The Uselessness of Kata

[50inches]

My personal toughts

If you like doing kata, do it, isnt that really what matters.

I however do not belive that kata alone can make you a fighter, I belive that you have to train with aliveness for martial arts to work in general.

[chillindan]

Sorry if I am covering old ground here, I haven't read the whole thread (it is 53 pages!). If kata doesn't make you a complete fighter

I however do not belive that kata alone can make you a fighter

how is it that karate exists at all today as a martial art, when prior to Master Funakoshi's introduction of kumite karate was learned and practised by kata alone? If the martial artists of old, were able to defend themselves successfully and if expressions like 'if you choose to land a karate blow then be in no doubt that that one blow decides everything' (Master Funakoshi) mean anything, then we have to assume that kata practice is integral to martial arts.

[NightOwl]

Sorry if I am covering old ground here, I haven't read the whole thread (it is 53 pages!). If kata doesn't make you a complete fighter

I however do not belive that kata alone can make you a fighter

how is it that karate exists at all today as a martial art, when prior to Master Funakoshi's introduction of kumite karate was learned and practised by kata alone? If the martial artists of old, were able to defend themselves successfully and if expressions like 'if you choose to land a karate blow then be in no doubt that that one blow decides everything' (Master Funakoshi) mean anything, then we have to assume that kata practice is integral to martial arts.

A lot of old martial artists got into real scraps though, and besides...not all of them were expert fighters either. On punch KO's definately do happen, but if you watch a fight you will see that they are the exception to the rule. Besides, back when people would issue challenges to rival schools, and if you studied martial arts, chances are you would've had real fighting experience. Sparring is not a new concept, it's older than written records...kata were essentially a form of shadow boxing and/or a way to remember move sets. With modern technology, these are no longer required.

[bushido_man96]

I feel you need both. Just because you're good in one area doesn't mean you should neglect the other. What you're not good at is just as important as what you are good at. Truth be told, someone who is good at both kata and fighting is probably going to be better than someone who is good at one or the other.

I don't think that both are really necessary. While I enjoy training in both, I think what your needs come down to what you want to focus your training on. Training to fight will help you become a better fighter. Learning forms may also help you with learning to fight, but it is in more of a round-about way. First, you learn the form. Second, you learn the bunkai, which you can't start on until you have a good, at least basic, understanding of the form. Then, from the bunkai, you can move into more applications. You go from a one-step process to a three-step process.

Now, this is where I get to contradict myself, by saying that I still enjoy forms, especially forms competitions. I don't even mind the forms requirements that go along with testings. I think forms are great for engaging the mind in the Martial Arts, and for learning technique combinations and flows.

However, fighting drills have their place, as well.

[bushido_man96]

Sorry if I am covering old ground here, I haven't read the whole thread (it is 53 pages!). If kata doesn't make you a complete fighter

I however do not belive that kata alone can make you a fighter

how is it that karate exists at all today as a martial art, when prior to Master Funakoshi's introduction of kumite karate was learned and practised by kata alone? If the martial artists of old, were able to defend themselves successfully and if expressions like 'if you choose to land a karate blow then be in no doubt that that one blow decides everything' (Master Funakoshi) mean anything, then we have to assume that kata practice is integral to martial arts.

This is where the Eastern viewpoint of the martial arts tends to become the only viewpoint on the martial arts. Martial arts in the West did not revert to 'kata' practice. Boxing has been around in since before the first Olympiad, and the basic outline of the art has not changed over the years. Your skill is deemed by your ability to fight.

In the East, the martial arts started out as weapons drilling, with hand-to-hand combat mixed into the basic training. When gunpowder came into vogue, and the weapons training ceased, and the arts were supressed and deemed "illegal" to practice, forms came into being. When Funakoshi went to present Karate as a physical education plan for schools, the ideas of the regimented forms exercise were great. He could line up anywhere from 1 to 30 kids, and teach the same thing to all of them at the same time, and more easily monitor their progress (enter the belts of Kano).

So, given the evolution of forms, calling back to tradition is not necessarily the best arguement to make. Things change. Concepts evolve. As I said, I love forms. They have their place. An equal place, along with everything else. Or, depending on your individual philosophy, they have a greater or lesser place in your training.

Ok, I'm off my soapbox now!

[cross]

Sorry if I am covering old ground here, I haven't read the whole thread (it is 53 pages!). If kata doesn't make you a complete fighter

I however do not belive that kata alone can make you a fighter

how is it that karate exists at all today as a martial art, when prior to Master Funakoshi's introduction of kumite karate was learned and practised by kata alone? If the martial artists of old, were able to defend themselves successfully and if expressions like 'if you choose to land a karate blow then be in no doubt that that one blow decides everything' (Master Funakoshi) mean anything,

There is a huge difference between being a good fighter and being able to defend yourself(there are some areas that overlap in both, but still a large number of differences). Karate has moved so far away from its combative roots, look at the heavily technique based syllabus of most schools these days. The focus is being good at the techniques and learning lots of kata so you become good at karate. This doesnt always mean you will be a good fighter, or be able to defend yourself effectively, but you certainly will get good at doing karate.

Karate still exists because there is a market for it, people want to do traditional arts with that associated "mysticism". It doesnt exist because of its combat effectivness (when has it been tested and proved in recent times outside point based competition?). Whilst there are still some schools out there that focus on karate for self defence, the majority have made a transition to the "way of life" type training, the only thing most have not done is remove the "learn effective self defence" tag from thier advertisments.

then we have to assume that kata practice is integral to martial arts.

You are right, kata may well be an integral part of "martial arts" training, but is not an integral part of "self defence" training.

If kata works for you, then do it. If it doesnt, find something better.

And for those wondering if kata, or their training in general is good for self defence... Have a look around the internet at some clips of real fights, muggings etc (there are loads of clips out there) and ask yourself if the things you see look anything at all like what you do in training. If it doesnt, perhaps your training needs to take a few steps towards reality.

[bushido_man96]

You are right, kata may well be an integral part of "martial arts" training, but is not an integral part of "self defence" training.

I think that these two should be synonomous. I agree that they may have some seperate nuances, but survivng a battle should relate to the individual as well as the group level.

[cross]

You are right, kata may well be an integral part of "martial arts" training, but is not an integral part of "self defence" training.

I think that these two should be synonomous. I agree that they may have some seperate nuances, but survivng a battle should relate to the individual as well as the group level.

Im not sure i exactly understand, but if you are saying that martial arts and self defence should be one in the same(?).... Unfortunatly in these days they are most often worlds apart.

[bushido_man96]

You are right, kata may well be an integral part of "martial arts" training, but is not an integral part of "self defence" training.

I think that these two should be synonomous. I agree that they may have some seperate nuances, but survivng a battle should relate to the individual as well as the group level.

Im not sure i exactly understand, but if you are saying that martial arts and self defence should be one in the same(?).... Unfortunatly in these days they are most often worlds apart.

Yes, I think that they should be the same....even if you are not training for self-defense purposes, the training should be such that good self-defense becomes a by-product of the training.

[cross]

Yes, I think that they should be the same....even if you are not training for self-defense purposes, the training should be such that good self-defense becomes a by-product of the training.

Ideally that would be the case, but it rarely is. Self defence is something that unless specifically addressed, skills gained in it by doing general martial arts, will be average at best.