How useful are katas really?
ASOKA
posture,focus,co-ordination and balance things needed to make a good
fighter,however being pre-arranged movents with very few techniques in
each kata that are realistic techniques for a fighter ,in my opinion
katas are useless for self-defense.There are many other arts that can
teach all of the above in a more realistic way.
When it comes down to it,katas are not of much use for self-defense
and are highly exaggerated in those arts that teach them.
Katas are not much more then set ways,just as waking up at same time
every day for work or school etc is also a set way or plan.
storys
"ASOKA" <as...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:ebe4eabb.02050...@posting.google.com...
>
> Katas are not much more then set ways,just as waking up at same time
> every day for work or school etc is also a set way or plan.
They are also boring to do ( 'till you understand them ), a whole lot of
work for seemingly little gain, and who wants to work for anything. Lets
just fight instead. Who needs a system. Who needs a way to teach a body to
move when you can just injure yourself & look dumb 'till you get it
naturally.
<sarcasm mode off>
...................Tom................
RobRPM2222
>work for seemingly little gain, and who wants to work for anything.
Most people who are fighting as a professionals are doing a lot harder work
that a kata.
I have never seen a kata be as strenuous as Olympic weightlifts, a good
bodyweight and plyometric strength and speed program, six all out rounds on a
heavy bag or six rounds of all out grappling.
Lets
>just fight instead. Who needs a system.
Western Boxers and Thai Boxers both have a quite effective system without kata.
Thai Boxers still do a traditional kata-like dance before fighting, but they
beat the shit out of a heavy bag and their training partners before going into
the ring as a primary means of training.
Who needs a way to teach a body to
>move when you can just injure yourself & look dumb 'till you get it
>naturally.
how about more of a shadowboxing approach, instead of just static kata?
In shadowboxing, you string techniques together based on the reaction of an
imaginary opponent, instead of practicing the same technique to technique to
counter, etc.
how many times has someone done the exact same sequence of punch, kick, block,
knee, punch, punch, block, kick, knee that you see in a kata? Boxers may do
jab, cross, hook, uppercut, but they don't usually practice much longer
combinations than that.
I have had people who do kata/forms tell me that kata, at least in their
tradition, were essentially ways to memorize the various techniques easily, and
were not intended as a primary training tool for fighting skill, with the
exception of weapons training.
--
Rob Meyer | As Voltaire once said-
Kempo-Jujitsu, Sombo, | " Witty quotes mean nothing."
Goshinbudo Jujitsu ( MMA )
Dale Greer
news:20020503235951...@mb-mj.aol.com...
> >They are also boring to do ( 'till you understand them ), a whole lot of
> >work for seemingly little gain, and who wants to work for anything.
>
> Most people who are fighting as a professionals are doing a lot harder
work
> that a kata.
>
> I have never seen a kata be as strenuous as Olympic weightlifts, a good
> bodyweight and plyometric strength and speed program, six all out rounds
on a
> heavy bag or six rounds of all out grappling.
Hmmm...maybe you just haven't been around much. Where I take kung fu, we
work pretty hard doing our forms, always trying to lower our stance,
sometimes holding each stance for a long time to build power and balance,
sometimes doing the form as quickly as possible to build speed. Forms for
higher belts are very strenuous, some have jumps, leaps, crouches, and other
more complex movements. Strength is important, but lifting weights does
little for muscle control. Practicing complex movements makes your muscle
control more accurate. In music, you practice scales, in kung fu, you do
forms.
>
> Lets
> >just fight instead. Who needs a system.
>
> Western Boxers and Thai Boxers both have a quite effective system without
kata.
> Thai Boxers still do a traditional kata-like dance before fighting, but
they
> beat the shit out of a heavy bag and their training partners before going
into
> the ring as a primary means of training.
>
> Who needs a way to teach a body to
> >move when you can just injure yourself & look dumb 'till you get it
> >naturally.
>
> how about more of a shadowboxing approach, instead of just static kata?
>
> In shadowboxing, you string techniques together based on the reaction of
an
> imaginary opponent, instead of practicing the same technique to technique
to
> counter, etc.
We do that in addition to doing forms. I've only been doing kung fu for a
couple of years. When I first started, I was such a klutz, I couldn't even
do a down block properly. Practicing my first form, block-kick-punch-etc,
helped my body learn how to do these three things in rapid succession. The
gain in muscular control was quite noticeable to me. Of course, I never use
a form exactly while sparring. In fact, I'm not even to a point where I
really think much about what I'm doing while sparring, but people tell me I
have good form, and that I look like I know what I'm doing. So that tells me
that I have a lot of these motions ingrained in me, so I use them without
thinking, and they help me score points and prevent my sparring partner from
scoring on me.
> how many times has someone done the exact same sequence of punch, kick,
block,
> knee, punch, punch, block, kick, knee that you see in a kata? Boxers may
do
> jab, cross, hook, uppercut, but they don't usually practice much longer
> combinations than that.
>
> I have had people who do kata/forms tell me that kata, at least in their
> tradition, were essentially ways to memorize the various techniques
easily, and
> were not intended as a primary training tool for fighting skill, with the
> exception of weapons training.
Well, yeah. That's why we have forms, and we also have free-form
change-stance practice, and then we also have sparring, which is just
pretend fighting, but that doesn't make it useless. Each one builds on the
other, each level makes the next level possible, so that when actually
confronted by multiple attackers on the street you won't just freeze in
terror and pee in your pants.
cesa
storys <sto...@delete.execulink.com> wrote in message
news:ud6e0kj...@corp.supernews.com...
When they can still be boring
>a whole lot of
> work for seemingly little gain, and who wants to work for anything. Lets
> just fight instead. Who needs a system. Who needs a way to teach a body to
> move
Bu kata isn't the only way to do that. Still it will help you look good in
front of other people I guess
>when you can just injure yourself & look dumb 'till you get it
> naturally.
Which can easily be done with kata too
Eric Neale
> Well there is no doubt that katas are good for
> posture,focus,co-ordination and balance things needed to make a good
> fighter,
Who wants that? Let's just be bad postured, un-focused, un
co-ordinated, unbalanced, horible fighters. ;-D
. . . however being pre-arranged movents with very few techniques in
> each kata that are realistic techniques for a fighter ,in my opinion
> katas are useless for self-defense.There are many other arts that can
> teach all of the above in a more realistic way.
>
>
> When it comes down to it,katas are not of much use for self-defense
> and are highly exaggerated in those arts that teach them.
>
> Katas are not much more then set ways,just as waking up at same time
> every day for work or school etc is also a set way or plan.
Think of katas as a drill. I'm not saying that they are the only way
to learn, just that they have a use.
Regards,
-Eric
Robert Low
Eric Neale <calvin...@ocsnet.net> wrote:
>Think of katas as a drill. I'm not saying that they are the only way
>to learn, just that they have a use.
Or even think of each kata as a set of drills; not one
hugely long shadow boxing combination, but a collection
of them. And, as with combinations, you need to learn
the movements, and you also need to practice their
implementation---or, more precisely, their implementations.
--
Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
storys
"Robert Low" <mtx...@linux.services.coventry.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ab0gcp$btv$1...@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk...
like these that you and Eric have replied to. Logic and fact have NO part
for them. To them kata by definition alone have NO purpose. It is true that
anything kata teach can be taught in other ways & as you know they usually
are in any kata using martial art. However, there are many uses & kata do
provide many safeguards. I know I'm preaching to the choir here & I
apologise for that but I do get tired of the kata bashing especially when it
is accompanied by a desire for instant competence.
.................Tom.........................
MikeD
> When it comes down to it,katas are not of much use for self-defense
> and are highly exaggerated in those arts that teach them.
How useful is the whole concept of hand to hand fighting in a world (or at
least a country) where every really scary idiot is already carrying a gun,
anyway?
> Katas are not much more then set ways,just as waking up at same time
> every day for work or school etc is also a set way or plan.
Works for me!
MikeD
Eric Neale
It was kind of funny how the original post started off by saying " . .
. there is no doubt that katas are good for
posture,focus,co-ordination, and balance things needed to make a good
fighter,however . . ." and then go on to trash kata. I don't see any
logic in that either.
Regards,
-Eric
Robert Low
storys <sto...@delete.execulink.com> wrote:
> I know I'm preaching to the choir here & I
>apologise for that but I do get tired of the kata bashing especially when it
>is accompanied by a desire for instant competence.
I work on the principle that this is Usenet, there are always
new lurkers about, and even if the participants in the argument
learn nothing from each other, the lurkers might (or at
least, they get some information to base their eventual
opinion on).
--
Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
storys
>
>
> I work on the principle that this is Usenet, there are always
> new lurkers about, and even if the participants in the argument
> learn nothing from each other, the lurkers might (or at
> least, they get some information to base their eventual
> opinion on).
>
True. I just get so tired of the whole thing. The worst are those who know
their katas, have practiced them & reaped all the benefits & then decide
that they aren't needed. they do their students no lasting good with this.
...............tom................
Chas
> How useful is the whole concept of hand to hand fighting in a world (or at
> least a country) where every really scary idiot is already carrying a gun,
> anyway?
Most people who pull a pistol on you don't really mean to shoot you.
They want to take your money or fuck you or something- shooting you is
not on the program, or they would just start on in.
When someone pulls a pistol and has another agenda than shooting you,
they tend to get close to you- when they get close, your 'hand to
hand' is probably more use to you than trying to pull your own
pistol/knife/club. Fuck them up a little bit and *then* pull your
pistol.
--
Chas Clements
casemaker 303-364-0403
http://www.kuntaosilat.com/
http://chasclements.tripod.com/index.htm
'Vejita' S. Cousin
storys <sto...@delete.execulink.com> wrote:
>True. I just get so tired of the whole thing. The worst are those who know
>their katas, have practiced them & reaped all the benefits & then decide
>that they aren't needed. they do their students no lasting good with this.
I've done lots of katas. To do them correctly can be very hard and
taxiing. Add in the bunkai and it's quite a work out. But, kata and
sparring/fighting are two different things. So it's really about what you
want to learn.
For example, I like sparring. And the footwork that you use in
sparring is different than kata. The same is true of your hand positions,
and balance. I think that kata started off as no more than any other
typical drill, but over time become to ritualized. Katas are also used to
practice techinques that are to 'harmful' to use in sparring (eg. the
katas in Judo incude striking).
So while I think katas are fun, and require a lot of skill to do
correctly. I don't think they really help me spar/fight. Anytime I hear
the pharse 'this is how we practice/do it here, but when you spar you'll
want to modify/do this' I have to ask why aren't we learning the techinque
'the correct' way???
Yes, there are lots of drills that do not translate directly to
sparring. But they fall into two main groups. 1) Conditioning (eg.
skipping rope). 2) Flow drills. Flow drills are different than kata, in
that even thou they movements are limited or predictable they are still
'alive.' That is you learn positioning, timing, sensetivity, etc. as you
work them. That's because you have a partner to work against. Katas
(even bunkai) lack this.
No one (ok I'm not) is putting down arts with katas. Just saying that
not everyone becomes a better fighter because of them. I like sparring,
and want to work drills that help my sparring. IMHO, kata isn't the best
for this. It helps some, but not as directly as flow drills with a live
resisting partner.
Any art that allows you to spar with a 100% resisting partner that is
also trying to attack you (within the rules) is fun (for me). To that
end: katas, point sparring, one step sparring, simulation sparring (ie.
your partner pretends/fakes a reaction because you can't actually use the
techinque; eg. eye attacks, groin attacks, biting, etc), etc. Don't
really help me learn to be a better fighter.
This quickly leads back to the whole sport vs. martial art debate :)
Michael Gallagher
>however being pre-arranged movents with very few techniques in
>each kata that are realistic techniques for a fighter ,in my opinion
>katas are useless for self-defense ....
The movements are prearranged so you can remember them. And there are
a *lot* of techniques there; the trick is to break out of a low level
kick-block-puch way of looking at it.
storys
"'Vejita' S. Cousin" <sco...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:ab2sqq$rj6$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu...
> taxiing. Add in the bunkai and it's quite a work out. But, kata and
> sparring/fighting are two different things. So it's really about what you
> want to learn.
> For example, I like sparring. And the footwork that you use in
> sparring is different than kata. The same is true of your hand positions,
> and balance. I think that kata started off as no more than any other
> typical drill, but over time become to ritualized. Katas are also used to
> practice techinques that are to 'harmful' to use in sparring (eg. the
> katas in Judo incude striking).
>
Your problem here is that you are failing to make a very important
distinction. Sparring and fighting are two totally different things. What
you learn in kata is useful for fighting but NOT for sparring. Sparring is
sport & nothing more.
> So while I think katas are fun, and require a lot of skill to do
> correctly. I don't think they really help me spar/fight.
Spar no, fight yes.
Anytime I hear
> the pharse 'this is how we practice/do it here, but when you spar you'll
> want to modify/do this' I have to ask why aren't we learning the techinque
> 'the correct' way???
You are learning the correct way as far as fighting is concerned. You learn
how to turn quickly AND stay balanced ready to deal out whatever. In
sparring you need to tag the other guy quickly. who cares if your balance is
a tad off? If you are fast enough and it's point sparring the fight will be
stopped anyway & if it is continuous then you will score the point & will
likely be able to recover anyhow. In a fight if you don't sown the guy he
will take advantage of your loss of balance to do you greivous bodily harm.
That is why where I attend we learn Kata & we learn how to spar. They are
two totally separate topics. I'm not much at sparring. I don't like playing
games & sparring is nothing more than a game of tag. I can hold my own.
Don't get me wrong. However at my last grading some months ago we had to
grapple & then control after we achieved a throw. Not only was I never
thrown but I lost not one of the bouts. In the sparring section I lost about
as many as I won. ( BTW the lowest ranked belt at my last grading was a
Shodan ) Yes I used techniques from the kata. No I used NONE of the deadly
techniques ( you run out of partners that way ) NO I didn't use any katas.
the katas are a tool not a method.
>
> No one (ok I'm not) is putting down arts with katas. Just saying that
> not everyone becomes a better fighter because of them.
Substitute sparrer for fighter & I can agree.
>
> This quickly leads back to the whole sport vs. martial art debate :)
Any form of sparring is more sport than fight.
...............Tom...................
'Vejita' S. Cousin
storys <sto...@delete.execulink.com> wrote:
>Your problem here is that you are failing to make a very important
>distinction. Sparring and fighting are two totally different things. What
>you learn in kata is useful for fighting but NOT for sparring. Sparring is
>sport & nothing more.
If by sport you mean there are rules. Then yes I agree. There are
things you can do in a 'real fight' that you can do when you spar.
However...
>That is why where I attend we learn Kata & we learn how to spar. They are
>two totally separate topics. I'm not much at sparring. I don't like playing
>games & sparring is nothing more than a game of tag. I can hold my own.
I think we might spar under different rules. When we spar we are
trying to KO the guy. Do we do this every class, no. But when we compete
(yes that sport thing again). Hell yes, I want to KTFO the guy, and he
wants to do the same to me. If it's just grappling then if you get caught
and do not tap you've got problems. For striking only, KO. For MMA both.
>> This quickly leads back to the whole sport vs. martial art debate :)
>
>Any form of sparring is more sport than fight.
What I was trying to say is that training sport makes you a better
fighter; than training art/kata.
Chas
> .......The worst are those who know
> their katas, have practiced them & reaped all the benefits & then decide
> that they aren't needed. they do their students no lasting good with this.
Most of those guys, if not all, are liars.
They didn't do the work- their opinions are made in laziness and
sloth.
There is no help for poor instruction. If their teachers didn't show
them how to get major benefit out of solo practice, that's not
reflective of the practice, it's reflective of the instruction.
The object is not to learn the kata, the object is to use the kata to
learn. Any skill can be overlaid on the skeleton of the kata and
refined. The kata allows you to keep the movement modality of the
system and to add new skills as useful. Once you learn how to move,
you don't go seeking out new movement systems, you refine the one you
have.
One of my teachers works out about 8-12 hrs. a day- depending on his
teaching schedule and personal commitments. I asked him what he did
for all that time- he showed me a little movement and said; 'do that
for an hour', showed another and said; 'do that for an hour'.
It brought home to me how much is available for practice in one small
movement. When you're betting your ass on how well you 'perform', it
tends to center the mind and activate the body.
storys
> In article <udarrjk...@corp.supernews.com>,
> >you learn in kata is useful for fighting but NOT for sparring. Sparring
is
> >sport & nothing more.
>
> If by sport you mean there are rules. Then yes I agree. There are
> things you can do in a 'real fight' that you can do when you spar.
> However...
>
No that is not what I mwan. In sport you have an agenda. Simply stated you
want to score points however this is done. In a fight it's about survival.
Thus in sport you get the bounce, the jab, the mindset, etc. In the field
that the martial arts come from you get the quick turn ( more than one
attacker) youget the grapple defense to a kick, you get the kick to the side
of the knee or the inside of the thigh etc. Not one of these things really
figure in a sporting venue.
>
> I think we might spar under different rules. When we spar we are
> trying to KO the guy. Do we do this every class, no.
Thus you train for not doing this.
> But when we compete
> (yes that sport thing again). Hell yes, I want to KTFO the guy, and he
> wants to do the same to me.
Yes & the K.O. is NOT part of actual fighting. I could care less about
whether or not I can get a K.O. technical or otherwise. I want him to stop
attacking me & I don't want to be hurt. As far as your sparring rules go yes
I've fought under these sorts of rules. We call it kickboxing or continuous.
A good friend of mine is the current gold medal holder in the WKA worlds. He
likes the sparing aspect. He can argue most convincingly that kata makes you
a better sparrer. Me, I've never bothered really as I'm not interested in
the sport aspects of the art.
>
> What I was trying to say is that training sport makes you a better
> fighter; than training art/kata.
Not even remotely. Check out the more combative arts like Goju Ryu or Silat
if you don't believe me. Both use kata. Both are or can be extremely brutal
when it comes to self defence. Neither is worth a damn in the sporting arena
( pure versions ) If you find a Goju stylist who is good in the sporting
arena you may bet the rent that he learned to spar as a separate topic. I
haven't met many Silat players but the ones I have met weren't very good at
sport sparring. Now if you want to talk about their effectiveness in an
actual fight then I reverse my opinion & that is an opinion based on
experience. No I haven't fought them seriously but I have been the partner
for a few who wanted to try sparring. Rules were foreign to them. I had to
explain that blows to the kidneys however light were not part of sparring.
Their answer was "But a blow there is effective!" As a Karate TKD person I
had great difficulty with them in the sparring mentality. When I shifted to
a fight sort of thing I could hold my own much better but both of us
realised that this was asking for trouble as both of us were depending far
too much on control to prevent injury & surprise is not good when you are
using dangerous techniques & guess what a large part of this stuff is.
......................Tom........................
Chaplain-X
Chas <gryp...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CD5CF0E...@attbi.com...
Interesting view, then there is the questiion of quality. If I were asked my
opinion about a lot of the kata out there I'd give a negative review. Of
course I do kata like work as well with my shadowboxing and the combos I
drill, so while it's hypocritical for me to fuss much, I have to admit a lot
of what is out there sucks ass. Especially if the person teaching it sucks
ass at teaching people how to use what they are learning as opposed to
having them blindly memorize patterns year after year. These people who
gripe may actually be people who put work in trustingly only to have their
application fail them on the street due to their instruction. Just a
thought.
X
Batman
<ab2sqq$rj6$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>:
>Anytime I hear
>the pharse 'this is how we practice/do it here, but when you spar you'll
>want to modify/do this' I have to ask why aren't we learning the techinque
>'the correct' way???
Tis an excellent question. I just wanted to add that sometimes, what they've
just showed you was 1 bunkai. There are generally lots of interpretations for
a given move, and some of the others might be closer to the move the way you
do it in kata. Some of them might even be as far off in the other direction.
But the move, as done in kata, should form a good strong base for you to start
from. It can keep your applied technique from getting sloppy.
-jeff (IH)
'Vejita' S. Cousin
storys <sto...@delete.execulink.com> wrote:
[Snip]
>> What I was trying to say is that training sport makes you a better
>> fighter; than training art/kata.
>
>Not even remotely. Check out the more combative arts like Goju Ryu or Silat
>if you don't believe me. Both use kata. Both are or can be extremely brutal
>when it comes to self defence. Neither is worth a damn in the sporting arena
>( pure versions )
Actually I've done both. I have a brown belt (3rd kyuu) in Gojuryu
under the IOGKF (Higaonna sensei). And trained Silat for ~7mo (had to
move). As for if they were 'pure versions' of the arts, I can not really
say...
> I haven't met many Silat players but the ones I have met weren't very good at
>sport sparring. Now if you want to talk about their effectiveness in an
>actual fight then I reverse my opinion & that is an opinion based on
>experience. No I haven't fought them seriously but I have been the partner
>for a few who wanted to try sparring. Rules were foreign to them. I had to
>explain that blows to the kidneys however light were not part of sparring.
Why not? This we do all the time? When I did Silat there were guys
(not me) that did live blade training drills. I have a lot of respect for
both arts and REALLY want to keep training Silat but my time is less free
and I don't know of a good school in the area even if I had the time.
>Their answer was "But a blow there is effective!" As a Karate TKD person I
>had great difficulty with them in the sparring mentality. When I shifted to
>a fight sort of thing I could hold my own much better but both of us
>realised that this was asking for trouble as both of us were depending far
>too much on control to prevent injury & surprise is not good when you are
>using dangerous techniques & guess what a large part of this stuff is.
For blade stuff I can understand this. But for stick work (which is
what I really liked) we just geared up (yes that's make it 'less real')
and banged the heck out of each other.
Let's just agree to disagree. I believe that training against a live
100% resisting opp is the best way to learn how to fight. For safety that
means there will be rules.
Shuurai
> posture,focus,co-ordination and balance things needed to make a good
> fighter,
Okay so far...
> however being pre-arranged movents with very few techniques in
> each kata that are realistic techniques for a fighter ,
Well, to put it bluntly, you just haven't look hard enough. There are plenty
of wonderful combat applications in kata, IF you train the kata properly and
learn how to interpret the kata. I've used movements directly from kata in
self-defense situations - and frankly most of what I've done otherwise has been
at least based on kata movements. And I'm sitting here, so it seems to me that
it's worked out well enough.
The forms of a system are like an encyclopedia of movement. They contain a lot
of great information, but it's up to YOU, the researcher, to put all of that
information to good use. Just as the verbatim text of an encyclopedia is
unlikely to fit exactly into any given situation, you shouldn't expect to just
"do kata" and suddenly find hidden secrets of combat. Rather, you should
absorb the material, test it out, think about what you're doing, and then
find your own answers.
> in my opinion katas are useless for self-defense.
In my opinion, your opinion is based on incomplete information.
> There are many other arts that can teach all of the above in a more
> realistic way.
Maybe for you they can. However, a lot of people study arts that include
forms and do just fine.
> When it comes down to it,katas are not of much use for self-defense
> and are highly exaggerated in those arts that teach them.
Exaggerated in what way? Some schools place for too much emphasis on the
doing of kata and far too little on the meaning behind the doing. However,
used correctly - as a training tool - they can be quite valuable.
> Katas are not much more then set ways,just as waking up at same time
> every day for work or school etc is also a set way or plan.
And getting up and going to work or school is bad because...?
Dave Mullett
> When it comes down to it,katas are not of much use for self-defense
> and are highly exaggerated in those arts that teach them.
>
> Katas are not much more then set ways,just as waking up at same time
> every day for work or school etc is also a set way or plan.
Actually, I agree with you in no small way, EXCEPT I think you're missing
one of the things that forms tend to do well, that being mental
conditioning. What I mean is that a form can be done in the mindset of
attempting to do maim and kill, which is impractical in many other
situations (at least until we get more realistic-moving training dummies...
I don't think it's impossible to create one to practice eye gouges on, but
I've never seen one.) There's actually a lot of research to support "mental
practice" as a useful training method. I'm not saying there aren't a lot of
people doing forms without much mental involvement, but they can be done in
such a way that the mental conditioning for fighting is going on.
That said, I do NOT think forms should be the bulk of training. I tend to
buy the argument that they really tended to form the lexicon of an eastern
martial art, since historically most practitioners were illiterate. The
bulk of training, in my book, should be sparring, drills, and bag work. BUT
I think it's incorrect to argue that forms don't add anything at all.
Chas
> Why not? This we do all the time? When I did Silat there were guys
> (not me) that did live blade training drills. I have a lot of respect for
> both arts and REALLY want to keep training Silat but my time is less free
> and I don't know of a good school in the area even if I had the time.
Who were you studying with?
I might be able to help you with some personal practice things that
will augment whatever training you're doing now- if you'll tell me
where you are, I might know of an individual that would share practice
with you on a more informal basis.
Chas
> .........
> Interesting view, then there is the questiion of quality.
Not yet.
There are always poor exponents, bad teachers- that's a matter for
individual analysis. We're talking about practice methods and whether
'kata' (solo exercise) is 'useful'.
> If I were asked my
> opinion about a lot of the kata out there I'd give a negative review.
Based on the exercise itself or the guy doing it?
> Of
> course I do kata like work as well with my shadowboxing and the combos I
> drill, so while it's hypocritical for me to fuss much, I have to admit a lot
> of what is out there sucks ass.
A lot of everything sucks ass. I just saw a local guy shut his doors-
he was just *bad* and it finally showed enough to shut him down. He
was a MMA guy; took a little BJJ, took a little Muay Thai- he just
wasn't very good.
> Especially if the person teaching it sucks
> ass at teaching people how to use what they are learning as opposed to
> having them blindly memorize patterns year after year.
A bad teacher can present good material- or bad material- but, if he
is not presenting it well, it hardly matters whether the material is
good or bad.
> These people who
> gripe may actually be people who put work in trustingly only to have their
> application fail them on the street due to their instruction. Just a
> thought.
Bad instruction is bad instruction- has nothing to do with the art
itself, or the quality of the practice methods.
Chas
> Why not? This we do all the time? When I did Silat there were guys
> (not me) that did live blade training drills. I have a lot of respect for
> both arts and REALLY want to keep training Silat but my time is less free
> and I don't know of a good school in the area even if I had the time.
Who were you studying with?
I might be able to help you with some personal practice things that
will augment whatever training you're doing now- if you'll tell me
where you are, I might know of an individual that would share practice
with you on a more informal basis.
--
Chas
> .........
> Interesting view, then there is the questiion of quality.
Not yet.
There are always poor exponents, bad teachers- that's a matter for
individual analysis. We're talking about practice methods and whether
'kata' (solo exercise) is 'useful'.
> If I were asked my
> opinion about a lot of the kata out there I'd give a negative review.
Based on the exercise itself or the guy doing it?
> Of
> course I do kata like work as well with my shadowboxing and the combos I
> drill, so while it's hypocritical for me to fuss much, I have to admit a lot
> of what is out there sucks ass.
A lot of everything sucks ass. I just saw a local guy shut his doors-
he was just *bad* and it finally showed enough to shut him down. He
was a MMA guy; took a little BJJ, took a little Muay Thai- he just
wasn't very good.
> Especially if the person teaching it sucks
> ass at teaching people how to use what they are learning as opposed to
> having them blindly memorize patterns year after year.
A bad teacher can present good material- or bad material- but, if he
is not presenting it well, it hardly matters whether the material is
good or bad.
> These people who
> gripe may actually be people who put work in trustingly only to have their
> application fail them on the street due to their instruction. Just a
> thought.
Bad instruction is bad instruction- has nothing to do with the art
itself, or the quality of the practice methods.
--
Chas
> Why not? This we do all the time? When I did Silat there were guys
> (not me) that did live blade training drills. I have a lot of respect for
> both arts and REALLY want to keep training Silat but my time is less free
> and I don't know of a good school in the area even if I had the time.
Who were you studying with?
I might be able to help you with some personal practice things that
will augment whatever training you're doing now- if you'll tell me
where you are, I might know of an individual that would share practice
with you on a more informal basis.
--
Chas
> Why not? This we do all the time? When I did Silat there were guys
> (not me) that did live blade training drills. I have a lot of respect for
> both arts and REALLY want to keep training Silat but my time is less free
> and I don't know of a good school in the area even if I had the time.
Who were you studying with?
Chas
> Why not? This we do all the time? When I did Silat there were guys
> (not me) that did live blade training drills. I have a lot of respect for
> both arts and REALLY want to keep training Silat but my time is less free
> and I don't know of a good school in the area even if I had the time.
Who were you studying with?
Chas
> .........
> Interesting view, then there is the questiion of quality.
Not yet.
There are always poor exponents, bad teachers- that's a matter for
individual analysis. We're talking about practice methods and whether
'kata' (solo exercise) is 'useful'.
> If I were asked my
> opinion about a lot of the kata out there I'd give a negative review.
Based on the exercise itself or the guy doing it?
> Of
> course I do kata like work as well with my shadowboxing and the combos I
> drill, so while it's hypocritical for me to fuss much, I have to admit a lot
> of what is out there sucks ass.
A lot of everything sucks ass. I just saw a local guy shut his doors-
he was just *bad* and it finally showed enough to shut him down. He
was a MMA guy; took a little BJJ, took a little Muay Thai- he just
wasn't very good.
> Especially if the person teaching it sucks
> ass at teaching people how to use what they are learning as opposed to
> having them blindly memorize patterns year after year.
A bad teacher can present good material- or bad material- but, if he
is not presenting it well, it hardly matters whether the material is
good or bad.
> These people who
> gripe may actually be people who put work in trustingly only to have their
> application fail them on the street due to their instruction. Just a
> thought.
Bad instruction is bad instruction- has nothing to do with the art
itself, or the quality of the practice methods.
--
'Vejita' S. Cousin
[Snip Re: Silat]
>Who were you studying with?
>I might be able to help you with some personal practice things that
>will augment whatever training you're doing now- if you'll tell me
>where you are, I might know of an individual that would share practice
>with you on a more informal basis.
I don't remember, this was back in 1994. I've never been good with
names. This was in Boulder, Co near the University. There was a club
practice and a dojo/school practice of campus.
'Vejita' S. Cousin
PS - Forgot :) I'm in Seattle, WA now. I know the Minnesota Kali Group
recently opened a school here, but when I checked their curriculum(sp) it
was mostly JKD concepts with kali mixed in. There was also a time conflict
(I just don't have much free time these days).
Chas
> I don't remember, this was back in 1994. I've never been good with
> names. This was in Boulder, Co near the University. There was a club
> practice and a dojo/school practice of campus.
They almost certainly were some of our guys- there are a number of
them that practice 'up north' (Boulder is about 40 mi. away from me).
In '94, there would have been a half dozen people that might teach in
that context. Most of them would have been out of Willem's lineage,
although Victor has numbers of students (themselves teachers) who come
from that area also.
If you ever want a visual refresher on silat, take a look at our tape
list- you'd probably recognize some faces, as well as the information.
good luck,
Chas
> ......I'm in Seattle, WA now.
You're really lucky. There is some very bad silat in Seattle, and some
very good silat with which to compare it.
Go through the martial arts community to find a practice group- the
publicized ones are questionable at best.
--
Chas Clements
'a couple of years ago, it was just another snake cult' (black lotus
dealer; 'Conan')
Chaplain-X
> Chaplain-X wrote:
> > .........
> > Interesting view, then there is the questiion of quality.
>
> Not yet.
> There are always poor exponents, bad teachers- that's a matter for
> individual analysis.
Probably true, but its no suprise people jump ship and try to take
everything with them when they go credibility of training and all.
>We're talking about practice methods and whether
> 'kata' (solo exercise) is 'useful'.
I understand that.
>
> > If I were asked my
> > opinion about a lot of the kata out there I'd give a negative review.
>
> Based on the exercise itself or the guy doing it?
Take your pick, I have kind of a biased opinion though, I've tried several
styles of kata over the years some of which I found totally useless, some
made me think, some made me work and some where being tought by people who
were not good pervayers of the material.
>
> > Of
> > course I do kata like work as well with my shadowboxing and the combos I
> > drill, so while it's hypocritical for me to fuss much, I have to admit a
lot
> > of what is out there sucks ass.
>
> A lot of everything sucks ass. I just saw a local guy shut his doors-
> he was just *bad* and it finally showed enough to shut him down. He
> was a MMA guy; took a little BJJ, took a little Muay Thai- he just
> wasn't very good.
True, in this age of commercialism it is difficult to find someone who can
bring quality to his students, everyone wants the money/prestige, some are
poor at their jobs and their art, some are good at their art and poor at
their job, some decent at both, but try to teach unrealistic ethics, etc...
you know all this I'm sure.
>
> > Especially if the person teaching it sucks
> > ass at teaching people how to use what they are learning as opposed to
> > having them blindly memorize patterns year after year.
>
> A bad teacher can present good material- or bad material- but, if he
> is not presenting it well, it hardly matters whether the material is
> good or bad.
Exactly, further there is bad material and good material around, just like
anything else, it's no wonder there are people who are bitter about it. They
had their money taken from them for nothing of value.
>
> > These people who
> > gripe may actually be people who put work in trustingly only to have
their
> > application fail them on the street due to their instruction. Just a
> > thought.
>
> Bad instruction is bad instruction- has nothing to do with the art
> itself, or the quality of the practice methods.
This may be true to some extent, but as far as I'm concerned there is a lot
of 'bad art' too, which was only ever intended for commercial developement.
Thus I don't have much difficulty seeing through the eyes of frustration.
X
Todd Christensen
> "Robert Low" <mtx...@linux.services.coventry.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:ab18e1$521$1...@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk...
> >
> >
> > I work on the principle that this is Usenet, there are always
> > new lurkers about, and even if the participants in the argument
> > learn nothing from each other, the lurkers might (or at
> > least, they get some information to base their eventual
> > opinion on).
> >
>
> True. I just get so tired of the whole thing. The worst are those who know
> their katas, have practiced them & reaped all the benefits & then decide
> that they aren't needed. they do their students no lasting good with this.
gee, I guess that would be me, then.
I go in and out of love with kata's. This month? After trying and
trying to write my own...I hate them again.
Now that I have ready access to advanced training partners and must
optomize my training and conditioning time, something has to give. And
that something was katas. I don't miss them one bit- and I have only
got better. Kata's are great for beginners. But I honestly derive
almost zero benefit from them now.
You know what? Katas are only greatly useful in lieu of a competent
observant training partner. It's like jerking off is fun. But,
depending on the partner, I'd rather have real sex.
And frankly, I think people look silly doing them. So there.
Todd Christensen
> "'Vejita' S. Cousin" <sco...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:ab2sqq$rj6$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu...
> > taxiing. Add in the bunkai and it's quite a work out. But, kata and
> > sparring/fighting are two different things. So it's really about what you
> > want to learn.
> > For example, I like sparring. And the footwork that you use in
> > sparring is different than kata. The same is true of your hand positions,
> > and balance. I think that kata started off as no more than any other
> > typical drill, but over time become to ritualized. Katas are also used to
> > practice techinques that are to 'harmful' to use in sparring (eg. the
> > katas in Judo incude striking).
> >
>
> Your problem here is that you are failing to make a very important
> distinction. Sparring and fighting are two totally different things. What
> you learn in kata is useful for fighting but NOT for sparring. Sparring is
> sport & nothing more.
Pardon my french BUT that is total total total bullshit!
Katas are great for many things. And a tool for many things. But
sparring is the essential tool for fighting/combat.
All those live fire excercises, entry drills and war games I did in
the army were for sport? I guess rather than simulate combat as best
we can; we should stand in a room solo and just imagine Al'Quieda and
shout bang.
If you want to drop anything to optomize your training for self
defense or even fighting; DROP KATAS!
Batman
> Let's just agree to disagree. I believe that training against a live
>100% resisting cop is the best way to learn how to fight.
Well, I've got nothing against cops, and i dont think most of em fight very
well. But, if you say fighting them is the best way to learn to fight .... i
think I'm gunna have a little fun on 6th street this friday. SO now, for this
cop fighting, do you reccomend with or without weapons? How do i keep his
buddies from jumping in? Or is that part of it? Any other tips? I'm
planning on picking a kata and strictly using it that night. Sound good to
you? Oh and 1 more thing, is there like a code word i use when its all over
to let em know i was just training? Should i mention your name or something?
-jeff (IH)
Chas
> Katas are great for many things. And a tool for many things. But
> sparring is the essential tool for fighting/combat.
Kata is a solo exercise.
Sparring is a two man exercise.
They don't have anything to do with one another in terms of one
replacing the other.
> All those live fire excercises, entry drills and war games I did in
> the army were for sport?
Nope- and neither were all those hours of studying your manuals,
learning how to field strip your equipment and make small repairs-
stuff that you did by yourself to prepare yourself as a military
serviceman.
> I guess rather than simulate combat as best
> we can; we should stand in a room solo and just imagine Al'Quieda and
> shout bang.
If you're by yourself, that might well be your best shot.
> If you want to drop anything to optomize your training for self
> defense or even fighting; DROP KATAS!
If you don't know how to move, all the sparring in the world won't
teach you. You can waste your time for decades if you don't learn
something new and have a chance to practice it outside the sphere of
anyone else.
--
Chas Clements
casemaker 303-364-0403
ch...@kuntaosilat.net
http://www.kuntaosilat.com/
http://chasclements.tripod.com/index.htm
Chas
> Probably true, but its no suprise people jump ship and try to take
> everything with them when they go credibility of training and all.
Sure- there are presumptuous opportunists everywhere- martial arts in
particular.
> Take your pick, I have kind of a biased opinion though, I've tried several
> styles of kata over the years some of which I found totally useless, some
> made me think, some made me work and some where being tought by people who
> were not good pervayers of the material.
I'm not having as much trouble with the idea of you're not liking kata
as I am that you 'tried several' and couldn't find use in them. That
speaks more to your incapacity than to an established methodology.
> Exactly, further there is bad material and good material around, just like
> anything else, it's no wonder there are people who are bitter about it. They
> had their money taken from them for nothing of value.
Do you think all this comes for free? or easily?
It takes years to prepare to take instruction well- more years to
evaluate what you have learned- more years to actualize what you've
learned and to make it your own.
I'm always unimpressed with people that look at a given concept- such
as a religion, or a martial system, and believe that because there are
hypocrites, it's the system model at fault and not the individual
working the system.
--
Chas Clements
casemaker 303-364-0403
Chaplain-X
> Chaplain-X wrote:
> > Probably true, but its no suprise people jump ship and try to take
> > everything with them when they go credibility of training and all.
>
> Sure- there are presumptuous opportunists everywhere- martial arts in
> particular.
>
> > Take your pick, I have kind of a biased opinion though, I've tried
several
> > styles of kata over the years some of which I found totally useless,
some
> > made me think, some made me work and some where being tought by people
who
> > were not good pervayers of the material.
>
> I'm not having as much trouble with the idea of you're not liking kata
I'm not dogging the training, it may work for some people, but it never did
me. Some were even fun to do, but they didn't enhance my fighting and I know
better ways to train my body. I find myself honestly questioning if
karate/kung fu/taekwon kata is the best way to train people. If there were
fewer katas per system I might buy in a little more, but when you are to
learn 60 variations of the same thing it screams out commercialism to me.
> as I am that you 'tried several' and couldn't find use in them. That
> speaks more to your incapacity than to an established methodology.
Perhaps, I've personally found more use in my very basic kickboxing
methodology than any karate, kung-fu etc. I've ever worked in. For some
reason it just seems easier for me to access real basic punching, knees etc.
during application than anything else I ever learned in any system (although
such learning is interesting to me). Furthermore, all the knifework I've
ever actually seen applied on people was very simplistic and deadly
effective.
>
> > Exactly, further there is bad material and good material around, just
like
> > anything else, it's no wonder there are people who are bitter about it.
They
> > had their money taken from them for nothing of value.
>
> Do you think all this comes for free? or easily?
I'm sure it doesn't Chas, reaping benefits that you can actually use and not
get your ass kicked using from kata must take years.(most kata like work
anyway) Personally I have better methods of doing the same thing, they take
less time and benefit me in many other ways as well, I'm reffering to
conditioning, basic drills etc.
> It takes years to prepare to take instruction well- more years to
> evaluate what you have learned- more years to actualize what you've
> learned and to make it your own.
Sure, the whole time your droppin dimes too. I've tried it and found better
ways, ironically they are the same ways I knew before I ever tried to
conceptualize someones kata or self defense. Don't get me wrong, I think
they can be interesting I just feel as if there are numerous other ways to
better train your body and method in this day and age. I cite the saying
that goes 'catch a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and
he eats his whole life.' Is kata really a necassary step to learn a
foundation in this day and age? I'd say no, I even question the practicality
of the majority of what I've seen and I don't mean theorhetically, I mean
while someone is pounding your face in.
> I'm always unimpressed with people that look at a given concept- such
> as a religion, or a martial system, and believe that because there are
> hypocrites, it's the system model at fault and not the individual
> working the system.
That is the nature of man, it means they learned something with their
experience with it and that is a good thing. Personally I think they can be
interesting, fun, etc. I have just found better ways for me. And with all
the crap that is out there I don't fault people for having harsh feelings
about such. Furthermore, I do blame the instructor, seperate from the
integrity of an art, too many of them these days are trying to 'teach'
people prematurely just because they have a systems curriculum memorized,
when people come to realize they don't know what they are talking about,
they become bitter for life to the modus, what I'm saying is I see their
point. I'd be pissed too.
X
Chas
> ......If there were
> fewer katas per system I might buy in a little more, but when you are to
> learn 60 variations of the same thing it screams out commercialism to me.
Ahh; no shit.
I have little respect for kata collectors- particularly when they do
none of them well enough to show me that they understand the least
thing about them.
Much the same feeling I have about people who think they were born
knowing how to move and figure that sparring will help them get over
their fears.
> Perhaps, I've personally found more use in my very basic kickboxing
> methodology than any karate, kung-fu etc. I've ever worked in. For some
> reason it just seems easier for me to access real basic punching, knees etc.
> during application than anything else I ever learned in any system (although
> such learning is interesting to me). Furthermore, all the knifework I've
> ever actually seen applied on people was very simplistic and deadly
> effective.
One of my teachers used to say; 'We don't train to fight harder, we
train to fight *easier*.'
Everybody starts out with kick/kick/punch/punch- as one becomes more
facile, there are other ways to handle the situation.
Knifework can be simple or complex; I've seen both in action- and the
more finessed fighter would have taken every single one of the 'basic'
guys- that's why he had killed 15 or 18 men with the blade.
Finesse is good- and it doesn't come without a considered
understanding of the basics.
> > Do you think all this comes for free? or easily?
>
> I'm sure it doesn't Chas, reaping benefits that you can actually use and not
> get your ass kicked using from kata must take years.(most kata like work
> anyway) Personally I have better methods of doing the same thing, they take
> less time and benefit me in many other ways as well, I'm reffering to
> conditioning, basic drills etc.
You seem to think that I, and others, tout 'kata' as the 'best'
exercise- that isn't true. I tout it as the best *solo* exercise.
You want weight training, use weights in your kata- you like jogging?
Do your kata at the jog. You want 'conditioning'? Condition with your
kata.
There is no other solo exercise which will teach you more about
martial art- nor prepare you better for group practice- than kata.
Matthew Weigel
>> Let's just agree to disagree. I believe that training against a live
>>100% resisting cop is the best way to learn how to fight.
>
>Well, I've got nothing against cops, and i dont think most of em fight very
>well.
Jeff, you take "twisting words around" to the next level. Good on ya.
>But, if you say fighting them is the best way to learn to fight .... i
>think I'm gunna have a little fun on 6th street this friday.
Not something I would recommend. I nearly got the shit beaten out of
me for acting goofy and having a can (of juice!) in my hand there; IIRC
it was one of the New Year's parties.
--
Matthew Weigel
Research Systems Programmer
mcwe...@cs.cmu.edu
Robert Low
>buddies from jumping in? Or is that part of it? Any other tips? I'm
>planning on picking a kata and strictly using it that night.
Don't forget to teach them which attacks to use in which order.
Wouldn't want to get attacked wrong, would you?
--
Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
Badger Jones
>> Take your pick, I have kind of a biased opinion though, I've tried several
>> styles of kata over the years some of which I found totally useless, some
>> made me think, some made me work and some where being tought by people who
>> were not good pervayers of the material.
>
>I'm not having as much trouble with the idea of you're not liking kata
>as I am that you 'tried several' and couldn't find use in them. That
>speaks more to your incapacity than to an established methodology.
In some ways I'm with Chappy. All kata/forms are not created equal,
and many can be compared with those signs one sees in school districts
"Slow Children at Play".
Of the various forms I've learned over the years, I've kept about 1 in
4, and of those, I really only work 2.
Badger Jones
www.cyberus.ca/~badger
"I've come the conclusion that no story cannot be improved upon with a good
cratering." - Ted MacKinnon
Chas
> ........
> In some ways I'm with Chappy. All kata/forms are not created equal,
> and many can be compared with those signs one sees in school districts
> "Slow Children at Play".
That's just the difference between 'good' kata and bad.
There's a bunch of stuff that I don't do either- I work the Serak
djurus and some drills, but I'm not a kata collector at all.
> Of the various forms I've learned over the years, I've kept about 1 in
> 4, and of those, I really only work 2.
Sure- I work the first set of djurus pretty much in depth- leave the
rest to the people whom it suits. The point is still that kata/forms
is the best solo exercise for martial endeavor. Just about anything
you can do as exercise can be done in a martial arts context, and
doing it within the forma is better than not.
Chaplain-X
I've never seen any finesse with bladework. Not that its not possible, I
just question the practicality of the kali type stuff I've been exposed to.
>
> > > Do you think all this comes for free? or easily?
> >
> > I'm sure it doesn't Chas, reaping benefits that you can actually use and
not
> > get your ass kicked using from kata must take years.(most kata like work
> > anyway) Personally I have better methods of doing the same thing, they
take
> > less time and benefit me in many other ways as well, I'm reffering to
> > conditioning, basic drills etc.
>
> You seem to think that I, and others, tout 'kata' as the 'best'
> exercise
No no no, all I'm saying is I see their point. They being people who have
been jipped by useless pattern.
>- that isn't true. I tout it as the best *solo* exercise.
> You want weight training, use weights in your kata- you like jogging?
> Do your kata at the jog. You want 'conditioning'? Condition with your
> kata.
Fair enough, but why would I sacrifice all my intensity to do a kata when I
could just run or pound weights, shadow boxing as I go? It's not the best
tool for everyone which is something I recognize.
> There is no other solo exercise which will teach you more about
> martial art- nor prepare you better for group practice- than kata.
>
Perhaps. However I find shadow boxing and simple drills are a far better
solo preperation for my type of martial art.
X
ying0yang
> "ASOKA" <as...@telus.net> wrote
>
> > When it comes down to it,katas are not of much use for self-defense
> > and are highly exaggerated in those arts that teach them.
> >
> > Katas are not much more then set ways,just as waking up at same time
> > every day for work or school etc is also a set way or plan.
>
> Actually, I agree with you in no small way, EXCEPT I think you're missing
> one of the things that forms tend to do well, that being mental
> conditioning. What I mean is that a form can be done in the mindset of
> attempting to do maim and kill, which is impractical in many other
> situations (at least until we get more realistic-moving training dummies...
> I don't think it's impossible to create one to practice eye gouges on, but
> I've never seen one.) There's actually a lot of research to support "mental
> practice" as a useful training method. I'm not saying there aren't a lot of
> people doing forms without much mental involvement, but they can be done in
> such a way that the mental conditioning for fighting is going on.
>
> That said, I do NOT think forms should be the bulk of training. I tend to
> buy the argument that they really tended to form the lexicon of an eastern
> martial art, since historically most practitioners were illiterate. The
> bulk of training, in my book, should be sparring, drills, and bag work. BUT
> I think it's incorrect to argue that forms don't add anything at all.
---) well, it depends of one thing ,'cause now some martials arts
system have change (for business ). First of all , try to find a
traditionnal school which teach the art as near as the original one .
Second , who are that school and the style they teach.
japanese style like Karate , have lost the spirit of the art a
little (not all of course ) and in past years that was the POPULAR
style of martials arts ;so they begin to BUSINESS THE ART.The other
thing , is that the katas or forms are made with a self-defense
options , so what i want to say , is that the forms are there to
multiply the movements to become most comfortable with it and apply it
in combat.but that's why , they need a lot of katas to try to have
all movements possible for an attack in her katas.
Judo , have become a olympic martials arts , so we can call it a
sport.a few good masters teach the art in ancient way ,but it's hard
to find them .
Chinese martials arts; becoming more popular and it's pretty new
here .So , they still be traditionnal in most of time. The thing with
the chinese arts is that in most style , a forms(katas) is not based
on a repetionnal way like others but in a system of what to do and not
do .That means , you got few forms to practice , but most of all these
forms TEACHS YOU the way to become good one . So , the all system of
the art is in the katas , one movement in that forms can teach you 100
and more way for self defense. Group class will help you discover some
of that system (in your forms) .A good balance of practice your forms
and group class will open your mind and you will discover your art.
Chinese includes kung-fu , taichi , pakua , hsing-i , chi kong
...........
in conclusion , in ancient time , the way of teaching was different
of today . Today , student leave the school shortly and open her own,
so that causes they do not learn all the secret system, so they can't
teach it.Thats why , some system are not good . But that don't means
all are bad. If you lost the spirit of the art , you will not be able
to sharing your art.
Finding a good school , traditionnal , masters with good virtues
and maybe you will rediscover your art and your katas!!
p.s all martials arts are good , the differences between them it's
the way to teach it . there bad and good schools in all style.
Todd Christensen
> Todd Christensen wrote:
> > Katas are great for many things. And a tool for many things. But
> > sparring is the essential tool for fighting/combat.
>
> Kata is a solo exercise.
> Sparring is a two man exercise.
> They don't have anything to do with one another in terms of one
> replacing the other.
That why I specified later in this thread that they are what you can
do in the absence of a competent training partner. But for training
many fighting applications with subtle variables - like grappling -
they have little utility.
I tend to do spontaneous forms/shadowboxing strictly as a warm-up
ritual. I now place little direct emphasis on them as a separate area
of study.
I see their use - for me - as less of perfecting movement, outside
body mechanics and the like and more a visualization/imagination
drill. I gain some insights, not in the physicality of a movement, but
in the awareness of what my other training may be missing - the things
a partner can't do safely to me, or me to them. And later I may bring
some of that to a partner drill.
But what my strict wrote forms - the ones I know - can do for me, I
feel they have done. I'd love learn other systems forms just to see
though.
> > All those live fire exercises, entry drills and war games I did in
> > the army were for sport?
>
> Nope- and neither were all those hours of studying your manuals,
> learning how to field strip your equipment and make small repairs-
> stuff that you did by yourself to prepare yourself as a military
> serviceman.
I see your point. But in the field you know what happened the
manuals...right?
> > I guess rather than simulate combat as best
> > we can; we should stand in a room solo and just imagine Al'Quieda and
> > shout bang.
>
> If you're by yourself, that might well be your best shot.
It's funny 'cause after I wrote that I remember a DI, before issuing
rifles for a range exercise, having us do exactly that...pointing our
fingers and yelling bang. He got sick of a couple of jokers fucking
around with an M16 and decided to treat us like children for an
afternoon. Thing was - it worked. Funny.
> > If you want to drop anything to optimize your training for self
> > defense or even fighting; DROP KATAS!
>
> If you don't know how to move, all the sparring in the world won't
> teach you. You can waste your time for decades if you don't learn
> something new and have a chance to practice it outside the sphere of
> anyone else.
I think that depends on individuals. Some naturally take to Katas.
Some are natural improvisors and hate katas. Some just get bored with
katas. There are other ways to teach productive combat movement
without strictly ritualizing it.
Batman
<ab82ff$o63$1...@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk>:
>Batman <bat...@batcave.edu> wrote:
>>buddies from jumping in? Or is that part of it? Any other tips? I'm
>>planning on picking a kata and strictly using it that night.
>
>Don't forget to teach them which attacks to use in which order.
>Wouldn't want to get attacked wrong, would you?
Thats a good point. They may not be as good at karate as me. I guess I'll
hafta give em a crash course first, then fight with them. Thanks for the tip!
-jeff (IH)
Batman
<bd05ff9f.02050...@posting.google.com>:
> p.s all martials arts are good , the differences between them it's
>the way to teach it . there bad and good schools in all style.
>
This was funny. I just wanted to post it again.
All martial arts are good.
-jeff (IH)
Kevin
> I see your point. But in the field you know what happened the
> manuals...right?
Yeah - they were either already known inside and out and
not used because you didn't need them, or you stood on them
and cursed at the top of your lungs because you didn't have
time to do that stuff now.
Kata is like that; you do 'em when you are training, because
in the field you either know the stuff or you don't.
:o)
Kevin
Eivind Antoniazzi
Do you know what Bunkai is?
If you don't, look into that......
Maybe then you will see kata from a different angle.
-E-
ASOKA <as...@telus.net> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:ebe4eabb.02050...@posting.google.com...
> Well there is no doubt that katas are good for
> posture,focus,co-ordination and balance things needed to make a good
> fighter,however being pre-arranged movents with very few techniques in
> each kata that are realistic techniques for a fighter ,in my opinion
> katas are useless for self-defense.There are many other arts that can
> teach all of the above in a more realistic way.
jrc
Eivind Antoniazzi wrote in message ...
So then, moving on to another physical activity, one should never bother
with catch and shoot or catch and drive drills in basketball. Just go to
practice, and shoot over and over again concentrating on the basic one
handed, elbow under the wrist, cookie jar follow through shot. The chances
of you catching the ball in that exact spot during a game, coming from that
exact spot, etc. etc. etc. are pretty slim. If you have your shot *basics*
down you will be o.k.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
It is skipping a step completely.
First you have to learn the basics, properly. Then you have to practice
something that makes you use the basics without thinking about them. If you
have to think about them then you probably haven't learned them properly
yet, and it will be obvious to anyone watching you perform kata what basics
are and aren't *a part of you* yet.
Then, and only then, when you *catch the ball* with someone in your face can
you automatically be concerned with how to score, rather then how to keep
him from reaching out and taking the ball.
If someone throws an attack at my face am I going to pull off at 45' into a
perfect cat-stance outside middle block. NO! But I will automatically get
out of the way and block the attack, leaving my mental capacities free to
find a target and counter because the kata I have been working on for 18
months has ingrained the get out of the way and block part into me, and my
previous basics work ingrained a proper outside middle block into me.
Just like Kobi Bryant doesn't catch a pass and turn into a *text book*
triple threat position with knees perfectly bent every time. He does,
however, get the ball and get to a point where he is a threat automatically
while figuring out how he is going to score. Why? because he has practiced
the perfect triple threat stance so many times that it is ingrained into him
to a point.
Badger Jones
Jeff, this is your lucky day! I've just put the final touches on my
new style - Flying Fandango Fruit Hat Fist. It's a martial art, and
therefore it goes without saying, it's good! Care to become the first
student of this noble, ancient and (of course) good martial art?
Did I mention it was good?
Joao de Souza
>
> Jeff, this is your lucky day! I've just put the final touches on my
> new style - Flying Fandango Fruit Hat Fist. It's a martial art, and
> therefore it goes without saying, it's good! Care to become the first
> student of this noble, ancient and (of course) good martial art?
>
> Did I mention it was good?
Bah! You better not try that Flying Fandango Fruit Hat Fist against my
Way of the Scent Marking Lemur!
You know how they say. All martial arts are good, but some are just
plain gooder!
;-)
Badger Jones
wrote:
>Badger Jones wrote:
>>
>> Jeff, this is your lucky day! I've just put the final touches on my
>> new style - Flying Fandango Fruit Hat Fist. It's a martial art, and
>> therefore it goes without saying, it's good! Care to become the first
>> student of this noble, ancient and (of course) good martial art?
>>
>> Did I mention it was good?
>
>Bah! You better not try that Flying Fandango Fruit Hat Fist against my
>Way of the Scent Marking Lemur!
Pfui! I laugh at you and your incontinent lemur! The Flying Fandango
Fruit Hat Fist has a far more impressive fake lineage!
>You know how they say. All martial arts are good, but some are just
>plain gooder!
S'truth! One day I may even find the goodest.
storys
"Badger Jones" <young_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cd96574...@news.storm.ca...
> >plain gooder!
>
> S'truth! One day I may even find the goodest.
>
Look you guys, cut it out! My sides can't take much more of this & my wife
is starting to wonder about a husband who sits in front of the computer
laughing his head off!
...................Tom...............
Todd Christensen
I thinking more along the lines of using them for toilet paper.
my fav...soft yielding, easily tearable pages;
"Improvised Munitions and Incendiaries"
Batman
<udj0ars...@corp.supernews.com>:
Remind her that it could be worse. You could be looking up porn.
-jeff (IH)
Batman
<3cd92c21....@news.storm.ca>:
>On 8 May 2002 00:46:11 GMT, bat...@batcave.edu (Batman) wrote:
>
>>ying...@hotmail.com (ying0yang) wrote in
>><bd05ff9f.02050...@posting.google.com>:
>>
>>> p.s all martials arts are good , the differences between them it's
>>>the way to teach it . there bad and good schools in all style.
>>>
>>
>>This was funny. I just wanted to post it again.
>>
>>All martial arts are good.
>
>Jeff, this is your lucky day! I've just put the final touches on my
>new style - Flying Fandango Fruit Hat Fist. It's a martial art, and
>therefore it goes without saying, it's good! Care to become the first
>student of this noble, ancient and (of course) good martial art?
>
>Did I mention it was good?
What happened to the flying fornicating upside down white dragon monkey style?
Wasn't that yours too? I'm still waiting on my 'master it at home' tape.
Didn't you get the check for $10,000? As soon as i get the tape i can take
out the loan for the rest of it. My banker just wants to see the collateral
before he releases the money.
-jeff (E.L.P.)
Kevin
> I thinking more along the lines of using them for toilet paper.
> my fav...soft yielding, easily tearable pages;
> "Improvised Munitions and Incendiaries"
Ooooh. I see - well, okay, if your friends are using you to
wipe their asses, then I agree. The Kata isn't working for you.
:o)
Kevin
Chas
> ......But for training
> many fighting applications with subtle variables - like grappling -
> they have little utility.
You must be comparing kata from primarily striking arts rather than
kata from mixed martial arts.
> I see their use - for me - as less of perfecting movement, outside
> body mechanics and the like and more a visualization/imagination
> drill.
A basic principle.
> I gain some insights, not in the physicality of a movement, but
> in the awareness of what my other training may be missing - the things
> a partner can't do safely to me, or me to them. And later I may bring
> some of that to a partner drill.
Precisely.
Andrew Brandon
This seems to be a subject that I am talking on a lot recently. In
this thread, I see the different view points, and some interesting
points too.
In Okinawan Karate, Kata is viewed as the source book for our
techniques and the core method of imparting them to the students. They
are not literal methods for self defence but a efficient means of
imparting complex information.
Kihon Kata teaches you the basic stances, movements, kicks, punches
and blocking techniques. But Kata are far more than that, if explored
Kata will open up worlds of possibilities to you, if you just see them
as formalised 'dances' then you miss the point. why would someone who
was developing methods for use to defend themselves in life or death
situations be making formalised dances?
No Kata are not dances, but they are useless if you don't understand
the purpose behind them, Kata if explored with a competent Sensei and
with a open mind and serious attitude will give you a method of
defence that is second to none. But how can these series of techniques
be practical?
In any given situation there are so many variables, no two fights will
be the same and I severely doubt any fight will follow the patterns of
a Kata, So how can I make it practical? Bunkai, Oyo and Kumite.
You have to search the Kata, there is enormous depth to Kata if you
are willing to persevere and want to become a more rounded fighter, OK
so you can take short cuts and go cross train in different arts but it
would be a superficial knowledge, if all you learn is the surface then
you are selling yourself short. No one ever said it would be easy, and
I for one don't think it should be if you want to temper yourself then
you have to pass through the fire and become stronger.
Otherwise, if you only go through the motions of the kata or don't do
them at all then eventually what was once a very powerful method of
transfering information becomes formalised dances and we lose a huge
amount of depth to our arts.
And if you want to take it further and add the traditional methods
together with modern sports science methods, then the benefits could
be more than we could imagine, think of it - methods developed to work
as a means of surviving a life or death struggle, added to the latest
scientific knowledge on how to train for maximum benefits of strength,
muscular endurance, speed and conditioning of the body.
Regards,
Andrew Brandon,
Okinawan Goju Ryu Karate, Kodokan Judo
Tokyo, Japan.
Paul Tanenbaum
news:1230eebf.0205...@posting.google.com...
> ...
> In Okinawan Karate, Kata is viewed as the source book for our
> techniques and the core method of imparting them to the students. They
> are not literal methods for self defence but a efficient means of
> imparting complex information.
Questionable.
> Kihon Kata teaches you the basic stances, movements, kicks, punches
> and blocking techniques. But Kata are far more than that, if explored
> Kata will open up worlds of possibilities to you, if you just see them
> as formalised 'dances' then you miss the point. Why would someone who
> was developing methods for use to defend themselves in life or death
> situations be making formalised dances?
How do you know this is the case?
The origins of kata are lost, we have only myth and speculation.
There are no reliable historical sources that the inventors were
"developing methods for use to defend themselves in life or death
situations". (Spare me the story of the chinese ambassador Ku San Ku
visiting Okinawa, also myth)
We're talking about a peasant society which was largely illiterate.
Such societies transmitted their lore orally, through story and dance.
Of course they had sagas of war, heros, and victories, depicting battle
scenes, probably imbued with religious ceremony. Over time this
transmuted into a warehouse of personal combat techniques, their digital
storage and communication so to speak.
In other words, the kata really were formalised dances.
> No, Kata are not dances, but they are useless if you don't understand
> the purpose behind them, Kata if explored with a competent Sensei and
> with a open mind and serious attitude will give you a method of
> defence that is second to none.
Second to none... based on what evidence?
> ...
> Otherwise, if you only go through the motions of the kata or don't do
> them at all then eventually what was once a very powerful method of
> transfering information becomes formalised dances and we lose a huge
> amount of depth to our arts.
>
> And if you want to take it further and add the traditional methods
> together with modern sports science methods, then the benefits could
> be more than we could imagine, think of it - methods developed to work
> as a means of surviving a life or death struggle, added to the latest
> scientific knowledge on how to train for maximum benefits of strength,
> muscular endurance, speed and conditioning of the body.
Kata hones agility and balance, but this only indirectly supports
fighting skill.
However, kata does offer a means of training solo when no partners are
available. Which is better than nothing, but the efficiency - compared
to other methods - is highly questionable.
---
Paul T.
Shuurai
> The origins of kata are lost, we have only myth and speculation.
Not really. Most of the current kata used today can be traced back to Chinese
forms, and that ones that cannot can be traced back to Okinawan karateka who
created them fairly recently. There are a lot of myths to be sure, but often
the myth overshadows the good information even when it is found.
> There are no reliable historical sources that the inventors were
> "developing methods for use to defend themselves in life or death
> situations". (Spare me the story of the chinese ambassador Ku San Ku
> visiting Okinawa, also myth)
Most of the kata are based on Chinese martial arts forms. Kusanku, for
example, can be traced to a Chinese man referred to as Koshankin, who spent
time teaching in Okinawa around 1762. He is described by Shionja Peichin
in a manuscript by the Chinese scholar Tobe Ryoen, as a highly skilled
practitioner of Chinese boxing who had been working on a ship that was wrecked
near the Okinawan coast. Whether Koshankin created the form, or whether the
form was created by the Okinawans based on a form Koshankin did, is not clear.
He was not an ambassador, just a traveller who knew some good kung fu.
The manuscript is called "Oshima Hikki" and has been translated by Patrick
McCarthy.
> We're talking about a peasant society which was largely illiterate.
We're talking about martial arts that were studied by scholars, merchants,
travellers, and even warriors. The idea that karate was created by peasants
to defend against samurai is itself a myth - karate was actually not nearly
as common among the peasants as people think. You're using a myth as a straw
man here, intentional or not. Very few of the early Okinawan karate pioneers
could have been considered illiterate - and these are the folks who created -
or at least heavily modified - most of the kata we use today.
> Such societies transmitted their lore orally, through story and dance.
> Of course they had sagas of war, heros, and victories, depicting battle
> scenes, probably imbued with religious ceremony. Over time this
> transmuted into a warehouse of personal combat techniques, their digital
> storage and communication so to speak.
The best evidence for the origins of forms in general suggests that the first
forms were developed for exercise. A lot of spirituality was thrown in because
they were created by spiritual people. Over time, as people started to see
the power, balance, and so forth that could come from training in these forms,
actual techniques were added. Eventually, the transmission of technique
became the main focus, leaving the spiritual stuff behind.
The point being, regardless of what the very force forms were intended to be
used for, the kata now - in karate - are used to transmit techniques and
concepts to be used in self-defense.
> In other words, the kata really were formalised dances.
In a manner of speaking perhaps, but then again any set of movements can be
called a dance. However, the point of kata is beyond that of merely expressing
oneself or telling a story - the point is to transmit useful movements and
concepts for defending oneself.
> > No, Kata are not dances, but they are useless if you don't understand
> > the purpose behind them, Kata if explored with a competent Sensei and
> > with a open mind and serious attitude will give you a method of
> > defence that is second to none.
>
> Second to none... based on what evidence?
On his opinion? Are you saying that nothing you've ever said on this
newsgroup has been pure opinion?
> > Otherwise, if you only go through the motions of the kata or don't do
> > them at all then eventually what was once a very powerful method of
> > transfering information becomes formalised dances and we lose a huge
> > amount of depth to our arts.
> >
> > And if you want to take it further and add the traditional methods
> > together with modern sports science methods, then the benefits could
> > be more than we could imagine, think of it - methods developed to work
> > as a means of surviving a life or death struggle, added to the latest
> > scientific knowledge on how to train for maximum benefits of strength,
> > muscular endurance, speed and conditioning of the body.
>
> Kata hones agility and balance, but this only indirectly supports
> fighting skill.
I have used movements DIRECTLY from kata in self-defense. More often, I've
used movements that are based on movements in kata - even if loosly. Seems to
me this is a pretty direct support of fighting skill.
> However, kata does offer a means of training solo when no partners are
> available.
Which is frankly only half of kata training. Fact is, kata training with
a partner should be a MAJOR focus, because otherwise you're missing the
whole point. Solo kata is very important, but it's only half the process.
You need a partner to examine the movements, try them out, and so forth.
> Which is better than nothing, but the efficiency - compared
> to other methods - is highly questionable.
Everything is questionable... And people often give different answers even
to the same questions.
Paul Tanenbaum
news:a9d0195c.02051...@posting.google.com...
> > The origins of kata are lost, we have only myth and speculation.
>
> Not really. Most of the current kata used today can be traced back to
> Chinese forms, and that ones that cannot can be traced back to
> Okinawan karateka who created them fairly recently. There are a lot
> of myths to be sure, but often the myth overshadows the good
What and where is the good information?
Itosu created the Pinans, for teaching purposes.
Sanchin evidently came from White Crane.
Mabuni invented a couple.
Which others can you trace?
And what was the intent of the creator, in each case?
> > There are no reliable historical sources that the inventors were
> > "developing methods for use to defend themselves in life or death
> > situations". (Spare me the story of the chinese ambassador Ku San
> > Ku visiting Okinawa, also myth)
>
> Most of the kata are based on Chinese martial arts forms. Kusanku,
> for example, can be traced to a Chinese man referred to as Koshankin,
> who spent time teaching in Okinawa around 1762. He is described by
> Shionja Peichin in a manuscript by the Chinese scholar Tobe Ryoen, as
> a highly skilled practitioner of Chinese boxing who had been working
> on a ship that was wrecked near the Okinawan coast. Whether Koshankin
> created the form, or whether the form was created by the Okinawans
> based on a form Koshankin did, is not clear.
> The manuscript is called "Oshima Hikki" and has been translated by
> Patrick McCarthy.
OK, I'll defer to your research here.
> > We're talking about a peasant society which was largely illiterate.
>
> We're talking about martial arts that were studied by scholars,
> merchants, travellers, and even warriors. The idea that karate was
> created by peasants to defend against samurai is itself a myth -
> karate was actually not nearly as common among the peasants as
> people think.
Yeah, that one always bugged me. Farming was hard work at that time,
and the idea that they came home with aching backs and practiced karate
by torch light... or threshing the grain made them nunchuk ninjas -
> ... Very few of the early Okinawan karate pioneers
> could have been considered illiterate - and these are the folks who
> created - or at least heavily modified - most of the kata we use
> today.
Agreed, budo was a privilege of the leisure class (true today also).
But even the aristocrats would use the cultural media of their day -
dance and drama. That's my thesis, that kata derived from oral
tradition - not specifically created as a method of training bujutsu.
> > Such societies transmitted their lore orally, through story and
> > dance... Over time this transmuted into a warehouse of personal
> > combat techniques, their digital storage and communication so
> > to speak.
>
> The best evidence for the origins of forms in general suggests that
> the first forms were developed for exercise. A lot of spirituality
> was thrown in because they were created by spiritual people. Over
> time, as people started to see the power, balance, and so forth that
> could come from training in these forms, actual techniques were added.
> Eventually, the transmission of technique became the main focus,
> leaving the spiritual stuff behind.
But the spiritual stuff has always been a crucial motivator. We are
told how kata performance must include spirit, mental focus, and all
that.
Our ancestors danced around the fire, yelling and psyching themselves up
before the hunt, invoking the gods to bring success. Kata practitioners
today are doing the same.
> The point being, regardless of what the very force forms were intended
> to be used for, the kata now - in karate - are used to transmit
> techniques and concepts to be used in self-defense.
But the many variants of particular kata in different styles suggest
otherwise.
If the forms contained specific useful data, people wouldn't monkey
around with them. We have multiple variations of Bassai, Kanku, Seisan,
Naihanchi... alterations occurred because each (so called) master had
his own idea of what looked good, or felt good. Clearly, it was the
subjective art form that mattered, not the content.
In fact, people differed on the content (bunkai). You don't see
disputes in boxing about the meaning of an uppercut or a weave.
Even if you could reproduce the exact original form of a kata, you then
have to show that the creator was a martial wizard; i.e. he had tested
every move for real. Very doubtful - I suspect that choreographers then
were much the same as today - creative types with active imaginations.
> > In other words, the kata really were formalised dances.
>
> In a manner of speaking perhaps, but then again any set of movements
> can be called a dance.
Conversely, any dance movement can have some imagined self defense app
bolted onto it.
> However, the point of kata is beyond that of merely expressing oneself
> or telling a story - the point is to transmit useful movements and
> concepts for defending oneself.
But the intricacy of most kata extends far beyond practicality, it
becomes an end in itself, artistically and athletically.
It's information overload, not an efficient method for transmitting
useable combat skills.
Boxers do simple combinations in their shadow boxing, exactly as done in
the ring. We used to practice sparring combinations in karate, and I
always wondered about the necessity, given the copious variety of waza
in kata. Why shadow box, if kata contains everything you need?
> > > No, Kata are not dances, but they are useless if you don't
> > > understand the purpose behind them, Kata if explored with...
> > > serious attitude will give you a method of defence that is second
> > > to none.
> >
> > Second to none... based on what evidence?
>
> On his opinion? Are you saying that nothing you've ever said on this
> newsgroup has been pure opinion?
"Pure opinion" with no support is useless.
If you say strawberry is the best flavor ice cream, and I ask why, then
you respond, "Because I like it", that's an empty opinion. Worthwhile
opinions are supported with a factual basis.
> > > Otherwise, if you only go through the motions of the kata or don't
> > > do them at all then eventually what was once a very powerful
> > > method of transfering information becomes formalised dances and
> > > we lose a huge amount of depth to our arts...
> >
> > Kata hones agility and balance, but this only indirectly supports
> > fighting skill.
>
> I have used movements DIRECTLY from kata in self-defense.
Examples?
> More often, I've used movements that are based on movements in kata -
> even if loosely. Seems to me this is a pretty direct support of
fighting skill.
Examples?
A "loose" relationship is tenuous. There are so many kata, with so many
moves, that it can become a Rorshach test - you can find practically
anything you want.
For instance, anyone can perform an eye gouge in a fight. But if he's a
karateist, he claims it was due to his Gojushiho practice.
I don't see any way to establish the cause/effect convincingly, I see
people defending their kata training at an emotional level, having put a
huge time investment into it.
> > However, kata does offer a means of training solo when no partners
> > are available.
>
> Which is frankly only half of kata training. Fact is, kata training
> with a partner should be a MAJOR focus, because otherwise you're
> missing the whole point. Solo kata is very important, but it's only
> half the process. You need a partner to examine the movements, try
>them out, and so forth.
OK, I'll buy that.
But then do you agree that any kata techniques which you never train
with a partner, will never be feasible under stress?
And is it realistic to train ALL the techniques from your kata with a
partner?
No, that's too much. So which ones do you choose, and what purpose is
served by the rest?
---
Paul T.
Kevin
> But the spiritual stuff has always been a crucial motivator. We are
> told how kata performance must include spirit, mental focus, and all
> that.
> Our ancestors danced around the fire, yelling and psyching themselves up
> before the hunt, invoking the gods to bring success. Kata practitioners
> today are doing the same.
Some kata are garbage. Some schools teach garbage. Some
instructors wouldn't know garbage if they sat in it. That being
said, solo movement is critical to training, in every art out there.
Call it shadow boxing, call it forms, kata, patterns, visualization,
call it whatever you like, it all involves visualizing techniques
and putting yourself in that head space of doing them - we did
this in competitive swimming, in triathlons, I've seen ski jumpers
do it, it has nothing to do with 'invoking the gods to bring success',
and everything to do with training unconscious knowledge of
movement, as well as intent (yi) as well as preparing the
practitioner mentally for a time when you won't have time to
try and remember to calm down, to breathe.
> But the many variants of particular kata in different styles suggest
> otherwise.
> If the forms contained specific useful data, people wouldn't monkey
> around with them. We have multiple variations of Bassai, Kanku, Seisan,
> Naihanchi... alterations occurred because each (so called) master had
> his own idea of what looked good, or felt good. Clearly, it was the
> subjective art form that mattered, not the content.
The forms *do* contain specific useful data - the good ones,
anyway - in a raw form. Adjusting them to preference, body type,
particular skill set is part of getting the intent right. There is a base
requirement, and layered on top of that are details - the details
are modified as you like as long as the base requirements are
met.
> In fact, people differed on the content (bunkai). You don't see
> disputes in boxing about the meaning of an uppercut or a weave.
Boxing, as a sport with heavy limits imposed, doesn't have the
options. You'd see a lot more disputing going on if boxing allowed
takedowns, throws, kicks, locks or if they didn't have boxing
mitts on. As a matter of fact, then it would be MMA, and there
you *do* get lots of timy disputes about the details of how to do
particular techniques. But about the finniky details, there is only
one way to do the basic thing - a figure four looks like a figure
four in the end.
Kata allows even more interpretation, because of how the library
of technique in it is organized. I think, personally, that the
important thing isn't so much the particular bunkai/technique
as just the fact that students are moving and thinking about how
to apply their movements.
> Conversely, any dance movement can have some imagined self defense app
> bolted onto it.
Some movements are inherently bad from a martial arts perspective
though. If you went through 'Swan Lake', deriving self defense
applications as you went, you'd notice that the movements don't
lend themselves to technique very well.
> But the intricacy of most kata extends far beyond practicality, it
> becomes an end in itself, artistically and athletically.
> It's information overload, not an efficient method for transmitting
> useable combat skills.
That's an opinion, of course. And there are people who don't learn
well that way - and a plethora of arts available to suit their learning
needs. I have no problem with that.
> Boxers do simple combinations in their shadow boxing, exactly as done in
> the ring. We used to practice sparring combinations in karate, and I
> always wondered about the necessity, given the copious variety of waza
> in kata. Why shadow box, if kata contains everything you need?
Ha ha. Who ever said that kata contains everything you need?
They were an idiot.
<regarding using kata in self defense>
> Examples?
Examples isn't proof, of course, they just allow you to doubt my
honesty, but I've used movements directly from a form in sparring.
Full contact sparring, no pads, I threw a strike, and recognized my
position from the crane form I was working on; threw the next
three techniques in a row, connecting nicely with the kick.
So what? Well, nothing, really - I don't for a minute suggest that
forms are meant to be simulations of fighting that you should be
hoping to play out in real life. For example, that was about seven
years ago, and it's not something I try for.
> A "loose" relationship is tenuous. There are so many kata, with so many
> moves, that it can become a Rorshach test - you can find practically
> anything you want.
Sure - as long as the basic movement is practiced to the point of
unconscious knowledge, there are lots of applications from the
movements. It's hard to find the application while you still need
to get the movement down, which is why shadow boxing, forms,
kata, whatever allow you to go over the movement on your own,
a lot.
> For instance, anyone can perform an eye gouge in a fight. But if he's a
> karateist, he claims it was due to his Gojushiho practice.
And wasn't it? If you practice the motion involved a thousand times,
and then you're freed up to use the movement because you aren't
worrying about trying to think about technique, and you use the
movement, was it not due to practice? I notice you pick an 'eye
gouge', as it is probably the simplest thing you could think of.
But this is also true for locks, punches, kicks, throws. When you
get these, they are often due to practice. Practice comes in many
forms. Kata is solo practice.
> OK, I'll buy that.
> But then do you agree that any kata techniques which you never train
> with a partner, will never be feasible under stress?
Of course! Absolutely. Find me the traditional style that suggests
otherwise. Even internal chinese arts, which tend not to favour
sparring (as it trains a limiting of the expression of power), do
partner drills.
> And is it realistic to train ALL the techniques from your kata with a
> partner?
Yes. Today or tomorrow? Maybe not, but yes, you should be training
all your techniques from kata. And from those, you will pick a few, and
you will train them more, and get good at them - same as with most
mixed martial artists. If you have too many kata to allow this, you have
too many kata. See: Shaolin-do.
> No, that's too much. So which ones do you choose, and what purpose is
> served by the rest?
The rest serve as a library for teaching the next guy, who won't have
your preferences for technique. If you learn only the techniques you like,
that's great for your practice - but if you drop the ones you don't like,
and teach the next guy who drops the ones he doesn't like...well it
won't be long before some poor bastard down the line isn't teaching
anything at all, and telling everyone how limited and suck as the art is.
:o)
Kevin
lijunfan
> "Shuurai" <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a9d0195c.02051...@posting.google.com...
> > > The origins of kata are lost, we have only myth and speculation.
> >
> > Not really. Most of the current kata used today can be traced back to
> > Chinese forms, and that ones that cannot can be traced back to
> > Okinawan karateka who created them fairly recently. There are a lot
> > of myths to be sure, but often the myth overshadows the good
> > information...
>
> What and where is the good information?
> Itosu created the Pinans, for teaching purposes.
> Sanchin evidently came from White Crane.
> Mabuni invented a couple.
>
> Which others can you trace?
> And what was the intent of the creator, in each case?
Well, with due respect whenever form techniques were taken from Kung Fu
and refined to comfortably fit the Okinawan or Japanese ideal,
it were watered down. They would never be used the same way
as used originally used in Kung Fu once they were adhered to
fit the non-Chinese ideal.
>
> But the intricacy of most kata extends far beyond practicality, it
> becomes an end in itself, artistically and athletically.
> It's information overload, not an efficient method for transmitting
> useable combat skills.
The last statement deservews both a yes and no. Depends who
sees it as information overload. It's rather, a library.
Sure, some see it as overload. Others don't.
> Boxers do simple combinations in their shadow boxing, exactly as done in
> the ring. We used to practice sparring combinations in karate, and I
> always wondered about the necessity, given the copious variety of waza
> in kata. Why shadow box, if kata contains everything you need?
Shadow boxing can be done with individual techniques taken from kuens (katas).
> > > > No, Kata are not dances, but they are useless if you don't
> > > > understand the purpose behind them, Kata if explored with...
> > > > serious attitude will give you a method of defence that is second
> > > > to none.
Katas are dances but not dances you see in nightclub bars.
It helps to know the pratical applications contained with the
karas. There are probably also those who believe the meaning
of movements will come to you if you have practiced your
kata diligently. Others disagree, believing applications must be shown
and known right off the bat.
Shuurai
>>Chinese forms, and that ones that cannot can be traced back to
>>Okinawan karateka who created them fairly recently. There are a lot
>>of myths to be sure, but often the myth overshadows the good
>>information...
>What and where is the good information?
>Itosu created the Pinans, for teaching purposes.
>Sanchin evidently came from White Crane.
>Mabuni invented a couple.
>Which others can you trace?
>And what was the intent of the creator, in each case?
The information I have comes from many sources. Patrick
McCarthy is a great source of information. There are of course
disputes on the details of any kata, but after several years of
reading up on them and comparing them to one another, I've come
to my own conclusions. In any event, I've read enough to feel
very strongly that the "ritual dance" theory (and it's a fairly
common theory) is just plain inadequate.
I'll readily admit that I can't "prove" a lot of the information
I have on kata, and frankly I suspect that a lot of it will never
be proven - one way or the other - by anyone. We're dealing with
a great deal of oral tradition, and that means no paper trail.
However, if you study enough different theories and accounts,
you can build a pretty good idea of at least the gist of any
given katas history.
Some examples...
Kusanku can be traced fairly well, but the identity of the actual
creator is only narrowed down to about three people. However, the
fact that it was based on fighting techniques is documented in the
Oshima Kikka work. The intent of the kata, at least in our bunkai,
is close range striking and grappling (I don't personally buy the
"in the dark" applications) which makes sense as Koshankin was
supposedly (according to the text) an exponent of chi-na.
Seiuchin can be traced to a Chinese form called Chai In Chin in
Chinese boxing. The two forms are very similar. In the Okinawan
kanji, the kata name means literally "Control, pull, and fight"
which is a fairly good description of the techniques found in
the form, which basically involve controlling your opponent,
pulling him close, and executing a strike.
Chino kata is based on a Chinese form called Chen Tou, which is found
in the Five Ancestors Fist system. I had the pleasuse of seeing this
form perfomed by a student who was in from China several years ago,
and it was remarkably like the Chinto we do in Isshinryu. A lot of
superficial differences, but the underlying concepts were the same.
Sunsu is actually quite easy - Tatsuo Shimabuku created it during the
1950's as a compliation of his favorite fighting techniques. It's
our "exclusive" kata in Isshinryu :)
>>>There are no reliable historical sources that the inventors were
>>>"developing methods for use to defend themselves in life or death
>>>situations". (Spare me the story of the chinese ambassador Ku San
>>>Ku visiting Okinawa, also myth)
>
>>Most of the kata are based on Chinese martial arts forms. Kusanku,
>>for example, can be traced to a Chinese man referred to as Koshankin,
>>who spent time teaching in Okinawa around 1762. He is described by
>>Shionja Peichin in a manuscript by the Chinese scholar Tobe Ryoen, as
>>a highly skilled practitioner of Chinese boxing who had been working
>>on a ship that was wrecked near the Okinawan coast. Whether Koshankin
>>created the form, or whether the form was created by the Okinawans
>>based on a form Koshankin did, is not clear.
>>The manuscript is called "Oshima Hikki" and has been translated by
>>Patrick McCarthy.
>OK, I'll defer to your research here.
All credit goes to Mr. McCarthy.
>>>We're talking about a peasant society which was largely illiterate.
>
>>We're talking about martial arts that were studied by scholars,
>>merchants, travellers, and even warriors. The idea that karate was
>>created by peasants to defend against samurai is itself a myth -
>>karate was actually not nearly as common among the peasants as
>>people think.
>Yeah, that one always bugged me. Farming was hard work at that time,
>and the idea that they came home with aching backs and practiced karate
>by torch light... or threshing the grain made them nunchuk ninjas -
Actually, there were kobudo attributed to the commoners of Okinawa,
and they included the bo, the tonfa, the sai, and the nunchaku.
Farming was indeed hard work, but dealing with the occasional bandit
was also part of the job. Even in Europe, the common man could be
expected to pick up a weapon and defend himself. By all accounts I've
seen, the "peasant" kobudo was much rougher, less formalized, but
actually quite decent. It seems that the bo was an especially potent
weapon among the commoners, which is interesting after reading Kirks
note a few days ago on the quarterstaff in Europe. Seems the stick
is indeed king :)
>>... Very few of the early Okinawan karate pioneers
>>could have been considered illiterate - and these are the folks who
>>created - or at least heavily modified - most of the kata we use
>>today.
>Agreed, budo was a privilege of the leisure class (true today also).
>But even the aristocrats would use the cultural media of their day -
>dance and drama. That's my thesis, that kata derived from oral
>tradition - not specifically created as a method of training bujutsu.
I agree partly. I think it was intended to convey training, and that
it was chosen for the same reason that people use dance and drama to
convey other ideas - because it's very easy to pass on a great deal
of information to someone using this method. Also, the cultures of
China, Japan, and Okinawa are all pretty big on the idea of form.
There are ritual forms used to teach everything from flower
arrangement to tea ceremony. One could argue that these forms have
other meanings, but the fact remains that the flowers get arranged
and the tea gets served - and it's always a good cup of tea :)
>>>Such societies transmitted their lore orally, through story and
>>>dance... Over time this transmuted into a warehouse of personal
>>>combat techniques, their digital storage and communication so
>>>to speak.
>
>>The best evidence for the origins of forms in general suggests that
>>the first forms were developed for exercise. A lot of spirituality
>>was thrown in because they were created by spiritual people. Over
>>time, as people started to see the power, balance, and so forth that
>>could come from training in these forms, actual techniques were added.
>>Eventually, the transmission of technique became the main focus,
>>leaving the spiritual stuff behind.
>But the spiritual stuff has always been a crucial motivator. We are
>told how kata performance must include spirit, mental focus, and all
>that.
But you have to be careful with the word spirit. Generally, you'll
find that a lot of people in the Japanese and Okinwana budo use the
word "spirit", but generally they're not talking about something
that is necessarily religious or even "spiritual" in the sense that
many people think. Spirit, in terms of kata and combat, has more to
do with your will and intent than with anything other-worldly.
>Our ancestors danced around the fire, yelling and psyching themselves up
>before the hunt, invoking the gods to bring success. Kata practitioners
>today are doing the same.
That may well be part of it.
>>The point being, regardless of what the very force forms were intended
>>to be used for, the kata now - in karate - are used to transmit
>>techniques and concepts to be used in self-defense.
>But the many variants of particular kata in different styles suggest
>otherwise.
On the contrary. I think the variations suggest that as each person
learned more about the kata, he learned more about what did or did not
work for him, and therefore made adjustments. The concept of teaching
kata exactly is a very new one - in the early days of Okinawan karate,
as recently as 50 years ago, it was very common for teachers to teach
different students different kata, or even teach slightly differing
versions of a kata to different students. It was a very personalized
instruction back then, and the kata was just a means of passing along
concepts and techniques - which would have to be adjusted to fit the
student, and then further adjusted by the student himself.
If kata were indeed just ritual, then I'd think they'd be much less
likely to change - because the priority would be on doing the kata
and not on exploring it.
>If the forms contained specific useful data, people wouldn't monkey
>around with them. We have multiple variations of Bassai, Kanku, Seisan,
>Naihanchi... alterations occurred because each (so called) master had
>his own idea of what looked good, or felt good. Clearly, it was the
>subjective art form that mattered, not the content.
On the contrary, they were adjusted so that the people doing them could
get the most out of the content. The form itself is merely a vehicle.
>In fact, people differed on the content (bunkai). You don't see
>disputes in boxing about the meaning of an uppercut or a weave.
But you do see people who use the uppercut and weave differently, by
placing more or less emphasis on them, or by using them in different
strategies. Some boxers live off the uppercut, while others consider
it risky technique. I used to spar with a boxer who liked to lead
with the uppercut - most boxers I've met say that's a really bad idea.
This guy could tag people with it seemingly at will.
The term "bunkai" means nothing more than "analysis". It's not a carved-in-
stone interpretation like many people try to make it out to be. You analyze
the form, get some things to try, and test your conclusions. Then look again
and repeat the whole process.
>Even if you could reproduce the exact original form of a kata, you then
>have to show that the creator was a martial wizard; i.e. he had tested
>every move for real. Very doubtful - I suspect that choreographers then
>were much the same as today - creative types with active imaginations.
One thing I've found in my reading is that by most accounts, kata were
rarely just formed all at once. Instead, they were formed over time
as a way for a teacher to pass along what he knew to his students.
They were never intended to be one big "fight" frozen in time. By
most accounts, it was actually quite rare for the creator of a kata
to teach his students the exact same kata - the very idea of your
learning "his" kata would be silly - you're supposed to be
learning "your" kata, just based on his.
>>>In other words, the kata really were formalised dances.
>
>>In a manner of speaking perhaps, but then again any set of movements
>>can be called a dance.
>Conversely, any dance movement can have some imagined self defense app
>bolted onto it.
True, but I can find a practical application for just about any kata
movement. I haven't found the same to be true for the tango.
>>However, the point of kata is beyond that of merely expressing oneself
>>or telling a story - the point is to transmit useful movements and
>>concepts for defending oneself.
>But the intricacy of most kata extends far beyond practicality, it
>becomes an end in itself, artistically and athletically.
>It's information overload, not an efficient method for transmitting
>useable combat skills.
Well, a lot of those extra movements are pretty recent things meant to
make the kata more aesthetic. A lot of the ones that are traditional
have more symbolic meaning than any direct meaning. For example, some
kata will use a strike into the opposing hand to represent a grab of
some kind. Also, kata are only continuous for the sake of having
something to remember and repeat - there is no reason the movements
all have to be used in that order or in those combinations. Broken
down, the kata movements are no more complex than the basic movements
of any martial art.
Bear in mind that a great deal of the popular kata of today are the result
of the whole watering down process used to make karata into a "safe" type
of activity. A lot of the stuff was either over-simplified or over-complicated,
depending on which looked cooler.
>Boxers do simple combinations in their shadow boxing, exactly as done in
>the ring. We used to practice sparring combinations in karate, and I
>always wondered about the necessity, given the copious variety of waza
>in kata. Why shadow box, if kata contains everything you need?
Because shadow boxing is intended for a boxing-style engagement. It's
simply better for that purpose. The purpose of kata, and of karate
in general for the most part, is infighting. A combination of both
grappling and striking. Adding the longer-range boxing skills is
a great idea.
>>>>No, Kata are not dances, but they are useless if you don't
>>>>understand the purpose behind them, Kata if explored with...
>>>>serious attitude will give you a method of defence that is second
>>>>to none.
>>>
>>>Second to none... based on what evidence?
>
>>On his opinion? Are you saying that nothing you've ever said on this
>>newsgroup has been pure opinion?
>"Pure opinion" with no support is useless.
True, but seeing as we're just a bunch of martial artist talking shop,
sometimes opinion is okay.
>If you say strawberry is the best flavor ice cream, and I ask why, then
>you respond, "Because I like it", that's an empty opinion. Worthwhile
>opinions are supported with a factual basis.
So if your friends tell you they like or believe something, you always
expect them to prove or at least substanciate it? I'll agree that his
statement about kata being "second to none" was a bit risky on this
newsgroup - I try to avoid those kinds of statements myself - but I
think he was just zealously expressing his opinion. Personally, I think
kata are an excellent way to learn self-defense, and I'm not going to
bother proving it. You can believe me or not :)
>>>>Otherwise, if you only go through the motions of the kata or don't
>>>>do them at all then eventually what was once a very powerful
>>>>method of transfering information becomes formalised dances and
>>>>we lose a huge amount of depth to our arts...
>>>
>>>Kata hones agility and balance, but this only indirectly supports
>>>fighting skill.
>
>>I have used movements DIRECTLY from kata in self-defense.
>Examples?
Kusanku. I was walking a guy our of my friends bar, and he turned
around and threw a punch. I hit his arm with a left knifehand, hit
him in the neck with a right knifehand, and meanwhile grabbed his
right arm with my left hand (following the block) and pushed upwards.
Immediately followed with a kick, and then pushed his head downward
while keeping the arm up, spinning him around and finishing with a
headlock. In the complete kata movement I would have thrown him,
but I had people behind me. Point is, this comes directly from
kusanku kata, and it just kinda happened. I didn't plan it.
Whole thing took justa few seconds, and it was easy.
>>More often, I've used movements that are based on movements in kata -
>>even if loosely. Seems to me this is a pretty direct support of
>>fighting skill.
>Examples?
>A "loose" relationship is tenuous. There are so many kata, with so many
>moves, that it can become a Rorshach test - you can find practically
>anything you want.
That's quite true. However, the whole idea of kata is to give you a
whole bunch of movements, let you find out how you might use them, and
then get you to practice them. What you do with them after that should
be spontanious. It's like learning to paint - I can show you lots of
different ways to move the brush, but it's up to you to paint the
picture. Problem with most traditionalists is they're trying way to
hard to paint the same picture their teacher is painting. It's got
to be YOUR creativity. That's why it's called a martial art.
>For instance, anyone can perform an eye gouge in a fight. But if he's a
>karateist, he claims it was due to his Gojushiho practice.
Obviously he could eye gouge without the training, but what the training
does is it puts the concept in your mind, gets you to resolve yourself
to using the concept. I don't claim that someone without karate couldn't
do what I did (or something like it) in my kusanku example, but I'll
say that my training gave me the concept and the movement that I used.
Some of the worlds greatest painters never had training - but those who
did tended to use it.
>I don't see any way to establish the cause/effect convincingly, I see
>people defending their kata training at an emotional level, having put a
>huge time investment into it.
That's certainly part of it. But at the same time, having put a lot of
time and investment into something tends to give you insight. Unless
you've trained in kata for a long time, seriously, there is really no
way to know either way. I for one don't claim that kata is necessary
or even that it will work for everyone. I don't claim to have any
sort of scientific "proof" that it works for anyone. All I can say
is what it's done for me and people I know.
>>>However, kata does offer a means of training solo when no partners
>>>are available.
>
>>Which is frankly only half of kata training. Fact is, kata training
>>with a partner should be a MAJOR focus, because otherwise you're
>>missing the whole point. Solo kata is very important, but it's only
>>half the process. You need a partner to examine the movements, try
>them out, and so forth.
>OK, I'll buy that.
>But then do you agree that any kata techniques which you never train
>with a partner, will never be feasible under stress?
Absolutely.
>And is it realistic to train ALL the techniques from your kata with a
>partner?
It's possible, with care. When you know what's coming from both ends
of the technique, you can execute the technique with a great deal of
power and still maintain safety. And the opponent SHOULD resist.
It's not a "real fight" by any means, but it a good indication of
whether or not you can apply the technique.
>No, that's too much. So which ones do you choose, and what purpose is
>served by the rest?
Which facts do you choose from an encyclopedia? Nobody is ever expected
to know and master everything from a kata. Maybe after thirty years or
so you should know most of them. You're supposed to explore the kata,
search for what feels right for you, and build on that.