Kata Training vs. Concepts Training

[Harkon72]

This is an interesting debate; he're my penny's worth; We have only two legs, two arm and a head. Bruce Lee tried to prove that what is useful to one is no good for another. In self defense; do not fear a man that can do a thousand techniques; fear the one that has done one technique a thousand times. I believe that Kata should not be regimented. Everyone does each kata differently; like each musician performs each tune in his own way; we can recognize the tune non the less. With this Kata, each student applies the kihon within to perform in kumite with an opponent; be it in a cage, on a mat or when needed to fend off danger. As the master said; what maybe good for one can be poor for another, experience teaches us this. Another way to see it is that a man that knows how to apply one kata to its full potential will defeat a man who practices a 100 kata without applying the kihon well in kumite. The first Kata we are taught is the one we should always return to.

[bushido_man96]

The first Kata we are taught is the one we should always return to.

The only issue I have with this concept is that kata have become a tool used in curriculum to determine rank. The first form I was taught was the ATA white belt form, Songham 1. In the TTA, it was Chon Ji. These are white belt forms, and as such, although may have many applications, they may not cover it all.

In the past, forms weren't taught according to rank. But it is, now.

[Harkon72]

I'm sorry, but I disagree; In our karate school, you are taught more kata as you progress in rank. But, the key to progression is to show maturity in all the kata you have been taught. The examiner can ask you to perform any of the kata in your repertoire; its bunkai and application as you understand it and they expect to see the style of your karate reflected in your kata, kihon and kumite. I expect to be tested on simple cross kata in my next grading, as well as the two kata I am learning now. These have been introduced to me previously; I'm now being taught their finer points, tempo and application that is fitting of my rank, which doesn't always follow belt colour. There are advanced applications to even the most basic of our karate's kata; you don't have to remember them all; just as long as your personal budo is well developed.

[tallgeese]

While I have learned to appreciate the artistry of kata, and historical intricacies of some of them, I lean HEAVILY toward partner drills over kata for sd and combat aspects of training. This this isn't your focus, then by all means train in whatever manner is most to your liking.

I see no need to learn aspects of a fight in isolation, only to have to go back and decode what each of those mean. It's increasingly inefficient as it adds multiple steps to the learning process and goes against several concepts of modern adult educational theory that states the more a student understands the need for a skill the better they will retain that skill. By making movements difficult to understand in function you move away from this understanding. Shortest path between two points.

Also, by doing partner work you learn to manage energy at EVERY stage of learning. This starts the functional side of learning far quicker that memorization of rote technique. This energy also starts to teach the student adaptation on repetition that goes wrong. This begins to build contingency plans into the student's patterns before he has even officially begun to work on this level of tactic. By finding these adaptation points and learning not to mentally freeze when this sort of thing occurs before advancing you've laid the ground work for a much more complete fighter.

But this is just me. And it's centered around a self defense outlook.

[sensei8]

Brian's title is kind of a devil's advocate because kata IS a concept, in that, it can't versus itself.

[sensei8]

The first Kata we are taught is the one we should always return to.

The only issue I have with this concept is that kata have become a tool used in curriculum to determine rank. The first form I was taught was the ATA white belt form, Songham 1. In the TTA, it was Chon Ji. These are white belt forms, and as such, although may have many applications, they may not cover it all.

In the past, forms weren't taught according to rank. But it is, now.

To the bold type above...

That's the mistake, and that mistake, imho, is made by those who don't truly understand kata. While it's a training tool on the surface, it's much more than that. And because kata's are aligned with ranks per the syllabus/curriculum, kata is mistakenly thought to be just for that.

[sensei8]

While I have learned to appreciate the artistry of kata, and historical intricacies of some of them, I lean HEAVILY toward partner drills over kata for sd and combat aspects of training. This this isn't your focus, then by all means train in whatever manner is most to your liking.

I see no need to learn aspects of a fight in isolation, only to have to go back and decode what each of those mean. It's increasingly inefficient as it adds multiple steps to the learning process and goes against several concepts of modern adult educational theory that states the more a student understands the need for a skill the better they will retain that skill. By making movements difficult to understand in function you move away from this understanding. Shortest path between two points.

Also, by doing partner work you learn to manage energy at EVERY stage of learning. This starts the functional side of learning far quicker that memorization of rote technique. This energy also starts to teach the student adaptation on repetition that goes wrong. This begins to build contingency plans into the student's patterns before he has even officially begun to work on this level of tactic. By finding these adaptation points and learning not to mentally freeze when this sort of thing occurs before advancing you've laid the ground work for a much more complete fighter.

But this is just me. And it's centered around a self defense outlook.

That's why we ALSO teach kata live; with a resisting partner. Our Soke believed not in the cookie cutter way of training, no, live training, free from the structures that bind said student/MAist. WE DON'T TRAIN PER THE MASSES!! Our Soke saw the many mistakes, especially how concepts are trained, therefore, that's the core of why he founded Shindokan. A way that's not from some status quo; not to be different, but to be effective. Please hear me when I say, we don't train like the status quo; we've evolved away from that.

[Harkon72]

That's a solid post Bob; I think that when it comes to conceptual ways of teaching; our schools have a lot in common. Our root is Okinawa and our mind set has been gained by experience.

[sensei8]

That's a solid post Bob; I think that when it comes to conceptual ways of teaching; our schools have a lot in common. Our root is Okinawa and our mind set has been gained by experience.

I concur!!

[ShoriKid]

One of these days I'm going to be told that I'm not a real karate guy for the sorts of answers I give in threads like these!

Rory Miller stated that every drill we do in the martial arts to learn combative techniques has at least one flaw introduced for safety. Kata, he observed, had the flow of not having a partner. The advantages that offered were that you could perform techniques at full speed and power. If you can identify the flaw, you can figure out how to make the rest of your training work in conjunction with it.

Now, where I get into trouble is the following. Kata in most dojo's occupies way, way too much of the training time. Additionally, there are way too many taught to every be "learned" in the fashion which will lead to practical fighting skill. People like to preach the three Ks of karate. And they will teach and train them as completely separate things with very little cross over. And what is called "traditional" by most today, was an invention of the late 40's, early 50's in the karate world. My "traditional" training model involves small group training, some kata practice, a lot of partner work and some impact and resistance training.

Now, to address bushidoman's original post. Kata training is, in a sense conceptual training. Done correctly, it should have plenty of partner work. You get a bit of kata, are given some partner work along with it and sent on your way to practice until the next time you got together with the instructor. It wasn't kata, kata, kata, kata. Individual kata were fighting methods, whole styles. Which means they contained concepts, strategies and tactics. Concepts are the driving force behind the methods used, strategies the "how" of your approach to fighting and the tactics are the particulars of what you do. Kata is the tool for developing your techniques when you don't have a partner. When you have a partner, that is what you work with.

So, a concept might be "maintain mobility while fighting". It is trained with footwork, opening close range with a partner for the "concept" guys. Kata teaches the same lesson through attack and defense at various angles and transitioning from stance to stance, and should be then drilled with a partner as small sections are learned. Both are teaching the same concept, from differing approaches. Kata takes a little longer because of the separate step. However, it allows for solo work without a lot of alteration whereas the "concept" work requires either the partner, or a lot of modification for solo training. People doing this are out there who are rejecting "traditional" karate and working on applying what is taught, lots of partner work, countering practical attacks and teaching kata on a conceptual level. Kata is not a binary set up. It can be both.