The Uselessness of Kata

[username8517]

But to practice drills you need to derive them from the katas in the first place and if you are going to do this, then why not just teach the derived drills instead of focussing on the prefection of form?

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.

[bushido_man96]

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

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.

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.).

You are correct, there are many benefits to practicing katas. One thing that I think that has helped to add interest to kata training is the competition aspect of it. I love to compete with my forms; it is actually the division I prefer to compete in. Do I think of my form the same way when I compete than when I train otherwise? No, but then again, competition fighting is rarely the same as fighting, either, with the exception of MMA. All in all, I feel that competition is very beneficial to aspects of the martial arts.

I don't know where I am going with this, but it sounds good.

[username8517]

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

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.

[juey palancu]

BEarich,

WORD, brother. Very eloquent. Should be posted as a karate forum article.

thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Gero

[username8517]

BEarich,

WORD, brother. Very eloquent. Should be posted as a karate forum article.

thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Gero

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.

[bushido_man96]

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

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.

However, you don't need the katas to derive the drills. The Eastern Arts are the ones responsible for the katas, and for the derivation of drills from them. Many Western fightings styles never used katas as drills. Boxing is one, wrestling is another, not to mention their weapons usage. However, I have seen a source that said that pankratiasts used a form of kata, but I have only seen this in one place.

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?

I'll concede that point. However, they have gone beyond the need to practice kata, and focus on drilling and application.

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.

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.

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?

No one is better for the world, it's just up to what each person wants for to get out of it.

I agree with you here. As I have said before, I enjoy my forms training. However, I don't feel that it should overshadow my self-defense training.

[username8517]

However, you don't need the katas to derive the drills.

Absolutely. I am not arguing this point at all. However the statement made was:

But to practice drills you need to derive them from the katas in the first place and if you are going to do this, then why not just teach the derived drills instead of focussing on the prefection of form?

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.

The Eastern Arts are the ones responsible for the katas, and for the derivation of drills from them. Many Western fightings styles never used katas as drills. Boxing is one, wrestling is another, not to mention their weapons usage. However, I have seen a source that said that pankratiasts used a form of kata, but I have only seen this in one place.

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.

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.

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.

[bushido_man96]

I agree with most of what you are saying, bearich. You make some very good points, and yes, we did get a little crossed up on the previous statement on deriving the drills from the forms. I'll say this: If you do derive the drills from the forms, then perfecting the forms is very important. However, I don't believe that you must have forms to derive drills from--just reiterating.

Here is one spot where we do differ:

The Eastern Arts are the ones responsible for the katas, and for the derivation of drills from them. Many Western fightings styles never used katas as drills. Boxing is one, wrestling is another, not to mention their weapons usage. However, I have seen a source that said that pankratiasts used a form of kata, but I have only seen this in one place.

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.

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.

I feel that fighting styles and martial arts are the same. I don't differentiate the two. Although I cannot substantiate this theory, I would be willing to bet that the techniques came about first, and were used, and then recorded into forms, so they would be preserved for posterity. Therefore, the formations of patterns, katas, etc, would be a direct result of techniques from an existing fighting style, and not the other way around. I don't feel that the existense of a set of katas is what defines "martial art." These fighting styles were around long before this term came along. The kata was just a way of cataloging movements, and is indiginous to the Eastern part of the world.

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.

Yeah, for the most part, I think you are right, we are on the same wavelength, to an extent. I hope I am not offending in any way, as that is not my goal. I am just trying to convey something a little differently, and I don't want to come off gruff (I know that I can sometimes, but don't mean to! )

[username8517]

Here is one spot where we do differ:

I feel that fighting styles and martial arts are the same. I don't differentiate the two. Although I cannot substantiate this theory, I would be willing to bet that the techniques came about first, and were used, and then recorded into forms, so they would be preserved for posterity. Therefore, the formations of patterns, katas, etc, would be a direct result of techniques from an existing fighting style, and not the other way around. I don't feel that the existense of a set of katas is what defines "martial art." These fighting styles were around long before this term came along. The kata was just a way of cataloging movements, and is indiginous to the Eastern part of the world.

Yeah, I would say we definately differ on this aspect of it. To me, martial arts are about more than simply learning to defend one's self. Martial arts has a sense of culture and tradition behind it where fighting styles often only have tradition. I guess to sum it up, I would say that martial arts have budo (way of the warrior) behind them.

While I'm not arguing MMA, boxers, wrestlers, and other practioners of fighting styles are not warriors in their own rights, there are differences. For example, just about every karate system has some form of the belief that "there is no first attack in karate." How many boxing, MMA, Muay Thai, or wrestling schools have you seen where they tout that as a philosophy? Ancient Samurai, as one example, were only only versed in the arts of battle, but also strived to master the arts of life, such as poetry and origami.

And I guess that's what I'm getting at, to me martial arts has a philophsy or set of beliefs behind them, where you learn the culture and mindset of what it means to be in that system. With fighting styles, students often go to train solely for the reason to learn how to fight. They're not there learning about how to avoid conflicts, the linage behind their system, etc.; they're there to learn how to pass guard, how to throw a proper hook, how to effectively bob and weave, and so on.

To me, that is the difference.

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.

Yeah, for the most part, I think you are right, we are on the same wavelength, to an extent. I hope I am not offending in any way, as that is not my goal.

No worries. I haven't been offended by anything you've said and I hope I haven't offended you (or anyone in that manner) for stating my beliefs and opinions.

I don't want to come off gruff (I know that I can sometimes, but don't mean to!)

No worries, I know I can come off as gruff or crass as well when I don't mean to.

[bushido_man96]

Yeah, I would say we definately differ on this aspect of it. To me, martial arts are about more than simply learning to defend one's self. Martial arts has a sense of culture and tradition behind it where fighting styles often only have tradition. I guess to sum it up, I would say that martial arts have budo (way of the warrior) behind them.

And I guess that's what I'm getting at, to me martial arts has a philophsy or set of beliefs behind them, where you learn the culture and mindset of what it means to be in that system. With fighting styles, students often go to train solely for the reason to learn how to fight. They're not there learning about how to avoid conflicts, the linage behind their system, etc.; they're there to learn how to pass guard, how to throw a proper hook, how to effectively bob and weave, and so on.

To me, that is the difference.

Yeah, this is where we differ. The idea that learning a fighting style has to somehow be culturally cleansing is primarily a belief that was popularized in the east, and now anyone who has experience in a martial art thinks that this is the way it is supposed to be. Masters try to trace it back to the way of the Samurai, or even the chivalrous Medieval Knight, but even these views are somewhat over-romanticized.

To sum up, it is not required of a fighting style (or an art) to make a person a good person. Ultimately, it is up to the person. Most of the morals and ethics are set up by society, and it is up to parents and mentors to enforce the guidelines. For some reason, Funakoshi believed this was a responsibility of his, and so he passed it on and on, and so it goes. Not that it is bad. It is wonderful. I teach my students not to start fights. I teach them right and wrong (in my eyes). But in the end, it is their decision, not mine.

Intergrity, trust, respect, determination, confidence....all stuff that a very good football player, Curtis Martin, said that he learned from playing football. So, now do we call football a martial art?

No worries, I know I can come off as gruff or crass as well when I don't mean to.

No worries!! I am quite enjoying this conversation, actually!