are katas helpful for fighting?

[Kirves]

First of all, it is an American invention that "there is no proper bunkai, but you just invent it." On Okinawa, there always was the bunkai that the creator of the kata meant with every move. In old styles, they still have the style's "official bunkai" and it is taught to every student. All bunkai outside of the official bunkai is oyo bunkai, that means free form interpretation, which is also allowed as long as you are competent enough to know what kind of applications are smart in a fight. How do you get smart? By first learning the official application because it was designed by people who actually fought with the stuff. Let's take Kyan Chotoku - a Shorin-ryu legend for example here: he designed a kata. Did he teach the kata to his students and say "try to figure out for the rest of your lives, what I meant with every move"? No, he definitely did not! He taught the kata and then started teaching his students "this move is used like this or in this situation like this..." and so on. Thus, there was the style's official bunkai. Many styles don't have that anymore. But styles that still have an unbroken link to their Okinawan masters do teach it like that. Organizations like Seibukan Sukunaihayashi Shorin-ryu, Seito Matsubayashi Shorin-ryu, Yuishinkai Karate-jutsu and so on. They still teach the same bunkai as the designers of the kata did. Many of the modern, especially Japanese (mainland that is) styles were founded before studying long enough with the Okinawan masters to learn the bunkai, and that's the reason why we don't have their bunkai anymore. The reason for the drift was WW2, which ceased just about all karate training in Japan. And after the war, few went back to Okinawa for more training. They just continued what they knew in Japan.

 

Here is an exellent page: http://home.nc.rr.com/ejconsult/karate/heian2/h2bunkai.htm

 

It explains several sample bunkai that is for actual fighting. Remember to see the links to the picture-series of the moves. See the explanations and ask yourself "is this the kind of bunkai taught at our school?" or if you are not karate-student ask yourself "is this my idea of what karate kata training actually is or have I misunderstood the whole thing as a solo dance exercise?". You cannot say "I'm training kata" unless you do this kind of partner training. If your idea of "kata training" is only solo form dancing exercise, then you are only doing "solo training", not "kata training". Kata training always includes partner bunkai training.

[killerblackbelt]

Katas are to help you learn moves properely. So not really... in a fight are you really going to go into a Riding horse stance... or cat stance...? LOL... I would hope not!

[Kirves]

in a fight are you really going to go into a Riding horse stance...

 

I've seen even jujutsuka do that. When you are throwing someone, or taking them down, you need the different stances. Problem is that many people have gotten the wrong idea that you should stay in that stance. It is just a transition (you block, close the gap, punch, grab, place your hip and feet and start throwing him - if now someone were to take a photograph right when his feet are starting to get off the floor, you'd be seen in perfect riding horse stance!). The stances aren't there for you to stand in them, they are for correct angling in the self defence techniques - and I said "in the techniques" not "prior to" or "after".

[JohnnyS]

Kirves is extremely correct. I did Okinawan Goju-ryu where we learnt the kata and the bunkai. Kirves is also correct about the stances which seems to be a much-misunderstood thing in the martial arts world. Even though we did a lot of kata and bunkai, and not a lot of free-sparring, when we did it was very similar to the kata in the use of stances and techniques - unlike in TKD where it was always the high bouncing around stance along with techniques that have nothing to do with the katas. Stances in free-sparring would include the cat-stance, horse-riding stance, forward-stance etc because as Kirves said, they are just a snapshot of where your feet should be when you perform a technique e.g. forward-riding stance when you complete a pushing movement. It's like if you try to push a car, you're going to be in a forward-stance. You move back to avoid a strike and before you drive in again off your rear-leg you'll be in a cat-like stance.

 

Often times we'd get kyokushin stylists come in and get pounded in free-sparring because they've essentially lost all connection with what the kata's mean and what karate actually is. So that should show that the training does work.

 

Can you become a fighter without learning kata?

 

Of course, but it's not real karate. It's just really bad kickboxing. If you're going to go down that path then you're better off learning from a competent kick-boxing instructor.

[AndrewGreen]

Holy inconsistancies Batman!

Can you become a fighter without learning kata?

 

Of course, but it's not real karate.

 

Who said it was? You also seem to say that as if it is a bad thing...

It's just really bad kickboxing.

 

Umm.... No

 

Kickboxers don't use kata, so what they do is really bad kickboxing?

 

What about wrestlers, they just do really bad kickboxing. Or BJJ guys? MMA guys? You should tell them that they are doing really bad kickboxing, it will be news to them.

If you're going to go down that path then you're better off learning from a competent kick-boxing instructor.

 

I agree, go see a Muay Thai coach.

 

Back to this for a second:

It's just really bad kickboxing.

 

So add kata to that really bad kickboxing and you get really bad kickboxing with kata right? Why not just learn good kickboxing?

Often times we'd get kyokushin stylists come in and get pounded in free-sparring

 

But they do kata... and dominate over other karate styles in full contact competition that is what they train for, so.... Huh?

 

Do you mean you beat them in point fighting? or do you fight them full contact?

[JohnnyS]

I was worried that my post might not sound correct.

 

First of all, being good at karate does not mean you're a good fighter. Secondly, you don't need to learn karate to be a good fighter.

 

My point was that real karate involves kata.

 

If you're doing karate that doesn't involve proper kata and bunkai, then it's just bad kickboxing.

 

I'm not saying kickboxing is bad - I'm saying that karate that is seperated from kata and bunkai generally looks like a poor excuse for kickboxing. In which case you'd be better off going to a proper kickboxing class.

 

I'll use kyokushin as my example - I think it's a poor form of kickboxing. It doesn't teach the kata and the bunkai like Okinawan styles do, and the sparring may be tough and hard, but so what? I'd tell someone to go to a good kickboxing class over a kyokushin class anyday, because at least they'll learn to punch to the head, defend their face and spar properly.

 

I see little that kyokushin teaches that you couldn't learn better in a kickboxing school, but I see a lot in Goju and other Okinawan karate styles (that focus more on self-defense than "fighting") that you don't see in a kickboxing school. Kickboxing would obviously be a better choice for a fight in the ring, but for fighting in a bar I think that a lot of what you learn in an Okinawan school of karate (i.e. real karate) is very effective, especially the footsweeps, elbows, headbutts and other close-in fighting.

 

Read my signature Andrew - I no longer do karate or TKD, I now do BJJ and used to do shootfighting, so I'd never slight those arts.

 

Do I think karate is the best thing for fighting? No.

 

Do I think kata is necessary for fighting? No

 

Do I think fighting is different from self-defense? Yes

 

What I am saying is that kata is a tool and if you don't learn the bunkai properly, then there's no point in doing the kata. If you're not going to learn the kata and bunkai, then why do karate? Why not do something that will teach you better habits?

[Kirves]

It doesn't teach the kata and the bunkai like Okinawan styles do, and the sparring may be tough and hard, but so what? I'd tell someone to go to a good kickboxing class over a kyokushin class anyday, because at least they'll learn to punch to the head, defend their face and spar properly.

 

Your view of Kyokushin is pretty narrow.

Edited August 27, 2003 by Kirves

[Drunken Monkey]

been away for a while, my pc got struck down by a really annoying virus....

 

anyway, gonna spread the topic a little wider and talk about forms in general.

 

whether it is from a chinese style, or a japanese style, modern or old, you have to remember that forms training in always going to be important. the forms training is supposed to show you the ideal/perfect execution of the moves within your martial art.

 

someone has said that kickboxing doesn't involves kata/forms but i say they do. when they train, they practice, body position, accuracy, consistency, power. these are the things that our forms training are for. the only difference is that our traditional forms consist of a lot of moves strung together and their forms consist of small, often singular moves.

 

i have said this many times before, the way we move in forms is not the way we move in a fight.

[delta1]

Katas, or forms, are an excellent training tool for fighting. They are not the only way- some styles have a different training philosophy and do well without them. And I don't think that they'll train you to fight well by themselves. But they train you to internalize the moves and principles of your art as well as any method, better than most.

 

The reason I say this is that the moves in the forms of all the styles I've seen have multiple applications. They are meant to be discovered by the practicioner as he advances and thus made his own (internalized). A simple example common to many styles is the fist chambered to the hip. (I personally don't like training to chamber at the hip, but like I said, it is common, and even found in some Kenpo forms.) That chamber can be done as preparation for a strike. But with just minor modifications can be a block covering the ribs, a back elbow strike, a grab and pull bringing your opponent into a strike,... . And there are details and principles in each of these applications. For example, the grab and pull. That 'chamber' is kept close to your body, and the move done with footwork and stance change. The principles here are to keep that elbow anchored through the pull and let your stance change and body momentum do the work. So, now you've figured all that out. Are you a better fighter? I'd say you still need to practice it on a compliant, then resisting, then attacking opponent.

 

Learning involves being taught the basics, having principles and concepts explained to you. Then deeper learning comes with mental activity, figuring things out for yourself. Then to truly learn it, you must apply it. I see forms as a critical part of the connection between explanation and application. They give you a deeper understanding.

[Kirves]

Yes, if we talk about forms in general, they are in wide use in so many arts from so many countries that they can't be useless.

 

We must also remember that different arts use forms in different ways. For example, long two man forms are common in Chinese arts. Long solo forms are common in Okinawan arts, but also found in many Chinese arts. Very short two man forms are used in Japanese arts. Philipino and Indonesian arts use two man drills that often resemble a sort of "free" form which is done within a box, i.e. limited freedom, but following a pattern, which in my mind makes them feel a lot like the forms in other arts. Some people think of shadow boxing just another form of free solo form. Phew, if someone was to make a scientific study on all the different kinds of "forms" found in martial arts - good luck!