people even feel the need to discriminate between "kata" arts and "non kata" arts. I also don't feel anything is missing in my training because of a lack of kata.


Aren't we all just martial artists? When language is used that separates martial artists into "kata artists" and "non-kata artists", this is what promotes the whole idea of 'sides'. These threads then become futile because it becomes a verbal slanging match between certain people on both "sides"- and the intelligent comments get overlooked because of this situation. I see this as preventing any useful debate- an in-group and an out-group- on both "sides" of the arguement.


I hope no offence is taken. But I'm a martial artist.....not a "non kata" artist.....

Sorry if I was speaking so generally. I realize there are many many different ways to train and everyone has their own opinion.

No offence was taken.

 

[ChingChuan]

I think that kata are supposed to be a 'way of learning'. I don't know much about katas/ forms in other systems apart from Pencak Silat (jurus/langkah) but I think that each element of such a kata teaches you another principle - even if it's a long one.- it's a way to help you see that 'something can also be done in this or that way'.

An example (in Pencak Silat) would be the use of a an aksraha (kind of low position) in different situations - in jurus 1 you use it to avoid a front kick, in jurus 24 you use a slightly different version to avoid a side kick that you wrongly assumed to be a front kick. Well, and of course there are more movements than only that aksraha in those jurus, so this would apply to each jurus - each movement is used in a slightly different way or in a different sequence.
So, apparently, they found that teaching MA this way in the past worked best, so now almost all systems/arts have katas because that worked. Maybe there are better methods, but does that devalue the kata in itself?

It's just like you've got to memorize a whole list of Latin words or something. One person just reads the list over and over, the other copies it several times, another person uses a computer program to test himself - there are many methods to achieve this goal, but none is better than the other, because all of these methods help people achieve their goal - knowing that words. A kata helps (some) people to achieve their goal - mastering the principles & techniques of that particular art.

So, what is the discussion really about? To me, it seems as though people are frustrated with the quality of the teachers - of course, a kata/jurus/etc will be worthless if the teacher can't use it the right way (to explain something rather than as a goal in itself), but that isn't the fault of the kata, is it?

 

[exile]

The more honest ones will admit that there's a real difference between a short combination and a whole hyung. But most of them won't.

So yes, he has a point. What he does is qualitatively different. It's not accurate or honest to conflate that and, say the 108 kuen of Wah Lum Praying Mantis.

This is a point that needs to be examined a bit, because I think that one of the main sources of misunderstandings about the martial content of kata is that they're viewed as novels, rather than collections of short stories, so to speak. Every kata and hyung that I know can be `parsed' into a number of three-to-five move combat scenarios, any one of which would constitute a `short' combination in the sense you're talking about. Sometimes you've got what looks like the same thing going towards the opposide side, i.e., looking simply like a 180º rotation of all moves, but here too, along the lines ChingChuan says below, the repetition of the sequence is in effect an invitation to give a different combat interpretation to the same sequence of moves: what was a punch with a hikite retraction pulling the attacker in on the first interpretation can just as easly be seen as a quick, violent head twist, where the punch and retraction correspond to grips (hence the closed fists) of the attacker's head with both hand and the punch/retraction motion itself to a (potentially very) damaging torque on his neck vertebræ. Often there are multiple interpretations for the same sequence of moves: you may have moves M1-M2-M3-M4 that correspond nicely to a single combat sequence, but you may also find that M1–M3 itself is complete, and that M4 can be taken to be the beginning of a sequence that goes on to M5 and M6. Sometimes a pivot can be in effect a bit of punctuation before the next sentence, and sometimes it can be a word in the `sentence' made up of the words—the series of movement—corresponding to a complete fighting scenario. The point is that each kata typically contains a number of such subsequences, and they're at least semi-independent of each other.

This is crucial for the KMAs in particular because, if you look at certain hyung sets, such as the Palgwes, you can find in virtually every one of them a mixture of movements from different kata (very often the Pinans, Naihanchi and Bassai—the great classics). But the Palgwes work very well as records of combat technique because the mixture of movements turns out to be a stringing together of subsequences from the various sources, each subsequence having `stand-alone' integrity as a natural subpart of the kata it came from. It's like taking three collections of short stories and excerpting two short stories from each one, and then shuffling these together to produce a new collection. Yes, it looks different from any of the others, but each of its component stories make available the same narrative, with the same meaning, as that story did in the collection it originally appeared in. That's why hyungs, assembled from mixmastered elements of Shotokan kata as they often are, still have complete combat utility: the basic combat-effective subsequences have not been altered, just recombined with other such subsequences in a different package.

I was very struck, at a Combat Hapkido seminar I attended last spring, at how many of the CH drills we were shown by Gm. Pelligrini corresponded to components of TKD hyungs I've studied. CH has no hyungs. What they have are two-to-four move drills, for virtually every SD situation imaginable, and they have a ton of them. And I kept having this sense of déja vu: this stuff I'm doing now looks awfully familiar... I've done this before, but where? I realized at one point that these were in many cases the same sequences, with small variations, as what I'd seen thought about in various hyungs and katas. So in CH, you don't do katas but you do do drills, any four or five of which could be combined into something that would look an awful lot like a TKD hyung. Any differences would, I think, arise from the fact that CH doesn't use linear striking techs to the same degree as TKD does, so there are places where CH goes for a throw or a `terminal' hyperextension (= joint break, eh?) where TKD would go for a hard strike to a vulnerable vital point; but that's completely consistent with the main point—that kata and hyungs, if you parse them correctly, really represent combat scenario drilled hooked togather by movements that might just be transition stages, but might also have combat content themselves.

I think that kata are supposed to be a 'way of learning'. I don't know much about katas/ forms in other systems apart from Pencak Silat (jurus/langkah) but I think that each element of such a kata teaches you another principle - even if it's a long one.- it's a way to help you see that 'something can also be done in this or that way'.

An example (in Pencak Silat) would be the use of a an aksraha (kind of low position) in different situations - in jurus 1 you use it to avoid a front kick, in jurus 24 you use a slightly different version to avoid a side kick that you wrongly assumed to be a front kick. Well, and of course there are more movements than only that aksraha in those jurus, so this would apply to each jurus - each movement is used in a slightly different way or in a different sequence.
So, apparently, they found that teaching MA this way in the past worked best, so now almost all systems/arts have katas because that worked. Maybe there are better methods, but does that devalue the kata in itself?

...A kata helps (some) people to achieve their goal - mastering the principles & techniques of that particular art.

I'd go even further than this myself, CC, and say that for the karate based arts, the katas embody the `principles & techniques of [each] particular art'. Something always to be borne in mind is that in the early days of karate, the katas themselves were regarded not as separate exercise within the overarching art, but as the art itself. And they were spoken of in exactly this way; both Iain Abernethy in Bunkai Jutsu and Bill Burgar in Five Years, One Kata make the point that to the Okinawan pioneers, a kata was a separate `style' of MA in itself. Abernethy cites Choki Motobu as saying, in 1926, that `the Naihanchi, Passai, Chinto and Rohai styles are not left in China today and only remain in Okinawa as active martial arts', noting the enormous significance behind Motobu's use of the descriptions styles and marital arts for what we would almost certainly describe as just kata. The contemporary view was that a kata comprised enough separate SD techniques to be a separate fighting system unto itself, and there seems to be some documentary evidence that most of the early masters, though they may have been familiar with a number of kata, only trained deeply in two or three at most. More would have been superfluous.

So, what is the discussion really about? To me, it seems as though people are frustrated with the quality of the teachers - of course, a kata/jurus/etc will be worthless if the teacher can't use it the right way (to explain something rather than as a goal in itself), but that isn't the fault of the kata, is it?

Dead right, CC. The problem is that kata are not properly understood by instructors in many cases, because they learned from instructors who themselves had not been trained in the crucial combination of effective bunkai and realistic combat practice (very different from standard kumite). According to Gennosuke Higaki, most of Funikoshi's Japanese students only got a very bare-bones treatment of kata applications; the deeper understanding was reserved by the Okinawans for their Okinawan students, although in rare cases, such as Higaki's own master Shozan Kubota, one of his private student, Funakoshi would show them the Okinawan bunkai, making it clear that they shouldn't say anything about it to their fellow Japanese students. If the transmission of bunkai, and even more important, the methods of carrying out bunkai, the kaisai no genri, weren't transmitted to most of the early generation of students, the results of that generation's teaching would be seriously diluted with respect to the originals, and you can see how much that effect would accumulate with each succeeding generation of master/student instruction.

The good thing is that the craft of bunkai and its theoretical basis are being revived by karateka who have plenty of real-time combat experience (I'm thinking of the BCA types). The bad thing is that it's probably going to take a long, long time before these techniques, and more important, combat principles, regain the central place they once had in the dojo curriculum...