The Importance of Kata

Training
61

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Josann wrote:
I probably should have stressed the importance of bunkai in the study of kata. I disagree with some of what Sentoguy has said. Bunkai with noncooperating partners is where you find what you can transition to next, where to go to grappling, locks, knees or whatever.
[/quote]

Bunkai is pretty much like “drilling” in other arts like boxing, wrestling, judo, etc… and I’d agree that drilling techniques against a noncooperating opponent (different levels of resistance are beneficial for different purposes) is a good practice and important. I still don’t think that you need the kata portion of practice though. I know quite a few very skilled martial artists (many who are primarily interested in reality self defense) who do not practice kata, and do not advocate that their students practice it either.

Actually I wasn’t thinking about any particular style of Karate. I’ve seen quite a few Karate katas from several styles which involve chambering their rear hand (Shorin Ryu, Isshin Ryu, Shotokan come to mind). Uechi Ryu is better about that from what I’ve seen, but it still doesn’t teach a good rear guard hand position for actual combat.

Well I’m not saying that someone couldn’t incorporate it into a well rounded regimen and be successful. All I’m saying is that it’s not necessary to incorporate it into a well rounded regimen.

[quote]
No comments on the Anderson Silva-Steven Seagal video? What are your thoughts on it? To be honest I was surprised that Silva was so impressed with Seagal’s instruction. Tried aikido a while back as cross training. Talk about a noneffective style.[/quote]

Well, Anderson Silva already has a very high degree of skill and effectiveness when it comes to combative skills. If he wants to continue to learn new and different things and cross train in different arts like Aikido, then good for him. I’m all for people keeping an open mind and not being afraid to experiment with different philosophies/systems to try to expand their knowledge base.

I doubt that after training with Seagal he found much that he truly felt would be effective, but I’ll bet he found a few little tweaks, or principles, or set-ups the he’ll take from his Aikido exposure and incorporate into his training. That’s pretty much how all of the good systems of martial arts came along; the founder trained in some other system, took from it what they felt was effective/worked for them, modified it and/or added material from another source, and eventually called it a different name. That’s also one of the reasons why I prefer non “traditional” martial arts systems, as there is generally much more freedom to modify, improve, or change things in order to make the system as effective as possible. In other words, they’re usually progressive, while many TMA’s are not.[/quote]

Good post. When I was doing jujitsu regularly I loved it and one of the reasons was that it was nontraditional. The instructor incorporated what I knew from 15 years of uechi and allowed me to build on that. Great fun until a hip replacemennt put a damper on ukemi for me. Still train it for the basics however. You are right in that it is not NECESSARY. Any good teacher, TMA or not, will tell you that your art and style will eventually be that YOUR style, based on what you can actually apply.

62

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]peterm533 wrote:
I agree with everything Sentoguy has so eloquesntly written.

I would however go further when trying to understand the relationship beween KATA annd fighting.

It is not just the problem of performing techniques against an imaginary opponent which does not give you the necessary feedback to be able to replicate those techniques against a non cooperative opponent but the very techniques themselves are not those utilised in sparring.

I also go further than Sentoguy when he says that sparring is the test not the training.
In a professional sport with which I am familiar, soccer, apart from practising individual skills and tactics a lot of time is spent on playing versions of exactly what is likely to be encountered in reality . A full blown practice match is usually the culmination of this process. A lot of training in Judo, wrestling, boxing and BJJ is through sparring.
[/quote]

Well, first I didn’t say that you should never spar, or that some portion of your training shouldn’t be sparring. But I’ll stand by my statement that sparring is where you test the skills/attributes that you’ve developed through technique practice, drilling of techniques (which resembles isolated sparring, and makes up the majority of skill practice in most good boxing, wrestling, and other “live” combat sport training) against varying levels of resistance, and bag/pad/dummy work and not where you seek to develop them.[/quote]

As is clear from my post I never said that you said you should never spar or anything similar. I also do not think that I misrepresented you when I said that you asserted that sparring is the test not the training.

What you actually said was that sparring should be the test or application of the skills…not the actual training itself.

The example of Judo in this discussion is quite insightful as before Kano founded Judo the main jiu jitsu schools based their training on KATA albeit not of the type performed in karate.

One of Kano sensei’s main innovations was the introduction of randori or non cooperative free practice which survives today as the core training tool in any modern Judo dojo. It is the primary way that a Judo player develops timing, distancing, control and the ability to
use techniques in the chaos of combat and was instrumental in Judo establishing its preminence over KATA based jiu jitsu schools.

Shiai is the test. It would be inaccurate to classify randori as such and divorce it from its developmental role. You do not just test your techniques and attributes in randori, you develop them. Skill means more than the simple ability to perform a technique. It means the ability to perform a technique against an uncooperative opponent with constant and unpredictable shifts in position and space. How can that be learned other than through that very practice.

I mantain that sparring performs a simiar role in other grappling sports such as BJJ and wrestling and I dare say boxing.

63

[quote]Josann wrote:

And don’t worry Irish. I don’t think anybody cares if you are really Irish or not. [/quote]

Not clear what you mean here?

64

[quote]peterm533 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]peterm533 wrote:
I agree with everything Sentoguy has so eloquesntly written.

I would however go further when trying to understand the relationship beween KATA annd fighting.

It is not just the problem of performing techniques against an imaginary opponent which does not give you the necessary feedback to be able to replicate those techniques against a non cooperative opponent but the very techniques themselves are not those utilised in sparring.

I also go further than Sentoguy when he says that sparring is the test not the training.
In a professional sport with which I am familiar, soccer, apart from practising individual skills and tactics a lot of time is spent on playing versions of exactly what is likely to be encountered in reality . A full blown practice match is usually the culmination of this process. A lot of training in Judo, wrestling, boxing and BJJ is through sparring.
[/quote]

Well, first I didn’t say that you should never spar, or that some portion of your training shouldn’t be sparring. But I’ll stand by my statement that sparring is where you test the skills/attributes that you’ve developed through technique practice, drilling of techniques (which resembles isolated sparring, and makes up the majority of skill practice in most good boxing, wrestling, and other “live” combat sport training) against varying levels of resistance, and bag/pad/dummy work and not where you seek to develop them.[/quote]

As is clear from my post I never said that you said you should never spar or anything similar. I also do not think that I misrepresented you when I said that you asserted that sparring is the test not the training.

What you actually said was that sparring should be the test or application of the skills…not the actual training itself.

The example of Judo in this discussion is quite insightful as before Kano founded Judo the main jiu jitsu schools based their training on KATA albeit not of the type performed in karate.

One of Kano sensei’s main innovations was the introduction of randori or non cooperative free practice which survives today as the core training tool in any modern Judo dojo. It is the primary way that a Judo player develops timing, distancing, control and the ability to
use techniques in the chaos of combat and was instrumental in Judo establishing its preminence over KATA based jiu jitsu schools.

Shiai is the test. It would be inaccurate to classify randori as such and divorce it from its developmental role. You do not just test your techniques and attributes in randori, you develop them. Skill means more than the simple ability to perform a technique. It means the ability to perform a technique against an uncooperative opponent with constant and unpredictable shifts in position and space. How can that be learned other than through that very practice.

I mantain that sparring performs a simiar role in other grappling sports such as BJJ and wrestling and I dare say boxing.
[/quote]

A rank evaluation (or Shiai as you refer to it) is a form of a test, yes this is true. But I still maintain that actual free sparring is also a form of test to see how well you can apply the techniques and tactics which you have developed through technique practice and drilling (which is basically isolated sparring with the intent of developing specific skill sets).

How else are you going to develop a high level of skill if you cannot isolate a specific skill or tactic and train it repeatedly (against varying degrees of resistance)? Actual free sparring does not allow you to do this.

That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do it or that it’s not important, because it is. It also doesn’t mean that sparring won’t teach you things.

Think about it this way:

Say you’re a Formula 1 racer (surely you’d agree that this is a very pressure tested activity) and run a race, finishing in 8th place.

Now, one method of thinking would say, “I just need to race my car more, then I’ll finish higher in the rankings.” So, this person just goes out and races his car every day in hopes of finishing higher next time around. Maybe, maybe if they were truly inexperienced at racing this might result in a significant improvement. But most likely not.

Another method of thinking would say, “why did I finish 8th? Do I need more horsepower in my engine? Is my car too heavy? Is my suspension too loose/too tight? etc…” This person attempts to make improvements to their car to fix the problem and only actually races it periodically to see if the improvements they’ve made have actually made a difference. They continue this process, thus steadily making improvements to their car until next time the race comes around, at which point their improvements pay off with a higher placing.

Do you think that after a loss or bad performance Michael Jordan thought to himself, “I just need to play more games, then I’ll win,” or do you think he went back, watched the tape, identified specific skills that he didn’t perform well, then went to work trying to improve those skills? Or that Chael Sonnen wasn’t practicing triangle choke defense in the gym the very next day after he lost to Anderson Silva? Or that whole teams (in team sports) don’t use this same logic?

The second method of thinking is the one that I subscribe to, and the one that makes the most sense to me from a performance standpoint. And apparently, I’m not the only one (even in combat sports):

65

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
There is indeed a difference between real self defense and sparring, but I still don’t think that kata is a very good method of teaching someone how to effectively defend themselves. Now, if performing kata simply meant “shadow fighting” or practicing fighting without the need for a partner, then I think it would have more relevance. It would still allow you to practice techniques which would therefore help to build skill through repetition. But even then I think there are far superior training methods in most cases.

But, most kata practice is very rigid in nature, generally involves the movements working every time (and therefore doesn’t help to develop adaptability or “back-up plans”), and is often presented as unrealistic defenses against unrealistic attacks (Jim Carey skit anyone?) which the student will probably only ever encounter while practicing their kata in their dojo. They also tend to teach bad habits like chambering the fists by the hips, holding the chin upright (making one very susceptible to being knocked out), always assuming that your strikes/defenses will have the desired effect, etc…
[/quote]

Sento- I’ve really got to disagree with you here. You’re really looking too far into it. Kata is the way to record the movements, and to begin to understand how to string them together. It is very much like shadowboxing in that regard.

While you list valid problems, such as chambering the fist or holding the chin up, that’s not a problem with the kata, that’s a problem with the art itself. The teacher teaches the flaws, not the kata.

And besides that- it’s one part of training. Generally you’re not going to spend the whole class doing kata- it’s a piece of the larger picture.

Now, I’ve enumerated my issues with TMA’s before many times, but taught right, they can be used for self defense. And the kata, I believe, really is the base for the art.

66

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Josann wrote:

And don’t worry Irish. I don’t think anybody cares if you are really Irish or not. [/quote]

Not clear what you mean here?[/quote]

That was a comment based on an attack on the post where you put up the Street Fighting manuals. Somebody insulted you for reading them. I read both, like them, so I felt a need to give you support. Didn’t mean to defend you, I’m sure you can do so yourself.

It always bothers me when a good discussion becomes ugly.

67

[quote]Josann wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Josann wrote:

And don’t worry Irish. I don’t think anybody cares if you are really Irish or not. [/quote]

Not clear what you mean here?[/quote]

That was a comment based on an attack on the post where you put up the Street Fighting manuals. Somebody insulted you for reading them. I read both, like them, so I felt a need to give you support. Didn’t mean to defend you, I’m sure you can do so yourself.

It always bothers me when a good discussion becomes ugly.[/quote]

haha ahh man no worries. All good.

68

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[…] Kata is the way to record the movements, and to begin to understand how to string them together. It is very much like shadowboxing in that regard.
[…]
And the kata, I believe, really is the base for the art.[/quote]

Kata and shadowboxing share practically nothing.
You can record movements by filming them or writing them down in a book or simply doing them one after another.

If Kata is so effective, why doesn’t boxing have katas, or MMA or wrestling.
Why doesn’t Basketball have Katas?

For the most part, culture is to blame for this robotic dance.

In Iaido, you learn to bow and properly waddle in a kneeling position.
If you have a teacher with a knack for this, you’ll spend yeas perfecting this.

Do you think Musashi did this, or Munenori Yagyu, Ishikawa Goemon?
Guys who kicked serious ass with their blades, life on the line?

Very few people who kicked ass actually did.

With shadowboxing, you learn and establish your rythm, techniques, follow ups, balance etc.
If anything, most Kata manage to do the opposite.
You cannot individualize anything with Kata. You cannot flow naturally with it or improvise.

Try it out and add a twist or a kick. Your sensei will frown and fellow students laugh at you.

69

[quote]farmermaggot wrote:
I put KATA in the search function but not much came up, so here goes…

I’m a jujutsu guy and a former wrestler and I’m ready for a change to a striking oriented martial art. My gut instinct is to go with boxing but there is a good Kempo school in my area and I know one of the teachers. The guy has some impressive sparring abilities but I’m reluctant to train the way he does. A big part of his training is traditional karate kata.

He does these kata almost daily but I don’t see what it’s doing for him. I think his sparring abilites come from sparring, not pretending to fight using techniques you don’t use outside of the kata. Maybe this is the bias of my background but you don’t learn to roll by pretending to grapple an imaginary opponent. Maybe I’m not comparing apples/oranges.

Those of you who train in any kind of stand-up traditional kata, what do you think kata training is doing for your ability to fight? Or do some of you do kata for it’s own sake?[/quote]

Hang on… Which kata? There are some really sucky forms out there (a bunch of TKD forms come to mind) that aren’t worth diddly-squat. You would be better off sparring or whatever. No argument there.

Good kata – and there is a real possibility you might never have seen any – solve a very specific set of issues.

  1. How to preserve complex motor activities
  2. How to teach said motor activities
  3. Keeping the technical issues of the techniques clean
  4. Put the movements in context

Seriously, how would you teach people to, say, play football? If it were Japan 400 years ago they’d figure out what the top movements were (I dunno, passing, sprinting, tackling…) and, find whoever was absolute tops at it and incorporate a lesson in how to do it right as a kata = formal exercise. If the kata is good, then practicing it makes you better at that activity. What’s more, this standardizes how people can learn to do what you do. This last point is a really, really important one, since it hits on how to teach. Books, videos, magazines will never teach people how to do things in 3 dimensions and (good) kata is, in modern parlance, a real-time, interactive 3D learning system.

A few years back, I took up tango. I went to workshops and came up with essentially a set of a dozen or so kata for the basic movements. Know what? Works great! I have excellent retention whenever I take time off then come back, people find it pretty spooky when I say I haven’t danced for a year. For instance I danced with one of my old instructors recently and she swore I gotten better during my break. I would argue that sports need more kata and probably some of the best trainers have them, they just think of them as extended drills or sequences.

How to evaluate kata? Boy, that’s hard. Here is an example from my system, how to do a wrist twist:

Looks stupid and easy? Think again. First movement breaks the baddies structure, second (turns over his hand) is a very clever way of doing an elbow strike while the bad guys holds on – you’ll always get him compromised if you do it right, then you have a thumb break if the guy is resisting (hint, most good wristlocks break the guys fingers, which is why he ends up in that position), a specific way of getting a hold of him with maximal palm area and finally you lock up the guy’s arm so it is, mechanically speaking, a screw. Then you unscrew him from his base. Very efficient.

I’ve worked with both of these guys (the guy doing it is in charge of the European branch of my system) and it’s like getting your arm caught in an auger. I also used to train MPs (that’s military police, for you Brits, not Members of Parliament!) and found that no matter how big or strong the other guy was, this kata systematically broke them down. I have a ton of buddies in other martial arts and can apply it to them, and they know several counters to techniques like this, all of them agree this is the best way to do this they’ve seen. My point is that this is the right way to do it and the kata gives not just a reference manual but objective way to assess if it works. In practice, you’ll need a lot less than half of all of what is there, but you have a checklist for what to do if it needs fixing on the fly.

So what am I saying? Learn the dude’s kata. See if he can explain what it is good for, how it relates to other parts of the system and so forth. It is possible it is just busy work (and yes, I’ve seen systems where their kata is totally bogus and is just there to give the teacher a break during the lesson) but you won’t be able to tell unless you try it. If he is really good and swears by it, there is always the admittedly unlikely case that he knows his art and is telling you the truth…

– jj

70

Much of this argument revolves around very bad kata, which is the norm, so I 'm not disputing your assessment Schwarzfahrer – you are articulate and thoughtful and I’ve had the pleasure of reading many of your posts – I do think that you have made a very good analysis of what you have seen. I have a soft spot for old systems and have had the privilege of working with some of the real bona fide national treasures, so I’m trying to give a different view.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Kata and shadowboxing share practically nothing.
You can record movements by filming them or writing them down in a book or simply doing them one after another.

If Kata is so effective, why doesn’t boxing have katas, or MMA or wrestling.
Why doesn’t Basketball have Katas?
[/quote]

In the case of other sports, when I watch top trainers, the do have kata, they just don’t call it that.

As for MMA, I run into a fair number of these guys and they often do lack in technical mastery – I’m not talking about the real pros, I’m talking about the guy who is doing for self-defense and conditioning. Understanding the technical limitations of what they are doing is often never on the radar screen since practicality has been raised to a mystique and, since everything has supposedly been tested in the crucible of the ring against all comers, why think about it? Very rarely does an armbar get above the level of “just yank on it”. Training a world class athlete to being a professional is not nearly as hard as getting Joe Sixpack able to hit harder or whatever. This is where the training gap shows itself. MMA works well for top-notch athletes, but average schmucks don’t end up all that better off for doing it, aside from maybe bragging to their buds they are doing it. At least that is what I see.

Ummm yes they did, and I’ve learned some of the kata they left behind (Musashi in particular founded a system called Niten Ichi ryu (Niten Ichi-ryū - Wikipedia) which has lots of kata and is still going strong.) Being an old Batto jutsu practitioner, I can assure you that kata is imperative for beginners, since this is where they are taught safe weapons handling (amputating your fingers on the draw was a pretty common mishap), distancing (how far should you be from someone with a sword? Less than 20 ft or so is pretty much fatal), as well as how to move the thing with some speed and not randomly maim yourself or onlookers. I don’t know what kata you might have seen or done, but doing the old stuff (koryu) is simply terrifying, since you are practicing what it is like trying to have someone kill you – and once you get part the basics, kata done real “Old School” style has the guy practicing a very realistic attack and doing his damnest to make it work. Good kata codifies effective first strike techniques and teaches offense for one partner and defense for the other. A large part of the training is working through the adrenaline dump you will have when confronted with a blade and a partner who is committed to hurting you.

Said more plainly, my experiences with very senior practitioners (as in the headmaster of this system or that) is that when they are doing the attacker role in kata, they are really trying to put the hurt on you and it looks a lot like an assault. They are teaching you not just techniques, but about violence, which is very, very different. This sort of intensity would put a McDojo out of business immediately, so it is the first thing to go in most commercial schools.

– jj

71

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Much of this argument revolves around very bad kata, which is the norm, so I 'm not disputing your assessment Schwarzfahrer – you are articulate and thoughtful and I’ve had the pleasure of reading many of your posts – I do think that you have made a very good analysis of what you have seen. I have a soft spot for old systems and have had the privilege of working with some of the real bona fide national treasures, so I’m trying to give a different view.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Kata and shadowboxing share practically nothing.
You can record movements by filming them or writing them down in a book or simply doing them one after another.
If Kata is so effective, why doesn’t boxing have katas, or MMA or wrestling.
Why doesn’t Basketball have Katas?
[/quote]
In the case of other sports, when I watch top trainers, the do have kata, they just don’t call it that.[/quote]

Really?
Then your definition is so broad we should establish what Kata really is.

To me, it’s a pre definied series of movements, performed in consecutive fashion, typically in a timeframe of a few minutes. The procedure is choreographed with an extreme attention to detail, with no regard to personal exploration or individualization. That goes for every turn, step and breath.
Most Kata feature very little to no fullbody motion.

[quote] [quote]
For the most part, culture is to blame for this robotic dance.
In Iaido, you learn to bow and properly waddle in a kneeling position.
If you have a teacher with a knack for this, you’ll spend yeas perfecting this.
Do you think Musashi did this, or Munenori Yagyu, Ishikawa Goemon?
Guys who kicked serious ass with their blades, life on the line?
[/quote]

Ummm yes they did, and I’ve learned some of the kata they left behind (Musashi in particular founded a system called Niten Ichi ryu (Niten Ichi-ryū - Wikipedia) which has lots of kata and is still going strong.) Being an old Batto jutsu practitioner, I can assure you that kata is imperative for beginners, since this is where they are taught safe weapons handling (amputating your fingers on the draw was a pretty common mishap), distancing (how far should you be from someone with a sword? Less than 20 ft or so is pretty much fatal), as well as how to move the thing with some speed and not randomly maim yourself or onlookers. I don’t know what kata you might have seen or done, but doing the old stuff (koryu) is simply terrifying, since you are practicing what it is like trying to have someone kill you – and once you get part the basics, kata done real “Old School” style has the guy practicing a very realistic attack and doing his damnest to make it work. Good kata codifies effective first strike techniques and teaches offense for one partner and defense for the other. A large part of the training is working through the adrenaline dump you will have when confronted with a blade and a partner who is committed to hurting you.
[/quote]
I didn’t speak about kata here.
It is my understanding that kata derived, for the most part mistakenly, from weaponforms.
And that these Kata are, like you say, extremely important to practise the whole life, BECAUSE it’s not your body but an unnatural extension that can wound very severly.

I was talking specifically about the waddling part - which I consider pure culture.
And which most real warriors would have looked upon with contempt or ridicule.

I’m very much against the worship of Icons, but Miyamoto Musashi is a true inspiration for me.
I’ve read two biographies and lots of random stuff about him.

[i]His main work is the best book on combat I’ve ever come across. [/i]

Curiously, not too long ago I read that Greg Jackson thinks just the same. :slight_smile:

72

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
There is indeed a difference between real self defense and sparring, but I still don’t think that kata is a very good method of teaching someone how to effectively defend themselves. Now, if performing kata simply meant “shadow fighting” or practicing fighting without the need for a partner, then I think it would have more relevance. It would still allow you to practice techniques which would therefore help to build skill through repetition. But even then I think there are far superior training methods in most cases.

But, most kata practice is very rigid in nature, generally involves the movements working every time (and therefore doesn’t help to develop adaptability or “back-up plans”), and is often presented as unrealistic defenses against unrealistic attacks (Jim Carey skit anyone?) which the student will probably only ever encounter while practicing their kata in their dojo. They also tend to teach bad habits like chambering the fists by the hips, holding the chin upright (making one very susceptible to being knocked out), always assuming that your strikes/defenses will have the desired effect, etc…
[/quote]

Sento- I’ve really got to disagree with you here. You’re really looking too far into it. Kata is the way to record the movements, and to begin to understand how to string them together. It is very much like shadowboxing in that regard.

While you list valid problems, such as chambering the fist or holding the chin up, that’s not a problem with the kata, that’s a problem with the art itself. The teacher teaches the flaws, not the kata.

And besides that- it’s one part of training. Generally you’re not going to spend the whole class doing kata- it’s a piece of the larger picture.

Now, I’ve enumerated my issues with TMA’s before many times, but taught right, they can be used for self defense. And the kata, I believe, really is the base for the art.[/quote]

Am I agreeing with you here??? OMG…surprising post from a man who hates TMAs…well, nicely put! :slight_smile:

73

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Really?
Then your definition is so broad we should establish what Kata really is.

To me, it’s a pre definied series of movements, performed in consecutive fashion, typically in a timeframe of a few minutes. The procedure is choreographed with an extreme attention to detail, with no regard to personal exploration or individualization. That goes for every turn, step and breath.
Most Kata feature very little to no fullbody motion.

[/quote]

Aaaahhh Here is the difference. Once upon a time (hangs head in shame) I did Tae Kown Do. Simply awful kata. Just what you described. Fairly useless. Some of the moves, I have since learned, were swiped from Isshin ryu, but the TKD guys had no idea what they were (like escapes, counters to grabs and such) and usually thought they were just funky strikes. Nope.

Later I started learning koryu = “old school” (literally). All kata there is two-person. There is no individual practice in the systems I have done.

Technique = procedure, based on physiology and probability. A larger percentage of the population should have a predictable response when you apply your technique. So punching someone is not such a hot technique (at least from the perspective of koryu) since your opponent has an unpredictable response: he might get knocked out, or he might manage to dodge it. No way to tell ahead of time. Nailing him to the floor then hitting him in the head would count as a technique, since there is nothing he can do to mitigate it.

Here’s how to train kata, Old School:

  1. Basic movements. Teach how the technique operates. Very pre-arranged. Think martial arts by numbers. Hey, everybody has to start someplace.

  2. Start adding chaos. The angle of attack changes. Then the attack changes. So instead of, e.g., a grab followed by a punch, you get an uppercut or a knee or a head butt. The idea is to find how the technique itself undergoes modification to deal with the new attack. Still you are within the confines of the kata, because specific types of attacks have classes of counters. So if the kata is against a strike, he won’t try to choke you at this point, e.g.

  3. Add intent. The attacker gets craftier. As I indicated, the attack is actually supposed to be a good one. (Biggest gripe about TKD is that the attacker is an idiot. Srsly.) At this point the emphasis starts changing. The attacker is no longer being nice. He is trying to be devious. It is his job to execute the attack. Good kata has good attacks. Can’t say that enough.

  4. Mix and match attacks. So Let us say I want to practice my wrist twist against you and you decide to tackle me, you bastard :o). It is just fine for me to sprawl out of it, knee you in the head, slam you on the ground then armbar you first, because that gets me in position where the wrist twist kata applies. In this way the various techniques of the system get re-integrated and you are well on the road to mastery since now you can apply them as needed. This works very well with law enforcement types (we have an awful lot of those in my system), so there is quite a bit of hard evidence that this is an effective way to train.

NOTE: because of the training, once a technique starts, even pretty serious ones, the receiver has a pretty good idea what is coming. This gives them the chance to receive it safely so nobody gets hurt. For grappling systems where a fully committed attack might get the wholly bejeesus slammed/twisted out of you, this is an essential part of safe training. This allows both sides to get the intensity way above the level of sparring and is, I think, why a lot of those old guys have that junkyard dog vibe about them.

One major other difference in older kata training is “locus of control”. In the bad TKD forms we did, if we chopped them up and did them with a partner, it was the defender who nods when ready to be attacked. Yuck. This is ok the first few times through kata training, but really it is the attacker who decides when to attack. This changes the flow of training quite substantially.

In such an older system, a large part of the instructor’s role is knowing how to amp it up and all the little hooks (“hiki” in Japanese) that makes the technique function. This is why lineage in old systems is so important, since the kata might be the identical between teachers in the same system, but the training might feel completely different. But then again, in old systems you get a menkyo = license, so that you have received the system and can set up shop (this is a degree). Again, a lot different than TKD, judo where they have 10 ranks of black and you spend your entire life in the organization. I still haven’t figured out what those guys do after about 5th or 6th degree…

Hope this helps…

– jj

74

Sentoguy,

Shiai is really a contest or competition so while rank evaluation usually involves shiai not all shiai is rank evaluation.

Much of what passes between us is probably semantics and emphasis rather than a complete disagreement. I certainly accept that drilling has a significant place and that some people will place more emphasis than others on drilling as evidenced by the Kolat video.

However staying with Judo, you are ignoring the very foundation of the system to look upon randori or sparring as mere testing of technique. Kano sensei introduced randori as a vehicle to develop and refine technique because ultimately you need the skill of application in the context of a moving resisting opponent. This randomness is something more than can be achieved by pure drilling although drilling and positional sparring obviously have their place. Understanding and developing movement, positioning and timing require that you learn to apply a technique in context. It is more than simply perfecting a physical movement.

Despite what you assert many techniques such as ashi waza (foot throws) and variations of tomoe nage (stomach throw) are not drilled extensively ot at all but can still be performed in competition at the highest level because Judo players understand balance, movement and timing derived through extensive practice of randori. It is therefore more than just a test.

I believe that the same holds true in BJJ and wrestling. I have seen the Freddie Roach
video and not sure many could pull that one off regardless of drilling or sparring.

This is of course a digression away from the topic of KATA and we may have to agree to disgree to avoid an improper hijacking of the thread.

75

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:

Am I agreeing with you here??? OMG…surprising post from a man who hates TMAs…well, nicely put! :)[/quote]

Haha. Believe me when I tell you I don’t hate TMA’s- I respect every martial art. What i hate is they way that they’re taught.

There’s cats out there like Lawrence Kane and Kris Wilder that teach very traditional Goju-ryu- and that shit WORKS. But to make it really work, I think that you need a depth of understanding of the art that most instructors just don’t have.

Like I said- I’ve learned kata from a few different guys. Only one broke it down to where the moves made sense, and I could see why he was doing what he was doing. Without that understanding of the purpose of moves, you’re just fuckin dancin pretty much.

76

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
There is indeed a difference between real self defense and sparring, but I still don’t think that kata is a very good method of teaching someone how to effectively defend themselves. Now, if performing kata simply meant “shadow fighting” or practicing fighting without the need for a partner, then I think it would have more relevance. It would still allow you to practice techniques which would therefore help to build skill through repetition. But even then I think there are far superior training methods in most cases.

But, most kata practice is very rigid in nature, generally involves the movements working every time (and therefore doesn’t help to develop adaptability or “back-up plans”), and is often presented as unrealistic defenses against unrealistic attacks (Jim Carey skit anyone?) which the student will probably only ever encounter while practicing their kata in their dojo. They also tend to teach bad habits like chambering the fists by the hips, holding the chin upright (making one very susceptible to being knocked out), always assuming that your strikes/defenses will have the desired effect, etc…
[/quote]

Sento- I’ve really got to disagree with you here. You’re really looking too far into it. Kata is the way to record the movements, and to begin to understand how to string them together. It is very much like shadowboxing in that regard.
[/quote]

But with shadowboxing/shadowfighting you are pretty much free to experiment, you can play around with using different combinations, at different times, against different types of opponents. In other words, there is no “correct” sequence that the punches/kicks/etc… must come in but instead every shadowboxing/shadowfighting session is going to be a little different and can be used by the practitioner to work on specific things which they need work at.

With Kata on the other hand there is a “right” way to do it and a “wrong” way to do it, and it’s very black and white. If I were to for instance begin Pinon Shodan (Shorin Ryu kata) with a jab straight right, bob and weave to the outside while throwing a left hook, and then a right hook to the head I would be doing the kata “incorrectly”. Or, even if I were to keep the movements from Shorin Ryu but completely change the order in which they are performed, I’d still be doing it “wrong”.

Real fights are not robotic, nor do they follow some script of movements like kata do, so training in that manner (and rigidly holding to it) is what I was referring to as the problem with it. If TMA’s were to simply use it as a catalogue as you say and not hold the order in which it is performed in such high regard, then I wouldn’t have any issues with it. Then it truly would pretty much be the same thing as shadowboxing/shadowfighting.

No, it is also the kata. The Kata itself is supposed to be performed in a specific way, and many times that specific way involves things like chambering and holding the chin up. You can’t really separate the kata itself from the art.

True.

[quote]
Now, I’ve enumerated my issues with TMA’s before many times, but taught right, they can be used for self defense. And the kata, I believe, really is the base for the art.[/quote]

I won’t disagree with your first statement. But I disagree with the second one. If kata were the base for arts like TMA’s, then why are there no katas (predetermined sequences of movements which are consistent across the entire art) found in arts such as boxing, wrestling, or BJJ? Why would TMA’s be built on different foundations than other combative arts?

77

[quote]peterm533 wrote:

Sentoguy,

Shiai is really a contest or competition so while rank evaluation usually involves shiai not all shiai is rank evaluation.
[/quote]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I looked up Shiai and what I found made it sound like a rank evaluation.

Probably true about the semantics.

But you pretty much just totally agreed with what I said before. I said that sparring should be used to test how well you can apply what you have developed through skill practice (like drilling). If you drill correctly then you should be able to just react with the correct movement when encountered with an appropriate stimulus in a free sparring situation. If you can’t, then you need to drill it more.

Sparring is good for developing experience and adaptability. But not great for developing technical proficiency IMO.

Yes, attributes such as balance and timing can go a long way towards improving effectiveness. But I’d wager that many Judo players drill throws with similar mechanics extensively and because of this are able to apply what they’ve learned from those other throws to foot and stomach throws. Most techniques are simply applications of principles, which once understood can be applied to other situations (and allow for much better adaptability).

Kinda depends on the BJJ or wrestling coach/school, but some do place more emphasis on live rolling, while others place more emphasis on drilling. The really good ones use a combination of both for different purposes.

Both can work, but I personally feel that the drilling to develop skill and sparring to test one’s application of that skill is better for longevity, since the body can only take so much hard sparring before it begins to break down. I want to still be able to do this stuff when I’m in my 70’s, not just when I’m a young man.

Fair enough.

78

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

But you pretty much just totally agreed with what I said before. I said that sparring should be used to test how well you can apply what you have developed through skill practice (like drilling). If you drill correctly then you should be able to just react with the correct movement when encountered with an appropriate stimulus in a free sparring situation. If you can’t, then you need to drill it more.

Sparring is good for developing experience and adaptability. But not great for developing technical proficiency IMO.

Yes, attributes such as balance and timing can go a long way towards improving effectiveness. But I’d wager that many Judo players drill throws with similar mechanics extensively and because of this are able to apply what they’ve learned from those other throws to foot and stomach throws. Most techniques are simply applications of principles, which once understood can be applied to other situations (and allow for much better adaptability).

Kinda depends on the BJJ or wrestling coach/school, but some do place more emphasis on live rolling, while others place more emphasis on drilling. The really good ones use a combination of both for different purposes.

Both can work, but I personally feel that the drilling to develop skill and sparring to test one’s application of that skill is better for longevity, since the body can only take so much hard sparring before it begins to break down. I want to still be able to do this stuff when I’m in my 70’s, not just when I’m a young man.

Fair enough.[/quote]

interesting discussion…i was thinking about this the other day, as this is my only real crticism of my BJJ school-lack of drilling. we go over technique for about 30 in, then roll for about 30 in (for both begin. and adv. class)…rarely do we do specific drilling, though. me coming from a kickboxing background, this is hard for me to wrap my head around…

i’m getting a team together (again) for a military MMA tournement, and we’re gonna spend each session on something specific (i.e. arm bar from guard, arm defense, guaard pass drill, live rolling) to counteract this…

79

Sentoguy, I would like to come back to you but I had better observe what I said about hijacking the thread.

I totally agree with your response to FightingIrish. I am still waiting to hear how it is that you can violate a principle not only found in all combat sports but also in preparation for other stressful encounters in the real world i.e making practice as close as posible to the real thing.

Would anyone who supports the practice of KATA like to have ago at an explanation?

80

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I won’t disagree with your first statement. But I disagree with the second one. If kata were the base for arts like TMA’s, then why are there no katas (predetermined sequences of movements which are consistent across the entire art) found in arts such as boxing, wrestling, or BJJ? Why would TMA’s be built on different foundations than other combative arts?[/quote]

Sentoguy – have you ever tried to teach a martial art? To succinctly answer your question: BJJ and wrestling do not have standardized kata. If you find a very high quality teacher, s/he probably has their own sets of drills that for the most part would be considered kata from a more classical perspective. When I did boxing for a few years, we always did certain sets of footwork drills and combos (I can still throw that cross-hook-cross in my sleep) pretty much every class and the coach called them “bread and butter” drills. We’d use them as a basis for all sorts of things. Yup, kata. This is also probably how it came about, meaning that no group of masters sat down at the Ministry of Silly Lunges and came up with kata. They often evolved slowly over time trying to preserve the best training people came up with.

There is a huge difference between

  • older systems = authentically historic. Surprisingly few systems fall in this category and most are really small
  • TMAs = more often selling “autheticity”, but dating from 1960-ish (most “systems”)
  • MMA = martial sport.

For instance, TKD started in the 1950’s under General He. It was cobbled together from the public school Shotokan that occupied Korea was forced to learn. I know, since one of my first teachers, Kim Li-duk studied with He. He didn’t think that TKD was anything other than a westernized sport (he studied Hapkido with a pupil of Choi sul (who founded it in the 1920’s) and made a living as a doctor of Oriental medicine, so the guy was very much on the level.) Much as Japan ran and industry of cheap transistor radios back through the 1970’s, Korea ran TKD as an export industry, complete with state subsidies. There are really very, very few older Korean martial arts that are verifiable, the major ones being Cirum (like sumo wrestling) and archery. To be more frank, the numerically largest martial art in the world is a recent invention and has no martial tradition to support it. Now, you can be a damn fine athlete, do TKD and kick butt, but this is not because there is any art that got you there, but because you are a gifted athlete. Think about that. Their instruction will give you some basic moves but not much competence.

Your assessments are aimed at commercialized TMAs. They are quite right. There is not downside to getting people to spar. The techniques themselves are pretty trivial in the sense that while you might get injured off a kick, there is a pretty low probability of that happening. Techniques are, by and large, “GRAS” = “Generally Recognized as Safe”. So their kata does not form a technical basis of the system, whose aim is sport/physical culture. Nobody spars in front stances, nobody does exaggerated down blocks or punches. Most of the supposed benefits are intangible.

Take Shindo Muso ryu jojutsu (=:SMR) as an example of an old system. Started in ca 1615 by MusÅ? Gonnosuke Katsuyoshi, it uses a stick about 54" long against a sword. I’ve done it for years and it might have 2,000 practitioners worldwide. The founder is reputed to have been the only person to defeat Musashi in a duel. I outlined basically how the system trains kata (as does the form of jujutsu I study). You are learning both a sword art and how to defend against it with a stick. How would you teach people to train safely this way? A stick used they way they do it is devastatingly clever and actually quite formidable. Pre-arranged movements then adding chaos is about the best way I can think of. In the case of using weapons, the tolerances are very fine and a miscalculation can easily lead to severe injury. In the case of SMR, the most likely attack patterns form the basis of the kata, and each kata teaches tactics and strategies. The system itself has 5 (yes five) techniques, (Hey, it’s a stick…), but the way it is used, as well as positioning and distance are where the craft lies. Sparring as a means of learning the system would be a waste of time. (Cf. say, a sport situation where you are limited to frontal assaults only, so tactical matters are vastly simplified.)

Oh and I know I keep giving y’all a wall of text, but there are not too many people who actually have trained in these arts. I realize that I am, for better or worse, one of the few sources for this information.

– jj