[quote=Dsimon3387;2408749]
please for the love of god do not let this thread deteriorate into a debate about forms as a training method!!!:copdance:[/quote]
You knew what would happen when you made the OP. I can tell…
:rolleyes:
[quote=speedycerviche;2408570]“But the important thing is that Kano put forms in Judo… Certainly he did not do this to teach combat skills, I would say that the Okinawan Te teachers, and even Funikoshi probably likewise had a different reason for using forms… In no case was it to teach people to fight, or a sequence of how to fight.”
Is there any reason you think that the old Karate teachers did not think Kata was useful for fighting?. Did not Motobu say that Nainhanchi (sp?) contains everything you will need to know about real fighting?. From what I have read about Kano and the early Kodokan I think they thought that Kata was useful in teaching combat. I would like to see any quotes where any founders of the old systems said that Kata was not there teach people how to fight (not including Kata that are ment as exercise).[/quote]
speedy
sorry had to take care of some stuff did not mean to leave you hanging.
I think the issue is how forms help not if they help. Yes Okinawan teachers often use the forms as the very backbone of their system. But why? Is it because the form teaches fighting? or is it because the form has all the information one needs to develop technique and principles as stated by the teacher?
Proof is not an option here. There is no way to reconstruct the thoughts of these teachers… we know two things though:
a) Okinawan Karate Masters tended to be practical people
b) A lot of modern teachers misunderstand the role and use of kata in Karate. We know this because people actually do believe that forms can teach one how to fight when common sense would say otherwise.
“I do not think forms are useful as a way to train fighters”
How is having better technique, body mechanics and kuzushi not useful to a fighter?.
[quote=speedycerviche;2408757]“I do not think forms are useful as a way to train fighters”
How is having better technique, body mechanics and kuzushi not useful to a fighter?.[/quote]
Yeah Speedy gets it…if fighting were just about putting on gloves and throwing punches and kicks and clinching and grappling, we wouldn’t have speed bags and medicine balls and wooden shaolin dummies and tiger claw hand grips/stress balls and a million other practical, useful tools.
It’s the combination of all those tools (including form sets/kata) that build up the martial artist, and its what differentiates him from the brawler.
[quote=BKR;2408574]There is debate among judo scholars as to why Kano included kata in Judo. Some even go so far as to say he did it to make sure the koryu jujutsu ryu would buy into Judo as the “modernized” ju jutsu, as kata was their most common way of training.
The most common take is that the randori no kata, (Nage No Kata and Katame no Kata) are training methods, just as is randori. Typically, what is advocated is kata is maybe 25% of one’s Judo training regime. So kata is not THE MAJOR method of Judo training. If you look around enough, you will see that Kano himself said that. I think that will show where Kano stood on the issue.
Other kata, like Ju No Kata and Itsutsu no Kata, are considered to be “principle” kata, that illustrate higher principles of Judo. Kano himself created Ju No Kata. I’m sure most of you guys would consider it pretty useless to practice it to learn how to fight, but as Dsimon suggested, if you are at a certain level in Judo, and practice Ju No Kata, things jump out at you. I’ve had aha! moments and I’ve only done Ju No Kata a couple of times, and not all of it at that.
Itsutsu no Kata is likely an Tenjin Shin’yo Ryu kata that Kano learned when studying that art. I won’t try to explain it, as I have no idea, really.
Kime No Kata is a preservation of older self defense techniques from koryu jujutsu. Koshiki No Kata is the only remaining kata (or apparently anything for that matter) of Kito Ryu, the other primary root koryu of Judo. I don’t know or understand it either. Good for direct fighting applications? Not really, but it does illustrate higher principles of throwing, and is the art from which the throwing of Judo primarily comes.
I’ll stop there. Judo kata have different purposes and origins, from training method and mnemonics for randori waza, to preserving older jujutsu techniques and principles, to illuminating principles at the core of Judo.
It’s more complex than just “kata does not equal sparring so it’s no good for anything”.
Ben[/quote]
thanks for weighing in on this Ben.
It is very difficult getting people to consider things differently and to take a debate out of familiar territory. Its akin to when you have written a paper and when trying to edit it your mind wont allow you to see it differently.
"a) Okinawan Karate Masters tended to be practical people
b) A lot of modern teachers misunderstand the role and use of kata in Karate. We know this because people actually do believe that forms can teach one how to fight when common sense would say otherwise."
The main problem is that most Karateka now days do not fight and thus have no idea what works and what does not.
It is a block that uses the fore arm to block the area around groin to the area around the solar plexus you do not often see front kicks higher then that do you?. Remeber also that this is a stylised version of the block just like all moves in Kata it is stylised. As for blocking roundish kicks that does not sound like a very smart idea IMHO.
If kata are to help preserve the art over time, why are the techniques in the kata incorrect?
The fact that you think fat turns to lean muscle tells me all I ever need to know about the value of your opinion on physical training.
[quote=Hedgehogey;2408598]
I don’t even gotta say nothin.[/quote]
thanks for hijacking the thread with a strawman.
But you are agenda driven afterall and any discussion of elements in the martial arts that do not proclaim that Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is Plato’s perfect triangle has to be chauvanistically poo poo’ed right Hedgey?
Young man here is the thing and take this for what it is worth: Your ideas about women’s rights, about politics and about some of the other issues that get batted around here suggest that you want to be taken seruiouly as an intellectual presence of sorts… Hijacking threads with strawmen is like the opposite of that. You just pulled a Sirc from gradulations…
You just pulled this thread back into the rhealm of ignorance and the same old tired debates…Let me put this in language you understand Hedgey You just acted like the Spanish Military against the Anarchist collective that was thriving before it was attacked ha!!
“If kata are to help preserve the art over time, why are the techniques in the kata incorrect?”
Kata it is often stylised to show more of the the principals and mechanics involved an example is harai goshi from Nage no Kata it is never done that way in randori but it is done that way in the Kata to show the principals that make it work.
[QUOTE=Dsimon3387;2408384]Ok guys:
According to my argument there would not be a direct relationship between forms and fighting I do want that to be understood. You would no more be using a form to fight with than you would pick up a book on boxing to defend against a left hook.[/QUOTE]
Of course you could.
Tori swings left hook;
Uke blocks left hook with book;
Counters with papercut!!!
(actually this counter is hidden in Taikyoku Sono Ich):
‘If done correctly…noooo defense’
And Helmutlvx;
I use nekowashi dachi all the time walking down the street. It’s the only was to travel.
And as a karateka I refuse to take this thread seriously.
deadhorse:deadhorse
If you didn’t know what I meant by that you’re just being a difficult bastard. No I did NOT mean literally as in the myths of fat = muscle, I meant training over time to cut fat mass/increase muscle mass.
Douchebag.
If you didn’t know what I meant by that you’re just being a difficult bastard. No I did NOT mean literally as in the myths of fat = muscle, I meant training over time to cut fat mass/increase muscle mass.
Douchebag.
Lol I get it now. Kata will make you a strong ass motherfucker. Which ones should I learn? :ninja7:
good question:
I am at heart an optimist I always have to try and assume the best in human nature and as a teacher try to bring that out. Yes I take my lumps I guess you noticed that haha.
Katas definitely help. I do remember some Hapkido forms I had to do that definately trained you to not be afraid to use a low stance, kick consecutively and throw follow up punches.
I think the issue is why you should do Katas over other methods of training?
[quote=W. Rabbit;2408755]You knew what would happen when you made the OP. I can tell…
:rolleyes:[/quote]
haha, yeah, see my post to Maofos.
“I think the issue is why you should do Katas over other methods of training?”
I think having Kata in a art helps with the transmission of certain principals which is great to make sure that the art gets transmitted as a whole.
[quote=dwkfym;2408787]
I think the issue is why you should do Katas over other methods of training?[/quote]
Agreed! Why are we even talking about kata over anything, or anything over kata. No one is taking kata/form sets out of karate, gong fu, or any other TMA any time soon, no matter how many people think they are worthless. The reason is that people who do practice kata correctly and know their limitations/purposes and aren’t misled about that know/see the benefits directly, in their sparring/randori/sanda. It’s these little things that make the difference, imho.
Isn’t the best martial artist (ideally) going to be the one who covers more bases and trains more comprehensively than the other guys? Having the largest dictionary of attacks/defense, the most versatile training including both equipment as well as empty hand form sets, and sparring against all different manner of opponents in different environments? Hells yeah.
[quote=speedycerviche;2408762]"a) Okinawan Karate Masters tended to be practical people
b) A lot of modern teachers misunderstand the role and use of kata in Karate. We know this because people actually do believe that forms can teach one how to fight when common sense would say otherwise."
The main problem is that most Karateka now days do not fight and thus have no idea what works and what does not.[/quote]
YES!!
And… they do not understand how one is supposed to work with the katas.
I think the Booj is really good on this account. The kata is taken and then concepts are pulled out of the form and worked. Each part of the kata is examined for principles that are part of the art, and subtial applications, and historical context.
The result is you get tons of information about what you are trying to train…
But alais many teachers in the Booj think that one literally fights with the Sanchin and Kihon and forms in the schools, this is another big mistake!!! The kata teaches the principles that you pull out and train. Now what you train that is where yu decide how you will hit the bag, the person, how you will spar, etc.
The kata gives you the information in a way so that the information is complete and tells you what to train. For example: You learn about Metsubishi in the last San chin and in the first Kihone. But you have to train it! thats where you get Friendly fire put on the gloves and work with it… the kata shows you the right angle to apply it, the correct footwork, the attitude you need and etc…the kata does this very very efficiently and that is what I am trying to get you guys to see!
If you were to try to individually take each of these elements:the footwork, the technique, the subtlities, the variations… do you think you could do a better job convying them than a form? thats my point
[QUOTE=helmutlvx;2408732]Jodan level kicks can be dodged and I’ve countered kicks at chudan with hiza-geri tons of times.
But that doesn’t really matter because no one is changing their minds and this thread is poison.[/QUOTE]
Yes and yes and yes.
But its a funny kind of poison.