username8517

Absolutely. I am not arguing this point at all. However the statement made was: It was this aspect of the quote I was referencing with my comment about perfecting forms first. Going by the literal word here, it would stand that if you don't perfect your forms then you would have no inclination as to what the correct drills should consist of and their proper execution. Sorry if I was not clear about this in prior posts. Perhaps my humor and/or sarcasm levels were out of whack. However I did find it interesting that when you referred to Western Fighting Styles you did not reference as an art, but rather a "fight style." I'm not sure if you share the same viewpoint as I do, but I do view boxing, wrestling, and the likes as fighting styles rather than martial arts. Boxing and wrestling are now considered more sport than martial art. Muay Thai is heading that way too. I believe that in the next twenty years, the vast majority of people who study Muay Thai will have no idea that there exists a traditional Muay Thai martial art, which it is derived from. I believe this because I know many people now who do not know of it's origins today. I'll concede that point. However, they have gone beyond the need to practice kata, and focus on drilling and application. MMA fighters, boxers, and grapplers don't spend time on forms. They get right into the meat and potatoes of fighting. They still dedicate the time needed to be successful. Maybe they don't spend that time on forms, but they get plenty of training time in. This is basically what I'm saying again with the fighting style versus martial arts. If people want to head into Mauy Thai so they can learn how to fight effectively, by all means do so, but call it a fighting style rather than a martial art. And generally speaking, most Muay Thai & MMA practioners don't want to dedicate their time performing katas. Simply not something they want to get out of their training. However, saying Muay Thai fighters have gone beyond the need to practice kata is merely a reference to the sport aspect of it. Those who still practice Krabi Krabong and other forms of ancient Muay Thai still practice forms to this day, much in the way many other styles practice katas and other forms. This is the same thing with MMA, boxers, and wrestlers. There's nothing wrong with training the the methods they do. It's one's preference over another. If someone doesn't want to kata, that's fine. I don't consider it the meat and potatoes of fighting, but to each their own. Me, personally, I like to focus on kata as much as all other forms of training combined. But like I said, to each their own. In the end I believe we're basically on the same wave-length, we're just have slightly different viewpoints and different ways of communicating them.

Hello and welcome

Actually I've been debating writing an article about kata inspired by this thread and others like it I've seen on other forums. My only concern is that the article would turn into a small book.

That is a good question; however, styles like muay Thai and boxing have been able to by-pass katas completely, and make very competent fighters soley through the use of drills and sparring. Newer styles like Krav Maga have also been successful without the use of forms training. This is true to an extent. However the statement was that to practice drills you needed to derive them from kata. Going solely by this line of thought, sloppy kata will lead to sloppy drills. Muay Thai does have a traditional background to it that does include forms. Modern Muay Thai that we see today (the sport aspect of it) has been derived from traditional Muay Thai. If the Muay Thai practioners of the past did not perserved their forms to perfection, do you think that the sport Muay Thai would be what it is today? Furthermore, where do you think Muay Thai is going to go twenty years from now if we as a MA community only focus solely on the sport aspect of it? And since there appears to be a "new ultra secret deadly the government doesn't want you to know" self defense every few months, I'm not going to go anywhere near claiming that I've studied all "reality" forms of self-defense (I call it self-defense because there is no art to them--just a collection of SD techniques). But I have looked into Krav Maga (Isreali military fighting system), even purchasing what I guess would be considered their core book. Without going into detail, I was very disappointed by many of their self-defense applications. Granted some were decent, but many I just shook my head to. I think the some of the principles of Krav Maga are good, it's some of the applications and drills I have trouble with. On top of that, I would be willing to bet that these drills came from traditional MA at one point. IMO I think people who don't want to dedicate the time to the arts aspect of MA will always be looking for the next big thing in reality self-defense. Currently the hot thing is Krav Maga. But I remember before Krav Maga exploded on the scene people were touting the praises of Systema (Russian military fighting--hmmm, I think I see a pattern here) as the ultimate in reality based self-defense. Let me make this one last comment on "realistic military fighting systems" that happen to make their way to the public. Sure the Russians might use Systema and the Isrealis might use Krav Maga, but how much time to you think they practice and focus on their hand-to-hand skills as opposed to say other skills like detecting possible hostilities, firearms, etc? When Krav Maga practioners run their scenarios they are effectively doing bunkai, just in a different manner. I'm not going to argue that, but what kata and forms bring to the table is a grace, beauty, and culture that many reality self-defense courses lack, thus removing them from the whole interpretation of being an art. We're now effectively comparing the merits of apples and oranges. No one is better for the world, it's just up to what each person wants for to get out of it.

Hello and welcome

Just to play devil's advocate here, if you don't practice perfecting your forms, how do you ever expect to perfect your drills? How's that for a circular arguement for ya Unfortunately I think this is one arguement that will stand the test of time. As I have eluded to in one of my previous posts on this same thread (a few pages back--pg. 20 I believe), there are benefits to practicing kata which comes in many shapes and sizes. Everything ranging from the break up of the monotany of drills up and down the dojo floor to the ability to practice kata when training solo to freedom to envision new and different way to incoroprate your body mechanics into different applications (i.e.--turning a punch into a throw, etc.). No one way is ultimately better than the other. But teach training method has their pros and cons and while no one way should be hailed as the end-all of training, no one method should be cast aside as useless.

Hello and welcome

Absolutely. If you learn things correctly the first time it will stick with you better. I don't dispute this at all. However this is often not the case with many new students. When you start out teaching the younger belts, practically everything is new to them. Sure they might have seen some Bruce Lee movies, but for the most part they are a clean slate you must create a masterpiece on. Their brains are not going to pick up and remember every single detail about how to perform a "head block" correctly when you've just shown them eight (just throwing out a number) other "basics" to them in their first few weeks as well as got them started on their first form and/or self-defense applications. When students first come in, they may know what an uppercut looks like, but they probably don't know the many fine details about it performing the move correctly. If you ask them to describe a proper uppercut to you (or possibly even demonstrate), you'll probably get answers that don't involve hitting with the correct knuckles, generating powers with the hips, keeping your other hand up for guard, etc. Now an uppercut is a fairly common technique that the general public is aware of. Many people have thrown uppercuts before, even if they're just playing around. Try and put a beginner in a stance they've probably never done before such as a zenkusu dachi and see how easily they get move down. They'll probably be all over the place with how to perform the move correctly. You'll probably have to correct the alignment of their feet for proper spacing, then adjusting their stance so the proper bend is in the front leg while the back is straight, make sure there is proper weight distribution between the legs, followed by making sure they can transition from one zenkusu dachi to another properly, and then you'll have to make sure their hips are rotated completely, etc. etc. Even if they remember all the fine details in class there is the whole issue of retention. Your common new student is not going to be living and breathing martial arts. Instead, they're probably not going to spend but maybe an additional hour or two a week practicing outside of class--if you're lucky! In between they have real life to contend with. School, work, friends, family, and relationships; they all probably take a front seat over MA for many beginners. When they return to the next class, odds are they've forgot the majority of the details you went over last class about how to perform a head block correctly. They instead remember something akin to "okay I do something like this and my hand ends here" as I eluded to in my last post. We do our jodan-uke differently, so I'm only addressing the mechanics in which you perform your block as described above. What I gather from the above quote, this is fairly close to how your perform a jodan-uke (For the sake of discussion let's say you're going to be blocking with your right hand): from your starting position, you begin to raise your right arm in an uppercut manner while beginning to retract your left, (I'm assuming you're putting hip into the intial movement to generate some power). As your right hand reaches approximately your chin/nose area, you snap your right arm into a blocking position while it continues to rise, while creating a downward slope of your forearm (once again assuming your generating power via your hips now going the opposite way). As you block falls into place, you put a hook in your block with a turn of your wrist, thus completing your block while your left hand finishes it's chamber--in your opinion the most important part of the block. Now I tried to break the move described into three important facets of how to properly execute your jodan uke--start of move, time of transition from "punch" to "block", and execution of move/final hooking movements. Think about each of those phases and how each phase in the same move requires the body to learn and properly execute. Now compound this that when executed at full speed the body is completing the move in a fraction of a second. A lot to learn and retain at once--eespecially for those just starting in the MA world. Now advanced belts, that's a whole different issue. They already have a solid foundation they have built and will probably retain the intricate details much better, thus eliminating the need for this slow whittling process I described in my last post.

Absolutely it's effective. We use the same principle in our school as well. In my opinion, it's much easier to give new students a broad picture and then slowly whittle it down to what it should be. New students will have a hard time graspings all the fine miniscule details of the move as probably just about everything they're learning is new to them. You don't want to overwhelm them. Think about when you were just a couple weeks into your training. You were probably not instructed to do the age-uke they way you are doing it now. It was probably shown to you a couple times and then your sensei would let you fumble around with it. Your thought process was something like okay, my hand need to end up in this approximate position. Then when you became pretty comfortable with that, your sensei slowly started to cut off the excess junk. Your thought process then became okay, my hand need to end up in this appoximate position with this angle on the arm which eventually became okay, I need to start moving my arm in this manner and in the end my hand will be exactly this far away from my body with this angle on my arm. From there it was refined even more and as your body starts to become more familiar with how the move is supposed to be executed correctly, your brain basically "dumps" all the old garbage. Think about it, pick a basic you've done thousands of times (if not more), like a standard chest punch; then without thinking about it, try and punch incorrectly. You'll find you're having a hard time at ot. If you want an visual to go along with it, think about someone who carves ice with a chainsaw. First they start out with a giant block of ice. Then they get a mental picture of what the end product should look like. Then taking their chainsaw, they begin to remove large portions of the ice block. Then as time goes on, they end up taking smaller and smaller portions of ice away as the ice statue is starting to come together. Eventually, when the end product is near, they're working on it not with a chainsaw, but with a small chisel instead, taking out even the slightest imperfections until it is just that - perfect. It's the whole walk before you run principle. And now your trained and honed moves probably don't even look the same to the trained eye.

Couldn't have said it better

Politics in MA is one of the main reasons why I'm in the organization I am. I've met instructors of various systems who've claimed they're the end-all of martial arts, etc. etc. Nothing but a bunch of hot air to me. I especially get a kick out of those who create their own "ultimate" style, but then teach other styles in their building. After all, if it's so awesome, what's the need for the other systems to be taught? Taba Sensei, the head of Shogen-Ryu, cares not for politics and actually encourages people to cross-train in other systems. A few years ago, he was in Canada for a seminar and training. Well it happened that during that weekend that one of the Yandans at the time (now a Godan) was competing in a BJJ tournament that same weekend. Taba Sensei made time during his training for him and all the senior instructors to go to the tournament and watch this Yandan compete.

Thank you. While I realize some of these, such as the wrist grabs, are highly unlikely, I was trying to stress the "unreality" of the situations. As I listed above on the two-handed wrist grab, why bother freeing your hand when you can use your already free hand to beat your attacker into letting go? Or in the thrust kick situation, a much more effective solution would be to evade then counter attack (which they do show in the brown belt section about 100 pages later) than to try and catch a kick coming at your straight on. But I guess this is just a prime example of how each style as their strengths and weaknesses.

True.

Nope, same book as mentioned earlier. I'll go through the book tonight after class and pick out a few examples of the ones I have issues with. Here are some examples of some of the issues I have with the standing self-defense of listed in that book. However, let me preface this by saying that this only is directed as at the standing self-defense listed in the book. The groundwork is superb as it is the main focus of BJJ My biggest issue is that in all the self-defense methods, such as Same Side Single-handed wrist grab (opponents palm to the backside of your fist) [Pg. 40], Single-Handed Lapel Grab [Pg. 48], and others, have no initial threat of violence against the defender past the initial grab or attack (basically no follow through on behalf of the attacker). Same Side Single-handed wrist grab (opponents palm facing your palm) [Pg. 42] Self-defense listed: Yank your hand out your opponents weak portion of the hold My issue with this: Opponent is reaching over your arm and grabbing the soft side of your arm. I have never seen this happen in a real combat situation--ever. I highly doubt this would ever happen. Then there's the whole issue of your opponent never making any kind of follow up attack past the initial grab. Two-handed wrist grab (opponents grabs your arm with both of his hands) [Pg. 44] Self-defense listed: Reach in between your opponents hands, grab your hand and pull up. My issue with this: When you grab, you're committing yourself to an action. Your opponent has committed both his arms to your one arm. Why bother trying to free your one arm, just use your free arm to beat your opponent? Just common sense there. All defenses against standing head locks (pgs. 52, 198, & 200) show the defender being put in a headlock that isn't even applied tightly. Too much room to move. Opponent is not applying any force to headlock. Defense against the Front-Thrusting Kick [Pg. 60] Self-defense listed: When oppone begins to fire kick, slide back out of range, cup your hands and under the kick and catch the foot in your cupped hands as the foot is retracted. After establishing control, proceed to lift up vertically. My issue with this: If you slide back from a thrusting kick while it's in progress, what's to keep your opponent from thrusting forward again or even retracting at all. You're sliding back you're already committing your body to moving directly backwards, any contact from your opponents foot is only going to add to the force your applying to yourself and throw yourself off balance by the sudden increase in mass applied. I could go on, but I think you understand my point. For groundwork this book would be an excellent for anyone, I even utilize it. However, for stand up, definately look elsewhere (like the Judo you're looking at).

Nope, same book as mentioned earlier. I'll go through the book tonight after class and pick out a few examples of the ones I have issues with.

Having never seen JJJ, I honestly cannot answer that question. Sorry.

This is true, but strength does play a part of in ju-jitsu. Say for example you were in your opponents guard and when you go to switch to side mount you get caught in a half-guard. You can bet that your opponent is going to control your trapped leg with every bit of strength they have, just as you're probably going to use your arm strength to create a break in their legs, effectively allowing you to free yours. Or if you're trying to put a kimura on your opponent you'll be trying to force their arm into a position they're actively resisting. Now in an actual street fight you'll be able to take liberties you can't in a match, such as biting, groin strikes, etc. to get out of holds, but if we're talking strictly sparring. In the past, when I grappled with someone significantly smaller than me, even those with a little more experience than me, I was able to establish dominance over them by exerting more sheer force than technique. Granted they were often able to give me one heck of a challenge, but in the end my strength overcame their technique. Now the senior students definately put me through some nice demonstrations of technique over strength, but overall, they weren't physically weak people either. So to sum it up, is strength on the floor as important as it is standing--no. But it's not something to write off either.

In all honesty it depends on what your sensei feels about the situation. When I went from one type of karate to another I started out as a white belt as I'm assuming you are from what I gather in your post. And like you, there were many katas that were very similar to what I had done in the past with slight differences here and there. I was lucky enough to do double testing for the first few kyu ranks because of the similarities between the two styles. However, this was a decision made by my sensei without any input from me. I never brought up the notion of a double test and was never informed until after the testing that it was a double test. If you're concerned about "repeating" material you already know, I would just say go with the flow. There are bound to be even slight differences between styles that you'll need to work on. Alternatively, you could ask the sensei if he/she can allot 10 minutes with you after each class and run through one or two the katas that are the same, asking to be shown the differences and what the bunkai behind them are. Then practice, practice, and practice some more. When you have those down, move on to the next kata or two, etc etc. But never bring up double grading as it could possibly be taken the wrong way. Instead, show that you deserve to be double graded through your hard work and dedication. In the end, just remember that your sensei is probably just wanting to make sure he/she's feels is best for you. I don't think I've met one sensei who's ever wanted to hold a student back unjustly.

Hello

congratulations

This is correct. However, as it has been mentioned BJJ's focus is primarily on ground work. Some of the self-defense this book shows for standing defense applications will either get you killed in an actual fight or are just plain stupid. I would rely on your judo training for the stand up aspect instead.

Jiffy, Syphax, and bushido_man96--Thank you for the kind words. For a little clarification on my post I did not mean to insinuate that working drills up and down the dojo floor was useless, I was merely trying to prove the effectiveness of kata. Just as drilling up and down the floor with a partner is not the end all be all of training just as neither is kata or solo drills. Each one has their own facet of strengths and weaknesses for students. In class we do go up and down the floor doing basics for approximately 10-15 minutes per class doing mainly solo drills, but occassionally we do live partner drills to help students get down. But regardless of either of these methods, every class utilizes kata. As it was stated, no one way is better than another, it's just one training method over another and what each art chooses to utilize.

Since I have already went off on my tangent about creativity vs. traditionalism in kata, I figured I might as well address the "uselessness of kata". As I have stated in my last post I find that kata is very useful for martial arts. Kata is a tool that martial arts utilizes for practice and repititon, creating reflex memory while breaking up the monotomy of doing basic drills. Each kata contains various blocks, strikes, etc. By repeatedly performing kata, you are effectively repeating blocking and striking drills. Think about your first form or two. Pretty basic, huh? But I'd be willing to bet that they contained at least one, if not multiple, of the following: chest block, head block, lower block, a couple different types of punches (head, chest, reverse, etc), maybe a kick or two, but also your different stances as well. The moves you would be most likely to utilize should you ever need to. By repeatedly practing said kata(s) you are effectively teaching your body to move without thinking. This is why as your progress in rank you still perform the basic kata. Think of martial arts as a house you're building. You want to have a stable solid foundation and make sure that foundation is secure before you place anything on top of it. I could easily place a house on the sands of a beach, but one big rainstorm or wave and my house is halfway out into the ocean. By building a solid concrete foundation, we are establishing the knowledge and tools to added more advanced weapons to our repitoire. Now there are some arguements about not performing kata so I will try my best to generalize answers to them. Kata is pointless because you can spend the time doing drills up and down the floor instead if you're so concerned with basics. This is true. You can spend the time you would normally allot to kata doing drills up and down the dojo floor. However, let me ask you this, what do you think is going to be more appealing to the masses, working on going up and down the dojo floor for 45 minutes working on basics or working through a couple different katas for 45 minutes? Granted there will be those that would rather spend the 45 minutes of the class drilling basics, I conceded that, but I have noticed a significantly larger portion of the class I teach perfers working on kata as opposed to lining up and doing drills. I'm sure everyone who teaches kata has heard something similar to "Can we work on Pinan Sandan?" when they're still struggling on Pinan Nidan. In my personal experience this is much more prevalent than hearing students say, "Can we line up and run through basics." Kata not only provides a training tool for the practice of basics, but it also gives students something to strive for down the road. Kata is not practical. You won't ever fight like that Once again, this is true. I have never seen a fight go anything like kata. The stances utilized in kata are there not only for balance, but to build muscle mass. Granted, you could add leg strength training to your basics if your merely going up and down the dojo floor, but as I mentioned before, how many people do you think will actually look forward to that? Furthermore, stances in martial arts are transitional. You will never see me fight an entire match in a zenkusu dachi stance. I'll drop down into one if I'm executing a gedan uke, but I will not stay in that position. Once the move is done, there is no need to continue the stance. It's just wasting energy you'll need to conserve in a fight. On top of that if I cannot hold a zenkusu dachi stance than when I might actually need drop into one in the heat of the moment I'll be at a loss if I take a kick to the side of the leg. My leg will probably buckle and give out on me. Remember that whole sand versus concrete example I mentioned above? Kata is just there for testing purposes. To an extent, yes. Kata is a way of measuring someone's ability and skill before letting them advance to more important things. Would you go to a heart surgeon who couldn't hold the scalpel the proper way or a dentist would decided he didn't like anestetics? Of course not. Kata is there for the same reason--as a benchmark. By establishing benchmarks you know what the student should know and what they should be capable of doing. But there's no meaning behind the moves. The bunkai is totally worthless--no one would attack you that way. Any issues with a kata's bunkai should be address with the instructor directly. While I can tell you there are some things that are done in different schools and branches of kata that completely boggles my mind, such as not looking before turning (seriously, how do you know what kind of block or strike you're going to do without looking first? Without looking you have no knowledge of the events that are occuring and what you need to do to compensate. You wouldn't buy lumber to build a cabinet and then close your eyes after you fire up the powersaw would you?--sorry ending rant ). Any and all questions about bunkai should be able to be answered by your instructor. If your instructor is not aware of the proper bunkai, I would start to question what the purpose of the moves are because without purpose there is not meaning. Creating your own bunkai might even be acceptable, but I would run it past your own instructor first. But the point is that there needs to be something. Furthermore, it's called martial arts for a reason. All arts are subjective to personal interpretation and expression. As I address in my last post on this thread, what I may see as a block you may see as a throw. This is because of the system that makes it an "art". While there are the traditional forms of art (expressionism, abstract, surrealism, etc), I would like to focus on the language arts as I think it provides the prime example for bunkai interpretation. Using the english language, I can use the word "punch" in three different ways off the top of my head. As a verb--John please punch the heavy bag. As a noun--Please pass the punch. And as an adjective--Wow, that really packs a punch. Martial arts are the same way. When looking at bunkai, just because you step forward and execute a punching maneuver doesn't mean that it has to be a punch, it could be part of a throw. The bunkai for each move will be slightly different for each person, but don't be afraid to question if you don't understand. There are numerous other arguments I could post and retort, but I believe you get my point. Kata is very useful tool that I recommend everyone utilize. Key word being tool. Look at your daily routine you do. Unless you've only wore sandales or velcro shoes your entire life, you had to learn how to tie your laces at some point. You were probably given a rhyme or saying to help you remember what steps to do when. That rhyme or saying was a tool to help you learn how to tie your shoes. Much to the way kata is a tool to help you learn the proper fundamentals.

karatekid1975 is correct. Professor is the term used for BJJ black belts. While it may not originally been created for it, it is the title the founder(s) chose. Me personally, I don't like it either as it implies something akin to a degree. However, I merely respect and follow tradition

Now I'm not going to go into whether I believe katas are useful or not (although I belive they are highly useful), but I would like to comment on this current tangent of creativity vs. traditionism of katas. In Shogen-Ryu, there exists this philosophy on kata (and pardon the paraphrasing as I don't remember the exact wording)--There are two ways to do kata; the correct way and your way. What this means is there is the traditional way of doing kata, with each move having a preset bunkai and perfect stance for each move. This traditional method is what you are taught when you learn a kata and what you must teach those below you. When tested or merely running through the kata in front of an instructor, you always use the traditonal version. "Your way" of doing kata is where the flexibility starts to come in. You would use this version when you were not teaching or being taught--basically a light or informal work out. Everyone can create or envision different bunkai for each move. We're all gifted with unique brains each with their own thought process. Everyone will look at things in a slightly different manner. What might be a turn and block to one person can be viewed as a throw to another. And what specific bunkai is will determine how you will perform diffenent actions in the kata (i.e.--more aggessive or defensive). This also allows those with physical problems to compensate for their aliments in some slight manner. The key behind this is what works for me may not work for you, but that's for you to discover. This is why the traditional method is always taught and practiced. If I go and teach "my" version of a kata to someone and say that block number X is actually the beginning of a throw, then that sets it in the mind of my student that it's a throw. Then say five years down the line, my student proceeds to teach the kata to someone else and he says it's a throw because that's the bunkai taught to him, then student C will learn it as a throw as well. But wouldn't you know it, it turns out student C's body structure is different from mine and doesn't have the same effectiveness for him, then he/she might alter the footwork accordingly. As these changes slowly take place over time, the kata will look different from school to school, even within the same system as each person is putting their own little touch here and there on the kata to suit their individual body. By sticking to the traditional method, it creates a template for every student to learn and pass on. Yes you can get creative and work in applications and multiple bunkai for each move, but by having this template is allows you to have a standard gauge for measurement. Being in the USA, I can walk into a Shogen-Ryu dojo in Canada, Japan, or where ever and know what each kata should look like and what the bunkai behind it is. I won't have to work with someone and say, "well why were you taught this was a throw/block/punch/whatever?" I can merely pick out the mistakes and work with that student accordingly.