How practical are kata?

[JazzKicker]

In a word, NO. There are many in the non-traditional martial arts world that would say kata amounts to swimming on dry land. Or worse, that it conditions you to move and react in unrealistic patterns.

That's true, if all you want to do is fight. Kata is part of what makes a martial "art". It also teaches balance, coordination, memorization, concentration, focus, concepts like tension and release. Simply as a solo practice it's good exercise and moving meditation. Just for those two reasons I continued doing forms even when I was otherwise training in MMA.

[MatsuShinshii]

So I'm sure this is an age-old question but I recently had to pose it to myself after watching this short documentary on Okinawan karate:

. Nothing groundbreaking here but I think it was well done, so check it out if you like. (Not necessary to respond to this post)

These Okinawan guys are all about kata and talk about how, through training kata alone you are prepared for a self-defense situation. This reminds me of my Shotokan training, and the teachings of Sensei Funakoshi, which are basically the same ideal.

I also practice Kyokushin during the summers and just got done doing a month in that dojo. I know Mas Oyama trained with Funakoshi, and I was curious to see what opinion he had of him, and what I found was that he sort of dismissed him for only training kata and etiquette. In addition, my Kyokushin Sensei trained with Oyama and is very passionate about his style. He was explaining that, although sport may have become a bit too important within Kyokushin, the initial principle holds true - only through full contact sparring can we reach the pinnacle of spiritual and physical strength.

So what do you guys think? I'm curious to see what opinion more experienced karateka have about this debate. Thanks.

Depends on whether your instructor teaches the applications of the Kata or just the Kata as it is typically taught in modern Karate.

Short answer - YES, you can learn to fight by learning the Kata. Case in point this is exactly how the art was transmitted before it became known as Karate or Karate Do. Kihon was not practiced as it is today so you did not see students on line shouting numbers as they executed the same technique over and over. They learned the Kata, they were taught the applications and were paired off to practice the applications (what is now called Bunkai).

Once the student understood the applications they would be tasked with trial testing these against other forms of attack. The student learned to fight as they learned the Kata. Where as today the student may not learn the Bunkai for their first Kata until they reach the Yudnasha level, and in more cases than not the student never learns the meaning of the Kata. It's for tournament use only.

[MatsuShinshii]

In a word, NO. There are many in the non-traditional martial arts world that would say kata amounts to swimming on dry land. Or worse, that it conditions you to move and react in unrealistic patterns.

That's true, if all you want to do is fight. Kata is part of what makes a martial "art". It also teaches balance, coordination, memorization, concentration, focus, concepts like tension and release. Simply as a solo practice it's good exercise and moving meditation. Just for those two reasons I continued doing forms even when I was otherwise training in MMA.

No disrespect JazzKicker but your understanding comes from modern day examples of the art and is not based on historical truth.

The means of trasmittal was the Kata. The Okinawan's did not write down the techniques and applications but created a means by which to transmit them which we call the Kata. Prior to Modern day Karate Do, Toudi (To-Di) was passed down by means of teaching the Kata. This was done so not to teach students a neat form that they could win tournaments with but rather to teach soldiers to fight.

This whole concept that Kata is worthless goes along with the theory that poor farmers created Toudi (Karate) or Buki-gwa (Kobudo), when it was actually the warrior class (think Samurai). Just like Kenjutsu or Jujutsu, Toudi and Buki-gwa were created to teach warriors to defend the country and to be used in Battle.

Again no disrespect but history refutes the notion that Kata is nothing more than a Dance. It really depends on how it has been transmitted down from the founder and how it is taught. So in saying that, I will agree in terms of how Kata is taught in most schools today... you can't learn how to fight by studying the Kata. But... if taught the way it was taught, you can learn to fight by studying the Kata.

[MatsuShinshii]

When one understands the principles and mechanics of a technique as well as its purpose, the importance of kata becomes clear. kata is essential for learning these points and feeling how they function. Kata is a drill in body mechanics and movement principles. These, however must be correct and understand otherwise it is a dance. Or like memorizing and singing a song in a language one neither speaks nor understands.

Without understanding of the applications you are right, Kata is nothing short of a dance.

Kata is but one part of karate and is of no use if it is not fully integrated to kihon and kumite. The three are meant to complement and complete one another. They are not meant to be considered separately.

I have to disagree with you here. Kihon is a modern creation and was not used as it is today. Kihon was not integrated as it is today. There is a strong argument for Kumite as paired drills were implemented during training but Kihon was not apart of the picture when Toudi was created so how did the warriors of old learn to fight?

Again if you research you will find that the three "K's" are a modern (Japanese) invention. Learning how to fight is facilitated by the use of Kata, Conditioning and Paired Drills alone if taught the way it was when it was created.

[MatsuShinshii]

The impression you got is exactly why I get frustrated with the kata applications and "story" shown in pretty much every karate documentary and book. Sometimes the instructors simply don't know better, but sometimes they do, and are just adhering to a sense of secrecy that is harmful to karate. If we keep showing people the super-basic applications of kata, and telling people that just practicing kata will make you skilled in fighting and self defense, then karate will continue to lose respect as a martial art, and people will stop practicing it, and it will die.

The practice of solo kata is meant to develop timing, movement flow, and body mechanics associated with the applications. You can do it at full speed, with full power, and not worry about your partner's safety. You also don't need a partner to practice, which is handy for when one is not available. If a partner IS available, though, you should be drilling the applications of the kata with them, and the applications of kata are NOT the super-basic ones that are so frequently shown. If you train practical applications, practice them with increasing levels and types of resistance, drill for failure and contingencies, incorporate them into pressure testing exercises ("sparring" isn't exactly the best word in every case, but that does come into play here), and properly visualize them while training your kata, then it is certainly beneficial and effective. Admittedly, I would say that most karateka these days do not do that, for a variety of reasons.

Excellent explanation. Solid points.

[MatsuShinshii]

I think it's quite useless myself. Prearranged stacks never tend to work well. What usually makes people efficient fighters is their ability to adapt their techniques to whichever position.

When I get a chance I'll show you what the bjj equivalent is- people who post long strings of techniques that would almost assuredly never happened for what they believe is a good way to train.

Keep your training live. There's a reason why fighters are good at fighting...

To the bold above - This might surprise some here but I agree 100%. But this is an interpretation of how many practice the applications.

The applications are not meant to be a stagnant concept. They are taught to the student as the founders applications which are the base applications. Once these are learned then additional (practical) applications are taught. Once the student understands the foundational principles of the applications they are tasked to apply them but not within the confines of same attack/same counter. A student must be able to adapt, be able to change and adapt applications to meet the attack.

This concept is no different from the way most arts are taught. A core foundation of techniques/applications are first taught to the student and then they, through pressure tests and trials learn how to adapt what they have learned and also to apply the right applications or groups of applications to meet and over come the threat.

There is nothing static (as in attack = direct response) to the art. At first it is but again this is the learning phase. Once the student knows and understands the techniques and applications they then apply them to any given situation with a resistive partner. This engages the brain in understanding means of attack, angles, speed, direction, and depth so that they learn what counters the attack.

[MatsuShinshii]

Sometimes the instructors simply don't know better, but sometimes they do, and are just adhering to a sense of secrecy that is harmful to karate. If we keep showing people the super-basic applications of kata, and telling people that just practicing kata will make you skilled in fighting and self defense, then karate will continue to lose respect as a martial art, and people will stop practicing it, and it will die.

I have spent so much time thinking about, and debating, this very thing. We have to begin understanding that secrecy in regarding bunkai is useless.

To the bold above - I could not agree more. The way the art was transmitted was to teach the Kata and the applications as it was taught. Not only when the student reaches a set level (typically Yudansha).

To truly understand the Art it must be taught with a total understanding. The only way this is accomplished is to teach the applications (Bunkai) as you teach the Kata.

If you understand the history of the art you will understand that the Kata is a vessel (like a book) that contains the true intent and meaning of the art. The applications are the meaning. Kata by itself without the understanding of the applications is merely a means to teach body mechanics, how to transition and weight distribution. It also eludes to direction or body positioning in terms of understanding the Bunkai. In and of itself, it is a useful tool but without understanding, what most call "hidden techniques", it does not teach the true intent which is the combative applications.

[JazzKicker]

In a word, NO. There are many in the non-traditional martial arts world that would say kata amounts to swimming on dry land. Or worse, that it conditions you to move and react in unrealistic patterns.

That's true, if all you want to do is fight. Kata is part of what makes a martial "art". It also teaches balance, coordination, memorization, concentration, focus, concepts like tension and release. Simply as a solo practice it's good exercise and moving meditation. Just for those two reasons I continued doing forms even when I was otherwise training in MMA.

No disrespect JazzKicker but your understanding comes from modern day examples of the art and is not based on historical truth.

The means of trasmittal was the Kata. The Okinawan's did not write down the techniques and applications but created a means by which to transmit them which we call the Kata. Prior to Modern day Karate Do, Toudi (To-Di) was passed down by means of teaching the Kata. This was done so not to teach students a neat form that they could win tournaments with but rather to teach soldiers to fight.

This whole concept that Kata is worthless goes along with the theory that poor farmers created Toudi (Karate) or Buki-gwa (Kobudo), when it was actually the warrior class (think Samurai). Just like Kenjutsu or Jujutsu, Toudi and Buki-gwa were created to teach warriors to defend the country and to be used in Battle.

Again no disrespect but history refutes the notion that Kata is nothing more than a Dance. It really depends on how it has been transmitted down from the founder and how it is taught. So in saying that, I will agree in terms of how Kata is taught in most schools today... you can't learn how to fight by studying the Kata. But... if taught the way it was taught, you can learn to fight by studying the Kata.

None taken! I wouldn't say the origin of kata with soldiers vs. farmers validates it one way or the other. If you go back before the late 19th century the history isn't really there, anyway, except for documents like the Bubishi.

But if you've studied Ryu-Kyu Kempo and Tuite, you probably know that movements in the forms can be interpreted as pressure point strikes, joint locks, etc. and not simply blocking and punching. That adds a lot of depth and meaning if you can "unlock the secrets", but learning how to do those techniques is even harder, and without a partner you're simply "going through the motions".

I have to disagree with you about Kobudo- weapons like nunchaku, tonfa, and sai are clearly variations on farm tools, which fits the narrative of the occupying Japanese samurai forbidding the Okinawans to have weapons like swords.

[Kusotare]

No disrespect JazzKicker but your understanding comes from modern day examples of the art and is not based on historical truth.

Whilst this may be the case with Okinawan karate, there is evidence that in Japanese Koryu Bujutsu - the practice of solo kata (for the reasons highlighted by JazzKicker) - had an intrinsic value - applications aside.

Traditions like Yoshin-ryu and Tenshin shinyo ryu have a series of esoteric solo exercises designed to embed principles and attributes of stability and internal strength (before they are realised against an opponent / training partner).

The practice of said solo exercises were key to making the paired exercises within the system work, but they weren't excerpts from the paired sets - they were completely different from an appearance point of view.

K.

[MatsuShinshii]

In a word, NO. There are many in the non-traditional martial arts world that would say kata amounts to swimming on dry land. Or worse, that it conditions you to move and react in unrealistic patterns.

That's true, if all you want to do is fight. Kata is part of what makes a martial "art". It also teaches balance, coordination, memorization, concentration, focus, concepts like tension and release. Simply as a solo practice it's good exercise and moving meditation. Just for those two reasons I continued doing forms even when I was otherwise training in MMA.

No disrespect JazzKicker but your understanding comes from modern day examples of the art and is not based on historical truth.

The means of trasmittal was the Kata. The Okinawan's did not write down the techniques and applications but created a means by which to transmit them which we call the Kata. Prior to Modern day Karate Do, Toudi (To-Di) was passed down by means of teaching the Kata. This was done so not to teach students a neat form that they could win tournaments with but rather to teach soldiers to fight.

This whole concept that Kata is worthless goes along with the theory that poor farmers created Toudi (Karate) or Buki-gwa (Kobudo), when it was actually the warrior class (think Samurai). Just like Kenjutsu or Jujutsu, Toudi and Buki-gwa were created to teach warriors to defend the country and to be used in Battle.

Again no disrespect but history refutes the notion that Kata is nothing more than a Dance. It really depends on how it has been transmitted down from the founder and how it is taught. So in saying that, I will agree in terms of how Kata is taught in most schools today... you can't learn how to fight by studying the Kata. But... if taught the way it was taught, you can learn to fight by studying the Kata.

None taken! I wouldn't say the origin of kata with soldiers vs. farmers validates it one way or the other. If you go back before the late 19th century the history isn't really there, anyway, except for documents like the Bubishi.

But if you've studied Ryu-Kyu Kempo and Tuite, you probably know that movements in the forms can be interpreted as pressure point strikes, joint locks, etc. and not simply blocking and punching. That adds a lot of depth and meaning if you can "unlock the secrets", but learning how to do those techniques is even harder, and without a partner you're simply "going through the motions".

Agreed. And there is no such thing as a block in Toudi as there is in Karate Do.

I have to disagree with you about Kobudo- weapons like nunchaku, tonfa, and sai are clearly variations on farm tools, which fits the narrative of the occupying Japanese samurai forbidding the Okinawans to have weapons like swords.

I have heard this argument from others including those within my own art. However Ti or Ti-gwa was influenced by Muay Boran which is the predecessor of Muay Thai. Muay Boran like Toudi or Ti-gwa incorporated weapons as it was for combat. If you research the Tonfa or Tuifa in Saimese or Thai weaponry you will find a weapon that predates the Tonfa. For the life of me I can not remember the name, but it is a tonfa with a strap. It is used differently than the Okinawan version. My Shinshii had a photo in his personal collection that clearly shows this Thai version and I was told but have never confirmed it, but I believe this photo or one like it is in a Okinawan museum. My personal opinion in the matter of the Tuifa is that it does not come from a mill handle as we are led to believe but from this weapon (again I apologize but my old brain is having a senior moment).

Sai and the version of the sai is found throughout Asia and even in India in different forms. I have heard the theory of it being used to plant rice along with other theories. None make any sense. If you research ancient weaponry you find this form of weapon in China, India, and most Asian countries. Japan has the Jutte. If it came from a farm implement please show me an early example of it and what it's use was because in my years of researching my art and the origins I have yet to find more than theories.

I believe necessity is the mother of all inventions. Simply put if you are fighting a foe that wields swords and other bladed weapons superior to yours you invent something which will protect you from it, even capture it and un-arm those with it. If the farmers and peasant class of the day had no education and little in the way of tools, especially steel/iron (they were poor) but the warrior class did, who do you think would have or could have created such a weapon? Personally I have my money on the warrior class.

The Nunchaku... well I can't argue with this other than to say that the three sectional staff was around far longer than the Nunchaku and we know from history that the Okinawans adopted many Chinese weapons.

I guess I am a skeptic when it comes to this subject because of the way the argument is presented. First you heard every western instructor saying that Toudi (Karate) came from peasants and farmers. Well that is not true and it has been proven without a doubt. Then the next theory is that all Kobudo weaponry was created by these same peasants. Well here is a little tid bit of truth and a theory debunked. Sakugawa was of the Pechin class (Warriors) under the employment of the king. The theory you find or hear about the Rokushaku Bo (Kun) is that is was the stick that peasants and farmers used to carry their buckets of water. Well a stick might have been used for this but the art of using the staff did not come from peasants. There is documented proof that Sakugawa and others in that time were masters of the staff. Matsumura himself was a master of the staff. How then could it have been created by uneducated farmers and peasants if the military of the time had a long history of it's use?

I will buy the Kuwa, Kama or Eku as farmer/fisherman weapons. Kuwa is all the way a farming implement as well as the Eku is all the way a fisherman's implement. Kama is a tool to cut rice but where then did Nichogama come from? Farmers had no need to carry two sickles. it would not only be cumbersome but impractical to carry what one tool could do. Better yet were does three Sai come from? If it was a farming implement they would only be carrying one so were does the pair come into play and further more why would anyone except a soldier need a third to throw? Wouldn't the farmer just carry two and throw one?

However let me interject a theory and maybe a little insight into this mystery. Just like the Japanese Samurai, before it was banned, the Okinawan classes were adept in the arts of farming, carpentry, fishing, etc. Is it more plausible that these weapons were then picked up by the peasant/farmer/fisherman class when seeing the land owners utilize them?

And lets take it a step further and let me ask you where the Timbe and Rochin came from on the farm. Better yet when weapons were banned, supposedly the reason that the farmers created these weapons where did they get short spears for Rochin, iron for their Sai.

Look the Sai is not orginally from Okinawa. Again if you look it up you will find examples of the weapon throughout the Saimese empire, Indonesia and Asia. It's not an Okinawan creation but a weapon that was incorporated. Just like the mxing pot that turned into what we now call Karate, Buki-gwa (kobudo) weapons were incorporated or influenced by other countries. The Okinawan's took fighting traditions from other countries and incorporated them together with their indigenous arts. Basically taking all techniques that worked best for them and melded them together to creat what we call Karate. Kobudo is no different and neither is it's weapons. In fact you can find examples, as I have already said, of different weapons from other countries that predate their use on Okinawa.

I could fill many posts with examples and questions but suffice it to say that I do not buy the peasant/farmer theory when there are too many historical examples and logical deductions to accept what most likely came from a westerner's lack of understanding and history. Most likely the same person that pushed the theory that the empty hand fighting art came from farmers or one of his students or acquaintances who hear his theory.

You say that there is little historical evidence but there is no evidence, except modern examples, of this theory that the peasant class created a systematic form of learning to utilize weaponry. Here is one last thing to ponder... ever wonder why Kobudo Kata resembles Karate Kata? Think about it.

For me I will believe what years of questioning and researching has led me to believe. Toudi/Ti and Buki-gwa came from the warrior class not the peasant class.