The Uselessness of Kata

[alsey]

Which one of the founders of Karate said that kata was designed for defense against an unskilled attacker?

choki motobu:

"the techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter in an arena or on a battlefield. they were, however, most effective against someone who has no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behaviour."

now fair enough, motobu wasn't exactly a founder of karate but he knew a load more about kata than anyone today does. in his time, kata was still the basis of genuine combative training.

My history must be a bit foggy, because I was under the impression that Okinawan Karate was a hybrid of Chinese martial arts, and was used by the Okinawan's after the Japanese banned weapons in Okinawa to wage guerrilla war against the Japanese Samurai.

karate began before that. there were the minamoto samurai who fled from japan in the 11th century, and it was their bujutsu combined with chinese kempo that formed karate. it was the okinawan king sho shin who first imposed the ban on civilians carrying weapons, in the 15th century. there weren't many samurai running around, and the street fights a karateka was likely to encounter were much like those a citizen today is likely to encounter. they had cobble streets instead of tarmac ones, and nunchucks instead of baseball bats, but the enemy was the mugger, the drunkard, the burglar; the same threats we face today.

it wasn't until the 17th century that the satsuma came to invade okinawa, and enforced a weapons ban in their own way. the okinawans and the samurai no doubt had a few fights, and who do you reckon won most of the time? the farmer who's fought a few thugs in the street with his bare hands, or the veteran soldier armed with a sword?

I must also be mistaken in the believe that Karate is based upon kata that was brought back from China.

no, you're right about that.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful to anyone, I just don't understand who's teaching bunkai out there. When I was to the point where I started learning bunkai (I firmly believe novice students shouldn't be learning bunkai right away in their training, as its going to be too much to understand until the basic movements are in their head), we have always been taught based upon skilled attacks, not some garbage haymaker, or unbalanced nonsense swipe in the air. Of course the bunkai will also work on those unskilled attacks, but why would anyone under estimate their potential attacker like this?

no one's underestimating anyone. that's just what kata techniques work best against (i believe). why learn to protect yourself against oi tsuki or yoko geri if the chance of someone genuinely attacking you like that is rediculously small. i mean, maybe there's some guy out there who's going to attack me with a sword, but i don't spend my time learning how to defend myself from a sword attack. likewise, maybe there's some guy who's going to attack me with a roundhouse to the head, but i don't spend my time learning to defend against it because its highly unlikely to happen. what's likely to happen is that some guy will throw a punch or two, grab my lapel, push me, or tackle me. that's what i want to be 100% sure that i can defend myself against, and kata is pretty much perfect for dealing with those sorts of attacks. it so happens i've done plenty of kumite as well, so if someone does throw a roundhouse to my head, i'm not helpless, but that's not the focus of my training.

[Rick_72]

now fair enough, motobu wasn't exactly a founder of karate but he knew a load more about kata than anyone today does. in his time, kata was still the basis of genuine combative training.

i mean, maybe there's some guy out there who's going to attack me with a sword, but i don't spend my time learning how to defend myself from a sword attack. likewise, maybe there's some guy who's going to attack me with a roundhouse to the head, but i don't spend my time learning to defend against it because its highly unlikely to happen. what's likely to happen is that some guy will throw a punch or two, grab my lapel, push me, or tackle me. that's what i want to be 100% sure that i can defend myself against, and kata is pretty much perfect for dealing with those sorts of attacks. it so happens i've done plenty of kumite as well, so if someone does throw a roundhouse to my head, i'm not helpless, but that's not the focus of my training.

On your first point, doesn't that conflict with the quote though? If he made the statement that kata was for combat application?

Today's generation of soldier (I'm a Marine, not a soldier, but combat trained just the same) practice what I would consider to be kata, its just not called that. We do plenty actually. Before you fire your rifle you snap in, where you practice aiming in on a target and squeezing the trigger, while using breath control. We do bayonet training, where we practice butt strikes, slashs, stabs, etc., we can't practice this on a live opponent for obvious reasons. In my service we have MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program), and we do plenty of drills without a live opponent. Now all these don't sound like kata in the traditional sense, but they are very similar.

On the other point I quoted, your correct, I seriously doubt anyone's going to take a swing at you with a katana, however does it swing a lot different from a baseball bat? Sure a baseball bat's significantly clumsier, however, some of the same techinque's may apply. Your also correct in thinking that some drunk in a bar is probably not going to throw a nasty rear leg round kick to your head, however, how different is the actual physics of a high round kick from a haymaker?

All I'm saying is that much of the bunkai we learn may not apply in its traditional sense, but much of it apply's to many present day attacks. Also, if bunkai is practiced verse's a skilled opponant, how well is it going to work on a skill less moron?

[bushido_man96]

This is true, but the societies were using the weapons/grappling systems before the forms systems came into place. Even the ancient Greeks, with boxing, wrestling, and pankration, would practice to fight against skilled opponents, and not just the untrained attacker. They may not have used weapons disarming either.

However, with the advent of the firearm and the reduction of close quarter weapons combat, everything began changing so as to preserve the fighting arts.

true, though i think the greek systems were sport oriented somewhat like modern MMA. it just seems to me that a lot of kata using arts were designed for non-sporting, non-battlefield situations. there are exceptions of course.

True, they were sport, but people got killed doing it. And as it is with UFC today, they probably tried to do it quickly, and with the most efficient moves available. Sometimes they even fought with gloves with spikes on them!

[Shogun of Harlem]

I personally am a big fan of kata. If not for the form and technique just for the conditioning. You here people often say make a style your own. But hey thats just my opinion and you know what they say about opinion's !

[Zorbasan]

i just last night downloaded the videos of ITF forms that i learned ages ago and since forgotten.

i endeavor to relearn and practice these on top of all the other kata i know from wtf and shotokan

long live kata

[alsey]

On your first point, doesn't that conflict with the quote though? If he made the statement that kata was for combat application?

i don't see any conflict. combat is combat, it doesn't necessarily involve trained fighters.

Today's generation of soldier (I'm a Marine, not a soldier, but combat trained just the same) practice what I would consider to be kata, its just not called that. We do plenty actually. Before you fire your rifle you snap in, where you practice aiming in on a target and squeezing the trigger, while using breath control. We do bayonet training, where we practice butt strikes, slashs, stabs, etc., we can't practice this on a live opponent for obvious reasons. In my service we have MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program), and we do plenty of drills without a live opponent. Now all these don't sound like kata in the traditional sense, but they are very similar.

i agree. imagine if for some reason (hypothetically) you did those rifle drills, but without actually holding the rifle: you made the same movements with your hands and did all the breathing, but without the rifle. and then you pass on the 'kata' to some people who don't know much about rifles; they won't have a clue what you're doing. the squeezing the trigger action might be familiar, but everything else will be obscure and meaningless. this is analagous to what has happened with karate kata.

On the other point I quoted, your correct, I seriously doubt anyone's going to take a swing at you with a katana, however does it swing a lot different from a baseball bat? Sure a baseball bat's significantly clumsier, however, some of the same techinque's may apply.

there's a huge difference: katanas are sharp. to hurt someone with a bat you have to make a relatively big swing which the opponent can move inside of. a katana only needs a small swing to cut, or a thrust can be made. back to the original point though; i'd be much better off training to defend against a bat attack than a katana attack, because that's what i'm more likely to encounter.

Your also correct in thinking that some drunk in a bar is probably not going to throw a nasty rear leg round kick to your head, however, how different is the actual physics of a high round kick from a haymaker?

the kata movements just don't fit with someone throwing a high kick at you, in my opinion. the initial deflection might be similar, but the follow up wouldn't make much sense. but again, i want to train to defend myself from common attacks so i concentrate on punches.

All I'm saying is that much of the bunkai we learn may not apply in its traditional sense, but much of it apply's to many present day attacks. Also, if bunkai is practiced verse's a skilled opponant, how well is it going to work on a skill less moron?

its not necessarily a matter of skill, its more one of actual techniques. a bar brawler with no formal training can still be skilled and dangerous, but he's not going to throw karate techniques at me. what i actually do in bunkai practice is train against a skilled opponent, but that opponent uses common street attacks rather than formal karate techniques.

[Rick_72]

The quote, "the techniques of kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter in an arena or on a battlefield. they were, however, most effective against someone who has no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behaviour", absolutely conflicts with what you said, "in his time, kata was still the basis of genuine combative training".

You and I have very different definitions of combat, or combative training. Combat, real combat, occurs on a battlefield. If you get into a fight in the street is your intent to kill your attacker? In real combat, when I encounter my enemy/opponent, my only mission is to end his life. Not hurt him so I can get away, and I have to fight him again tomorrow. I want him dead, so that my buddies and I go home to our families instead of him. That's combat. Training for combat has you not only physically training to conduct that act, but also becoming mentally able to deal with taking someones life.

A modern street fight isn't combat, a cage match isn't combat. It's hand to hand fighting for sure, sanctioned fighting is great entertainment, but it certainly is not combat. Sort of off topic, but just to put it out there, I take great offence when people call professional fighter's, "warriors" (not for myself, but for those that have paid with their lives for a cause). Gladiator's maybe, or thrill seekers. But "warriors" fight for a cause, not for money. Those that involve themselves in combat simply for money are not warriors, their mercenaries.

As far as Choki Motobu making that statement about kata, I wonder if maybe he had forgotten the roots of his art when he made the statement. No disrespect to him or his lineage, its just that the history of the Ryukyu's and all of the Far East tells a different tale.

[alsey]

You and I have very different definitions of combat, or combative training.

yes, apparently so. my dictionary defines combat as 'fighting' and it doesn't mention anything about intent to kill. i hate semantical arguments, so would it be better if we call it fighting instead of combat?

all motobu said in that quote is that kata was not developed for fighting other trained fighters, but that it is effective against those who don't know the methods being used against them. whether you intend to kill the opponent or not is besides the point.

[Rick_72]

yes, apparently so. my dictionary defines combat as 'fighting' and it doesn't mention anything about intent to kill. i hate semantical arguments, so would it be better if we call it fighting instead of combat?

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it a semantical discussion (I'm not arguing ), I honestly thought you meant combat when you said that originally and that you were contradicting your quote, didn't realize you were using the word combat in that sense. Its not tough to make that mistake when we're bouncing back and forth across the line that is the diffence between war and street fights I guess.

[Jiffy]

now fair enough, motobu wasn't exactly a founder of karate but he knew a load more about kata than anyone today does. in his time, kata was still the basis of genuine combative training.

i mean, maybe there's some guy out there who's going to attack me with a sword, but i don't spend my time learning how to defend myself from a sword attack. likewise, maybe there's some guy who's going to attack me with a roundhouse to the head, but i don't spend my time learning to defend against it because its highly unlikely to happen. what's likely to happen is that some guy will throw a punch or two, grab my lapel, push me, or tackle me. that's what i want to be 100% sure that i can defend myself against, and kata is pretty much perfect for dealing with those sorts of attacks. it so happens i've done plenty of kumite as well, so if someone does throw a roundhouse to my head, i'm not helpless, but that's not the focus of my training.

On your first point, doesn't that conflict with the quote though? If he made the statement that kata was for combat application?

Today's generation of soldier (I'm a Marine, not a soldier, but combat trained just the same) practice what I would consider to be kata, its just not called that. We do plenty actually. Before you fire your rifle you snap in, where you practice aiming in on a target and squeezing the trigger, while using breath control. We do bayonet training, where we practice butt strikes, slashs, stabs, etc., we can't practice this on a live opponent for obvious reasons. In my service we have MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program), and we do plenty of drills without a live opponent. Now all these don't sound like kata in the traditional sense, but they are very similar.

On the other point I quoted, your correct, I seriously doubt anyone's going to take a swing at you with a katana, however does it swing a lot different from a baseball bat? Sure a baseball bat's significantly clumsier, however, some of the same techinque's may apply. Your also correct in thinking that some drunk in a bar is probably not going to throw a nasty rear leg round kick to your head, however, how different is the actual physics of a high round kick from a haymaker?

All I'm saying is that much of the bunkai we learn may not apply in its traditional sense, but much of it apply's to many present day attacks. Also, if bunkai is practiced verse's a skilled opponant, how well is it going to work on a skill less moron?

I agree Rick. While we do need to recognise where the Kata came from in the first place and what it's purpose was, I don't think we should discount the effectiveness of Kata as a teaching tool in our modern society.