Karate without Kata?

[tallgeese]

My core style of Bujin utilized the kata out of Goju up thru the tensho and seanchin (sp?) series. I also had the good luck to train in a couple of the nihachi (again- sp?) series while working for another instructor during my college years.

Here's the thing, for me, with kata- you're doing and working on all those things:

"simultaneously work foot work, cardio, balance, fight techniques, etc"

in a vacuum.

If we do mitt work, partnered drilling, obvious stimuli for your resoponses so that there is no deconstruction step you make training much more live and much easier for an adult to learn and understand why he is doing these things.

I had a great instructor with a weath of knowledge about kata in college. His empahsis was on the joint manipulation shown in kata. However, for me, taking the time to do it disjointedly in prearragned patters was no where near as effective a learning tool as simply getting a partner and working the actual movement agianst them. Then from a more random attack at more speed. Then against an opponent in armor that you could strike more realistically against, then have him resist and move on to another tactic you've worked, ect.

It's a learning pattern that just about every profession that deals with violence in a modern setting uses. Again, I'll point out the book "The Tactical Trainer" by Paul Howe. It uses a building progression for several of the SWAT and tactics schools he teaches. It's a manual on how to build tactical units thru training principles. It's basically a guide to developing lesson plans. The steps he goes thru are much more similar to what I'm talking about (and to a large degree I've patterned much of my marial learning around this sort of thinking, it gave a format to the things I've been thinking about for years) than the use of anything that resembles kata in any way.

This (or something like it) is how most of the professions that deal with armed professionals learn their trade these days. It's not "kata" but it's a model of learning that has grown with the knowledge and understanding of todays psycology and combatives.

Here's a link to an article I wrote for the site that kind of discusses the process I'm talking about it might be easier than explaining:

http://www.karateforums.com/focus-mitt-training-for-the-multi-disciplined-fighter-vt34351.html

Just an example. But you'll note the emphasis on all of those things you mention, except the goals are immediatly recognizeable by the student and there is a premium on movement and dealing with incoming aggression.

The modern training methodology you put forth is really no different from the training I have experienced in a very traditional Okinawan system with its foundation being kata. Kata is not training in a vacuum and if you believe this and the fact that you believe application isn't immediately recognizable, you have not experienced proper instruction in its use. Every move, from a strike to a turning from one technique to another and even the movements in between and from the side that isn't apparently attacking or blocking has a direct application to fighting. The deeper you go in studying kata (especially advanced ones), the more brilliant you discover them to be.

Think about it, kata has been used for hundreds of years. Do you really think the thousands of martial artists who spent decades upon decades of training for real combat (on a level you and I can fortunately only imagine) would waste their time with a superfluous dance? Their very lives depended on their empty hand training, as they could be literally be attacked by a sword wielding opponent at anytime and we are no smarter today than they were in 1700.

For the first part, you're talking about digging deeper into a drill to find what I need to. No thanks, I'm a proponent, if you haven't guessed, of the adult learning model which says that people learn better by immediately seeing a need for what they are doing AND seeing how it applies directly to them. I can take that time digging into kata to correct my angles and footwork against a moving opponent firing shots back at me. I see the good in that, it's applicable RIGHT NOW to what I many have to do.

I did have great instruction in kata by the way. I just don't care to learn that way. Not when there are more applicable methods that more immediately apply to combat.

For the second part, I in no way say that everyone's wasted their time dancing. However, I will point out that this TOOL for learning (a tool, not a sacrosanct ritual) was developed in the last century. Look at what we've learned since. We don't train professions of arms with it now to go out and deploy against force (ie. it's not how cops and military train- there is a reason for this).

A lot of kata goes back to post WWII era at best (when some of the Goju kata were created). We've come along in learning since then. We don't physically condition like we did then, we shouldn't train to fight like we did then either if something more efficient has come along.

Further, the Pinan's were created in the early 1900's (and as I've said many more were developed in the 1940's or after) in their current form. Look at the dates, all post-Tokugawa development. Meaning that despite what everyone says, many of today's kata were not used by pheasants to defeat sword wielding opponents.

I'll grant, experts will seem to agree that some forms of kata do go back to 1600's Japan. However, systematized fighting in Japan with a warrior caste goes back to at least 500 AD. with no mention that I have seen yet to kata being part of this tradition.

Which to me says that as a training modality is came into the picture due to what they knew at the time of learning and by need of social pressure. If systematized fighting arts didn't use it in their country of origin and then added it to the syllabus I see no reason that those say systematized arts can't remove it or use other, more modern, modalities in it's place.

Bear in mind, and I've said it before here. I don't have a problem with kata. If people what to do it because they like the ritual or history of the art or if they learn fine that way, then do it. Heck, do it if you just like to do it. I'm not saying all of karate should do away with it.

I'm just saying that my answer to the OP's question is that- yes, you can have karate without kata. I look at it from a purely combative angle. There are faster, more efficient ways to learn that account for a more realistic feel that more quickly, for me, train me for winning a street level conflict. It's just about mimicking the environment that you'll be operating in. Which everyone who's done the leg work in such matters will agree is a primary factor in developing the ability to functionally deploy violent skills.

[tallgeese]

a 1956 marine corp martial art called american street combat survival or defense360 is karate without katas. ALso an old navy seal martial arts called scars is basically san soo without katas.

SCARS training is based on repetitive two person drills, so in effect the exact same thing as yakosuko kumite and bunkai. We are talking about a method to train full time combat soldiers who live their life as such, surrounded by others with the same training. There is in effect no need for solo kata practice for these individual, as they can always grab a buddy and train. Most of us do not have this luxury. If they were to train these drills without a partner, they are performing kata.

I've always found that it was more useful to cultivate partners to work with in the off time for this exact reason. Cross training with guys from other arts has allowed me to expand my combative horizons. There's no reason non-military guys can't set up the same sorts of things outside of class.

Barring that, I'll go to the bags.

[tallgeese]

If they were to train these drills without a partner, they are performing kata.

By this definition, I do a lot of kata.

Agreed.

However, I'm not sure that it fits the connotative definition, or even the more official ones, of "kata". If we say that any movement related to martial endeavors constitutes kata then it's about all we do and I'm even pretty sure I do it every night when I load my duty weapon.

I think the original question probably related to the definition everyone actually thinks of when someone says "kata"-the pre-arranged floor movements one.

[Ueshirokarate]

If they were to train these drills without a partner, they are performing kata.

By this definition, I do a lot of kata.

Agreed.

However, I'm not sure that it fits the connotative definition, or even the more official ones, of "kata". If we say that any movement related to martial endeavors constitutes kata then it's about all we do and I'm even pretty sure I do it every night when I load my duty weapon.

I think the original question probably related to the definition everyone actually thinks of when someone says "kata"-the pre-arranged floor movements one.

Kata is nothing but a sequence of movement one practices by his or herself. How is a traditional kata such as Chinto any different from a three move combination drill done over and over again?

[MasterPain]

Ueshirokarate:

Mostly in the time spent leaning the sequence and pattern. Also, in the understanding of what each movement was meant to be. A 2 or three move sequence is most likely created for a certain understood purpose, and can more easily be practiced out of order or in combination with another sequence.

Edited March 19, 2012 by MasterPain

[tallgeese]

I have no idea what Chinto is or looks like. However, I will say that most of the time I get asked this I go back to the premeditated nature of kata. Doing the same movements in the same order at the same angles each and every time does not mimic combat. In fact, it's about as far from it as you can get.

When you're doing drills, or even half a drill (minus the partner) you should be varying angles, cutting different directions, circling and working different motions that you are comfortable with into the mix, different targets that you visualize and different attacks to deal with. It should be organic, not a set of motions repeated the same over and over each time it's done. That randomness is at the heart of training. You can't get locked into committing a sequence of movement each time. If X happen I do Y. What happens when X doesn't happen? Or happens at a different angle? You suddenly foul your own OODA loop. Not good. Kata almost encourages this.

If your drilling solo, you should be varying both gross and finite movements to account for this. That's what's different.

[Ueshirokarate]

For the first part, you're talking about digging deeper into a drill to find what I need to. No thanks, I'm a proponent, if you haven't guessed, of the adult learning model which says that people learn better by immediately seeing a need for what they are doing AND seeing how it applies directly to them. I can take that time digging into kata to correct my angles and footwork against a moving opponent firing shots back at me. I see the good in that, it's applicable RIGHT NOW to what I many have to do.

I did have great instruction in kata by the way. I just don't care to learn that way. Not when there are more applicable methods that more immediately apply to combat.

For the second part, I in no way say that everyone's wasted their time dancing. However, I will point out that this TOOL for learning (a tool, not a sacrosanct ritual) was developed in the last century. Look at what we've learned since. We don't train professions of arms with it now to go out and deploy against force (ie. it's not how cops and military train- there is a reason for this).

A lot of kata goes back to post WWII era at best (when some of the Goju kata were created). We've come along in learning since then. We don't physically condition like we did then, we shouldn't train to fight like we did then either if something more efficient has come along.

Further, the Pinan's were created in the early 1900's (and as I've said many more were developed in the 1940's or after) in their current form. Look at the dates, all post-Tokugawa development. Meaning that despite what everyone says, many of today's kata were not used by pheasants to defeat sword wielding opponents.

I'll grant, experts will seem to agree that some forms of kata do go back to 1600's Japan. However, systematized fighting in Japan with a warrior caste goes back to at least 500 AD. with no mention that I have seen yet to kata being part of this tradition.

Which to me says that as a training modality is came into the picture due to what they knew at the time of learning and by need of social pressure. If systematized fighting arts didn't use it in their country of origin and then added it to the syllabus I see no reason that those say systematized arts can't remove it or use other, more modern, modalities in it's place.

Bear in mind, and I've said it before here. I don't have a problem with kata. If people what to do it because they like the ritual or history of the art or if they learn fine that way, then do it. Heck, do it if you just like to do it. I'm not saying all of karate should do away with it.

I'm just saying that my answer to the OP's question is that- yes, you can have karate without kata. I look at it from a purely combative angle. There are faster, more efficient ways to learn that account for a more realistic feel that more quickly, for me, train me for winning a street level conflict. It's just about mimicking the environment that you'll be operating in. Which everyone who's done the leg work in such matters will agree is a primary factor in developing the ability to functionally deploy violent skills.

Prearranged sequential patterns of movement appear in every martial art and are still employed in the most modern martial arts training known to man, as is the push-up which is even older than Chinto and Kusanku. Traditional katas are sequential fighting technique from the yoi position to the return. They are absolutely no different than stringing a punch, kick, body turn and sweep together and practicing it over and over and over again. Techniques have multiple functions, just as they do in drills you string together. Drills, kata, etc will never train you to respond to random attacks, they aren't designed to do so. You may think that drills you are learning are some great modern invention, but they are no different than kata forms hundreds of years old.

[tallgeese]

For the first part, you're talking about digging deeper into a drill to find what I need to. No thanks, I'm a proponent, if you haven't guessed, of the adult learning model which says that people learn better by immediately seeing a need for what they are doing AND seeing how it applies directly to them. I can take that time digging into kata to correct my angles and footwork against a moving opponent firing shots back at me. I see the good in that, it's applicable RIGHT NOW to what I many have to do.

I did have great instruction in kata by the way. I just don't care to learn that way. Not when there are more applicable methods that more immediately apply to combat.

For the second part, I in no way say that everyone's wasted their time dancing. However, I will point out that this TOOL for learning (a tool, not a sacrosanct ritual) was developed in the last century. Look at what we've learned since. We don't train professions of arms with it now to go out and deploy against force (ie. it's not how cops and military train- there is a reason for this).

A lot of kata goes back to post WWII era at best (when some of the Goju kata were created). We've come along in learning since then. We don't physically condition like we did then, we shouldn't train to fight like we did then either if something more efficient has come along.

Further, the Pinan's were created in the early 1900's (and as I've said many more were developed in the 1940's or after) in their current form. Look at the dates, all post-Tokugawa development. Meaning that despite what everyone says, many of today's kata were not used by pheasants to defeat sword wielding opponents.

I'll grant, experts will seem to agree that some forms of kata do go back to 1600's Japan. However, systematized fighting in Japan with a warrior caste goes back to at least 500 AD. with no mention that I have seen yet to kata being part of this tradition.

Which to me says that as a training modality is came into the picture due to what they knew at the time of learning and by need of social pressure. If systematized fighting arts didn't use it in their country of origin and then added it to the syllabus I see no reason that those say systematized arts can't remove it or use other, more modern, modalities in it's place.

Bear in mind, and I've said it before here. I don't have a problem with kata. If people what to do it because they like the ritual or history of the art or if they learn fine that way, then do it. Heck, do it if you just like to do it. I'm not saying all of karate should do away with it.

I'm just saying that my answer to the OP's question is that- yes, you can have karate without kata. I look at it from a purely combative angle. There are faster, more efficient ways to learn that account for a more realistic feel that more quickly, for me, train me for winning a street level conflict. It's just about mimicking the environment that you'll be operating in. Which everyone who's done the leg work in such matters will agree is a primary factor in developing the ability to functionally deploy violent skills.

Prearranged sequential patterns of movement appear in every martial art and are still employed in the most modern martial arts training known to man, as is the push-up which is even older than Chinto and Kusanku. Traditional katas are sequential fighting technique from the yoi position to the return. They are absolutely no different than stringing a punch, kick, body turn and sweep together and practicing it over and over and over again. Techniques have multiple functions, just as they do in drills you string together. Drills, kata, etc will never train you to respond to random attacks, they aren't designed to do so. You may think that drills you are learning are some great modern invention, but they are no different than kata forms hundreds of years old.

I haven't seen a kata performed differently each time to account for a different set of attacks. I haven't seen it (by and large I know two man exist) that deals with an attacker actually endeavoring to hit the performer with a focus mitt. I haven't seen variability in the accounted for attacks. I haven't see then move and cut angles unexpected before or after each series that breaks the pattern.

It's not the same. Drilling and kata.

I'm not saying the tactics are different. I'm saying that the method of learning them has changed, or can be changed, since the development of kata.

[sojobo]

I have no idea what Chinto is or looks like.

Here's one version:

Matsubayashi Ryu

And here is another:

Wado Ryu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbs-nJklcHo

Sojobo

[tallgeese]

I have no idea what Chinto is or looks like.

Here's one version:

Matsubayashi Ryu

And here is another:

Wado Ryu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbs-nJklcHo

Sojobo

It is technically beautiful. However, I don't think it changes my response.