Why do Karate instructors stress kata stances?

[Prototype]

Funakoshi said himself that a Karateka moves freely in an actual confrontation and is not fixated on stances. End of quote. Self defence/fighting scenario involves constant movement.

So why do instructors stress something that is not meant for application? Is it some kind of esthetic vale they attach to kata stances? Why are they so strict about an inconsequencial part of self defence?

[mushybees]

I don't know that it is inconsequential. Being able to advantageously shift your centre of gravity and weight distribution in an unconconscious manner doesnt come without practice.

[Prototype]

I don't know that it is inconsequential. Being able to advantageously shift your centre of gravity and weight distribution in an unconconscious manner doesnt come without practice.

Isnt it more important to stress things like the actual strikes, in particular from stances used in free fighting?

[JR 137]

I think too many people fixate on the end result of the stance rather than the transition/getting into and out of the stance itself.

IMO the stance itself is a bit little more than a worthless pose. How you got there and what you did is what matters. Take the simplest kata I know- taikyoku 1. It starts with a 90 degree turn to the left into forward leaning stance (zenkutsu dachi) while performing a left hand low block (gedan brai). If all one is looking at is the finished stance and block, they missed 99% of what’s important. That’s like taking a picture of a golfer as he’s at the end of his follow through and thinking that’s all you need to see to analyze his entire swing.

Regardless of that, practing deeper stances develops strength, endurance, flexibility, etc., all of which are beneficial.

And depending on your personal bunkai, the deep stances can be critical, but again they’re and end result; that finishing blow should be delivered with a strong and stable stance that usually deeper than the norm. Some throws that require a turn require a strong step back and swing of the back leg to truly deliver maximum power and generate a ton of momentum. Kind of hard to put into words.

[Prototype]

I think too many people fixate on the end result of the stance rather than the transition/getting into and out of the stance itself.

IMO the stance itself is a bit little more than a worthless pose. How you got there and what you did is what matters. Take the simplest kata I know- taikyoku 1. It starts with a 90 degree turn to the left into forward leaning stance (zenkutsu dachi) while performing a left hand low block (gedan brai). If all one is looking at is the finished stance and block, they missed 99% of what’s important. That’s like taking a picture of a golfer as he’s at the end of his follow through and thinking that’s all you need to see to analyze his entire swing.

Regardless of that, practing deeper stances develops strength, endurance, flexibility, etc., all of which are beneficial.

Interesting. My experience has been very different. They stress positioning of the feet microscopicly. Also talk as if it was going to be applied in a SD situation in the stance, when of course it will not be. It's a complete disconnect between theory and practice. Same goes for blocks which are never used in sparring.

[mushybees]

I don't know that it is inconsequential. Being able to advantageously shift your centre of gravity and weight distribution in an unconconscious manner doesnt come without practice.

Isnt it more important to stress things like the actual strikes, in particular from stances used in free fighting?

If you practice kata correctly you should be simultaneously training both amongst other things. Emphasising one over the other isn't necessary. A bit of a Sophie's choice imo.

I've never had anyone correct my stances to be to so precise as in your experience.

You're right in that they don't need to be so precise in self defence application but there's a quote I like from a greek poet named Archilochus that might be of interest:

"We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training"

Do you train for competition or is your school focused on it? I personally don't like shiai kata and don't think it's good for karate when there's more emphasis on appearance than effectiveness.

[Prototype]

I don't know that it is inconsequential. Being able to advantageously shift your centre of gravity and weight distribution in an unconconscious manner doesnt come without practice.

Isnt it more important to stress things like the actual strikes, in particular from stances used in free fighting?

If you practice kata correctly you should be simultaneously training both amongst other things. Emphasising one over the other isn't necessary. A bit of a Sophie's choice imo.

I've never had anyone correct my stances to be to so precise as in your experience.

You're right in that they don't need to be so precise in self defence application but there's a quote I like from a greek poet named Archilochus that might be of interest:

"We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training"

Do you train for competition or is your school focused on it? I personally don't like shiai kata and don't think it's good for karate when there's more emphasis on appearance than effectiveness.

My school is traditional and appearence does to take presidence since our instructor can spend 5 minutes on how feet should be placed in a ready stance... That is stance before the actual Kata!! The space between the fists to each other, position of the feet

[mushybees]

I don't see the point of correcting the static stance. As JR said above the actual karate is found between the stances.

If the mechanics of the technique are correct the end position will be correct but you can't get there consistantly by changing the end position alone.

If the mechanics are correct and effective and the hands or feet are out of position by some small margin the stance would still be correct imo.

[Wado Heretic]

Funakoshi also wrote:

“Fixed positions are for beginners: later, one moves naturally.”

Also, Itosu, Funakoshi’s primary teacher wrote the following:

“In Karate training, one must determine whether a specific application is suitable for defence or for cultivating the body.”

Ultimately; the inference is that there is an element of physical rigour added to the kata. After all, both Itosu and Funakoshi in their broader writings insisted on intensity in training. Thus, I believe it feasible that several kata movements are largely for exercise.

However, with the above said, it is also important to contextualise the differences between fighting and Self-Defence. The kata were developed to practice methods for civilian self-defence, unlike Jujutsu or the Hand Forms of Chinese Martial Arts, as such they should be analysed in this context. In self-defence; the primary concern is the collapse of distance, and one is often confronted by an attacker trying to isolate and restrict your movement, not necessarily injure you. A mugger is not trying to fight you; he/she wants your money, to give an example. As such; one should look at the kata in the context of:

1. The distance between you and the attacker has already collapsed, or is about to. Several stances are well adjusted to counter an attacker whose weight is already on you.

2. You are not necessarily being attacked from the front, and may need to orientate yourself to the direction you are being attacked. Several stances make this easier.

3. Your attacker may not be making use of sophisticated martial arts, but rather, sheer brute force and shock tactics. Again, several stances are well adapted to giving you a tool to resist said brute force.

4. Several stances facilitate certain techniques, or tactical opportunities, in close distance fighting.

5. Stances can be transitional; in actual application they are not positions you would stay in, but quickly travel through.

With all the above said; that is not to argue that all stances are by default purposeful, simply because we do not understand them at a glance. One of the reasons I now practice the Shorin-Ryu kata is that I feel the stance work is purposeful; I have encountered a lot of stance work which is unrealistic, and did not scale to inferred application or made sense as physical exercise.

We tend to, I would argue, get absorbed with the notion of mono-a-mono fighting when trying to examine kata. That is the nature of the world, because people tend to watch combat sports such as Boxing, Kick-Boxing, and MMA and so that becomes their image of “fighting”. Sadly; karate training itself does not assist in this. We tend to emphasise fair sparring, and kumite drills traditionally emphasise facing the Uke. This makes sense from a safety perspective; but the kata techniques never presumed fairness.

It is better to examine the stances in the context of the habitual acts of physical violence, and scenario based drills; for example, being caught against a wall. This can help explore the intent of the stance work, in the context of the original purpose of kata; civilian self-defence.

If working from quotes, Motobu Choki once claimed that there are no stances such as Neko-Ashi, Zenkutsu, of Kokutsu in his karate. Which is true, in that you will not see the modern exaggerated versions in picture of Motobu Choki; however, if one looks at his kumite drills, you will see how he places his weight, and how the body mechanics very much follow such stances.

Similarly; Funakoshi, in his twenty precepts did state:

“Kata is practised perfectly; real fight is another thing.”

Thus, it is important to be critical of your own kata practice. However, it is also important to keep in mind that you only get out of kata that which you put in. To quote Itosu again:

“Handed down by word of mouth, Karate comprises a myriad of techniques and corresponding meanings. Resolve to independently explore the context of these techniques, observing the principles of torite (grappling/joint locks) with the corresponding theory of usage – and the practical applications will be more easily understood.”

Which means; without an informed, critical eye, you will never fully explore the benefits of kata practice. A kata is not a fight; it is a training mechanism. A training mechanism is only as effective as how it is utilised. Traditional kata were designed for civilian self-defence, not free-fighting against a foe with sophisticated martial arts in mutual combat. As such; the traditional kata do not fit that latter context.

Kata designed specifically for free-fighting are practiced by Ashihara, and Enshin karate, and their off-shoots. If one is looking for free-fighting kata; those are systems to seek out. Similarly; the solo kata of Shorinji Kenpo, and Nippon Kenpo, are essentially extended sequences of combinations, and thus readily applicable to free-fighting.

It ultimately comes down to one’s end goal to their training:

1. Self-Defence: The traditional Kata are useful, if you approach them properly.

2. Free-Fighting: The traditional Kata were never intended for mutually agreed combat, and thus do not facilitate training for said fighting.

Be wary of barking up the wrong tree, and make sure you have a clear vision for your continued journey.

[JazzKicker]

I can think of a couple of reasons for being exacting about stances:

1. Forms aesthetic, especially for competing.

2. Developing repeatable, efficient basis for techniques, especially kicks.

The people I've trained with that didn't have a traditional background often didn't kick as well (poor or inconsistent balance), and had boxing type stances that left them open to kicks.