Not yet a practitioner

[tallgeese]

I would concur. It's, to me, a way of training that has outlived it's usefulness.

Kata is not sacrosanct. It's a means to an end. It's a method of training. One that was devised before the last centruy in a political enviornement that no longer exsist in a contry with a differnt country.

This is, of course, assuming that you're looking at karate for combative reasons. If it's not, then by all means, go all in for the cultural preservation. Or the culture. But to say that solo drilling, in preset forms, is the best way to improve attributes for combat is dated.

It's this dated feeling that we often convey. Remember, I'm looking at this thru a combative lens. If this isn't your focus, then you need to explian that to potential students up front. Or, if it's only part of the picture, you need to be up front with that. This explains kata to new students much more than saying that it will teach them defense.

I'm not saying that one will never learn self defense from kata. But it there are over 100 years of advancement in physiology, learning science, and psycology that have led to more immediatly effective drills.

I think self-defense oriented schools that hand to kata as a major componant are doing themselves a diservice in regard to preparing students realistically for a fight and in attracing new students interested in it.

But that's just me.

[JusticeZero]

I don't know that it has *outlived it's usefulness* per se - but I do think that people focus on them far too much. It's a training methodology that works best in certain contexts that no longer exist. Furthermore people have too many forms these days to make sense in the way they were being used in ANYWAYS.

Once upon a time, you could drill people on a form and use the unity of movement to pick out things to correct quickly in students, then leave them to self-train with the form for awhile to keep honing their skills. They could work through the form while the instructor was unavailable, delve deeply into the structure of the form, and use focused teaching time to adjust the form.

Nowadays, people have more access to instruction, and don't put in the time on any given form to keep it useful as a self-training method - they have a few gazillion forms to spread their time around, instead, and so the form becomes trivia.

Similar to how I don't recommend intense fist hardening; once upon a time fights were more common and it might be useful to turn your hand into a weapon. Today, everyone aspires to desk jobs. Turning your hand into a numbed, somewhat deformed block of bone might not be a big deal to a laborer, but it is not a benefit to an accountant or author.

You should keep the information, certainly, but some of these things have more business being in the 'archives' category than the 'major training technique' category. Someday you might find a student whose life is odd enough that those old methods actually DO make sense for them.

I did see a form I liked once, that seemed a bit more useful than most; it was a moderately complex Taiji form where the footwork was arranged to fit on a square one step across in each direction, with attacks and extensions directed inward, for purposes of being able to drill the form in a small space like a tiny apartment. In this case, the form was designed specifically so that it could be drilled in a confined area in private, to facilitate easier home training. This to me seems like the BEST use for a form in modern society. I suspect that most Karate forms are quite a bit more expansive than that, however.

[sojobo]

I would concur. It's, to me, a way of training that has outlived it's usefulness.

Kata is not sacrosanct. It's a means to an end. It's a method of training. One that was devised before the last centruy in a political enviornement that no longer exsist in a contry with a differnt country.

This is, of course, assuming that you're looking at karate for combative reasons. If it's not, then by all means, go all in for the cultural preservation. Or the culture. But to say that solo drilling, in preset forms, is the best way to improve attributes for combat is dated.

It's this dated feeling that we often convey. Remember, I'm looking at this thru a combative lens. If this isn't your focus, then you need to explian that to potential students up front. Or, if it's only part of the picture, you need to be up front with that. This explains kata to new students much more than saying that it will teach them defense.

I'm not saying that one will never learn self defense from kata. But it there are over 100 years of advancement in physiology, learning science, and psycology that have led to more immediatly effective drills.

I think self-defense oriented schools that hand to kata as a major componant are doing themselves a diservice in regard to preparing students realistically for a fight and in attracing new students interested in it.

But that's just me.

Hi tallgeese,

Have you studied a martial art that has solo kata as part of its pedagogy - to any great degree?

No disrespect, but the "kata is outmoded as a form of training" is an argument that is mostly supported by people who don't train in a system that contain Kata – trained properly.

Worse still - by people that have trained in a system that contains it for a short time - and consider that they know best.

There is so much to kata training that goes way beyond the 2 dimensional aspects of "self defence techniques". You simply cannot explain it over an internet forum.

Sojobo

[tallgeese]

None taken.

Initially, when I first started training, kata was a part of the system I trained in. I spent 3-4 years with regular kata training. Up to brown I believe where I was doing sechin and tensho (sp) for the rank.

After that, my instructor and the system as a whole moved away from kata. I would guess, it's been a lot of years back now, that the slide started prior to this and accelerated at that time.

We were finding that by structuring live drills and incorporating modern training aids, we were getting better results, faster for combative purposes. We tested the methodology and found that, for us, other methods worked better as they translated more directly to confrontation.

Later, I had the opportunity to train under an individual with a fairly lengthy resume when it came to old school arts. He was adamant about kata and I spent time working out the bunkai to nihanchi (again, spelling is probably a shot in the dark at best). I was impressed by the depth of information contained within. However, even with this moving text book I didn't see, and still don't see, the reason to not just practice the movement on a live opponent at various levels of resistance rather than hidden within a set of steps.

So, yes, I have been around them. No, they've never been my thing, even when I was around them. I'm certainly no expert. However, my assessment isn't based on my personal learning style and preferences. It's based on experimentation and research, often using my own progress as a measuring stick, not theory. And I've read what others have to say on the matter.

Science has shown us that the closer to an actual event the training for said event is, at every level of learning, the better off an individual will be when faced with the event (see Grossman's works on how this directly applies to combat). Why spend significant time working on something that the student sees no immediate correlation with what they need combative movement to be?

Moving out of combat science altogether, let's address the last point. Most people talking about learning today say that one of the top factors in retention and later use of a skill is the student seeing immediate application. Why put the intermediate step in there? We're making it harder for them to learn on top of not making training look as real as possible. Check out Siddell's work on the subject matter for a direct connection between this and combat.

If we step outside of my experience and science and look at examples at face value, let's take mma. MMA, within it's rule set (which is actually pretty helpful when we talk about unarmed personal conflict) is producing some of the best one on one, hand to hand martial artist ever. Let's look at how they are doing it. Top camps are not using kata.

I know, they are restrictive. However, Renzo Gracie in his book "Master Brilzilian Jiu Jitsu (a must read, btw) makes a fantastic point that arts that have more high damage tactics (ie. eye gouges) that can't be practiced live tend to fare less well in combat than more restrictive arts that can train all their tools at speed and live each day. He sums it up as a more deadly theoretical art is less useful than a less deadly (on the face) practical art.

For a less controversial example, perhaps, look at Judo. It's an art that, while kata may be present in certain schools, they are all but removed now in others. However, look at their randori. The student can immediately see why he is working on a give drill, it leads to something that he can look at and want in his toolbox. That kind of training mimics combat far better than does a kata. We're mentally preparing the student to fight, not do kata.

Again, all of this is predicated on looking at this thru the lens of combative efficiency. There are plenty of reasons to do kata. I just don't think self defense is what it's best at teaching. There are other, more modern, scientifically backed methods of doing that.

[sojobo]

There are plenty of reasons to do kata. I just don't think self defense is what it's best at teaching. There are other, more modern, scientifically backed methods of doing that.

I totally agree with you.

That said, katrate – imo - is a martial art with more dimensions than just self defence.

Remove kata from your Karate (because they lack what could be perceived as “immediate” combative efficiency) and you risk throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Just my opinion fwiw.

sojobo

[MasterPain]

What do you see as some of the benefits?

If the OP has karate and kickboxing available, what would be your reasoning for going with an art with kata?

[sojobo]

What do you see as some of the benefits?

If the OP has karate and kickboxing available, what would be your reasoning for going with an art with kata?

In a nutshell?... Budo!

If you need me to explain more I can?

sojobo

[MasterPain]

Yes please. I have some idea, but that is a loaded word, like shugyo or shibumi. Even a definition does not convey the meaning without expounding. Let's not forget this thread was started by someone with no MA experience.

[sojobo]

Yes please. I have some idea, but that is a loaded word, like shugyo or shibumi. Even a definition does not convey the meaning without expounding. Let's not forget this thread was started by someone with no MA experience.

Agreed, and also, let's not forget that the subject of martial arts is a broad umbrella - if you get my meaning.

My martial art training has taken up all of my adult life (and some). The things that were important to me when I was in my early twenties changed a little when I was in my thirties and again in my forties.

Aspects were also skewed when I had to bring up a family, protect them and hold down a job.

I've not yet one foot in the grave, but I have come to realise that martial art done properly covers all of the aforementioned - plus still has depth for me to plumb as I grow older.

I have posted a bit of this before, It is by a Benito Benitez and to me sums up my martial arts training - where I am at the moment. I can also understand why this doesn't float everyone’s boat.

Budo is a term used to describe those martial arts methods adopted from Bujutsu (warrior arts, term used for all Samurai martial arts methods), existing under the aspect of “the way”, (Do). The lethal Bujutsu combat techniques have developed over centuries, however, it was only after being combined with Zen philosophy in the beginning of the 17th century that they received an ethical content, thus becoming Budo (the way of the warrior).

 

"Do” is a principle of Asian ideology, the term originating in Japanese Zen Buddhism. “Do” can be translated as way, path, maxim teaching philosophy, direction, principle or method. At the center of every Asian path there is always the practicing of a skill. However the goal is not the acquisition of any particular skill, but the expansion of one's own potential and the search for and development of one’s own capabilities and opportunities."

Sorry for the long winded answer, but the practice of Kata is a very good way to realise these goals.

Sojobo

[Karate_ni_sente_nashi]

Choosing a dojo wasn't a decision that I took lightly. I visited literally every dojo in my city, until I found the right one for me. If you make the right choice, the commute is not so long.

As for katas, you may learn to love them. Maybe not, but there's a reason that they have stuck around for thousands of years. In either Kidokushin or Wado-ryu, you WILL do katas. You will do drills. There will be repetition. It helps with muscle memory, among many other things.

As for switching styles, I look at this as a benefit, not an obstacle. Provided you enter a new style with a clear mind and not a constant attitude of "Oh, well...we did X when I practiced in Y."