panamaican

I also find the double strikes concept a little outside of what I'm comfortable applying. Personally, I always find the most valid applications when I'm looking at the training of non-karatekas. Many times, they run through a sequence of movements that mirror some kata's movements almost identically. This one was particularly striking because I was looking at Army combatives for how they teach BJJ. Lo and behold, a picture of a guy in fatigues executing a perfect yama tzuki. If you took the opponent out of the picture, you could have given him an award for his form, lol.

Bringing back the dead, lol. I was reading the Army Combatives manual as part of my regular exposure to other fighting arts and, surprisingly, saw the yama-tzuki. The Army is teaching the movement as the intial movement in a single leg takedown. Block an attack with the same side (high) arm, while the lower arm grabs the opposite side knee. The following spin is finishing the takedown.

I've wondered about the kick too. Sometimes, I think it's in the kata to train the general body movement more than a specific attack. In clinch range, I find that the crescent kick movement (but significantly lower than the head) shows up when I'm defending sweeps or when I'm trying to position my legs for a sweep/throw of my own.

As I was reading through a blog by Andre Bertel, he said that likes to finish all of his techniques with a choke, a break, or a dislocation. My sensei teaches us to try and finish all techniques with the opponent on the ground - whether by sweep/attack to the knee/throw/etc. - for escaping purposes. Obviously, nothing is written in stone but has anyone else been taught a theory similar to these?

Thank you for the advice, I'll look into them. If you don't mind, could you explain further what you mean by "grappling kata" and "combat kata"?

How do you define "To diverge from the kata" prior to discarding it? And while I respect your opinion, I think it ignores the history of kata themselves. Kata have been modified many times throughout history, new kata have been created and old ones discarded. Even in Funikoshi's Karate-Kyohan, Funikoshi's kata are modified between the first and later editions. Modification of kata is part and parcel of karate's history. Perhaps we look at karate differently. To me, karate is kata-based as a teaching method. The movements of the kata train our body to perform those same movements at a moments notice. The isolation is for us to train our minds for calm and to hone the focus to apply these skills against another person with absolute conviction. We learn kata as a tool by which we improve these skills, we do not learn these skills as a tool by which to improve kata. Your disdain for kickboxing is understandable but to equate all explorations of the martial aspects of karate with kickboxing seems to ignore why karate exists in the first place. Karate was not created so that we could compare how perfectly in uniform we repeat the steps of 26 kata but to prepare us mentally and physically for the unexpected acts of violence that sometimes intrude into our lives. Separating kata from that goal defeats the purpose of training it in the first place. I didn't mean to turn this into a philosophical debate but my karate and my kata are aimed at keeping me safe regardless of any awards I may or may not win for my kata performance. And I still practice my kata in their original manner 85% of the time both at home and in the dojo.

I respectfull disagree with that position. I agree that bunkai is the not fundamental purpose of kata. I agree that the fundamental purpose is to train principles and proper technique and body mechanics. However, I don't subscribe to the belief that kata is indelible and so rigidly structured that changes during practice are always a bad thing. To briefly address bunkai as it relates to this conversation. Very rarely are the bunkai/techniques (of respected martial artists more accomplished than myself) identical in form to the forms found with kata. Rather, it is the principles taught in the kata that are applied and not a slave-like devotion to the external form. Yet, if kata serve the purpose of training principles and technique, it stands to reason that as the movements within the kata become ingrained in our minds and bodies, the logical step is that kata should begin to influence how we fight and, in turn, how we fight should begin to influence our kata. You reference how using a boxing guard influences the position of the shoulders and personal posture within the kata. Yet if we were to substitute the throws, holds and techniques implied within kata for their actual techniques the posture, shoulders, foot position of karate-kas would also shift dramatically and rarely resemble their counterparts as usually practiced in form. At some point, an individual's kata should adapt to represent how they actually apply techniques. Of course, I'm not suggesting that someone cease to train the kata in the traditional manner in which we learned them. But, if you apply a technique or fighting strategy adopted from your kata, it makes sense to me to train that movement in the kata where it appears and not the stylized movement it originated from. This serves to sharpen the applied movements and further engrain them in your muscle memory. If you don't chamber punches in kumite, sometimes training your kata without chambered punches can only reinforce the skills you've already chosen to apply, not undermine them. I hope no one is offended by this position but I haven't found many writings on the subject and my own cross-training has opened my mind to the possibilities.

I agree that not all of the katas or even every part of a single kata can be practiced this way. But there are definitely sections in several katas that lend themselves to this form of practice. For instance, Heian Godan has very few sections that can be converted to this but there are more sections in Bassai Dai that can be experimented with than I would have thought. There are enough sections in the katas that are strikes, kicks and blocks that I think the practice within the kata has merit. I don't believe that the intention of the bunkai gets lost because punching, kicking and blocking are often the intention of the kata's bunkai. The opening of Heian Shodan (using the shotokan curriculum, I guess I should have specified) can be an arm bar followed by a strike but they can also just be a block followed by a strike. Not every movement must be a hidden hold or throw, some are just strikes, kicks and blocks. I've found that by looking into other striking arts, there are clear overlaps between kata movements and striking combinations taught in those arts. For example, there is a titled Muay Thai combination that has the exact same movements as a portion of Heian Nidan. I've seen Freddie Roach (boxing trainer) teach counter combinations that are in Bassai Dai. Many of the throws are taught in judo and the holds can be found in aikido. As we personalize our kata and hence our karate, aren't we supposed to move past strict formalism into something more natural? Shouldn't kata practice move from perfect form to perfect function? Or am I too far outside the box?

As a shotokan student, I am alwyas loking for ways to improve my kata as it applies to self-defense and kumite. One of the methods I've found very enlightening is practicing kata in more natural fighting stances. For example: Practicing Heian Shodan from with a boxing guard with a more upright stance. Convert the gedan barai into a shortened movement for slapping down an opponent punch followed by the gyaku tsuki as a straight cross. Age uke remains the same but comes from the boxing guard with a shorter movement and a slight body lean to the opposite side. The embusen remains the same. Hikite brings the hand back to the bxoing guard position. I've found that practicing my katas in some of these more natural variations has improved both my fluidity and application. Has anyone else tried this?