tallgeese

2/8 Day of tactics work at the department. pm: 1 mile run abs legs 15 min of solo shot drills, shrimping, hip drills, knee in and sprawl work on the swiss ball.

2/7 Drilled rounds of pummeling, technical takedowns, takedown randori, passing the open guard, breaking closed guard and pass. Finished with no arm guard work. 45 min free roll.

Valid I suppose. But there might be quite a bit to it if a student is walking into a gym under the label of karate and is told he'll learn to fight or defend himself with a modality that was developed at the turn of the last century. I guess that's the problem. It's in the presentation of what it's all for that bothers me more than anything as we move thru this debate. I can concede kata (and hence karate with kata), for certain purposes. I just don't think it's a good training method to learn to fight with (sojobo, you and I seem to be in agreement to a degree with this). It's the idea that it will teach you to succeed in combat that bothers me. Hence, my position that if you're doing karate for combative reasons it can easily be done without kata.

This is part of my point, in the first section of bold, we talk about kata as a training modality that combines many aspects of combat. Fine, and very true with the right instructor, system, and kata. Again, to really have all this integrated the way instructors of old did them you'll almost need to find a kyoro art. You have access, a vast majority of karateka don't. But it's A modality. One can just as easily, and in fact more easily construct, drills using modern equipment and two men that more accurately mimics a conflict than by doing kata. To the second point, you point to understanding the dynamics of a fight. And the end of the last point leads into this. Kata IS NOT dynamic in any sense of the word. A fight is, but kata is not. It's always best to try and train as close to the event's parameters as possible. This is where, to me, from a combative aspect, kata has been surpassed by an understanding of training and learning. Dynamic is controlled, armored, non-premeditated work against a live aggressor trying to fight you. It's movement and work on the mitts that minics a fight by allowing the trainee to move into locks and takedowns (there's an article in the article section about this), it's working some version of sparring that allows one to test their systems tactics against resistance (as sensei8 often refers to). It's just a modality that does not, in any way, based on my experience and the thoughts of experts in the field of combat preparation (see Howe's Leadership and Training for the Fight as well as his book The Tactical Trainer for his thoughts on the breakdown of combat training- granted it's a different field, but the principles are what's important) deal with preparation for a fight. One point that sojobo and I agree on after going thru several points, is that we're (and I mean me) are not saying no one should do kata, but that if you're training to fight there are probably faster, better ways to prepare. I agree with all of this, but at what point is it no longer karate? If we go all out with combative effectiveness, you'll have a sidearm. A Smith and Wesson negates both the "empty" and "Chinese" translations of "kara". If you take away the prearranged kata, and train the applications of the movements within, then it can no longer really be "Goju Karate" or "Shotokan Karate", so while still being karate based, what is the new system? If you use BJJ as a delivery system for strikes, is it still BJJ? This was the specific bit of dialogue that prompted the question.

That's pretty much it. MP brought the point up last night and I hadn't considered it before. I apologize if I side tracked us with wanting to know what guys with more traditional roots to older arts thought.

I get that, and I always like picking up historical tidbits so while it might not to the heart of my question, I did find it really interesting. Also, I think give the debate over the subtraction of kata it probably has merit. To me, it even more supports the forward moving nature of martial arts and would seem to indicate that it has indeed moved across various venues for various reasons across history. It makes me feel that there is even less sacrosanct about it than before. But despite being the non-traditionalist, I still have a hard time seeing moving on from the term "karate" for modern era arts with movements rooted in old Japan, despite what we may take away or add in terms of modalities.

Yes - One word "PRACTICE" This is, I think, the most important piece of advice on the matter. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. Perfect repetition at a pace that you can the rep perfectly will build proper intramuscular conditioning. This will let your comfort and thus your relaxation with the movement build. Those factors will increase the speed of your movements as your skill progresses. Remember too, that there is a limit to attribute driven fighting for all of us. Some have a higher ceiling than others. Depending on who you're comparing yourself to, you may or may not ever achieve equity. Raw speed is only part of the equation. Distance, timing, and tactic selection go a long ways to closing the attribute gap. Second to the above advice I'd add always relax. If you think you're relaxed, check yourself again and relax more. Muscle tension, especially early in the belt slog can be difficult to overcome.

Just more wondering what the guys who train in older, more direct to the source of the post-Tokugawa arts think of the idea that MP brought up a few posts ago. Has evolution brought training methods (specific to our debate kata) so far from what many people view as "karate" that we should just call it something else? Or, does the historical evolution of karate just mean that it's come into several training methods over the course of its time (again kata and we touched on sparring) so we shouldn't worry about moving out of them as well while still keeping the generic term karate? I suspect the answer might be different for those who have a closer tie to the history of the art during a given, specific step in its evolution.

My apologies, koryu. The older arts. That's what I get for using terms after class without checking spellings. I'm a pretty reference based guy when it comes to spelling That said, what are you're feelings over the last couple of posts sojobo? given your traditional lineage I'm curious to find out.

First up, LP, thank you for the kind words. I don't know that I've lived up to them yet, but I feel like I'm trying very hard. I can say that thru the course of my travels and training, working out back down south with you guys is always a pleasure and privilege. Next up, you're skills were VERY impressive during your black belt test (as was your sense of humor as evidenced by your weapons kata). Third, I have no doubt that you will not only come off your down turn in training to meet those standards again but surpass them as well. You bring up several good points and observations. You've also put more thought into this than I had previously. It's interesting because I just had the conversation with my wife on arriving home after class. She asked, as usual, how class was. I kind of flippantly thru out "I hope heaven is an infinite open mat". She laughed which made me think about the statement. It's how we, the long term martial artist, look at things I think. They have become, in some form or another, such a part of us that we can't conceive of life without them, or the afterlife apparently. In my case, I look back thru the course of where I've been to date and can really say that I wouldn't be who I am without them. I expect the same to be true 20 years from now in different ways. Not even speaking philosophically, but practically, they effected how I do my job, the choices I've made during the execution of my work, and the fact that I've walked away from several incidents unharmed or minimally harmed because of what they've given me. That is a powerful thing. And addictive. I found, after reflection, that I had actually meany my off-hand statement. I hope heaven is infinite open mat.

You make a point here, MP. At what point are we divorcing ourselves from the term "karate" altogether? History would bear out, specifically with the Japanese arts, that unarmed combat was systematized early and went thru and evolutionary process that brought us to what we know as "karate" somewhere between 1600-1800. It wen thru another set of renovations in the 1880-WWII era. So, with the advent of what we've learned (as a martial society) since then, and modified, is is still karate? This, I think, is probably the crux of the last few pages of debate. On one hand, one could argue that since the developement of a Japan-centric hand to hand system of combat termed generically as "karate" has undergone numerous evolution, then the newest and latest should still bear the moniker. Another line of thought would be to pigeon-hole the term in what we've come to cannonize as karate into the era of post-Tokugawa refinement and accept that anything else is, well something else. Coming from a systems I've always considered "karate based" this is a good question to mull over. I'll get back to you. On a side note, I would think that the koryu guys, and there are a few here I would like to hear their thoughts on over the matter, would have the strongest case for claiming the "karate" moniker should one lean to the second argument rather than the more encompassing and combat evolution base of the first. (edit for spelling confusion- my bad. Thanks sojobo for pointing it out)

Sorry, guys....sorry. 2/6 Drilled rounds of pulling guard to sweep. Double leg to trip. Passing butterfly to knee in followed by cutter choke to arm bar. 60 min free roll.

Thanks for the reply. I've always been fascinated by sword arts. It's also a chance to work on something for no other reason than the art of it. I have not had the chance to train yet. I finally had my schedule sorted out and then a BJJ tournament reared it's ugly head so I've been spending spare time getting in extra sessions for it. Hopefully soon. Its still on my radar.

This is part of my point, in the first section of bold, we talk about kata as a training modality that combines many aspects of combat. Fine, and very true with the right instructor, system, and kata. Again, to really have all this integrated the way instructors of old did them you'll almost need to find a kyoro art. You have access, a vast majority of karateka don't. But it's A modality. One can just as easily, and in fact more easily construct, drills using modern equipment and two men that more accurately mimics a conflict than by doing kata. To the second point, you point to understanding the dynamics of a fight. And the end of the last point leads into this. Kata IS NOT dynamic in any sense of the word. A fight is, but kata is not. It's always best to try and train as close to the event's parameters as possible. This is where, to me, from a combative aspect, kata has been surpassed by an understanding of training and learning. Dynamic is controlled, armored, non-premeditated work against a live aggressor trying to fight you. It's movement and work on the mitts that minics a fight by allowing the trainee to move into locks and takedowns (there's an article in the article section about this), it's working some version of sparring that allows one to test their systems tactics against resistance (as sensei8 often refers to). It's just a modality that does not, in any way, based on my experience and the thoughts of experts in the field of combat preparation (see Howe's Leadership and Training for the Fight as well as his book The Tactical Trainer for his thoughts on the breakdown of combat training- granted it's a different field, but the principles are what's important) deal with preparation for a fight. One point that sojobo and I agree on after going thru several points, is that we're (and I mean me) are not saying no one should do kata, but that if you're training to fight there are probably faster, better ways to prepare.

I'm not certain about this time immemorial statement. In fact, the era of the more lightly armored, peacetime conflict. when most of systematized martial development occurred that we'd recognize (the Tokugawa era circa 1600) was likely when the development of kata occurred. Unarmed conflict occurred far before this again, with historical records of dedicated fighting men in Japan going back to 500 AD. Additionally, with the advent of martial propagation during the last century many kata have not more history or connection to it than when they were created post WW II. You have to look to the kyoro arts to find anything verifiable to pre-1880. Lastly, the statement about without kata there can be no karate is problematic on a modern front. There are many systems of karate that don't rely on the use of kata as training methodology. I know I come off as anti-kata. I suppose in a way I am. In that many people consider it the key to learning to fight. As others have agreed, there are better methods. The idea that it is a critical component to self defense, and propagated as such, just bothers me in light of modern findings in several fields. But I'm not anti kata in several regards, as I've posted before.

Let's see some prison clearing action!!!!

2/5 75 min free roll

Now, just to soften my stance a bit, or at least make sure everyone understands where I'm coming from, if someone wants to be involved in a system that does kata, then by all means they should do so. There are plenty of good reasons why this might be the case. One might like the historical preservation aspect of it. One might like the aspects of bushido that it embodies. One might view the idea of ferreting out bunkai as a challenge in and of itself. One just might like to do it. All of those and probably a thousand more are legitimate reasons to do kata. I come at this from the standpoint of learning karate (or any other martial art) from a self defense standpoint. From the core idea that all the trappings of it's evolutionary steps and revolved around-fighting. When one looks at that I think a solid argument can be made for excising kata from the art. However, I've always said that this is not the only lens thru which one can view martial arts. Nor is it more legitimate than any other. It's just the standpoint that, historically, the martial arts have had at their core.

And that thousand years of development is at the heart of my point. Karate, or it's unnamed forerunner, was developed to fight on the battlefield if a soldier lost his primary weapon (and likely secondary and tertiary weapons as well knowing most fighting types). This became more and more systematized as we move thru history so we could train larger and larger numbers of soldiers. It adapted as technology and weapons and armor changed, but it retained it's focus on combat. It moved into a more peaceful (if in fact it was peace enforced at the point of a sword) era where social and political functions made certain changes, probably not overtly, that altered the focus of the arts and infused them with bushido or mandated that movements be hidden in kata. But they were still using combat maneuvers and hence, about fighting. As we move into a modern era, with newer equipment and learning science understanding, it's a logical step for those practicing to reevaluate and revolutionize the way karate is trained. But again, it's dealing at it's core with ways to hurt another individual. Perhaps not on the battlefield (and perhaps so depending on ones profession) but more likely for self protection. It's this sort of evolution or revolution that occurs that can, and in some cases has already, led us to forms of karate without kata. But the constant factor is the underlying fact of training for combat. Otherwise it's dance. It's important to note that this evolution goes both ways. The three traditionally quoted pillars of karate are the kihon, kumite, and kata. We forget that at one time, no one had heard of kumite. It was a relatively modern addition by Funikoshi (the 1920's I believe off the top of my head) that caused quite a bit of controversy at the time of it's addition to the Shotokan syllabus. But sparring, despite being new at the time and rooted in many reasons, was still centered around teaching one individual to deploy skills against another to cause him harm. It was a new training modality. Now, if we look at the evolution of karate and will agree that a training modality can be added due to it's usefulness, it's not a stretch to assume that one can be removed due to the evolution of the martial arts past it. Again, leading us to karate without kata.

.WE - didn't add anything to it, it was there from the beginning. If anything WE in the west have stripped that away in the ill gotten belief that it was some mumbo jumbo "zen" hippy stuff that was added by people wanting to be more mystic about it. Not the case. Sojobo [/b] Some one added it. Ratti and Westbrook, citing Dreager define a martial art, at it's most basic level, as an art developed for battlefield usage. For one soldier to use against another for success in combat. In fact, we can assume as well that unarmed bujitsu was, in all probability, a minor factor in this view of martial development at the time. Being a secondary form of combat on the battlefield. It wasn't until later, the 1600's and the advent of the Tokugawa period that the martial arts became heavily influenced by the concept of bushido. The concepts might go back to medieval history, but it wasn't codified until the Tokugawa period by Soko and then Tsunetomo in his work, "The Hagakure" (reference the preface of the 10th edition of Nitobe's "Bushido, the Soul of Japan"). Farris, in his text on early Japanese military history "Heavenly Warriors", states that there was a fairly highly evolved level of military technology and corresponding skill with them in Japan already at 500 AD. This would mean that some system of fighting, or their roots, had already developed prior to the time of the first influx of Buddisim into the islands. These were arts for the sake of warfare.

I disagree, Karate is NOT a codified system of violence, because by definition that would make it an unwarrented, extreme form of aggression. Karate is a martial art that includes the practice of combat skills, but eventually goes way beyond. Kata is part of that process, but if that's not where you want to go then fair enough. sojobo I don't think that simply looking at karate as a systematized form of violence is unwarranted at all, or that this is in some way negative. It's a spelled out method of teaching someone to fight. One can add all they want to it, but before all the connotations with karate came to be in the modern era, it was a method of fighting, codified and systematized by the soldiers using it so they could be better at it. We added everything else to it later. As to it be extremely aggressive, well, maybe but that doesn't really make it unwarranted. Violence, like most things, can get used for ill or good. It's another tool to achieve a goal. If your goal is defeating another for a purpose that defends your life (as the soldiers who developed the origins of what we're talking about here did, or we do in response to high levels of unprovoked aggression against ourselves) then there's no reason not to treat it as such.

I am one of those guys who really think that it is in no way the "essance" of karate. The essance of karate is unarmed combat. I view it as a training modality that has become more in the minds of many practitioners. But that's just me.

2/3 60 min of negative position work. Side, mount, back mount, stuck in guard. The last round of the cycle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Coe3acJoGHk

I like the idea of a "codified system of violence". Props there. However, it goes to my whole idea of martial arts. That's exactly what they are at the core. No more or less. Kata was simply a part of training so one could do more efficient violence. I've never said that one shouldn't do kata. There are plenty of good reasons for doing it. However, if you're learning a codified system of violence (I'm stealing that by the way ) then there are better methods to use that more adequately prepare you for a fight. If you want to do kata, and ma's for that matter, for other, non-combat related reasons then they serve any number of purposes. I just think that too much emphasis gets placed on them for no other reason than habit and a failure to adequately assess the realities of combat.

2/2 Drilled rounds of: Pulling spider guard to sweep Passing butterfly guard via knee slide Passing butterfly guard via spinning motion 25 min free roll.