The Uselessness of Kata

[Shorin Ryuu]

I agree. Are there any karate systems you know of that base belt advancement purely on fighting ability in full contact sparring, and not on ability to execute memorized kata? I believe that's partly how western kickboxing developed (separate from Muay Thai). That's why I left karate for KB.

In the karate dojo I train in, we train only for fighting. We have no belts or rank structure, only teacher and student. We train primarily kata with supplementary training in hitting a heavy bag and a sand bag. We also do a few walk-in drills. Hitting the bag focuses more on form and timing rather than speed or endurance. I'm not going to turn this thread into a "usefulness/uselessness of sparring" thread. We choose not to focus on sparring because we get better results doing otherwise.

Kata training is useful only if you understand every moment spent doing kata. That includes how your stance is structured, how you move, how you step, where your weight is, how your posture is set, and the proper timing. All this has nothing to do with how well you memorize a kata for belt promotions, performances, or what-have-you. It has everything to do with how well you do the kata. Keeping the kata simple is the best way to do your kata well. This kind of understanding is pretty rare, and requires both a teacher who is skilled and a teacher who can teach.

I am a strong supporter of doing kata. At the same time, a lot of the kata I've seen people do are very weak. This applies to traditional, modern, or any other type of karate. I also think there are a lot of people in many martial arts who lack understanding about the mechanics of generating power. Bear in mind this has nothing to do with the sincerity of their effort or their longevity of training. I myself was squarely in this camp until relatively recently and am doing my best now to make my way out of it. Does this make me sound arrogant and elitist about the karate I do now? Probably. I know of no other way to describe it, and for that, I apologize. It is certainly not my intent to come across that way.

[bushido_man96]

It is far more impressive to me if you can end the fight with a single basic technique rather than knowing ten different striking/grappling/pressure point meanings for each of your moves in a kata.

I agree. Are there any karate systems you know of that base belt advancement purely on fighting ability in full contact sparring, and not on ability to execute memorized kata? I believe that's partly how western kickboxing developed (separate from Muay Thai). That's why I left karate for KB.

I think that believing that one can end an altercation with one strike can be misleading to the practitioners. I think that one should train your techniques so that they have as much power and efficiency as possible, but to also train in combinations, in case one technique is not enough. I don't think that there are many altercations that end in one technique.

I understand the logic behind the saying, but the saying itself is dangerously misleading.

I'm not going to get too deep into this groundhog day argument that seems to cover old ground again and again, but if you do not punch the way you do in the kata, either your kata itself is impractical, you don't know how to do your kata properly, or you shouldn't bother doing kata at all. Some people fall into several of these categories at once, as the fault may lie with the kata, the teacher, the student, or some combination thereof.

When I do forms, the punches are the typical punching hand going out to strike the target, while the other hand is brought back to the ribs at the same time and rate of speed. I believe, in my limited knowledge and experience, that this is how many styles of Martial Arts do punches in their forms. I was wondering if your style does them differently. When I spar, or if I have to punch in self-defense, my punches do not travel on that exact same path. However, I have done enough training to know how to transfer my weight into the "boxing punch" by pivoting my feet and turning my hips. These are obviously not the same ways of punching. However, I make the transition from one to the other very well.

[Shorin Ryuu]

I think that believing that one can end an altercation with one strike can be misleading to the practitioners. I think that one should train your techniques so that they have as much power and efficiency as possible, but to also train in combinations, in case one technique is not enough. I don't think that there are many altercations that end in one technique.

I've submitted an article on this very topic. You'll see it some time in the future, perhaps.

When I do forms, the punches are the typical punching hand going out to strike the target, while the other hand is brought back to the ribs at the same time and rate of speed. I believe, in my limited knowledge and experience, that this is how many styles of Martial Arts do punches in their forms. I was wondering if your style does them differently. When I spar, or if I have to punch in self-defense, my punches do not travel on that exact same path. However, I have done enough training to know how to transfer my weight into the "boxing punch" by pivoting my feet and turning my hips. These are obviously not the same ways of punching. However, I make the transition from one to the other very well.

I do agree that most martial arts teach it either of those ways. But we don't do either of those methods. And as I said before, the way we punch in kata is the way we punch in fighting. I may go into it some day... not that I'm evading the question... I just have to get motivated to explain everything since it is pretty detailed. I prefer to keep my techniques simple because even simple techniques require a lot of training and understanding for them to work.

[Andrew_Patton]

Hi Shorin Ryuu I was wondering if you could explain a little about what you mean when you say 'walk-in drills' and I have to say I think that the 'one hit, one kill', or 'one technique, total destruction' terms just mean you should know how to throw everything behind your techniques and be able to destroy something with every technique you throw.

[Semaj]

I dont believe a Karate school is a Church.

Karate is a Martial Art.... a warlike art

One practises means to warfare

I highly disagree. As said in Karate Kid "We learn to fight so we don't have to fight."

[NinTai]

I dont believe a Karate school is a Church.

Karate is a Martial Art.... a warlike art

One practises means to warfare

Karate is not a martial art.

Karate is a "life protection art" it has nothing to do with warfare.

If you want to study a "warlike art" join the military or seek out a

koryu group.

Most of the old masters were involved in some sort of security work.

Not the military but as body guards for the king, police and some

(Matsumura I think) worked on the tribute ships that went to China.

[Shorin Ryuu]

Karate is not a martial art.

Karate is a "life protection art" it has nothing to do with warfare.

If you want to study a "warlike art" join the military or seek out a

koryu group.

Most of the old masters were involved in some sort of security work.

Not the military but as body guards for the king, police and some

(Matsumura I think) worked on the tribute ships that went to China.

I'm sorry, my old friend. I'm going to have to disagree with your point.

When it absolutely comes down to it, karate is about fighting. Perhaps I just get leery when people use too many terms like life protection when discussing karate.

You may have some semantical disagreements with the term "war-like" and "warfare". However, I believe warfare, and perhaps more accurately stated, personal combat, has much more in spirit with the practice of karate than do feel good terms such as life protection or improving one's character.

You mentioned the heavy involvement of martial arts masters in security. For the Okinawans, the Confucian Order of Things was very important as they were heavily influenced by China. Karate was used as a method of combating any disruptions to the Proper Order of Things. Therefore, it was a tool of violence wielded by just authority. It was meant to be used morally, but it was very much a tool of violence.

So... how have you been? It's been a while since we've spoke.

I highly disagree. As said in Karate Kid "We learn to fight so we don't have to fight."

Again, I don't like too much of the feel-good philosophy that gets in the way of good training. I don't learn to fight so I don't have to fight. I learn to fight so I can fight. I don't need any training to teach me when not to fight. That is what common sense is for.

Why is it that so often in the stories of the old masters they only accepted students with good character? It is because karate is value-neutral. It is up to the person to decide what to do with it. Otherwise, the masters would have taught anybody and karate would magically transform them into good people.

Don't get me wrong. I believe there are many good things a person can learn from karate that have nothing to do with fighting. But unless you train karate with fighting in mind, these extra, non-fighting-related benefits will only be minimal.

Let me put it another way. People can gain things like self-discipline and control by practicing karate. How do these things come about? It comes from doing karate. It comes from the continuous pursuit of fighting technique, not the continuous pursuit of character development. Without the emphasis on fighting, one merely moves appendages in the air as a strange form of exercise. By shifting your emphasis to character development away from the skillful application of violence, your practice becomes impure. I dislike using terms like purity because it sounds too philosophical when in fact it is very simple.

In other words, when you practice karate to grasp for character development, it will slip through your fingers. When you do karate, when you train only for fighting, that is when your character is forged.

Does this sound like "we learn to fight so we don't have to fight"? Yes. But those of you who know the difference know what difference I am pointing out.

[NinTai]

I'm sorry, my old friend. I'm going to have to disagree with your point.

When it absolutely comes down to it, karate is about fighting. Perhaps I just get leery when people use too many terms like life protection when discussing karate.

You may have some semantical disagreements with the term "war-like" and "warfare". However, I believe warfare, and perhaps more accurately stated, personal combat, has much more in spirit with the practice of karate than do feel good terms such as life protection or improving one's character.

You mentioned the heavy involvement of martial arts masters in security. For the Okinawans, the Confucian Order of Things was very important as they were heavily influenced by China. Karate was used as a method of combating any disruptions to the Proper Order of Things. Therefore, it was a tool of violence wielded by just authority. It was meant to be used morally, but it was very much a tool of violence.

So... how have you been? It's been a while since we've spoke.

I've been well.

I think that we agree in spririt if not paper.

It's all about semantics.

For me words like "martial" (of or having to do with the military) represent

a military mindset. The military of any nation or time would always prefer

to use arms of some type as opposed to bare hands, the idea being the

total destruction (read killing) of the enemy usualy en mass.

Karate is absolutely violent, but when i say "life protection" I mean in a sense

that I am useing karate to protect my life, it will be violent, but my goal is

to survive and get away not to take and hold ground.

It may all be semantics when I teach useing that term seem to get the point

across better.

Later,

Give my reguards to Terry.

[NinTai]

To go along with Shorin's second point I'll add this little bit from my instructors site:

"Karate is a fighting art. You must train with deep seriousness from the first day. Each punch, block, or kick must be delivered with the power of the entire body in unison. No matter how much time you devote to training - months or years - if your training consists of no more than moving your arms and legs... you may as well be dancing, and you will never understand the true meaning of karate."

[James Bullock]

Personally I believe the usefulness of something is not dictated by the movement but by the perception, attitude, and mentality of the person doing the movement.

You could teach someone everything they need to know about surviving a street altercation, they could be the fastest, strongest person on the planet. However without the proper mindset and willingness to survive at all costs then what they learned is pointless.

I think when people are taught the "depth" of kata and they have the proper mentality then the usefulness or uselessness of a given movement will be easily seen.

My opinion...