The Uselessness of Kata

[username8517]

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.

I don't want to take your term of culturally cleansing the wrong way; so could you please go into a bit more explaination as to what you mean? Thanks.

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.

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.

Couldn't agree with you more.

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?

If you want to, sure. Me, personally I don't and I won't. Football is a sport. Those same things learned could easily be applied to other sports--boxing, soccer, MMA, lacrosse, curling, etc. Okay, so that last one might be a bit of a stretch, but I think you get my point.

If you call football a martial art, where do you draw the line? Would shuffleboard be a martial art? Archery? Diving? NASCAR? What then becomes your determining factor what is a martial art and not?

As I stated before, to me a martial art has to have a certain set of philosophy or beliefs (as well as a culture) behind it to call it a martial art. What would be the philosophies of football? Does football have a culture?

In my last post I stated that martial arts should teach the culture and mindset behind them. Looking back, I can see where I didn't clarify it enough. Yes you should be taught the culture and mindset of the respective martial arts, but that doesn't mean you have to adopt them. In my opinion, it's the whole "If you don't know the history you're bound to repeat it" saying. Know what it means to be a martial artist. Know of the blood, sweat, and tears, those before you paid so you may pay them now. Know why the martial art was formed. Know why it utilizes the tools it does. Know when the appropriate time is to utilize your skills and abilities. I did not mean to imply that you should blindly give in to the ways of the old and adopt their culture.

I am quite enjoying this conversation, actually!

As am I

[bushido_man96]

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.

I don't want to take your term of culturally cleansing the wrong way; so could you please go into a bit more explaination as to what you mean? Thanks.

The idea that learning an art or fighting style would lead you to enlightenment, or make you a better person, because you are taught resepect, integrity, etc. That is what I was referring to.

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?

If you want to, sure. Me, personally I don't and I won't. Football is a sport. Those same things learned could easily be applied to other sports--boxing, soccer, MMA, lacrosse, curling, etc. Okay, so that last one might be a bit of a stretch, but I think you get my point.

If you call football a martial art, where do you draw the line? Would shuffleboard be a martial art? Archery? Diving? NASCAR? What then becomes your determining factor what is a martial art and not?

I bring up football, as opposed to other sports, for a very important reason. Football is a game of combat, essentially. Each team uses offensive and defensive strategies to contol territory, or take it over. Football is the epitome of combat strategy in a modernized, sport sense of the term, in my opinion. That is why I used football as an example.

I am quite enjoying this conversation, actually!

As am I

[KamasandSais]

If all you did was sparing and someone came at you with a knife and was going to kill you you dont kick him in the stumach and call point and he suddenly stops. he goes on and slits your neck. with forms you practice the RIGHT way to execute your techniqe. (comes up at top of head X block force knife out of hand (section of palwge chil-jang)

you're speaking from a point fighting perspective, which is a seperate problem of its own.

kata will not prepare you for a knife attack. that will get you killed. Now, drilling the apps repeatedly can indeed help. But realistically, in a knife situation, you want to run if at all possible.

I REALLY think a lot of the knife defenses people learn these days suck, but I won't touch on that, as it's off topic.

Lastly, there is no single right way. keeping with your example, my front push kick followed by a flurry of strikes and ending with a lock and throw may work for me just as well as your x block, if not better.

You're right, but in some cases (the cases where the people aren't total wimps or maybe can take alot of hits) that wont be enough, they know there breaking the law already so they won't hesitate to kill you which means you should get rid of the knife first (you could kick you could force it out with an X-block disarming technique whatever ) I think your explanation is better than mine but the guy/girl still has a knife and could still very easily use it against you. and in a way, Katas do help you with real life fights. In sparring, usually we don't kick/punch/block as good as we could. In forms/Katas we preform with much more power which is a more practical way to fight in real life.

[elbows_and_knees]

somewhere in this thread I relayed that back in the day, only few forms were taught in kung fu, and I as taught karate in the same manner by my teacher. I just happened to find this online, referencing other karateka who were trained this way:

"Miyagi's training in Karate was very hard, and he taught only seisan and seienchin [beyond the required sanchin kata] kata."

http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=121

[elbows_and_knees]

You're right, but in some cases (the cases where the people aren't total wimps or maybe can take alot of hits) that wont be enough, they know there breaking the law already so they won't hesitate to kill you which means you should get rid of the knife first (you could kick you could force it out with an X-block disarming technique whatever ) I think your explanation is better than mine but the guy/girl still has a knife and could still very easily use it against you.

it's not about being a wimp. Even a wimp can cut you. it's not about knowing you're breaking the law, either. It's about rage. pure and simple in many cases. when you are fighting for your life, you don't have time to think "dang, I'm breaking the law" - you are fighting. Over the weekend, I struck a guy in the throat with my forearm then took him down and dragged him by his feet (so his head would bounce around the concrete) I broke a rule by hitting him, as we are not supposed to strike, only restrain. when you are fighting, you don't think about that. I didn't think about it until after the fact, cuz I'm usually good about not striking anyone unless they hit me first, or unless there are multiples - which is what I was against right before this happened.

and in a way, Katas do help you with real life fights. In sparring, usually we don't kick/punch/block as good as we could. In forms/Katas we preform with much more power which is a more practical way to fight in real life.

that's why they created sparring gear. mouthpiece, gloves, and headergear and you are set. Also, I am an advocate of all MA stepping into the ring at least once for a similar reason. With kata, you can hit full force, but you are only striking air... it doesn't make you stronger, it doesn't help your timing, distancing, etc. When I trained kung fu, there was a guy who was always punching the air full force -he looked impressive. But, whenever we worked pad drills and he hit me, he couldn't budge me at all, not did his strikes hurt. He would always look at his fist, like something was wrong with it. The problem wasn't his fist, the problem was that he did no bag training - he only hit air.

[elbows_and_knees]

Muay Thai does have a traditional background to it that does include forms.

all of which are pretty much extinct now. muay boran is an attempt to try and recreate what's left of the various styles.

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?

yes, they would have.

1. as stated earlier, the forms are now pretty much extinct.

2. muay thai was created to GET AWAY from traditional stuff - many of the techniques were too hard to pull off in fights and were considered useless.

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?

the same way it's been going. I was fascinated about muay thai back in 1986 when I first heard of it. it's always had it's popularity, just moreso now, because of mma. boxing is one of the most popluar sports in the US and has been for centuries.

I think the some of the principles of Krav Maga are good, it's some of the applications and drills I have trouble with.

the problem is that you likely didn't find real krav maga. today, you can become certified to teach it in little of no time. it's largely a McSchool.

On top of that, I would be willing to bet that these drills came from traditional MA at one point.

that's irrelevant. the ferrari came from the model t. Which is superior? they are two totally different cars. a sport ma and somethng traditional it may have stemmed from are two totally different styles.

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.

what is your definition of art? mine is expression through fighting, not kata. consequently, kata will never mean much to me, although I will always pursue MA, as I have for the past 22 years.

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.

Once again, you can't define another person's perception of art.

[Adonis]

expression of movement and a better understanding of how your body works I consider that art. I find gracefulness and beauty in moves that are effective and work in in a resisting scenerio.

Again Like elbows and knee's said you can define some one else perception of what Art is.

I like kata. Espcially tai chi ones. I find it relaxing and I Feel enviorized after the good breathing and movent drills. Also though I can feel good after a good run while I control my breathing during the run.

Kata is fine to place diffrent techniaques into the form to pull out and drill on a partner or bag or what not, but like is known when adrenline hits fine motor skills go out and gross motor skills is whats left in a fight.

so alot complex moves go out the window and pretty much the simple moves that are praciteced the most is what remains.

On that note Kata isn't a big deal for self defense or dealing with an attacker. For the share enjoyement or a place or something you can put the techniques you learned into the kata as refrence to help you remmeber the techniques then thats fine.

[username8517]

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?

yes, they would have.

1. as stated earlier, the forms are now pretty much extinct.

2. muay thai was created to GET AWAY from traditional stuff - many of the techniques were too hard to pull off in fights and were considered useless.

Not really sure if we're in a disagreement here or not. Any style contains many techniques that will be hard to pull of in a fight. The reason I brought up Muay Thai was because the original topics was about a quote saying that drills had to be derived from forms. I used Muay Thai as an example to illustrate how the sport aspect is different from the traditional aspect, but yet how the sport aspect would not be what it is (i.e.--contain the moves it does and they way their executed) without the tradition of such styles as Krabi Krabong and other Thai arts.

However, having never studied Muay Thai, I must admit my knowledge is limited to documentaries and information found in books. if you would please be kind enough to share with me why you think Muay Thai would be what it is today without the basis of the traditional Thai arts, from a first hand experience, I would like to hear your viewpoint and take it into consideration.

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?

the same way it's been going. I was fascinated about muay thai back in 1986 when I first heard of it. it's always had it's popularity, just moreso now, because of mma. boxing is one of the most popluar sports in the US and has been for centuries.

I completely agree here. To me, the key word is sport--not martial art (which I'll address later on). Take boxing for example--as you mention it has been one of the most popular and influencial sports in the US for quite some time. But if you were to take a poll I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people would view it as either a fighting style or sport over a martial art. I believe Muay Thai is heading in the same boat; where people will forget of the martial art heritage of it.

I think the some of the principles of Krav Maga are good, it's some of the applications and drills I have trouble with.

the problem is that you likely didn't find real krav maga. today, you can become certified to teach it in little of no time. it's largely a McSchool.

I must admit I have never taken myself to a Krav Maga school and most of my knowledge of it consists of online research and reading books on their fighting style. The core book I purchased and was referencing in a previous post was "Krav Maga: How to Defend Yourself Against Armed Assault" by Imi Sde-Or (the founder of Krav Maga) and Eyal Yanilov. Between reading and analyzing this book as well as skimming a few other Krav Maga books, I believe that they have some of the principles right, but their applications are limited in practical against a skilled opponent.

On top of that, I would be willing to bet that these drills came from traditional MA at one point.

that's irrelevant. the ferrari came from the model t. Which is superior? they are two totally different cars. a sport ma and somethng traditional it may have stemmed from are two totally different styles.

I really don't see how it's irrelevant. Perhaps I was unclear in my earlier post. While I agree that traditional and sport martial arts are two different things, this quote was taken from a section about reality-based martial arts. What I was trying to convey is my disappointment towards those in the RBSD world who spend half their life studying traditional martial arts, tout all their ranks on their websites and flyers, and then turn around and say that traditional martial arts is a joke and only their system can protect you.

Now don't get me wrong, there are some legitimate and valid RBSD programs out there. But a few bad apples ruins the basket right? I don't know, I guess it's a pet peeve of mine.

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.

what is your definition of art? mine is expression through fighting, not kata. consequently, kata will never mean much to me, although I will always pursue MA, as I have for the past 22 years.

Perhaps I should have phrased this better as it was once again directed at reality based self-defense bandwagon jumpers, and not nearly so much as those in "sport martial arts." Perhaps I was too broad with that stroke of the brush. However I know quite a few people in sport martial arts who dropped out of traditional ma because they didn't want to dedicate the time to the art aspect of it (i.e.--kata, bunkai, etc.). But rather, was merely looking for sparring every class. As I have said before, to each their own.

Now to answer your question, here is my definition of what constitutes a martial art (please notice I never once mention kata):

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.

And as both you and Adonis wrote:

mine is expression through fighting, not kata

&

expression of movement and a better understanding of how your body works I consider that art.

These are three different viewpoints on what constitutes martial arts by three different people. And I'm sure if we ask three dozen more people you'll probably get three dozen different answers. The point is' date=' that we all view martial arts as something different. What may work for me, might not work for you and vice versa. Like martial arts and fighting styles themselves, everyone will need to learn what works for them, both physically and mentally, and what does not.

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.

Once again, you can't define another person's perception of art.

Please know that the answer I am about to give is not intended to flame or disrespect anyone. I am merely trying to show where I draw my conclusion from.

You're absolutely right. I cannot define someone else's perception of an art, but I can make assumptions and decisions based on my perception of what an art is. As I've stated, to me there is a line between what I consider an art versus a fighting style. To me reality based self-defense styles are not a martial art, so when RBSD are brought up in comparison to traditional martial arts, someone is effectively comparing apples to oranges to me. In hindsight, perhaps I should have worded the last sentence there to something more along the lines of "From my viewpoint. . ."

[bushido_man96]

I guess the one big problem I have with the broad definition of what a martial art is comes from only what people describe as Eastern arts. The Western fighting arts that helped shape our world as it is get no respect from the martial art standpoint, and I don't feel that it should be that way. Boxing and wrestling are just as viable as karate and kung-fu, it is just a completely different culture of training and ideals.

Not to mention the medieval European weapons fighting styles, but I'll save that for another time.

[mantis.style]

But these things, whatever you call it, at the end of the day should produce a fighter yes/no? Traditional arts, whatever the reasons you practice them should make you a better fighter, so isn't whether or not you call them a martial art or a sport art irrelevant because both are essentially about fighting and so both are fighting arts?