why do people hate kata

[exile]

i don't have anything against kata...but i find it useless when it comes to training for self defense and whatnot....i mean if you wanna do it for forms and stuff, go right ahead , nothing wrong with that...but if your goal is to compete in a full contact sport or self defense, then what you need to do is more pad/bagwork and sparring and less forms and kata....i mean it sure is good for working your technique, but worthless if you wanna be ready to defend yourself fomr some punk who's gonna come swinging at you...I don't mind kata...but it really depends what your goal is..

So the fact that the movements in kata were specifically designed to be used as CQ self-defense techs in the face of typical violent attack initiations (grabs from front or behind, head-butts, haymakers) is irrelevant? Karateka like Iain Abernethy, Bill Burgar, Stuart Anslow and many others who are concerned with the hardest reality-based self-defense techniques, have written detailed analyses of kata showing exactly how the traps, throws, locks and followup finishing strike encoded in the kata work in street combat and how those techs should be trained for street combat. Are you familiar with any of this work? If not, you ought to look at it before making statements like

it sure is good for working your technique, but worthless if you wanna be ready to defend yourself fomr some punk who's gonna come swinging at you,

since the work of that group makes it clear that kata-based SD techs are anything but worthless. If you have read it, and you want your comments to have any kind of weight, you're going to have to explain just how the specific technical CQ applications that Abernethy, Kane & Wilder, McCarthy, Martinez, Clark or a dozen others have provided, in as many books, for a number of the great classic kata, still fail as effective responses to the particular threats they were designed to counter. As it stands, I have the impression from your comments that you aren't familiar with this work... in which case the problem isn't with kata, eh?

Geoff Thompson, the UK karateka who has come out on top in something like 200 documented streetfights during his career as a bouncer/club doorman, has gone out of his way to emphasize the combat effectiveness of kata-based CQ applications in what he calls `the pavement arena'. Not in some artificial sport context governed by one set of rules or another, but in streetfights where you'll get your eyes gouged out or your teeth kicked literally down your throat if you don't defend yourself effectively. He too is part of that group I mentioned above. If he thinks (as the various material on his website and the stuff he's authored for the British Combat Association makes clear he does, and why) that kata, correctly understood and trained, are complete self-defense systems on their own, then I think the odds are pretty good that there's something to kata that you need to take another look at before coming up with the kind of judgment you posted about `forms and stuff'.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

I second that, exile. Karate was designed to kill. Kata were the method of passing on that skill.

 

[exile]

I second that, exile. Karate was designed to kill. Kata were the method of passing on that skill.

Well put, Em! Short and sweet... and exactly right.

I understand people not `getting' kata... they were designed not just to convey combat information but to do so in a covert way, so that only those who the master instructor wanted to have that information would know how to read them. But by now, there's been so much attention in the karate/TKD-TSD world focused on bunkai, and how to do it, and realistic vs. unrealistic bunkai, and how to train it so it really works in real-time combat, that there's no excuse for recycling the same old underinformed view of kata that led people to nod sagely in agreement when Bruce Lee dismissed kata as part of what he called `the classical mess.' Here's something that's really interesting and which bears on the point: Combat Hapkido is a totally SD-oriented system that has no forms; it has techniques explicitly designed to combine a deflection with a joint lock followed up with a throw or a strike while the assailant's head or throat is vulnerable to a knifehand, an elbow or whatever. Gm. Pellegrini emphasizes that he wanted a stripped-down version of Hapkido whose sole purpose was street defense. But when you look at the explicit Combat Hapkido techs, and how they're drilled, an awful lot of them look like nothing other than the kind of realistic bunkai Abernethy and others have shown to be right there just under the surface of classic kata! The versatility, mobility and range of resources in Combat-Hapkido conforms very nicely to the kind of desiderata that Lee wanted for MA, and which he argued were seriously lacking in traditional karate—and yet the techs of on the one hand, purely fighting-oriented CH, and on the other those recoverable from the Pinans/Pyung-Ahns, or Bassai, Naihanchi, Gojushio and various others that have been subject to detailed analysis for combat use, turn out to look in an awful lot of cases extremely similar! So it looks to me as if there wasn't anything particular messy about `the classical mess'.

One of the important uses of history is that it allows us to correct current misunderstandings. With hindsight, we can see that in transmitting karate from the Okinawan to the Japanese context, masters such as Funikoshi, Motobu, and Mabuni wound up adapting what they had learned from their homeland instructors to vastly different uses and attitudes in Japan, resulting in a serious dilution of both training methods and combative content associated with kata. The kata themselves were transmitted, but not the keys to unlocking them and extracting the moves which their movements alluded to. The conventional labels for these movements, developed by Itosu for domestic consumption in the Okinawan schools, became identified with the moves themselves. All of this is extremely well-documented, and anyone who wants to understand what kata is good for first has to understand this history, because the result of such understand will be the realization that the kata originally devised by the Okinawan masters have way more combative content than has usually been taught, ever since the art was exported by its famous expatriate Okinawan practitioners.

Ignore this history, though, and you wind up seeing kata as nothing but the same series of dance-like movement that outsiders were originally intended to see by those who had no wish to share their actual combat use. By this point there's been enough work on the big recovery projects—for karate and the KMA striking arts—that no one has any excuse to perpetuate the same misunderstandings...

 

[Em MacIntosh]

Bruce was right when he said not to fall into patterns. Too many people are doing kata "comfortably". When doing a kata, it's like shadow boxing. When performing kata, you are trying to mimic the psychology of combat. If someone was to sucker punch you while doing kata, I would hope the readiness and awareness to be there, not just the concentration. I can't stress it enough, sanchin and kime. Logical bravery.

 

[exile]

Bruce was right when he said not to fall into patterns. Too many people are doing kata "comfortably". When doing a kata, it's like shadow boxing. When performing kata, you are trying to mimic the psychology of combat.

Abernethy in fact emphasizes this point: you shouldn't be doing kata, under normal conditions, to look pretty (training for tournament competition is a different story, and raises some interesting but off-topic questions about what the value of kata competition actually is). As he puts it, you should be practicing, not the performance of the kata but the application of the kata—i.e., for a thirty-some move kata, you should be practicing something like six or seven distinct attack-initiation-to-successful defense scenarios, because that's typically what a kata of that length would contain. Each begins with a particular aggressive technique aimed at the defender and ends with the application of a finishing move by the defender which puts the attacker on the ground. You have to visualize this attack as vividly as possible, and execute the combat moves implicit in the kata with something very much like the intensity that would be demanded of you if the attack were real.

In other words, every kata practice should involve two participants: you and and a single imagined attacker. Burgar in his book also stresses how much more important function is over form. Matsumura or Itosu probably couldn't have cared less how balletic you looked performing their kata, as long as you understood just how to use the moves they contained to flatten an assailant.

 

[MMAfighter]

So the fact that the movements in kata were specifically designed to be used as CQ self-defense techs in the face of typical violent attack initiations (grabs from front or behind, head-butts, haymakers) is irrelevant? Karateka like Iain Abernethy, Bill Burgar, Stuart Anslow and many others who are concerned with the hardest reality-based self-defense techniques, have written detailed analyses of kata showing exactly how the traps, throws, locks and followup finishing strike encoded in the kata work in street combat and how those techs should be trained for street combat. Are you familiar with any of this work? If not, you ought to look at it before making statements like

it sure is good for working your technique, but worthless if you wanna be ready to defend yourself fomr some punk who's gonna come swinging at you,

since the work of that group makes it clear that kata-based SD techs are anything but worthless. If you have read it, and you want your comments to have any kind of weight, you're going to have to explain just how the specific technical CQ applications that Abernethy, Kane & Wilder, McCarthy, Martinez, Clark or a dozen others have provided, in as many books, for a number of the great classic kata, still fail as effective responses to the particular threats they were designed to counter. As it stands, I have the impression from your comments that you aren't familiar with this work... in which case the problem isn't with kata, eh?

Geoff Thompson, the UK karateka who has come out on top in something like 200 documented streetfights during his career as a bouncer/club doorman, has gone out of his way to emphasize the combat effectiveness of kata-based CQ applications in what he calls `the pavement arena'. Not in some artificial sport context governed by one set of rules or another, but in streetfights where you'll get your eyes gouged out or your teeth kicked literally down your throat if you don't defend yourself effectively. He too is part of that group I mentioned above. If he thinks (as the various material on his website and the stuff he's authored for the British Combat Association makes clear he does, and why) that kata, correctly understood and trained, are complete self-defense systems on their own, then I think the odds are pretty good that there's something to kata that you need to take another look at before coming up with the kind of judgment you posted about `forms and stuff'.

i dunno if you see where ii was coming from...what i meant was punching air isn't gonna prepare to to hit back, cover up, or do whatever is needed in when doing kata....it's like if you took up boxing and did nothing but shadowbox all the time....doens't matte rhow much you shadow box, chances ar eif you ge titno a fight, you'll be swinging like a moron....obviously the techniques used in the kata will be useful...but i'm saying it should be less focused on just practicing it in the air and used on a partner and such, like i stated above, more pad/bagwork and sparring, less air attacks. My intention here is not to insult the style or anyone, just staing what i think...this is one of the reasons why i got so into MMA, muay thai, boxing, all these combat sports, because i saw the way they were used....I mean obviously we have all these full contact karateka(ashihara, kyokushin, seido kaiken, enshin, ect.) that do that too...but i'm just saying, kata will help you get your technique improved but how does it compare to get you ready for a fight liek sparring with someone or doing some bag/padwork will?? Get where i'm comin from?

 

[MJS]

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding of words. IMHO, I agree with both Exile and MMAfighter. Shadowboxing was mentioned. Yes, if that is all thats done, no sparring, no bagwork, nothing, then yes, getting into the ring and trying to apply technique, may prove pointless. Whats needed is a mixture of both.

Now we move onto kata. I personally can't see how kata, in and of itself, will help someone fight. However, if the kata is broken down, the moves are extracted, and worked live, on a partner, then that is a much different case and yes, then it would be more apt to work.

If we really look at kata, to me, it seems like a bunch of SD moves compiled together in one long series of movements. As I said, its up to the student to extract the moves.

I may be totally off base with my assumption of your posts. My appologies if thats the case. I'm just trying to put down what I think you're both trying to say.

Mike

 

[Xue Sheng]

why do people hate kata?

Because they do not understand them and/or understand what they are for.

 

[MMAfighter]

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding of words. IMHO, I agree with both Exile and MMAfighter. Shadowboxing was mentioned. Yes, if that is all thats done, no sparring, no bagwork, nothing, then yes, getting into the ring and trying to apply technique, may prove pointless. Whats needed is a mixture of both.

Now we move onto kata. I personally can't see how kata, in and of itself, will help someone fight. However, if the kata is broken down, the moves are extracted, and worked live, on a partner, then that is a much different case and yes, then it would be more apt to work.

If we really look at kata, to me, it seems like a bunch of SD moves compiled together in one long series of movements. As I said, its up to the student to extract the moves.

I may be totally off base with my assumption of your posts. My appologies if thats the case. I'm just trying to put down what I think you're both trying to say.

Mike

in a nutshell hahaha....but i hope everyone understands that i don't hate kata....just don't find it too realistic if you're gonna train just that for a street defense situation....i mean puncing air all day ain't gonna help you too much...anyone who's gotten into a fight should know that

 

[Flying Crane]

in a nutshell hahaha....but i hope everyone understands that i don't hate kata....just don't find it too realistic if you're gonna train just that for a street defense situation....i mean puncing air all day ain't gonna help you too much...anyone who's gotten into a fight should know that

It sounds to me like you don't really understand how kata fits into the bigger picture of training.

Kata is like a catalogue of the techniques contained within the system. It is a way to transmit the knowledge to the student, a way to work on improving the techniques in the ideal and abstract level, and it is a way to practice WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A PARTNER TO PRACTICE WITH. However, as Exile has pointed out, you need to have an understanding of what the kata contains in order for the information to be valuable to you.

But kata is only one part of the training regimine. Application (bunkai) of the movements found within the kata MUST be practiced on a training partner, in a realistic simulation of combat. Keep in mind, ALL training is nothing more than a simulation of combat. If you had real combat in your training, then someone would go to the hospital or the morgue every training session. So once you understand what the movement in the Kata are teaching you, you must train to apply that teaching on a resisting partner, so that you can actually use your knowledge.

In addition, you must spend some time conditioning your body and developing your power on things like heavybags, wooden dummys, sandbags, or whatever else your art uses. And sparring, if done in a qualitative way, can also be a useful tool, but in my opinion is not the pinnacle of training that many people believe it is.

So if all you ever do is kata, never condition your body by striking something solid, and never train your application on a resisting training partner, then yes, your fighting skills will probably be lacking. But when used as a part of a larger training regimine, kata is one of many extremely valuable tool in passing on and training the material contained in your system.

 

[jks9199]

in a nutshell hahaha....but i hope everyone understands that i don't hate kata....just don't find it too realistic if you're gonna train just that for a street defense situation....i mean puncing air all day ain't gonna help you too much...anyone who's gotten into a fight should know that

As you train, do you shadowbox? Do you throw combinations in the air to develop fluidity and skill in throwing them and to examine your footwork?

That's "kata training", you just don't call it that.

Is practicing kata alone enough? Not for a beginner. Beginners need to condition their body and eyes in various ways, such as partner drills or bag work. But, for more advanced practitioners? Yes. Kata becomes something of a "Cliff's Notes for fighting" because the kata contain the instructions and the methods of combining techniques or movements of the style. Kata can also be good conditioning training; if you do some kata full power, you're pretty darn exhausted at the end. Do 'em twice in a row... and you're beat. Do 'em 6 to 10 times... You scare me!

 

[exile]

but i'm just saying, kata will help you get your technique improved but how does it compare to get you ready for a fight liek sparring with someone or doing some bag/padwork will?? Get where i'm comin from?

I do see where you're coming from, but the problem is something like, you're equating the score of a musical composition with the performance of that composition. If all you do is study the score and try to visualize what the notes would sound like if someone played them, then sure, no music. But if you think of the kata as a series of instructions on how to respond to specific attacks, then it's up to you to actually `perfrm the score'—in other words, to carry out those instructions. That means: realistic training with noncompliant opponents who do their best to simulate a violent, dangerous attacker who doesn't have MA training but uses the standard streetfighter's bag of tricks to hurt you as badly as possible. The final chapter in Abernethy's masterpiece, Bunkai-Jutsu: the Practical Application of Karate Kata, gives a detailed plan for how to do this realistic simulated street combat—it's not conventional sparring, you can bank on that!—so that the moves extracted from careful study of the kata and experimentation with them can be field tested in a down and dirty way that no ring sport can match. Abernethy himself has had bones broken doing this, even though his group try to adhere to the training format he outlines—it's rough, and you can get hurt (but not nearly as badly hurt as if you get into a real streetfight with no preparation).

That's I think the main point at issue here: whether kata by themselves are sufficient to ensure that you'll walk away in one piece. Clearly, no—any more than the musical score for the concert, or the script for the play, are in themselves a night's entertainment. You need musicians and actors; but they themselves are useless without a score or a script that they can perform. That's what kata are: a score or script for response to a variety of nasty street attacking moves. It's up to you to train their performance. And no one is more insistent on that than the `realistic bunkai' crowd—people like Abernethy, Burgar, Anslow, O'Neil etc.—themselves.

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding of words. IMHO, I agree with both Exile and MMAfighter. Shadowboxing was mentioned. Yes, if that is all thats done, no sparring, no bagwork, nothing, then yes, getting into the ring and trying to apply technique, may prove pointless. Whats needed is a mixture of both.

Now we move onto kata. I personally can't see how kata, in and of itself, will help someone fight. However, if the kata is broken down, the moves are extracted, and worked live, on a partner, then that is a much different case and yes, then it would be more apt to work.

If we really look at kata, to me, it seems like a bunch of SD moves compiled together in one long series of movements. As I said, its up to the student to extract the moves.
I may be totally off base with my assumption of your posts. My appologies if thats the case. I'm just trying to p
ut down what I think you're both trying to say.

Mike

You are not only not off base, you are in the dead center of the bullseye. Your observations—expecially the part I've bolded—are exactly right so far as what kata, hyungs and other TMA patterns are. That's what struck me about the Combat Hapkido stuff—each of the drills was like a single subsequence of some kata or hyung. The reasons for putting a bunch of them together in a single form was to have at least one technique for each of the small number of major attack moves you're likely to encounter. Two or three kata would cover just about anything you were going to encounter, which is why, back the day—way back—the great Okinawan masters only focused on a few kata, and studied them with a doggedness and intensity almost unknown today. Those two or three kata constituted pretty a whole comprehensive martial art in themselves—something some of the earlier Okinawan masters were quite upfront about.

As you train, do you shadowbox? Do you throw combinations in the air to develop fluidity and skill in throwing them and to examine your footwork?

That's "kata training", you just don't call it that.

Is practicing kata alone enough? Not for a beginner. Beginners need to condition their body and eyes in various ways, such as partner drills or bag work. But, for more advanced practitioners? Yes. Kata becomes something of a "Cliff's Notes for fighting" because the kata contain the instructions and the methods of combining techniques or movements of the style.

Another bullseye, jks. You and Mike have pretty much nailed the whole story. Unfortunately it's still an unfamiliar story to a lot of MAists...

It sounds to me like you don't really understand how kata fits into the bigger picture of training.

Kata is like a catalogue of the techniques contained within the system. It is a way to transmit the knowledge to the student, a way to work on improving the techniques in the ideal and abstract level, and it is a way to practice WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A PARTNER TO PRACTICE WITH. However, as Exile has pointed out, you need to have an understanding of what the kata contains in order for the information to be valuable to you.

But kata is only one part of the training regimine. Application (bunkai) of the movements found within the kata MUST be practiced on a training partner, in a realistic simulation of combat. Keep in mind, ALL training is nothing more than a simulation of combat. If you had real combat in your training, then someone would go to the hospital or the morgue every training session. So once you understand what the movement in the Kata are teaching you, you must train to apply that teaching on a resisting partner, so that you can actually use your knowledge.

In addition, you must spend some time conditioning your body and developing your power on things like heavybags, wooden dummys, sandbags, or whatever else your art uses. And sparring, if done in a qualitative way, can also be a useful tool, but in my opinion is not the pinnacle of training that many people believe it is.

So if all you ever do is kata, never condition your body by striking something solid, and never train your application on a resisting training partner, then yes, your fighting skills will probably be lacking. But when used as a part of a larger training regimine, kata is one of many extremely valuable tool in passing on and training the material contained in your system.

And a third bullseye for FC's post. The points raised here were well understood by the karateka of a century ago. The idea of a resisting opponent, and of hard conditioning, would have been taken for granted by them. That was something which was lost when the line-drill approach to training, the kihon method that Funakoshi pioneered in Japan, became the norm. But the kata weren't designed for that kind of approach, which turned a fighting art into a kind of martial calisthenics. If you want to know what kata are really good for, you have to go back to the source, which is what the modern realistic applications people have done...

 

[cstanley]

But, all the explanation and "apologetics" for kata will not convince those who do not understand or enjoy kata. I quit trying to proselytize that crowd long ago. If you don't like to march, don't join the Marines. If you don't like kata, don't do karate.

 

[exile]

But, all the explanation and "apologetics" for kata will not convince those who do not understand or enjoy kata. I quit trying to proselytize that crowd long ago. If you don't like to march, don't join the Marines. If you don't like kata, don't do karate.

It's true, you aren't going to convince people who have made up their mind that there's nothing useful or applicable in kata, regardless of what the evidence is. But there are still those who are undecided, who might or might not take the trouble to find out what careful practice and study of kata might give them. That's really the audience that these kinds of discussions can benefit....

 

[seasoned]

What does kata teach us? Once we get past the solo aspect of kata , that is thinking past the solo moves and not thinking of the moves we are doing, but what we are accomplishing with the techniques, then we can begin to understand. Once we can see that imaginary opponent in front of us, then and only then does our kata come alive. My instructor always told me that when someone watches you doing a kata it is one thing to see you doing it, but as you bring life into the kata, they should be able to see through your eyes the opponent you are at war with. At this point your kata switches from a robotic bunch of moves to the moving meditation it has been described as by many old masters. Can we achieve a degree of timing in regards to technique in kata practice, but of course you can, after all we are not just striking air are we? With every punch hitting it’s mark, every block precisely meeting the incoming arm or leg, every one of our kicks making it past our opponents blocks, what a wonderful way to spend a few hours in the cellar with just you and them. The warrior can only come out when needed, if we have spent the time to cultivate that spirit within us. Kata is just one aspect of our training, like a puzzle piece it needs to be put together with other pieces to get the whole picture. A good dojo motto (gotta kata).

 

[Callandor]

I don't know why some people hate kata but I don't care. I keep on practicing my poomse every time I get the chance. I don't have the time and energy to convince them. I'd rather do my poomse.

 

[MMAfighter]

As you train, do you shadowbox? Do you throw combinations in the air to develop fluidity and skill in throwing them and to examine your footwork?

That's "kata training", you just don't call it that.

Is practicing kata alone enough? Not for a beginner. Beginners need to condition their body and eyes in various ways, such as partner drills or bag work. But, for more advanced practitioners? Yes. Kata becomes something of a "Cliff's Notes for fighting" because the kata contain the instructions and the methods of combining techniques or movements of the style. Kata can also be good conditioning training; if you do some kata full power, you're pretty darn exhausted at the end. Do 'em twice in a row... and you're beat. Do 'em 6 to 10 times... You scare me!

Well the difference is that Kata is a pattern and shadowboxing is more improvised....and we don't do it as much as some karatekas might train kata. When you shadow boxig it might be 1-2 low kick then move around jab-jab-shot, then move around again throwing that jab then sprawl, get up knee-1-2....as in kata...you have a certain pattern to follow...down block, frint kick, punch, turn 180 degrees, downblock, frontkick, punch, turn 90 degrees, punch3 times, then another 90 degrees and repeat the process....get where i'm comin from? I mean i undertsand your point, shadowboxing and Kata are almsot identical...but i'm just saying that there's a difference...not saying that one is better than the other...

 

[jks9199]

Well the difference is that Kata is a pattern and shadowboxing is more improvised....and we don't do it as much as some karatekas might train kata. When you shadow boxig it might be 1-2 low kick then move around jab-jab-shot, then move around again throwing that jab then sprawl, get up knee-1-2....as in kata...you have a certain pattern to follow...down block, frint kick, punch, turn 180 degrees, downblock, frontkick, punch, turn 90 degrees, punch3 times, then another 90 degrees and repeat the process....get where i'm comin from? I mean i undertsand your point, shadowboxing and Kata are almsot identical...but i'm just saying that there's a difference...not saying that one is better than the other...

You're making a difference without a distinction.

You can shadowbox with more or less pattern or "scripting"; it all depends onw what you're working on, and how much skill you have. You can do "kata" with more or less organization as well. You can do very rigid, precise, and dead kata; your results will be very rigid, very precise, and dead. Or -- you can take that kata, visualize an opponent, and FIGHT him. Quick, now... that guy's punching at me -- move, block, punch! Oh, no, there's another one!...

Let's be really honest. Kata in some form or another have been found in almost every martial discipline around the world. Some have been hidden in dance or ritual, others are practiced daily as exercise. Either the masters of old were just loonies who are having a hell of laugh from the grave -- or there's something to kata training. Personally -- I think there's a reason that kata were developed and maintained. Personally, I practice and examine and train kata and drills and many other "outmoded" ways of practice. It works for me -- and it's faced the test of reality for me. Not competing in a ring -- but facing someone who truly means to hurt me, and overcoming them to achieve my goal.

I think that "what kata is" has been more than adequately covered at this point; people either get it already, or they simply aren't going to.

I wish you luck with your training.

 

[Cirdan]

I think people hate Kata because they do not understand the concept. Can`t really blame them, it took me about two years of banging my head against the wall to get it even when repeatedly being told what to search for. It is not primarily about the techniques, it is the principles! Principles of movement, rooting, generating power, evasion, superior angles etc. These are what makes your skill flow from the Kata.

Those arguing that Kata alone will not prepare you for a real confrontation are probably right, but who the heck practice only Kata? By using different tools in the training all of them multiply their worth. Used like this Kata is an EXTREMELY useful tool.

 

[MJS]

in a nutshell hahaha....but i hope everyone understands that i don't hate kata....just don't find it too realistic if you're gonna train just that for a street defense situation....i mean puncing air all day ain't gonna help you too much...anyone who's gotten into a fight should know that

Kata, just like a punch, kick, joint lock, submission, etc., are all pieces of the puzzle. Kata can be found in many arts, even those such as BJJ. Just because it doesn't look like a TKD or Kenpo kata, doesn't mean that its not a preset series of moves, because afterall, thats what a kata is. One of my grappling instructors has me go thru a pin flow series. Basically, I transition from one move to the next. Its teaching me how to transition from one to the next smoothly, to make sure that the position is tight and to make sure I'm doing it properly. Resistance is not given during the flow, but once each position is attained, my 'form' is checked, so at that time, resistance is given. When we begin to roll, more resistance is offered and of course, it makes it more real.

So, in a sense, its a kata. Just because I'm not standing, I'm still going thru a set of moves. During free rolling, its up to me to take things from that pin flow, and apply it.

Mike