When the kata is applied to self defense

[now disabled]

Considering the number of likes, I would say yes. I've seen Masaaki Hatsumi and Hayes do similar stuff.

Are you posting for likes ? and I'd be very careful about saying you have seen etc when I have doubts that you are actually grasping what Kata and Kihon are ....How traditional based arts are taught (and don't get into the Koryu thing as if your not getting the why of Kata etc I very much doubt that you will get what Koryu and Gendai are and what the differences are and what comes from where etc)

sorry for being blunt but you seem to have a very narrow minded approach to things (that is your choice) however maybe a little research before opening broadside may be in order ...just a thought to ponder on

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I’ve been giving this some thought. I think there are many differences, but the most important one is that boxers don’t generally fake the outcome of a punch. They train the technique, work combos on focus mitts to practice delivering the technique with power and proper footwork, and then spar. In this video, the entire sequence is, they do this, so you punch them here, then they do that, then you parry the punch.

I only bring this up because you said you don’t see a difference between the video and how a boxer learns a combo. I really don’t think the learning process is very similar.

I'd consider this training method (not the techniques, but the training) similar to the focus mitts. There is an assumption of response/situation in that. The trainer provides a set of targets and responses that's repetitive (in repetitive drills - obviously, mitts don't have to be repetitive). The issue - and I think it's what you're getting at - is if there's no sparring, they'll never know if any of these transitions are actually likely. Whereas, because they spar so often, boxers are pretty aware the combinations they train are responding to things that actually happen from time to time.

So, let me be clear, I think this fills the same function as one part of how a boxer learns a combo. There are some reasonable arguments to be made about the advantages of mitts (speed, using some power, etc.) and the advantages of using a person (can see what your block would actually contact, etc.) and whether the trade-off is worth it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Dutch drills.

But the idea is the drills are trained because of the hands on experience of the trainer.

So there are different qualifiers.

I haven't seen those for boxers, but it's really much the same as focus mitt drills. And you've said more concisely what I was getting at. The issue, to me, isn't the drill (focus mitts vs those 2-man sequences), but whether the reactions used are realistic. We can be surer of the boxing drills.

 

[now disabled]

is This considered good budo taijutsu?

I don't wanna upset again but can I ask what you consider to be good Budo taijutsu and also what you define Budo as .... I am not being nasty or provocative at all I ask cause maybe what in the west Budo is defined as may not exactly be the same as the country of origin as many things and concepts can be lost in translation ...just a simple question no more

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Now I ave stayed out of this as what I am going to say will probably upset going on past experience but I will not stay silent when a very narrow minded view is adopted.

First I would suggest you go and look up what the definition of Kata means ..... then

I would suggest that you also (you seem hell bent on dumping on everything that you view as not real because of videos) go and research what Kihon waza is and why it is done ...

Also I would put to you directly this ... When you were taught to read etc , did you start of by learning from simple books and very simple sentences or did you start learning by having say War and Peace put in front of you or Shakespeare or the Greek classics?

If you can answer that sir then and going and doing some simple research on how some arts are taught and why and finding out about Kihon and Kata then you just might grasp things slightly better.

Is it you just have a personal bias against any Arts that teach by use of Kata and Kihon ? or could it be that you yourself don't and do not want to understand that way?

Also may I point out that your avatar is (I presume you know who that is and his history) that in his art (that he developed and in the art the arts he developed it from) there are Kata (yes Kata has more than one meaning ) there is Katame no Kata and Nage no Kata and Randori no Kata ..................... now There is also Goshin Jutsu and Randori no waza ............ so if you are going to do the latter two then I would suggest that the other Kata have to be learned first (yes there are more Kata that them) or is that not the case? and there by you are saying then Judo is no good as how it teaches? .....

You're coming across pretty condescending in this post.

 

[JR 137]

I don't wanna upset again but can I ask what you consider to be good Budo taijutsu and also what you define Budo as .... I am not being nasty or provocative at all I ask cause maybe what in the west Budo is defined as may not exactly be the same as the country of origin as many things and concepts can be lost in translation ...just a simple question no more

I thought (and responded that) it was a good question, so I’ll respond why. Before I state that, “budo taijutsu” is what the art itself is sometimes referred to as. “Budo” wasn’t thrown in there as a reference to any preconceived notions.

If the overwhelming majority of the art’s practitioners are saying this isn’t what the kata nor system teach, we can assume the teaching is most likely flawed and not representative of how it’s supposed to be done. If the overwhelming majority of the practitioners say this “is good budo taijutsu” we can assume his teachings are in line with how the system is taught and trained.

Good to you and me may be two completely different things. But good or bad to a lot of experts of a system is far more consistent of a measure.

A better way to phrase it may have been “is this considered good in budo taijutsu experts’ eyes?”

 

[now disabled]

I thought (and responded that) it was a good question, so I’ll respond why. Before I state that, “budo taijutsu” is what the art itself is sometimes referred to as. “Budo” wasn’t thrown in there as a reference to any preconceived notions.

If the overwhelming majority of the art’s practitioners are saying this isn’t what the kata nor system teach, we can assume the teaching is most likely flawed and not representative of how it’s supposed to be done. If the overwhelming majority of the practitioners say this “is good budo taijutsu” we can assume his teachings are in line with how the system is taught and trained.

Good to you and me may be two completely different things. But good or bad to a lot of experts of a system is far more consistent of a measure.

A better way to phrase it may have been “is this considered good in budo taijutsu experts’ eyes?”

I get what your saying and I was not having a go at yourself or any others

Opinions will also vary and it will depend on who is in the "forum" where the questions are raised (I don't just mean here)

Attaching the word Budo to anything will always lead to different ideas and even pre conceived ideas ... as I said it is possible that the attaching of that word gives some one idea (and I am not meaning you specifically or any one person) where as what the "natives of the language may take in a completely different way or a wider way/concept.

I am not saying your question was wrong or in any way of that ilk nor am I saying what you have posted is wrong (that is not my right to decide).

Also (and I do not know this in regards to that specific Art) who actually prefixed it with Budo ? was it the Headmaster or was it someone else or was it a mix and done to attract a more western "audience", as in a marketing thing ? or if it was the headmaster has his using of that word been taken out of context to his conception of the word ?

Again not having a go

 

[now disabled]

I thought (and responded that) it was a good question, so I’ll respond why. Before I state that, “budo taijutsu” is what the art itself is sometimes referred to as. “Budo” wasn’t thrown in there as a reference to any preconceived notions.

If the overwhelming majority of the art’s practitioners are saying this isn’t what the kata nor system teach, we can assume the teaching is most likely flawed and not representative of how it’s supposed to be done. If the overwhelming majority of the practitioners say this “is good budo taijutsu” we can assume his teachings are in line with how the system is taught and trained.

Good to you and me may be two completely different things. But good or bad to a lot of experts of a system is far more consistent of a measure.

A better way to phrase it may have been “is this considered good in budo taijutsu experts’ eyes?”

I get what your saying and I was not having a go at yourself or any others

Opinions will also vary and it will depend on who is in the "forum" where the questions are raised (I don't just mean here)

Attaching the word Budo to anything will always lead to different ideas and even pre conceived ideas ... as I said it is possible that the attaching of that word gives some one idea (and I am not meaning you specifically or any one person) where as what the "natives of the language may take in a completely different way or a wider way/concept.

I am not saying your question was wrong or in any way of that ilk nor am I saying what you have posted is wrong (that is not my right to decide).

Also (and I do not know this in regards to that specific Art) who actually prefixed it with Budo ? was it the Headmaster or was it someone else or was it a mix and done to attract a more western "audience", as in a marketing thing ? or if it was the headmaster has his using of that word been taken out of context to his conception of the word ?

Again not having a go

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Clearly they're applying some sort of kata to a self defense sequence. One of the reasons I've never liked this form of teaching is because the supposed reaction to the strike or technique is almost never realistic. In one part of this video, the instructor blocks and grabs the student's wrist, pulls them forward, side kicks him, causing the target to double over, which then supposedly sets up a takedown. Well, what if the person doesn't double over? What if the person pulls his hand back and clocks you with his other hand? What if you're not strong enough to pull the person forward to set up the side kick?

Ironically, most of what you're objecting to in the lesson isn't part of the kata. The actual kata he's building on in this lesson are very short, to the point, and don't contain any assumptions on what the opponent will do (other than the original attack being reacted to.)

What the instructor is trying to do is use those classical kata as a springboard for illustrating potential sequences that might arise out of a modern realistic attack. If you asked your "what-ifs", he would probably be happy to show you how he would flow to deal with those contingencies.

Unfortunately, I don't get the impression that he has enough experience with real fights or hard sparring to make his sequences all that realistic.

Also (and I do not know this in regards to that specific Art) who actually prefixed it with Budo ? was it the Headmaster or was it someone else or was it a mix and done to attract a more western "audience", as in a marketing thing ? or if it was the headmaster has his using of that word been taken out of context to his conception of the word ?

The full name of the art is Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, given by headmaster Massaki Hatsumi. It's Hatsumi's personal expression of the classical arts (Kukushinden ryu, Takagi Yoshin ryu, etc) that he learned and also teaches. (I actually don't remember if this instructor is part of the Bujinkan or if he belongs to one of it's offshoots.)

is This considered good budo taijutsu?

That sort of judgment gets tricky in the Bujinkan, because there is no universally agreed on standard. Rank promotions are notoriously inconsistent and instructors are widely divergent in what they teach. Evaluation of instructors from other schools can end up being ... political as much as anything else.

Based on the video, I'd say the instructor doesn't look exceptionally good or bad. Maybe just middle-of-the-road typical of what you might expect from a random X-kan dojo.

 

[JR 137]

I get what your saying and I was not having a go at yourself or any others

Opinions will also vary and it will depend on who is in the "forum" where the questions are raised (I don't just mean here)

Attaching the word Budo to anything will always lead to different ideas and even pre conceived ideas ... as I said it is possible that the attaching of that word gives some one idea (and I am not meaning you specifically or any one person) where as what the "natives of the language may take in a completely different way or a wider way/concept.

I am not saying your question was wrong or in any way of that ilk nor am I saying what you have posted is wrong (that is not my right to decide).

Also (and I do not know this in regards to that specific Art) who actually prefixed it with Budo ? was it the Headmaster or was it someone else or was it a mix and done to attract a more western "audience", as in a marketing thing ? or if it was the headmaster has his using of that word been taken out of context to his conception of the word ?

Again not having a go

I didn’t interpret anything as “having a go” at anyone. Nor was my reply. Apologies if it seemed that way.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

(I actually don't remember if this instructor is part of the Bujinkan or if he belongs to one of it's offshoots.)

I double-checked. He trains Bujinkan and also Toshindo.

 

[now disabled]

If you asked your "what-ifs", he would probably be happy to show you how he would flow to deal with those contingencies

That is the same statement that my first teacher said ....if you don't understand why or how ask .....

 

[now disabled]

I didn’t interpret anything as “having a go” at anyone. Nor was my reply. Apologies if it seemed that way.

none needed my friend none at all

 

[now disabled]

You're coming across pretty condescending in this post.

Maybe so but I do feel that there is a distinct lack of understanding of what things actually are .... and well I was just being forthright and ok the analogy was that way but to my thinking it proves a point

And the thing about the avatar well that was me being snarky

However it seems that imo a little research before blasting an art or saying things like avoid like the plague would not go amiss

Ask rather than state (and if I get it wrong I will stand corrected or if I think I am right I will try and put up some form of argument - assuming that is it can be kept civil ..)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Maybe so but I do feel that there is a distinct lack of understanding of what things actually are .... and well I was just being forthright and ok the analogy was that way but to my thinking it proves a point

And the thing about the avatar well that was me being snarky

However it seems that imo a little research before blasting an art or saying things like avoid like the plague would not go amiss

Ask rather than state (and if I get it wrong I will stand corrected or if I think I am right I will try and put up some form of argument - assuming that is it can be kept civil ..)

The OP didn't blast any art. At worst, he "blasted" a specific program and training method.

You appear to assume he doesn't know what kata are, rather than that he doesn't consider it an effective partner training tool.

 

[now disabled]

The OP didn't blast any art. At worst, he "blasted" a specific program and training method.

You appear to assume he doesn't know what kata are, rather than that he doesn't consider it an effective partner training tool.

Our opinions differ there ... and we will have to agree to disagree

 

[Steve]

I'd consider this training method (not the techniques, but the training) similar to the focus mitts. There is an assumption of response/situation in that. The trainer provides a set of targets and responses that's repetitive (in repetitive drills - obviously, mitts don't have to be repetitive). The issue - and I think it's what you're getting at - is if there's no sparring, they'll never know if any of these transitions are actually likely. Whereas, because they spar so often, boxers are pretty aware the combinations they train are responding to things that actually happen from time to time.

So, let me be clear, I think this fills the same function as one part of how a boxer learns a combo. There are some reasonable arguments to be made about the advantages of mitts (speed, using some power, etc.) and the advantages of using a person (can see what your block would actually contact, etc.) and whether the trade-off is worth it.

Once again, regardless of the purpose, I think the mechanics are different. You said you see little difference. Fundamentally, the training is constructed differently, even of both are intended to serve the same function. I bring it up because, in my opinion, training mechanics are a significant reason why some martial arts are more efficient at building skill than others.

I don't wanna upset again but can I ask what you consider to be good Budo taijutsu and also what you define Budo as .... I am not being nasty or provocative at all I ask cause maybe what in the west Budo is defined as may not exactly be the same as the country of origin as many things and concepts can be lost in translation ...just a simple question no more

I have no idea whatsoever what might be considered good budo taijutsu. That’s why I ask. I am very skeptical of the techniques demonstrated in this video, and also of the training mechanics, but those are independent of the style.

 

[Steve]

Maybe so but I do feel that there is a distinct lack of understanding of what things actually are .... and well I was just being forthright and ok the analogy was that way but to my thinking it proves a point

And the thing about the avatar well that was me being snarky

However it seems that imo a little research before blasting an art or saying things like avoid like the plague would not go amiss

Ask rather than state (and if I get it wrong I will stand corrected or if I think I am right I will try and put up some form of argument - assuming that is it can be kept civil ..)

If you do a search for kata, we have had some really interesting threads on what it is and what it might be. Believe me, if you think you’re condescending, you haven’t seen anything yet. Stir it up enough, and you’ll have plenty of back up from the kata faithful.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Once again, regardless of the purpose, I think the mechanics are different. You said you see little difference. Fundamentally, the training is constructed differently, even of both are intended to serve the same function. I bring it up because, in my opinion, training mechanics are a significant reason why some martial arts are more efficient at building skill than others.

You spoke before of the progression, and I agree on that point. This type of thing could be used where something like focus mitt drills is used, but it'll still need the other bits to complete the progression. There is also the point about power. While I don't put anything like full power into focus mitts, I certainly give them more than this kind of drill, so maybe that's a weak comparison. I tend to see things as crossing over between grappling and striking, so I draw some parallels that are conceptual, but maybe not direct enough for this discussion. This type of drill may be more analogous to the first part of a grappling progression, where the partner feeds slowly and gently and we reply the same way. In mixed work (grappling and striking) we often use the same approach on the entering strike to a grappling move in a drill.

 

[Hanzou]

Now I ave stayed out of this as what I am going to say will probably upset going on past experience but I will not stay silent when a very narrow minded view is adopted.

First I would suggest you go and look up what the definition of Kata means ..... then

I would suggest that you also (you seem hell bent on dumping on everything that you view as not real because of videos) go and research what Kihon waza is and why it is done ...

Also I would put to you directly this ... When you were taught to read etc , did you start of by learning from simple books and very simple sentences or did you start learning by having say War and Peace put in front of you or Shakespeare or the Greek classics?

The difference being that extensive kata practice has yet to yield any verifiable evidence of more advanced fighting ability. In fact, the evidence would show the opposite to be true.

If you can answer that sir then and going and doing some simple research on how some arts are taught and why and finding out about Kihon and Kata then you just might grasp things slightly better.

Mainly because of tradition. That isn't always the best reason to do something.

Is it you just have a personal bias against any Arts that teach by use of Kata and Kihon ? or could it be that you yourself don't and do not want to understand that way?

Neither. Nice guess though

Also may I point out that your avatar is (I presume you know who that is and his history) that in his art (that he developed and in the art the arts he developed it from) there are Kata (yes Kata has more than one meaning ) there is Katame no Kata and Nage no Kata and Randori no Kata ..................... now There is also Goshin Jutsu and Randori no waza ............ so if you are going to do the latter two then I would suggest that the other Kata have to be learned first (yes there are more Kata that them) or is that not the case? and there by you are saying then Judo is no good as how it teaches? .....

Kata and Bunkai isn't the focus of Judo training, which was the point I was making in the OP.