Kata ? Whats the point

[CredoTe]

No Kata equals no karate!!

And what happens when these need to go in a different order? Or the attack doesn't match? Or an angle is wrong? Then the hours and hours of neurological conditioning is for naught or at the very least not as effective as it could have been.

These things can be adjusted at any given time instantly as needed. The things that kata trains us are vital outside of the safety of any dojo because kata gave me transitional understanding outside of the prescribed movements of any said kata. These prescribed movements are the key to the door, and once the door is opened in understanding and discovering the unforeseen Bunkai/Oyo, adjustments that you speak up become effortless.

Fights are free form. Training needs to match that need or we're not maximizing our prep time. To do this, we need to look at more modern modalities that are based on current understanding of adult learning and combat psychology.

True, however, kata is a training tool, and it's about time students understand that. One has to train outside of the kata, but then, one will also have to return to that kata training to chip away and clean the air of any uncertain elements that still might exist. Kata is modern and effective as a training tool. I don't do kata for trophies, no, I train in kata because it opens up many other possibilities. People speak ill about kata because they don't understand it as it is meant to be understood.

Like I've argued before, if the goal of your training is to preserve an art form in the manner it was performed at the time of it's modern systematization, then there are very good reasons for kata, and it then has a built in purpose. If your purpose is to prepare for real world combat then, personally, I think there isn't as much "what's it for" factor.

Again, no kata equals no karate!!

SPOT ON... Great post! Many folks who don't subscribe to kata don't like it either because they don't understand it well enough, yet (their training, skill level, or instructors haven't revealed meaning, yet) or they simply don't want to understand it. For those that don't want to understand it, if you're MA of choice trains you to defend yourself well, then great; but, don't bag those of us that do train kata for real purposes. For those of us that do subscribe to kata and understand its purpose, kata does work to train for real world situations. As I've discussed before, it depends on the instructors teaching the kata for the right purposes, practitioners studying kata in the right mindset, and then combining kata with kihon and kumite. Kihon must include bag, mat, target work, and kumite must include situations beyond 1-on-1 tournament training.

If you don't like kata and the MA you train in "doesn't contain kata", how are you shown proper / effective technique? When you practice against a partner or a bag or whatever, are you not practicing the form of said technique? When you're shown a technique for the first time, doesn't your instructor show you that you must "do this first, then this second, and that third" or the like? Then, you practice said new technique on a bag or target or partner to work on the form of it so you can learn how to make it effective for you, yes? How is that NOT kata? Even boxers work on form against bags, heavy bags, or speed bags.

For those that don't understand it well enough, yet, keep at it! If you have a competent instructor and / or the right practitioner mindset, you will see the value of kata.

[CredoTe]

...

I look at kata and Karate as a chicken and egg argument; which came first? Has kata always been around, or were moves melded into the form of kata when training modalities changed? I think its important to look into the hows and whys of why kata came about in the first place in order to really understand why we have kata.

I agree with you in that part of any kata training must include the historical context of why / how kata came about, especially in the Far East. In the West, "kata" as we think of it largely didn't show up as a sequential memory tool, but as military training drills. Look how warfare developed from Ancient Greece, through the Roman Imperial Army, the Vikings, to Medieval & Renaissance battlefield tactics. As a subset that might be compared to Karate, think of those techniques, tactics, and skills derived from the battlefield during those eras that were practiced and applied by citizens, gentry, etc for self-defense purposes or duels. In the West, the "height" of self-defense / dueling in those eras was rapier-and-main-gauche fighting (soon replaced by pistols). At its base, the techniques, tactics, and skills all have forms duelers practiced. In a brutal equivalency, Roman gladiators (what were they if not extreme duelers?) even trained with forms and warfare derived from the Imperial Army...

But, in either of these examples, they didn't really train in their forms the same way the Far East developed theirs. I wonder, if History had gone a little differently in the West, would Western MAs have sequential memory kata like the Far East?

[ShotokanMaster]

this is the point of kata kata is an excercise in which we practice offensive and defensive again an imaginary person the physical expression of power speed balance timing coordination and focus this is the definition of kata are you nuts kata has a point because how can you practice your technique without kata kata is part of your technique they used bunkai in kata to defend them self again multiple attackers that has technique on the kata so kata is important in all who practice Martial arts

[tallgeese]

I promise, my last post on this thread

I understand the purpose of kata, and I've been lucky enough to train with a person or two who was really good about digging deep into it.

I also understand modern adult learning theory and conflict psychology, as well as how to design training programs to fulfill a combative purpose. I understand how we've advanced in our ability to transmit ideas since the late 1800s.

Because of this, I'm one of those guys who just doesn't want to spend time doing it. Learning tactics by cutting the "middle man" so to speak (kata) out of the equation shows adults the "why"faster and enhances learning. It's more pliable to a dynamic phase of training, quicker.

I don't think it's bad. I just don't think it's the best way to train, given modern methods of training. IF one is looking for the most efficient training time vs. payoff equation. If this isn't a concern, then it's no harm, no foul.

If you just like kata, or the culture, or the art, then it's GREAT.

But people in the east were training in hand to hand combat well before the advent of kata. It hasn't always been kata and karate type training going hand in hand. Nor should it always have to be- UNLESS you're training for that specific goal. Or to preserve that tradition. Then you had best be doing them.

MP has pointed out before that I still think I'm a karate guy, despite the fact that I've morphed into something different. Therefore, my view on this isn't really a true "karate" viewpoint any longer. That might be true, and if it is, then please disregard. However, having had a great training experience in karate, and other combatives, I can say that it hasn't impacted my journey in the least to move thru karate without kata, or at least with a diminishing regard for them.

Here's the thing, something has to fill the training void if kata is taken out. The question is, is there something more worthwhile to fill it with. My answer was yes, and this was after exposure to very good kata instruction.

In this, we go back to learning theory. Everyone, each of us, will learn better or worse based on the method used. If kata works for one person, great. I wasn't one of those people. I learn better by direct learning. Attack and defense kind of training. Mobile mitts, ect. No one method will suit everyone best.

It's too narrow to say that kata is the only way to become proficient simply because it assumes that all learning patterns are the same. We know now that they are not.

One day, someone will end the debate forever when a way is found to control all outside variables in two fresh trainees and research can be conducted and repeated about which method, kata or another, brings a fighter to speed quicker. But the variables are too many and intrinsic to the individual for now.

Until then, we take what we know based on experience and do the best we can.

There, all done.

[bushido_man96]

Many folks who don't subscribe to kata don't like it either because they don't understand it well enough, yet (their training, skill level, or instructors haven't revealed meaning, yet) or they simply don't want to understand it.

I don't think this is the case. I've been doing forms all my training life. ATA and now TTA (Chang On) forms. The ATA forms were created to contain rank-pertitent techniques that provide physical and technical improvement as the practitioner moves up in rank. The Chang On forms were taken from Gen. Choi's own ideas, along with fragments of the Shotokan forms he had learned. The jury is still out on whether or not applications that can be taken from these forms are more reverse engineered alongside some Karate applications, or not. Whether that is the case, there fact that Chang On style forms can come with application training puts them up there with the bunkai from Karate kata.

So, that said, not all forms fill the same purposes.

For those that don't want to understand it, if you're MA of choice trains you to defend yourself well, then great; but, don't bag those of us that do train kata for real purposes. For those of us that do subscribe to kata and understand its purpose, kata does work to train for real world situations.

I don't think anyone is bagging on those that do train kata for "real" purposes. What is coming into question is whether or not there is a better way to do it, and if there is, why not adapt?

If you don't like kata and the MA you train in "doesn't contain kata", how are you shown proper / effective technique? When you practice against a partner or a bag or whatever, are you not practicing the form of said technique? When you're shown a technique for the first time, doesn't your instructor show you that you must "do this first, then this second, and that third" or the like? Then, you practice said new technique on a bag or target or partner to work on the form of it so you can learn how to make it effective for you, yes? How is that NOT kata? Even boxers work on form against bags, heavy bags, or speed bags.

This really isn't kata in the sense that we are speaking of it here. Not all drill work is kata. In the argument that you are making, then your own kihon training is essentially kata training, but I think we know that isn't really the case. There is a difference between learning and drilling technique, and training kata. If we go with your argument here, then Karate doesn't have 3 K's, but only 2; kata and kumite.

I think the real question is, and tallgeese alluded to it, is this: Is it really necessary to learn forms before learning self-defense applications? In my opinion, it isn't.

[Boxing Padawan]

I always referred to the Kata as subconscious , inner calmness, and mind training.

Many think that Kata is "useless", personally i don't see it. It's a great stuff and after some years of training you start to appreciate it.

[straightblast]

The Term Karate is a big umbrella and most styles have Kata but some don’t, I think it is unfair for a certain style of Karate to determine what Karate is and is not if it lies outside of its own style.

If you are in a style of Karate that has Kata then the kata is the core to your system. If you’re in a style that does not have kata, then your technique and training method is your core.

Kata has value to those who do it so as martial artist we need to stop looking over the fence and critiquing other styles because they may do things different.

[sensei8]

Imho...

Any form and/or kata that doesn't contain Bunkai or the like is empty and useless across the board. Kata isn't for the next rank test!!

Again, IMHO!!

Is it really necessary to learn forms before learning self-defense applications? In my opinion, it isn't.

I concur. Nonetheless, the the three K's should be learnt together; none before the others or separate.

[CredoTe]

I appreciate your replies tallgeese and bushido_man96 Don't get me wrong; I don't believe in training in kata for beauty's sake, i.e. to look cool at tournaments. I think this discussion plus others on other threads that we've had show that the three of us share something in common: we believe in training for practical, effective, real-world situations. Our approach / methods of doing so are just different

A few points I should clarify:

I understand the purpose of kata, and I've been lucky enough to train with a person or two who was really good about digging deep into it.

I also understand modern adult learning theory and conflict psychology, as well as how to design training programs to fulfill a combative purpose. I understand how we've advanced in our ability to transmit ideas since the late 1800s.

Because of this, I'm one of those guys who just doesn't want to spend time doing it. Learning tactics by cutting the "middle man" so to speak (kata) out of the equation shows adults the "why"faster and enhances learning. It's more pliable to a dynamic phase of training, quicker.

I don't think it's bad. I just don't think it's the best way to train, given modern methods of training. IF one is looking for the most efficient training time vs. payoff equation. If this isn't a concern, then it's no harm, no foul.

If you just like kata, or the culture, or the art, then it's GREAT.

[...]

MP has pointed out before that I still think I'm a karate guy, despite the fact that I've morphed into something different. Therefore, my view on this isn't really a true "karate" viewpoint any longer. That might be true, and if it is, then please disregard. However, having had a great training experience in karate, and other combatives, I can say that it hasn't impacted my journey in the least to move thru karate without kata, or at least with a diminishing regard for them.

[...]

It's too narrow to say that kata is the only way to become proficient simply because it assumes that all learning patterns are the same. We know now that they are not.

[...]

And from:

I don't think this is the case. I've been doing forms all my training life. ATA and now TTA (Chang On) forms. The ATA forms were created to contain rank-pertitent techniques that provide physical and technical improvement as the practitioner moves up in rank. The Chang On forms were taken from Gen. Choi's own ideas, along with fragments of the Shotokan forms he had learned. The jury is still out on whether or not applications that can be taken from these forms are more reverse engineered alongside some Karate applications, or not. Whether that is the case, there fact that Chang On style forms can come with application training puts them up there with the bunkai from Karate kata.

So, that said, not all forms fill the same purposes.

When I said "don't want to understand it" maybe I should have said "don't want to understand it further" or "don't want to work with it anymore". I did say that to those of you who train using methods without kata and can effectively defend yourself, then great. I think it's great you choose to do so... as I totally understand that the "kata" method of training does not work for everyone. I wasn't trying to make a point about it being the "be all end all" way, only that it DOES work if taught, studied, and trained correctly.

For those that don't want to understand it, if you're MA of choice trains you to defend yourself well, then great; but, don't bag those of us that do train kata for real purposes. For those of us that do subscribe to kata and understand its purpose, kata does work to train for real world situations.

I don't think anyone is bagging on those that do train kata for "real" purposes. What is coming into question is whether or not there is a better way to do it, and if there is, why not adapt?

Correct study of kata is precisely about adaptation. As many of us "kata" guys train longer and harder through our kata, gain more experience, etc, more and more bunkai/oyo are revealed. These revelations are in the mind of the practitioner. Anytime we have an epiphany of a new bunkai/oyo, we put it to the test of whether it's practical & effective or not. If not, then it's discarded. As we continue our revelation of bunkai/oyo, our fighting style and training methods adapt to meet it (we must alter our training method to include these "new" bunkai/oyo).

Too often when I'm confronted with this argument, "why not adapt" equals "why can't you see that my way is better". I'm not saying de facto that's what you're doing, only that that's my experience. I usually counter with, if my method allows me to adapt and be effective in my own self-defense, why do I need to change my method? As I mentioned before, I have no bone with those that don't train in the same methods that we kata guys do. Again, if it works for you, great.

If you don't like kata and the MA you train in "doesn't contain kata", how are you shown proper / effective technique? When you practice against a partner or a bag or whatever, are you not practicing the form of said technique? When you're shown a technique for the first time, doesn't your instructor show you that you must "do this first, then this second, and that third" or the like? Then, you practice said new technique on a bag or target or partner to work on the form of it so you can learn how to make it effective for you, yes? How is that NOT kata? Even boxers work on form against bags, heavy bags, or speed bags.

This really isn't kata in the sense that we are speaking of it here. Not all drill work is kata. In the argument that you are making, then your own kihon training is essentially kata training, but I think we know that isn't really the case. There is a difference between learning and drilling technique, and training kata. If we go with your argument here, then Karate doesn't have 3 K's, but only 2; kata and kumite.

I think the real question is, and tallgeese alluded to it, is this: Is it really necessary to learn forms before learning self-defense applications? In my opinion, it isn't.

Another way to describe form or kata is "structure". The structure of any technique we train with must be practiced over and over for many reasons, including muscle memory, posture / control of center / balance, power, proper application, and so on. Boxers do it, wrestlers do it, MMAs do it, MAs do it. Even in kihon training we are working to improve the form or structure of our techniques. IMHO, the only practical difference between kihon and kata is that one is sequential form / structure training and the other is non-sequential form / structure training. Quite often the two are merged a bit in our training; we merge them in various combos with kumite, as well. For instance, kata is merged with kumite in the form of partner kata like the Yakusoku Kumite kata. Kumite is merged with kihon in any sort of partner drills or partner free-form drills.

If it's not necessary to learn form / structure of any technique, and then proper application of said technique, no matter one's training methods, why learn the technique at all?

IMHO, the three of us (tallgeese, bushido_man96, myself) share a common mindset when it comes to self-defense training. I know there are many more here on KF that do, as well, I just haven't had the pleasure of having a discussion with them all, yet.

This has been a great discussion. Journey on guys!

[sensei8]

I appreciate your replies tallgeese and bushido_man96 Don't get me wrong; I don't believe in training in kata for beauty's sake, i.e. to look cool at tournaments. I think this discussion plus others on other threads that we've had show that the three of us share something in common: we believe in training for practical, effective, real-world situations. Our approach / methods of doing so are just different

A few points I should clarify:

I understand the purpose of kata, and I've been lucky enough to train with a person or two who was really good about digging deep into it.

I also understand modern adult learning theory and conflict psychology, as well as how to design training programs to fulfill a combative purpose. I understand how we've advanced in our ability to transmit ideas since the late 1800s.

Because of this, I'm one of those guys who just doesn't want to spend time doing it. Learning tactics by cutting the "middle man" so to speak (kata) out of the equation shows adults the "why"faster and enhances learning. It's more pliable to a dynamic phase of training, quicker.

I don't think it's bad. I just don't think it's the best way to train, given modern methods of training. IF one is looking for the most efficient training time vs. payoff equation. If this isn't a concern, then it's no harm, no foul.

If you just like kata, or the culture, or the art, then it's GREAT.

[...]

MP has pointed out before that I still think I'm a karate guy, despite the fact that I've morphed into something different. Therefore, my view on this isn't really a true "karate" viewpoint any longer. That might be true, and if it is, then please disregard. However, having had a great training experience in karate, and other combatives, I can say that it hasn't impacted my journey in the least to move thru karate without kata, or at least with a diminishing regard for them.

[...]

It's too narrow to say that kata is the only way to become proficient simply because it assumes that all learning patterns are the same. We know now that they are not.

[...]

And from:

I don't think this is the case. I've been doing forms all my training life. ATA and now TTA (Chang On) forms. The ATA forms were created to contain rank-pertitent techniques that provide physical and technical improvement as the practitioner moves up in rank. The Chang On forms were taken from Gen. Choi's own ideas, along with fragments of the Shotokan forms he had learned. The jury is still out on whether or not applications that can be taken from these forms are more reverse engineered alongside some Karate applications, or not. Whether that is the case, there fact that Chang On style forms can come with application training puts them up there with the bunkai from Karate kata.

So, that said, not all forms fill the same purposes.

When I said "don't want to understand it" maybe I should have said "don't want to understand it further" or "don't want to work with it anymore". I did say that to those of you who train using methods without kata and can effectively defend yourself, then great. I think it's great you choose to do so... as I totally understand that the "kata" method of training does not work for everyone. I wasn't trying to make a point about it being the "be all end all" way, only that it DOES work if taught, studied, and trained correctly.

For those that don't want to understand it, if you're MA of choice trains you to defend yourself well, then great; but, don't bag those of us that do train kata for real purposes. For those of us that do subscribe to kata and understand its purpose, kata does work to train for real world situations.

I don't think anyone is bagging on those that do train kata for "real" purposes. What is coming into question is whether or not there is a better way to do it, and if there is, why not adapt?

Correct study of kata is precisely about adaptation. As many of us "kata" guys train longer and harder through our kata, gain more experience, etc, more and more bunkai/oyo are revealed. These revelations are in the mind of the practitioner. Anytime we have an epiphany of a new bunkai/oyo, we put it to the test of whether it's practical & effective or not. If not, then it's discarded. As we continue our revelation of bunkai/oyo, our fighting style and training methods adapt to meet it (we must alter our training method to include these "new" bunkai/oyo).

Too often when I'm confronted with this argument, "why not adapt" equals "why can't you see that my way is better". I'm not saying de facto that's what you're doing, only that that's my experience. I usually counter with, if my method allows me to adapt and be effective in my own self-defense, why do I need to change my method? As I mentioned before, I have no bone with those that don't train in the same methods that we kata guys do. Again, if it works for you, great.

If you don't like kata and the MA you train in "doesn't contain kata", how are you shown proper / effective technique? When you practice against a partner or a bag or whatever, are you not practicing the form of said technique? When you're shown a technique for the first time, doesn't your instructor show you that you must "do this first, then this second, and that third" or the like? Then, you practice said new technique on a bag or target or partner to work on the form of it so you can learn how to make it effective for you, yes? How is that NOT kata? Even boxers work on form against bags, heavy bags, or speed bags.

This really isn't kata in the sense that we are speaking of it here. Not all drill work is kata. In the argument that you are making, then your own kihon training is essentially kata training, but I think we know that isn't really the case. There is a difference between learning and drilling technique, and training kata. If we go with your argument here, then Karate doesn't have 3 K's, but only 2; kata and kumite.

I think the real question is, and tallgeese alluded to it, is this: Is it really necessary to learn forms before learning self-defense applications? In my opinion, it isn't.

Another way to describe form or kata is "structure". The structure of any technique we train with must be practiced over and over for many reasons, including muscle memory, posture / control of center / balance, power, proper application, and so on. Boxers do it, wrestlers do it, MMAs do it, MAs do it. Even in kihon training we are working to improve the form or structure of our techniques. IMHO, the only practical difference between kihon and kata is that one is sequential form / structure training and the other is non-sequential form / structure training. Quite often the two are merged a bit in our training; we merge them in various combos with kumite, as well. For instance, kata is merged with kumite in the form of partner kata like the Yakusoku Kumite kata. Kumite is merged with kihon in any sort of partner drills or partner free-form drills.

If it's not necessary to learn form / structure of any technique, and then proper application of said technique, no matter one's training methods, why learn the technique at all?

IMHO, the three of us (tallgeese, bushido_man96, myself) share a common mindset when it comes to self-defense training. I know there are many more here on KF that do, as well, I just haven't had the pleasure of having a discussion with them all, yet.

This has been a great discussion. Journey on guys!

Solid post!!