How practical are kata?

[MatsuShinshii]

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.

I appreciate this explanation and history of the Japanese arts. I must admit that I was not thinking in these terms. Thank you for the clarification.

[LLLEARNER]

I look at it by equating (roughly) a black belt to a college degree. Neither makes you an expert. They are both just (hopefully) a mastery of the basics and a foundation to start building your expertise. Kata, to me, is the textbook. If I master a senior level medical textbook, I am not an expert. I just know more than the average Joe. The doctor who has been in practice for years and read or authored studies is the expert. It takes years of study and work to truly understand a subject. By studying and working with the each textbook (kata) I may someday become an expert.

What is the recommendation? After learning all the kata, go back to the beginning and start again? Going back to an earlier kata should be like rereading a good book after years away, it allows you new insights based on your advancing wisdom (understanding).

[MatsuShinshii]

I look at it by equating (roughly) a black belt to a college degree. Neither makes you an expert. They are both just (hopefully) a mastery of the basics and a foundation to start building your expertise. Kata, to me, is the textbook. If I master a senior level medical textbook, I am not an expert. I just know more than the average Joe. The doctor who has been in practice for years and read or authored studies is the expert. It takes years of study and work to truly understand a subject. By studying and working with the each textbook (kata) I may someday become an expert.

Agreed except after 30+ years I have my doubts that anyone can truly master the art. After I learn something new, which happens a lot, I realize that it is a never ending process and all we can do is learn as much as we can.

What is the recommendation? After learning all the kata, go back to the beginning and start again? Going back to an earlier kata should be like rereading a good book after years away, it allows you new insights based on your advancing wisdom (understanding).

Beginners Mind! One should always return to the foundation/beginning. This is where you learn something new about what you thought you had "mastered". One should always practice ALL of the Kata not just the one you are learning. One builds on the next and gives you the necessary tools to understand the next.

Great points LLLEARNER.

[MatsuShinshii]

Update - I got over my senior moment and found the name of the Siamese weapon (Tuifa) in one of my books. It's called a mae sun sawk. It predates the Tuifa (Tonfa).

That was killing me that I couldn't remember the name. It stinks getting older.

[Wastelander]

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.

This is a myth I have been trying to dispel for quite some time, and I actually made a video going over it earlier this year, for anyone interested (

) but I will go over it a bit here, too, as an expansion on MatsuShinshii's posts, which my research leads me to completely agree with.

As you say, we have plenty of documented evidence showing that karate and kobudo evolved from the arts of the Udun and Shizoku classes--take a look at this Wikipedia article for a simple breakdown of the caste system used in Okinawa prior to the Meiji Restoration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukatchu#Ryukyuan_Caste_System

By contrast, we have NO evidence showing it being developed by peasants, fisherman, and farmers, except for Okinawan masters telling us so in the 20th Century. Even then, they don't have their stories about it straight. It makes for a very compelling underdog story, and the Okinawans do seem to love such things, but there is very little fact behind it. As you say, kuwa and kama are clearly farming implements, but I would point out that many Shizoku-ranked officials were in charge of royal gardens and burial grounds, so they would have had such implements available, and time to work with them. Eku, while certainly an item common folk would have had available to them, would also be present on other types of ships--say, for example, the envoy ships sent between Okinawa and China over the course of their long trading partnership? Ships which, as we have documented proof of, carried Shizoku-ranked officials as well as regular military men. Sai, as you point out, is a weapon that exists all over Asia that has long been used as a police weapon, and Okinawa is the only place to claim it was something other than a weapon. Tonfa, as your latest post points out, are slightly modified mae sun sawk from Siam/Cambodia--I actually made a pair for my Sensei, some time ago. While there is a passing resemblance to the handle of Okinawan grindstones, I could just as easily say they resemble the handles of large doors, never mind the known exchange of martial arts between Siam and Okinawa that is even documented in George Kerr's book on the islands, and the fact that Hokama Tetsuhiro Sensei has at least one pair of mae sun sawk in his Okinawan karate museum along with all the tonfa.

To top it off, there was never a "weapons ban" on Okinawa in the way that everyone thinks of it. That idea was based on a loose translation of texts by one scholar, and people ran with it, but more modern translations have disproved that. The supposed "weapons ban" by King Sho Shin was actually just an order for the military to stop keeping their weapons on their personal property, and store them in armories, the same way pretty much every other country manages the weapons of their army. The second supposed "weapons ban" by the Satsuma samurai clan specifically banned firearms, and commoners from having weapons, but the Udun and Shizoku classes were explicitly allowed to continue keeping, carrying, and training with weapons, as was the Okinawan military, as long as they didn't use firearms anymore. The Okinawan military picked up firearms quite early on--we can even see illustrations of them in some very old scrolls--and that was the only weapon the Japanese were really concerned about.

[MatsuShinshii]

Wastelander,

Thanks for the post and further explanation. I also appreciate your documentation on the weapons ban. I had heard a bit of what you had pointed out but have never heard the reasons. I guess I need to start reading.

Thanks for the insight. It's much appreciated.

[Luther unleashed]

I don’t get o to history much but I do like a good conversation on effective and not effective.

Forms and applications are good to know, because as I have always said “there are good techniques and nice techniques”. Meaning, many arm locks/wrist locks and so on are often nicer then punching someone in the face. Recently I have been working on much more self defense then usual, and I find many things very interesting but complex.

A police officer can’t punch a guy in the face in most cases and has to restrain a person. This is a good time to use a “nice technique”! Not that it has to actually be nice or gentle, it’s just an analogy which depicts punching somebody as less nice.

The fact is there is some use to complex moves BUT I have always been taught that striking is the way to go and firmly believe this. Using an inside block to perform an arm bar IS more difficult then using it to strike them with a hammer fist. Is much easier to perform and complete regardless of how strong the opponent is.

To me sparring is absolutely the most life like relation to a fight. I say this as a person who fought a good deal as a young man. I was involved in streetfights almost weekly as a teen, as I was very troubled. This is what drew me to martial arts, the idea of learning to control my temper to stay away from fights but at any rate, there’s nothing like a guy swinging at you, not a controlled drill, but unrehearsed. Many systems call sparring the “sport” component, and the way they are all taught to move and bounce the same exact way would make me inclined to believe and agree with that, however I was fortunate to never have anybody tell me I had to move a certain way. So, for me sparring is like a fight where we don’t hit as hard.

Anyways everybody has their opinions, mine is that while forms can be used as a good component in self defense... it is most effective when used as a strike and not a control technique.

[MatsuShinshii]

I don’t get o to history much but I do like a good conversation on effective and not effective.

Forms and applications are good to know, because as I have always said “there are good techniques and nice techniques”. Meaning, many arm locks/wrist locks and so on are often nicer then punching someone in the face. Recently I have been working on much more self defense then usual, and I find many things very interesting but complex.

A police officer can’t punch a guy in the face in most cases and has to restrain a person. This is a good time to use a “nice technique”! Not that it has to actually be nice or gentle, it’s just an analogy which depicts punching somebody as less nice.

The fact is there is some use to complex moves BUT I have always been taught that striking is the way to go and firmly believe this. Using an inside block to perform an arm bar IS more difficult then using it to strike them with a hammer fist. Is much easier to perform and complete regardless of how strong the opponent is.

To me sparring is absolutely the most life like relation to a fight. I say this as a person who fought a good deal as a young man. I was involved in streetfights almost weekly as a teen, as I was very troubled. This is what drew me to martial arts, the idea of learning to control my temper to stay away from fights but at any rate, there’s nothing like a guy swinging at you, not a controlled drill, but unrehearsed. Many systems call sparring the “sport” component, and the way they are all taught to move and bounce the same exact way would make me inclined to believe and agree with that, however I was fortunate to never have anybody tell me I had to move a certain way. So, for me sparring is like a fight where we don’t hit as hard.

Anyways everybody has their opinions, mine is that while forms can be used as a good component in self defense... it is most effective when used as a strike and not a control technique.

Solid points.

I would submit that the "nice" techniques are better used as the situation warrants. I am much like you in that I tend to favor strikes rather than arm locks, etc. However there are times when this works better than a strike or is warranted over a strike.

An example would be a smaller/weaker person that doesn't have enough sense to know when they are out matched. In your mind you know you can destroy this person with little effort, but why? It proves nothing. Rather than knock them for a loop a simple controlling tactic until they calm down or regain their sanity is warranted in this situation. The guy goes home none the worse physically and a harsh lesson is learned without much physical harm.

Another example is having rocked a larger opponent, controlling them/submitting them might be an option rather than delivering that last strike that could potentially have major physical consequences.

It's always a benefit to have more than one tool in the tool box. Gives us options. Knowing when to use them and why to use them I think is the battle.

[KarateNewbie]

Kata is considered to be the heart of Karate-do!! Without it, the Karate-do dies.

Your poised question will receive a wide plethora of answers!! One way or another, you'll have to make that decision for yourself. I'll not try to sway you one way or another because the decision across the board belongs to you, and you alone.

I have always believed in Kata, just as I've also always believed in Kihon and Kumite; these elements can't survive on their own, and they are dependent on one another. Imagine a three legged chair, and one of that chairs legs are purposefully removed. Just how solid and secure is that chair?? Not much, at all!! Kata depends on Kihon as well as Kumite, so on and so forth.

These are the building blocks that are the foundation of Karate-do.

Muscle memory depends on repetitive actions, but the actions must be correct, and effective. Drilling Kihon and Kata, do prepare one for Kumite. However, unless one engages in Kumite, Kihon and Kata die as a useless principle.

Through Kata and Kihon, I've a much better understanding as to the mechanics of each technique, but still, they're useless unless I apply them efficiently AND effectively, as well.

An understanding is a start, but it isn't a complete start. That requires LIVE RESISTANCE. Through Kata, I've an understanding how my body works facing the many different possibilities that one might encounter. The Bunkai/Oyo open up many other questions and answers to the how's and why's, for a start, of what to do when I see something so very familiar through Kata.

Again, I'm not interested in swaying you to believe in Kata, just my believe in a very general way.

Often times I hear from those who dismiss Kata, that because I believe in Kata, I'll be defeated quite easily. That's quite an assumption especially when they've not ever stepped on the floor with me in any capacity. Dismissing my 5 generations of being on the floor...dismissing my Sensei and his Sensei...dismissing every single student of mine...as easy marks because we believe in Kata, and they don't.

That's fair because they're entitled to their opinions. I don't have to like their opinions towards Kata, but I have to respect their believe(s) towards Kata.

100% agree. This is what I've been taught