I have been reading your posts but I do have problems in following the points that you making.
The original post was about the relationship between KATA and the ability to â??fightâ??
in the particular context of karate.
By consensus KATA was taken to mean the performance of a prearranged sequence of moves against an imaginary opponent.
Those moves are typically not what you will see in fighting and the validity of practising other than how you intend to perform and the habits promoted were questionned by some of us.
You appear to have adopted a wider definition of KATA which appears to be more akin to drills by referring to KATA in others sports and talking about KATA for tango dancing. With respect whatever drills exist in other sports they do not fit in with the definition of KATA above.
You then have gone on to talk about two man KATA in classical jiu jitsu and performing two man KATA into which are introduced chaotic elements of training.
Some of your historical references such as TMAâ??s dating from the 1960â??s seem off unless you are referring to the widespread adoption of such arts in the US but I guess that that is besides the point.
My questions is: Are you saying that KATA as appears in TMAâ??s is of no use but that KATA, as you say is practised in classical bujitsu, is how you should practise fighting. If so can you post or direct us to an on line example. The video you did post shows a technique but against a cooperative opponent.
I have been reading your posts but I do have problems in following the points that you making.
The original post was about the relationship between KATA and the ability to â??fightâ??
in the particular context of karate.
[/quote]
Define fight. There is the rub. It’s only a fight if they get to hit back at some point. Much more is going on in a classical system than getting people ready for a match. In the case of SMR, the kata is trying to get you to perceive tactical situations so you have a good deal of warning as to what you are dealing with. The old stuff has no intention of getting you ready to fight and tries actively to find ways of thwarting your opponent. This is the difference between dealing with social violence vs. predatory violence. Sport is the former.
[quote]By consensus KATA was taken to mean the performance of a prearranged sequence of moves against an imaginary opponent.
Those moves are typically not what you will see in fighting and the validity of practising other than how you intend to perform and the habits promoted were questionned by some of us.
You appear to have adopted a wider definition of KATA which appears to be more akin to drills by referring to KATA in others sports and talking about KATA for tango dancing. With respect whatever drills exist in other sports they do not fit in with the definition of KATA above.
[/quote]
Yup. This is my major gripe with many TMAs is that their kata is very artificial and really does not reflect what they do. I’ve even had people tell me in all seriousness that the kata I know “isn’t really kata” precisely because of the aleatoric nature of the training. Um, ok, but yet I’ve seen this training paradigm repeatedly in bujutsu.
The OP asked about learning kata from someone who did kempo. There are many schools of kempo and some of them have very good training methods which involve (in my opinion) very good kata (example below). They are well worth studying. There are also very bad schools too. How to tell them apart? I tried to give examples of the best in kata training I’d found. If the OP gets hold of some of that, he’ll be very happy.
[quote]You then have gone on to talk about two man KATA in classical jiu jitsu and performing two man KATA into which are introduced chaotic elements of training.
Some of your historical references such as TMAâ??s dating from the 1960â??s seem off unless you are referring to the widespread adoption of such arts in the US but I guess that that is besides the point.
[/quote]
Very much so. TMAs in the US are very often very bad. This is no secret. The secret is that few people realize how bad they are. MMA made a pretty good critique of them, but has gotten sidetracked in any number of different ways.
[quote]My questions is: Are you saying that KATA as appears in TMAâ??s is of no use but that KATA, as you say is practised in classical bujitsu, is how you should practise fighting. If so can you post or direct us to an on line example. The video you did post shows a technique but against a cooperative opponent.
[/quote]
Short answer: I do not see see the kata in most TMAs as really having that much of a technical influence on the systems. Older systems do use it as a basis, e.g., Sifu’s Isshin ryu. I’m trying to give examples of good kata training to show what, I think, it can do at its best.
Tai chi chuan for example, has some awesome kata with it, but you’d never figure that out in a million years in this country because the system got taken over by New Agers. Look up some Tai chi from Chen Village, where it originated. They have yearly bouts and it looks like rasslin:
Nothing at all like the junque you see in the USA. So while this is a bona fide older MA the training in the US is just plain awful mostly.
The video I posted has a history (as do all related ones). The demonstrator is Antonio Garcia who is fast and famously explosive in virtually every technique. He was asked to do them slowly enough that students could actually see what was going on. Someone wanted to see kata, and wanted to know some old stuff looked like, ok? This is how you teach it the first night of class.
For demo purposes of what you can do with kata, here is Shorinji Kempo (founded by a student of our system, Doshin So, who studied with my teacher’s teacher, Okuyama). Gooooood Kempo! So the OP should appreciate this. Their training is almost completely kata, then they spar for points:
I chose this system as an example since it is almost completely Budo – they have no interest in self-defense at all and it fits in with the topical question of what happens if you train kata a lot. Their yardstick is point sparring matches. What is interesting again is how they try to balance intensity with safety. They used to have regular sparring (both sides attack/defend at will), but due to the level of intensity from their kata training, the number and seriousness of injuries was too high*, so now they assign attacker and defender roles for the duration of a bout, then switch. Victory is based on points awarded. This is what serious kata training will do for you and they can kick butt with the best of them. Nice guys too (they are monks, after all).
Hope this helps.
– jj
Since they allow not just strikes but locks, chokes and all manner of throw, it is very difficult to pick up on a technique (like a small joint manipulation) and receive it safely. MMA disallows quite a few of the techniques Shorinji Kempo permits for safety’s sake, others are not practical in MMA because of the equipment they wear. Both disallow various obviously lethal/maiming attacks (e.g. eye gouges). For training at a high level, it is interesting from an intellectual perspective how different systems try to keep it safe.
The Kempo I mentioned is American Kempo. I have no idea what it’s background is. In a typical class they practice walking in forward stance from one side of the dojo to the next and execute a block, take a step, block, take a step and block, etc. They do that with all their basic stikes and blocks. Then they have a set of self defense techniques that they have to memorize in order. Like what to do if someone chokes you, grabs your wrist, bear hugs you, etc. Then they work on kata. That’s most days of the week. They have a more advanced class but it didn’t look that different except there was more kicking, target striking and weapons. Then friday is sparring night which is a half hour of combinations on thai pads followed by a half hour of free sparring. I’m probably over simplifying what they do but that’s my impression. It doesn’t look quite as cool as that Shorinji shit.
JJ dude, I think that you have probably moved the discussion way beyond what the OP envisaged and certainly into arts about which I know little or nothing. I guess that it would be quite instructive to look into the different training methoods of TMAs and classical systems but out of ignorance I have nothing useful to say. Thank you for taking the time and effort to set out your perspective.
[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.
[/quote]
Yes, I teach martial arts on a regular basis at my school. Like I said before, I’m not against the idea of drills designed to teach specific principles, and I realize that this is probably the origin of kata. I don’t think that you need specific sequences of movements to teach people how to fight, but I won’t deny that they can be fun and at more advanced levels can be useful in teaching specific movement patterns. There is much too much formality in many katas though, and a pretty evident lack of evolution IMO (at least in recent years).
True. But the emphasis from the older systems and the TMA’s is pretty much the same. They seem to cling to tradition, to the idea that because the founder things a certain way, they must continue to do them in that way, even in the face of glaring evidence that this is not the most effective way to do them. It would be like a person insisting on using candle light instead of electricity because Leonardo Divinci used candles (totally hypothetical example btw) even though electricity is clearly the more efficient method of lighting a house.
At least with MMA the practitioners are free to experiment, invent, and change things in order to continually try to make their fighting art as effective as possible (albeit within the rules of their specific combat sport).
Pretty much agree with that.
Again, I’ll agree with that.
I think with a weapon art like learning how to use a Jo against a sword, that you are absolutely correct that more caution must be taken and more structure must be used, especially at the beginning levels.
You could potentially use things like “Action Flex” equipment, or Kendo armor to allow you to train more full speed with less structure, but you’d still have to actually practice with the actual weapons themselves at some point to get a feel for how they actually react, or feel. At which point pre-arranged sequences would be useful.
And I’m not really against pre-arranged drills for empty hand skills all together. At the beginning stages students need to have cooperating partners to allow them to understand the mechanics of the techniques and gain some level of proficiency with them. It’s just that there is far too much emphasis placed on performing kata in TMA’s (at least commercial ones) IMO, they are too rigid, and they generally have not evolved since their creation.
[quote]
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[/quote]
I think it’s cool that you train in an obscure art. Generally the arts with very few practitioners have not fallen to the ways of the McDojo and still maintain their martial roots. It’s also always interesting to hear different perspectives.
[quote]farmermaggot wrote:
Nice videos, guys. I’m going to have to chew on this a while. I’m imagining how a boxer and a karate guy would each handle a knife attack, and whose abilities I’d rather have in that situation. Maybe toe to toe, the boxer would have more finesse than the karate guy but the karate guy would have more tools in his toolbox and would maintain his ability over the course of his life. Since I’m 37 I have to start thinking about that shit. I don’t heal as fast as I used to.
[/quote]
I do not intend this to be the definitive treatise upon the art of knife fighting and all the multiple variables that one could face. Since none of their training involves self defense from a knife attack I would expect a boxer to be as good or bad as any other unschooled individual. In fact some of what you learn to do in boxing could possibly get you killed against a knife.
Boxers are taught to square off to an opponent which makes them the biggest target possible. In martial arts we are taught to minimize our target area.
In boxing your head is the most important to protect because that is the quickest way to knock you out while body shots are going to be a lot less effective, so keeping your guard up is a higher priority than guarding your body. Against a knife this changes. Your skull gives your brain a much higher degree of protection than your heart has. If you get stabbed in the heart your chances of survival are almost nil. So aside from covering your carotids and jugulars, the prioritization of protecting your head more than your body changes.
Another thing boxers are taught to do is keep their power hand in the rear. Which for the majority of people means putting their left side forward which is the side of the body the heart is on. It also means their first and perhaps only line of defense protecting their heart is their weakest hand.
I don’t see how a boxer would have more finesse seeing as all they are taught to use is punching. If you come up against a knife your first priority should be either immediately neutralizing your opponent or dealing with the weapon. If you are going to go toe to toe with the intent trying to score a knockout punch you are going to get stabbed. Against a knife you aren’t going to survive by trading shots like that.
What you need to do is keep your opponent at a range where he can’t stab you, which is where kicking can become useful or if he is closer you need to get control of the knife hand which is where joint locking like Arnis, Chin Na, small circle Jiu Jitsu, Aikido comes in. Joint locking takes finesse.
Out of that selection of joint locking systems to use against a knife, Arnis would be my first choice. When it comes to knife fighting the Filipino’s are as good as anyone if not better. Something to understand about knife defense is that if you also understand knife fighting you have an edge, because your will be better able to predict what the other guy is going to do next.
Here are some videos to give you some idea of what Filipinos martial arts are like.
Filipino martial arts are eclectic martial arts yet they use prearranged drills (forms) as part of their training.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Define fight. There is the rub. It’s only a fight if they get to hit back at some point. Much more is going on in a classical system than getting people ready for a match. In the case of SMR, the kata is trying to get you to perceive tactical situations so you have a good deal of warning as to what you are dealing with. The old stuff has no intention of getting you ready to fight and tries actively to find ways of thwarting your opponent. This is the difference between dealing with social violence vs. predatory violence. Sport is the former.
[/quote]
Actually, I’d define a “fight” as any type of violent exchange. You could have a verbal fight, a physical fight, or a combination of the two. Then there are different types of physical fights:
Mutually agreed upon (sport would fall under this, but actual fights do occur in this manner as well)
Explosive (no forewarning, basically a total ambush)
Escalating (there is verbal dialogue preceding the physical violence)
One should ideally be prepared for all 3 types (though obviously the mutually agreed upon type should generally be avoided if possible, unless it’s an actual sporting context).
[quote]Sifu wrote:
What you need to do is keep your opponent at a range where he can’t stab you, which is where kicking can become useful or if he is closer you need to get control of the knife hand which is where joint locking like Arnis, Chin Na, small circle Jiu Jitsu, Aikido comes in. Joint locking takes finesse.
[/quote]
Kicking is generally a bad idea against a knife unless you are blindingly fast with your kicks (Bill Wallace in his prime or Bruce Lee probably had the leg speed to be able to kick effectively against a knife, but very few other people do). Not only does it extend your targets towards the knife, but it also puts you on one leg, thus dramatically decreasing your mobility (which you want to maintain at all times in a knife fight).
Things like joint locking can be used, but they are going to be more incidental than anything. Even a very highly skilled joint locker is going to have a hell of a hard time locking someone wielding a knife (assuming they know how to use it and aren’t totally incompetent).
Like you said, joint locking takes a lot of finesse, and against a weapon that only has to touch you to do damage, is multi-directional (meaning that it doesn’t have to follow a pre-set path, like an impact weapon, to do damage), and is small/light enough to be very fast the likelihood of getting a lock is very slim, especially under stress.
I think the Filipino’s have some good concepts (“defanging the snake”) and some good drills (9 and 12 directional patterns) for the blade, but I also think that there are certain things in their system which can be improved on, and some things which I think are just plain nonsense (or just for show).
The first video was pretty much nonsense (unless again the person with the knife is moving in slow motion, or has no idea how to really use a blade). Classic “dissecting the corpse” IMO. Against a punch, maybe. Against a knife, not likely.
The second video was impressive from a speed and coordination standpoint, but it was pretty much a pre-arranged drill using predictable lines of attack, no “broken rhythm” and no attempt to gain any type of advantage by the attacker. Still, very good speed and obviously a lot of time and practice went into achieving that level of skill in that drill.
The third video was again pretty unrealistic (unless they’re claiming that they can teach you how to move with superhuman speed). The initial “defanging” might work, but after that the opponent isn’t just going to freeze and let you tie them up into all kinds of knots.
Those aren’t really forms though, just as something like pummeling in wrestling isn’t a form, but a drill to teach you how to move, what resistance feels like, balance, openings, timing, etc… Drills like the one in the video can help with things like sensitivity and gaining a positional advantage on the opponent (looks a lot like Hubud but with blades).
Sure, at first they might teach it as a specific sequence of movements, but the more advanced they become the less it resembles that original sequence and the more free of form it becomes.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
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]
First of all- not all chamber the fist by the hip. Many chamber the fist under the armpit as well- which, unless you squared off with someone, is probably going to be where your strike was coming from in a sudden encounter. You don’t walk around with your hands up all day do you?
Plus, as I was taught, chambering was a way to ensure that you pulled the other fist back HARD, which forced your hips to rotate ensuring power was delivered. It works.
And as for the strikes having the desired effect - nobody always assumes that. You’re generalizing badly in your attempt to prove a point.
Do I agree with their blocking scheme? Nope, I hate it. Do I like that they teach you to leave your arm out after punching? Nope. Hate it. Do I like that they don’t teach you how to throw a hook? Nope. Hate it.
And that’s why I don’t do the art anymore. But still, there are valid parts to the system, and those are often found in the kata.
Karate, from my experience, just picked the most common attacks and began working out sequences to counter them. No one is saying what you do in a kata is going to win a fight for you. But it could definitely have some bearing if you’re surprisd in the street, as that’s what most of those moves were based off of.
One could argue that it’s even more useful than shadowboxing, beause you’ll never box your opponent in a self defense sitation- you’re not going to square off and duke it out.
Again, it’s a way to catalog and practice the moves. It’s something to evaluate a students progress on. It’s a way to string together moves that are found in karate and put them into a self-defense context. It’s not preparation for the ring.
Real fights aren’t like any kind of sport and they’re not like any martial art you’ll do either. They’re chaotic and fucked up and half of the time you don’t know what you’re doing and you don’t remember it afterwards anyway.
But what you will remember is that when someone grabs you, make a circling motion and grap their wrist while punching with the other hand. That’s in kata, and it works in real life too. trust me.
[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?[/quote]
There are kata in boxing, it’s just more free flowing. Every combination strung together with a parry or slip is a form of kata. The fact that you’re moving more free while doing it doesn’t change the fact that you’re performing the same movements over and over again while imagining a real opponent doing them to you.
And you can’t have katas with grappling arts. They’re based on a resisting opponent, you know that and so do I so let’s not bullshit each other with that one.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
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]
First of all- not all chamber the fist by the hip. Many chamber the fist under the armpit as well- which, unless you squared off with someone, is probably going to be where your strike was coming from in a sudden encounter. You don’t walk around with your hands up all day do you?
Plus, as I was taught, chambering was a way to ensure that you pulled the other fist back HARD, which forced your hips to rotate ensuring power was delivered. It works.
[/quote]
Pulling the fist back to the armpit is just as bad of a habit as pulling it to the hip. And no, that isn’t where my strike is going to be coming from as I don’t walk around with my fists chambered in my armpit either. My strike is going to be coming from wherever my hands happen to be at the time.
And even if your assertion that the initial strike might come from there, it’s just plain foolish to continue chambering your fists in your armpits.
Yes, some people do always assume that, and I’ve never seen a TMA kata which actually practiced the defense not working, or the following counter strike(s) not working. If you can name any specific kata which practices say that your counter strike misses, your opponent gets behind you and tackles you to the ground, and then you have to fight your way back up to your feet I’d love to hear about it.
On the other hand, there are plenty of drills which practice things like this.
There are valid ideas in just about any system, and like I said, the repetition of skills is a valid idea. But there are far more effective ways to practice these skills than with kata.
I’ll agree with your first point about the mindset behind practicing kata. But most kata that I’ve seen would not fair very well in terms of defending yourself in a surprise street attack.
Pure shadowboxing maybe, although that is at least going to allow you more freedom to play around with different angles, different types of opponents/strategies, different combinations, etc…
But shadow fighting (which would include every type of weapon available, as well as all types of scenarios) is far more useful and effective if used correctly.
Ok with the cataloging, but how are you going to honestly evaluate a student’s progress in terms of being able to defend themselves by watching them do movements into thin air against imaginary opponents? If you want to evaluate them honestly, have them actually spar (you can use any scenario that you want)/apply the skills against a fully resisting opponent and see if they can actually make them work. That’ll tell you whether or not they’re making progress.
While it’s true that no martial art can actually duplicate a real fight (otherwise people would be going to the hospital on a daily basis and you’d be out of students, not to mention all of the lawsuits, in no time flat), the good ones try to make things as realistic as possible. Kata is waaaaaaay down the spectrum of realism from things such as live drilling, sparring, scenario training, etc…
What you will react with is what you have trained your nervous system to do (unless it’s a very artificial movement, then you will pretty much just revert to gross motor skills and instinctual habits). If you have trained that movement against an opponent enough times, then yes you’ll do it when it counts.
Again, yes it does matter. I think that initially the idea behind kata was probably along the lines of what you say, being fairly alive and simply meant as a tool to practice skills. But it has become dead patterns in most TMA’s today.
[quote]
And you can’t have katas with grappling arts. They’re based on a resisting opponent, you know that and so do I so let’s not bullshit each other with that one.[/quote]
Are you saying that striking arts are based on a compliant opponent? Are you saying that you can’t practice things like takedowns, throws, sweeps, submissions, transitions, etc… without an opponent?
There are some very good points here, much more elaborate than what I will say.
FOR ME:
I hated kata/forms/ etc. I am still not that fond of practicing them in lieu of other things, HOWEVER, i do have much more respect and understanding of their value at this point.
The main things I achieve from them are proper transition of weight and use of posture. correctly moving into a front stance or shifting to a back stance is very important in maximizing power in any technique. I have repeated on here many times that if you do not have a proper stance or truly know how to shift your weight, you cannot fight effectively. I train a kid who kicks extremely fast and powerful, he usually overwhelms his opponents with that…but stil does not understand how to maximize his potential through proper stance and movement.
For fighting applications there are instances where you want to shift weight to your front leg (similar to shifting to a front stance) such as a cross punch or any forward lunging technique, and some where you shift weight to your back leg (a back stance) such as a hook punch, or quick evasion which essentially loads the muscles for shifting back to the front stance when throwing a technique. These have been reinforced by PROPERLY performing kata/poomsae/etc.
The other aspect is coordination. You do not step then block or step then punch, it is about making the movement and weight shifting simultaneous so that power is maximized. Once again, this is something that carries over to fighting. I am not saying this is the be all end all, but the lessons are there to be learned.
Kata is the base of the pyramid, then moving to things like one steps (or one kick hogu drills in taekwondo), then multiple step reaction drills. This is also done in boxing such as initially shadowboxing, then moving on to say…jab and counter jab with a partner, then into attacking with several moves and countering with several moves…building all the way up to free sparring. You cannot simply isolate one, they all must work in tandem.
Last comment from me, just to finish putting my remarks in context.
Kata is one way of training. Good kata is pretty much the only viable 3-D instruction manual I know.
A lot of traditional old schools have very good kata and very good ways of using it as a basis for introducing chaos into training while learning to apply the technique. How many MA-ers simply have their techniques go out the window under pressure and flail? This is a common problem. Training should give you an edge but reverting to being untrained when under pressure means you’ve wasted your time in the dojo.
Old style kata training is one solution and, in my direct experience, really does work quite well. These systems are few and far between though. Even in their countries of origin it can be hard to find one of these. One of my friends (living in Japan) noted that very few Japanese had even seen one of their own traditional systems, mostly having run into only kendo or judo in gym class.*
Most of the more recent systems (which are numerically the majority) were started by people who really weren’t all that well versed in the authentic stuff. Their kata is mostly for show. It might be good exercise, but mostly misses the mark as a technical basis for the system. If the training consists of merely repeating the kata over and over lockstep, it is hard to see how it can be of much service.
Even in a traditional jujutsu system (like I do) we have both randori = free practice and kumite = sparring. Randori (literal “taking chaos”) means random techniques done in a leisurely fashion and is mostly for timing and possibly against multiple attackers, but you get to do anything.
Kumite means you restrict the techniques (say striking + hip throws/sweeps while standing, pinning + choking when prone) and go at it. These are both ways of stress testing your training with a safety trade off. Kata alone does not do it, but is an important technical component. Sparring alone is a poor way to get technical proficiency.
And that is what I think. I concentrated excessively in my posts about kata training mostly so the OP would understand what to look for and so y’all could get some background you might not have. reading over the thread I could see where you might get the mistaken impression I only advocate kata. Nope. It’s is very useful though for what it does.
– jj
Last gripe… Systems organize around ideas, such as how to use a stick, sword, hit, etc. These, to the old practitioners, were much like school subjects and it was assumed you would study some sword, grappling, swimming, archery, etc. and take what you needed. In other words, “mixed martial arts” was the dominant training mode in the olden days, since it worked.
A lot of recent commercialized systems try to offer everything in one-stop shopping, which means they fail at it pretty thoroughly. Their aim is not a usable as much as having a hook to get customers returning on a regular basis. As I have said, MMA made a very good critique of these schools, but does not really offer as much of an alternative as they think they do.
[quote]666Rich wrote:
There are some very good points here, much more elaborate than what I will say.
FOR ME:
I hated kata/forms/ etc. I am still not that fond of practicing them in lieu of other things, HOWEVER, i do have much more respect and understanding of their value at this point.
The main things I achieve from them are proper transition of weight and use of posture. correctly moving into a front stance or shifting to a back stance is very important in maximizing power in any technique. I have repeated on here many times that if you do not have a proper stance or truly know how to shift your weight, you cannot fight effectively. I train a kid who kicks extremely fast and powerful, he usually overwhelms his opponents with that…but stil does not understand how to maximize his potential through proper stance and movement.
For fighting applications there are instances where you want to shift weight to your front leg (similar to shifting to a front stance) such as a cross punch or any forward lunging technique, and some where you shift weight to your back leg (a back stance) such as a hook punch, or quick evasion which essentially loads the muscles for shifting back to the front stance when throwing a technique. These have been reinforced by PROPERLY performing kata/poomsae/etc.
The other aspect is coordination. You do not step then block or step then punch, it is about making the movement and weight shifting simultaneous so that power is maximized. Once again, this is something that carries over to fighting. I am not saying this is the be all end all, but the lessons are there to be learned.
Kata is the base of the pyramid, then moving to things like one steps (or one kick hogu drills in taekwondo), then multiple step reaction drills. This is also done in boxing such as initially shadowboxing, then moving on to say…jab and counter jab with a partner, then into attacking with several moves and countering with several moves…building all the way up to free sparring. You cannot simply isolate one, they all must work in tandem.[/quote]
So your proposition is that the proper transition of weight and posture used in fighting are best learned by performing a pre arranged series of moves using postures and striking patterns that are never used in a fight. That sounds pretty dubious reasoning to me.
You also refer to learning to make movement and weight shifting simultaneous to maximise power and say that this carries over to fighting but you make no attempt to explain how performing a formal set of movements carries over to the performance of a completely different set of movements.
You finally say that KATA is the base of the pyramid when clearly it is not. It does not provide a base level of techniques on which others are learned but exists at varying degrees of complexity as an integral part of all karate systems as you progress.
The analogy with boxing really is poor and had I thought been put to rest in this thread. There is a difference between practising a technique and then trying to refine that same technique and combining it with other moves in a more complex fashion under ever more realistic conditions and moving from rigid unnatural postures and pre arranged
striking patterns to fighting.
I may be wrong but I doubt that many or indeed anyone here has any real idea what it is
that you area practising and therefore it is difficult to relate what you are saying to our experience.
At the risk of totally misrepresenting you, can I set out some propositions derived from my reading of your posts.
1.Old style KATA training is good but the schools teaching it are few and far between.
Old style refers to those found in classical Japanese bujutsu systems.
KATA performed as pre arranged movements against imaginary opponents is not good.
4.All Karate and Taekwondo systems use KATA in the second sense and therefore their KATA is not good.
5.Old style KATA appears to involve two man forms but few here would have any clue of how it is practised and how it relates to fighting, however that term is defined.
I may be wrong but I doubt that many or indeed anyone here has any real idea what it is
that you area practising and therefore it is difficult to relate what you are saying to our experience.
At the risk of totally misrepresenting you, can I set out some propositions derived from my reading of your posts.
1.Old style KATA training is good but the schools teaching it are few and far between.
Old style refers to those found in classical Japanese bujutsu systems.
KATA performed as pre arranged movements against imaginary opponents is not good.
4.All Karate and Taekwondo systems use KATA in the second sense and therefore their KATA is not good.
5.Old style KATA appears to involve two man forms but few here would have any clue of how it is practised and how it relates to fighting, however that term is defined.
By all mean correct my misunderstandings.
[/quote]
Yip. I’d say that’s a pretty fair assessment, although some classical striking systems (Kuntao and Goju ryu come to mind) do solo work and only a bit later add the opponent. There are Malay, Chinese and even Indian systems that I’ve heard train this way. Ultimately, if you are going to deal with opponents, you must train against them.
Most of the guys in my system are in career corrections/law enforcement so the amount of actual street experience against “fully resisting opponents” is quite high. Just to be clear on this. The methodology I outlined would work very well in other activites, such as dance, sports, &c. I think. Since you guys really are trying to be thoughtful about it, I’ve tried to give you the best ideas I’ve run into. Who knows. Maybe one of you guys will actually get some use from it!
peter, with all due respect, please read the post again. Nowhere do i claim forms/kata are the best for fighting training. I said princepals found within REINFORCE proper movement and kinetic linkage with strikes. This is not to presupose a neglect of all other training.
The pyramid analogy was meant to show that the very basics of movement and weight transition/ coordination are needed in all further applications of martial arts, this is facilitated by proper kata. Key word proper and facilitated. Nowhere am i claiming absolute maxims.
If you cannot move and shift your weight you are not maximizing your fighting potential.
Whether or not you think my boxing analogy is sound, Ive competed in boxing and martial arts. I see similarities first hand from my own experience and not my keyboard. Thanks.
You said the main things that you achieved from them (KATA) are proper transition of weight and posture.
You then emphasised the importance of movement and shifting weight.
Now, no one will argue that those concepts are important but as I tried to make clear what you do not do is to clearly explain how the performance of a formalised set of movements can possibly carry over to the dynamic performance of a completely different set of movements. Just saying it does is not good enough in the face of all observation to the contrary.
The observation, to spell it out, is that it is extremely difficult to replicate any movement under stress if that exact movement is not practised under similar conditions. All high performance tasks, especially where life is at risk, adopt this principle in training. Karate seems an exception to the rule. Why is that?
What you need to explain to me is how standing in a formal karate stance with one hand out and one by your hip and stepping forward on to the opposite leg when you punch relates to movement and weight shifting in actual fighting. If it does not have a clear relationship what is it teaching you or in your own terms, how is that transfer of skill â??facilitatedâ???
Even on its terms KATA is NOT the base of the pyramid. I respect the fact that you have competed in both but seeing similarities with boxing does not progress the argument in favour of KATA I am afraid.
First and foremost I think proper stance and posture must be done at all times, whether its pad drills, sparring, kata etc. Kata allows one to focus intently on that so that it is more of a second nature when doing other activities.
I do understand your point about a formal situation as not being suitable for a dynamic environment. This is where it is very very important to use proper visualization. I have applied the same method to shadowboxing. Most people go through the motions of the former and the latter… trying to look pretty, flashy, etc. You have the kid seeing how long he can hold his roundhouse or whatever for, and the other kid popping out jabs in front of the mirror. However this is meaningless without truly visualizing an opponent while performing the excercise. When i do either kata or shadowboxing I have really made it a point in the last year to visualize an opponent and their actions and it has helped tremoundously with integrating moves into my toolbox of reaction.
As we all know, it doesnt matter what you can do, it matters what you can make reaction in an instant, ie not thinking. Visualization during these two types of excercises allows their full potential to be realized. Not to say that it shouldnt be combined with other aspects however. To me, a properly performed kata involves envisioning my opponnent , what is really occuring behind each move.
Granted, I am still not the biggest fan of it and wont be until im older, and feel that many people over emphasize and over analyze it, but my points are what i feel it is worth. I do not think it is something that should be dismissed lightly.
Sounds odd, but now that i basically kickbox, i honestly genuinely miss the forms/patterns/kata’s
It was a great way to clear my head and quietly find my center. \
as for function for real fighting, it was just a system when most people couldnt ready to pass down the strikes and combos. Dont forget, martial arts have been around for thousands of years, literacy wasn’t common until our current century.
[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
