View Full Version : Kata break down and why we should keep them
Kata is very important for all Martial Arts it does not matter what style you are if you have kata it is very important for the following reasons:
In my oppinion kata is a map of pressure point attacks
There are no blocks in kata
All moves in kata was originally designed to kill
Kata shows us what we do in certain situations
A fight started the same way back then as it does now with a push, pull, or a punch that is how you got to look at your kata
Every move is either a strike, throw, or a lock
Kata should be done like a boxer shadow boxing you should visualize your opponent and the different situations
You are only fighting one person in kata
The different angles that you go in kata discribes what angle you attacking your assailent
That is what I theorize on kata some of you might view them differently and there is no problem with that. If anyone has any questions they would like me to answer I would be more than willing.
Joe Morris
I posted this about Katas or forms in 2 other threads...
I have to disagree. I think forms are very important to "real life fights". Forms not only improve balance and coordination, they improve your technique as well as provide a cognitive knowledge of what move "naturally" comes after what. It also is helpful in training to fight against multiple partners. No you don't move quickly, but that's the point. If you learned to do everything quickly before you could do it slowly and correctly you will waste energy, give away your moves more easily, and have less powerful blocks and attacks. Not to mention, if you perform a move incorrectly you risk severe injury.
Every one who has seen my pasts post know that I'm a big proponent of kata also. Kata IMO is like a textbook, just need to learn how to decipher it. Katas has shown me pressure points, weakness of the body, grappliing (standing and on the ground). Throughtout my years in training I have gone to many seminars from martial artists to law enforcement defensive tactics and I've found many of the techniques taught were somewhere in my katas.
I've met some good martial artists out there that don't beleive or do kata that's okay that's their choice we can't all like the same things as long as we share and make ourselves better at waht we do.
a student 1st
06-08-2004, 22:05
I think that kata is very important. It teaches all that was stated above and more. When I learn kata it helps me teach myself. When I don't have a training partner I still can perform kata and still learn many things. I learn balance, techniques, breathing, how to move, etc.
In a class everone is taught the same katas, everyone learns the same moves and the patterns. However, when you perform kata you bring all of your lifes experiences to it. What you have learned and done is different than I. That is what make your art yours and helps you to improve.
Years ago I read in a Magazine ( I think MA masters). A well known tourment sparring martiral artist had discovered after he got to old to compete that he could give up the martiral arts or some how continue. He said he discoverd kata. He had learnd it but had always thought it a wast of time. He could still perform kata and discovered that his art had more depth to it that he originally thought.
There are no blocks in kata
Depends on the art :D
It took me a long time to see what kata really could be.
BTW-- if there are no blocks in kata, then there are no strikes either. Just movement. Of course, that same movement could be a strike *or* a block, depending on the situation. Once I made that mental leap, I suddenly discovered exactly what kata could do.
I've met some good martial artists out there that don't beleive or do kata that's okay that's their choice we can't all like the same things as long as we share and make ourselves better at waht we do.
Bruce Lee, famously, never used a kata.
Depends on what you mean by kata though. Is it a set of movements practiced alone? Or is it simply a set of movements?
The word kata in japanese has a few meanings; shape, form, mold, pattern. I think of it as a mold, a cast for a shape thats the same every time.
As pointed out, kata may have several interpretations, depending on style, school, person studying ...
Something just didn't sound correct, or coherent, in that list of yours, ppko.. On the other hand you say that you are fighting only one person in kata, and before that you argue that every movement of kata is designed to kill..So, kata would be map of overkilling..
Riku Ylönen
As pointed out, kata may have several interpretations, depending on style, school, person studying ...
Something just didn't sound correct, or coherent, in that list of yours, ppko.. On the other hand you say that you are fighting only one person in kata, and before that you argue that every movement of kata is designed to kill..So, kata would be map of overkilling..
Riku Ylönen
I can understand what you are getting at and I didn't do a good enough job explaining my point. You are not fighting multiple but one and what I mean by that is every movement in kata is designed to kill but you also have to allow for the "Oh $hit I messed up" and some movements show what side of the body is weaker and some show that the technique can be applied to either side.
I hope this cleared up what I was getting at
Joe Morris
Ok, so, it would be like set of possibilities to deal against one opponent, right? Must admit that that was new way to interpretate kata for me, thanks for that :) .
With respect,
Riku Ylönen
YiLiQuan1
06-10-2004, 14:48
It is interesting that Mr. Morris is now here on Budoseek attempting to set himself up as an authority...
He posted over on Martial Talk, trying to start a discussion about pressure point striking, and when the questions became too intense for his pleasure, he ditched...
Mr. Morris, I find it interesting when you said:
There are no blocks in kata
All moves in kata was originally designed to kill
Kata shows us what we do in certain situations
A fight started the same way back then as it does now with a push, pull, or a punch that is how you got to look at your kata
Every move is either a strike, throw, or a lock
I assume you got that from Mr. Dillman, a person you hold in quite high regard. It is interesting to me because that is nearly identical to what I recall Mr. Rousselot teaching me when I trained with him in Japan (Mr. Rousselot is one of Mr. Oyata's students).
I wonder where Mr. Dillman got that? Curious... :rolleyes:
It is interesting that Mr. Morris is now here on Budoseek attempting to set himself up as an authority...
He posted over on Martial Talk, trying to start a discussion about pressure point striking, and when the questions became too intense for his pleasure, he ditched...
Mr. Morris, I find it interesting when you said:
I assume you got that from Mr. Dillman, a person you hold in quite high regard. It is interesting to me because that is nearly identical to what I recall Mr. Rousselot teaching me when I trained with him in Japan (Mr. Rousselot is one of Mr. Oyata's students).
I wonder where Mr. Dillman got that? Curious... :rolleyes:
First thing I have been here longer than any other forum and I did not ditch any forum. I stated before over on MT that I was done arguing on who was better I hope that you don't bring that ego over here. Once again I am just trying to give some input on the martial arts through my knowledge, so if you have any questions or would like to add to the thread you are more than welcome. I hold any knowledge that I recieve in high regard.
Joe Morris
De_Franza
06-10-2004, 15:40
There are no blocks in kata.
Depends on the art :D
recently I've been training with a gentleman who advocates reinterpreting blocks as strikes... especially if there's a sequence in a kata that's two or three blocks in a row... why would you block so much and not counterstrike? answer:each of those blocks is a strike.... how 'bout that?
But it might be different depending on the school/style you're in, or your teacher hasn't shown you that yet. ;)
De_Franza
06-10-2004, 15:45
Bruce Lee, famously, never used a kata.
Not to sound like a Hump, but this is a common misconception. I've got a few of Lee's books, and read about him in magazines (where he constantly comes up) and lots of his former students have pointed out that he advocated forms (katas) for beginners, and was enthusiastic about them when he himself was a beginner.
As he progressed, he felt he had outgrown them, and urged people to ditch kata when they no longer found the forms useful, but he still strongly advocated their use for beginners.
And what's good for Bruce Lee isn't necessarily good for everyone else. I believe Lee himself would agree quite a bit with that.
Rereading this post, it sounds a little argumentative, which is not my intent, so please don't take offense.
Not to sound like a Hump, but this is a common misconception. I've got a few of Lee's books, and read about him in magazines (where he constantly comes up) and lots of his former students have pointed out that he advocated forms (katas) for beginners, and was enthusiastic about them when he himself was a beginner.
As he progressed, he felt he had outgrown them, and urged people to ditch kata when they no longer found the forms useful, but he still strongly advocated their use for beginners.
And what's good for Bruce Lee isn't necessarily good for everyone else. I believe Lee himself would agree quite a bit with that.
Rereading this post, it sounds a little argumentative, which is not my intent, so please don't take offense.
Yes you are absolutely right George Dillman one of Bruce Lees' good friends said the exact same thing. I for one think that if Bruce were still alive that he would have incorporated kata back into his system because of George and the knowledge he has on kata.
Joe Morris
Cliff Hargrave
06-10-2004, 19:05
......I for one think that if Bruce were still alive that he would have incorporated kata back into his system because of George and the knowledge he has on kata......
Joe Morris
I for one don't think so.
I have to agree with Cliff. Bruce didn't find much use in katas, thinking that fighting and sparring were the best training tools. I doubt he would have incorporated them into his style. He may have advocated them for beginners, but not for himself.
Cliff Hargrave
06-10-2004, 20:57
Bruce Lee Quotes:
* If you follow the classical patterns, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow - you are not understanding yourself.
* Accumulation of forms, just one modification of conditioning, becomes an anchor that holds and ties down; it leads only one way - down.
* You waste a lot of energy and even making yourself less effective by studying " set patterns " (kata), fighting is simple and total.
Bruce Lee Quotes:
* If you follow the classical patterns, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow - you are not understanding yourself.
* Accumulation of forms, just one modification of conditioning, becomes an anchor that holds and ties down; it leads only one way - down.
* You waste a lot of energy and even making yourself less effective by studying " set patterns " (kata), fighting is simple and total.
Bruce was always trying to better his art by incorporating whatever worked. He grew up in a time when kata was taught as a useless piece of martial arts, and he did not understnd what they intailed. George has a letter from Bruce that tells George that pressure points do exist and he was going to find out more about them, bruce didn't live long enough to find out. He would have found out that kata is what holds the key to the pressure points and that is the reason why I believe he would hae started doing kata again.
Joe Morris
YiLiQuan1
06-10-2004, 21:14
I have to agree with Cliff. Bruce didn't find much use in katas, thinking that fighting and sparring were the best training tools.
I agree that it is apparent from his writings that he thought realistic, fight oriented drills were most effective, but Bruce was known to practice his Taijiquan and Wing Chun forms (most especially the wooden dummy form) in his own training.
The "classical mess" he warned people against wasn't the practice of forms, but rather the practice and reinforcement of "if he strikes this way, respond this way" drills... This lacks "aliveness" and isn't representative of a real fight.
And since when were George Dillman and Bruce Lee "good friends?"
Bruce was born in 1940. He lived in Hong Kong until 1959, when he moved to San Francisco. The same year he moved to Seattle and set about "discovering" his martial art. Dillman didn't start studying martial arts until 1961 (per his own website - "began serious martial arts training in 1961.") Bruce remained in Seattle, relatively unknown, until 1963, at which time he wrote his first book. In 1964, Bruce did his famous demonstration at Ed Parker's tournament in California. By 1965 Dillman was running his own tournament (and Bruce may have been known through the grapevine by that time) in the Maryland/Pennsylvania area of the US. In 1971 Bruce moved back to Hong Kong, and died there in 1973.
Dillman makes no mention on his own website of either his training nor friendship with Bruce Lee. I can't find anything that would even suggest they travelled in the same circles, especially with Dillman's traditional karate orientation...
YiLiQuan1
06-10-2004, 21:29
Bruce Lee Quotes:
* If you follow the classical patterns, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow - you are not understanding yourself.
Hence his emphasis on living training with resistant partners instead of becoming an automaton simply "going through the motions." It doesn't discount forms, just the blind following of them as the pinnacle of training...
* Accumulation of forms, just one modification of conditioning, becomes an anchor that holds and ties down; it leads only one way - down.
Another instance of Bruce paraphrasing what was said by someone else, somewhere else... An old Okinawan/Japanese karate saying is "enter by form, exit from form."
* You waste a lot of energy and even making yourself less effective by studying " set patterns " (kata), fighting is simple and total.
Does the actual quote include "kata?" I'm curious... My teacher was a JKD chapter leader waaaay back in the day, and he contends that the "forms" that Bruce hated weren't things like Naihanchi Shodan or similar constructs, but rather the TKD style "punch-punch-kick-kiai!" drills that are even today offered as solutions to attacks "on the street."
YiLiQuan1
06-10-2004, 21:37
He grew up in a time when kata was taught as a useless piece of martial arts, and he did not understnd what they intailed.
And given that Dillman is a product of one generation of training later, it would then follow that Dillman's understanding was equally limited... Most especially since his teachers would have been Lee's contemporaries.
George has a letter from Bruce that tells George that pressure points do exist and he was going to find out more about them,
Really? Where did you hear this? Have you seen the letter, or did someone just tell you it exists/ed?
bruce didn't live long enough to find out. He would have found out that kata is what holds the key to the pressure points and that is the reason why I believe he would hae started doing kata again.
I'm no big fan of Bruce Lee. I think he was a physically gifted individual, but he didn't stick with any one art long enough to delve deeply enough to really know anything serious about them. He didn't complete his training in Wing Chun, and he danced around playing with other arts beyond that. I believe JKD worked for Bruce, but from the three experiences I have had training with JKD practitioners, I have yet to be impressed...
However, I don't think that Bruce would have "coverted" back to forms practice. Whether he discovered, admitted, or agreed that pressure points were encoded in kata, I seriously doubt that by that one fact alone he would have started "collecting kata," something so contrary to his own philosophy of training.
It is a convenient claim, though, especially when trying to promote a style that emphasizes kata, kata breakdown, and application of pressure points found in the kata...
Ah. I think I see the problem.
It's very easy to mistake Bruce Lee for a martial artist. He certainly did a lot for them. However, it's worth nothing that Bruce wasn't in it for the martial arts-- he was in it to become a better fighter. To the very end, Bruce was concerned with becoming the worlds best fighter, and not the worlds best martial artist.
While I think katas are useful tools, a fighter isn't going to waste a whole lot of time on them. He'll take what he wants from it, and run from there. The concept of spending years perfecting a form will seem like a complete and utter waste to a fighter like that.
I agree that it is apparent from his writings that he thought realistic, fight oriented drills were most effective, but Bruce was known to practice his Taijiquan and Wing Chun forms (most especially the wooden dummy form) in his own training.
The "classical mess" he warned people against wasn't the practice of forms, but rather the practice and reinforcement of "if he strikes this way, respond this way" drills... This lacks "aliveness" and isn't representative of a real fight.
And since when were George Dillman and Bruce Lee "good friends?"
Bruce was born in 1940. He lived in Hong Kong until 1959, when he moved to San Francisco. The same year he moved to Seattle and set about "discovering" his martial art. Dillman didn't start studying martial arts until 1961 (per his own website - "began serious martial arts training in 1961.") Bruce remained in Seattle, relatively unknown, until 1963, at which time he wrote his first book. In 1964, Bruce did his famous demonstration at Ed Parker's tournament in California. By 1965 Dillman was running his own tournament (and Bruce may have been known through the grapevine by that time) in the Maryland/Pennsylvania area of the US. In 1971 Bruce moved back to Hong Kong, and died there in 1973.
Dillman makes no mention on his own website of either his training nor friendship with Bruce Lee. I can't find anything that would even suggest they travelled in the same circles, especially with Dillman's traditional karate orientation...
Checke out Blackbelt magazine last year their was a interview with George Dillman in their. If you have any of Georges' books he mentions it George and Bruce was intruduced by Jhoon Rhee Bruce used to stop by whenever he was in town and spar with Georges' students. Leo Fong one of Bruce Lees' first students will tell you that George helped Bruce with the nunchucka and Bruce helped George on trapping hands. Their are many pictures to back up my claims.
Joe Morris
Ah. I think I see the problem.
It's very easy to mistake Bruce Lee for a martial artist. He certainly did a lot for them. However, it's worth nothing that Bruce wasn't in it for the martial arts-- he was in it to become a better fighter. To the very end, Bruce was concerned with becoming the worlds best fighter, and not the worlds best martial artist.
While I think katas are useful tools, a fighter isn't going to waste a whole lot of time on them. He'll take what he wants from it, and run from there. The concept of spending years perfecting a form will seem like a complete and utter waste to a fighter like that.
Martial: suited for war or warrior
So was Bruce a Martial Artist, yes he just didn't live long enough to see what kata really was for. But you have to remember that Bruce started out with Gung-Fu for many years it wasn't until later that he started intagrating other styles.
Joe Morris
It's the "artist" bit that I have trouble with.
Bruce was a fighter. He believed fighting was primitive and neanderthal, the deepest core of violence humans are capable of. He trained in Wing Chun because he felt it contained the most effective fighting techniques out there; but he wasn't out to perfect his Wing Chun, he was out to perfect his fighting skills. So, he rebelled against a rebellious art, to make himself into a greater fighter.
It's the "artist" bit that I have trouble with.
Bruce was a fighter. He believed fighting was primitive and neanderthal, the deepest core of violence humans are capable of. He trained in Wing Chun because he felt it contained the most effective fighting techniques out there; but he wasn't out to perfect his Wing Chun, he was out to perfect his fighting skills. So, he rebelled against a rebellious art, to make himself into a greater fighter.
I agree with everything you are saying.
Joe Morris
Ray White
07-02-2004, 13:48
Bruce was a fighter. He believed fighting was primitive and neanderthal, the deepest core of violence humans are capable of. He trained in Wing Chun because he felt it contained the most effective fighting techniques out there; but he wasn't out to perfect his Wing Chun, he was out to perfect his fighting skills. So, he rebelled against a rebellious art, to make himself into a greater fighter.
I think you guys are confusing Martial Artists with Martial Hobbyists.
I suppose to be fair we should leave the definition of MA to the individual, but historically the Do is a pale shadow of the Jitsu systems, neutered by occupying forces and then used to promote fitness and cultural pursuits.
The original purpose of "Martial" Arts is warfare and not personal developement. The developement came from the discipline and harsh reality of the training. Strangely this same growth, when even unspoken of, exists in any harsh endeavor like true budhist meditation, army regimentation, or serious sport persuits. One learns humility and respect for others efforts with most any difficult persuit that requires effort.
Bruce instigated a return to the persuit of function over form. It typically requires more athleticism to train in more realistic methods and it will not be attractive to everyone. But the results are irrefutable as to whether they work or not. But one way will never be for everyone and that is fine, I believe everyone should seek and find the persuit that fits them and meets their needs (which often change over time)
Visualization, repetition, grace, balance, co-ordination, endurance, and agility are all worth while characteristics for training. So is timing, distance and pressure. I think it's worth looking at what you want and what can get you there in the most efficient way.
train well,
Ray W.
shinbushi
07-02-2004, 14:10
Kata is very important for all Martial Arts it does not matter what style..
Not all fighting systems use forms:
from www.straightblastgym.com
Believe it or not, there are still a few people out there that feel 'form', kata, or djuru training have some place for an athlete interested in performance. Why this belief still persists is a mystery, but lets see if we can lay the dead patterns to rest.
The main reason people falsely believe forms have some sort of value is usually listed as "muscle memory". The idea that a move repeated enough times, becomes smoother, or more accessible during an altercation. Repeating a move over and over again in the air will do absolutely nothing for your reflexes or so called 'muscle memory'. In fact, repeating a move or series of moves over and over again in the same pattern and sequence will actually be counter productive to your bodies ability to respond quickly.
First, there is no TIMING, without a resisting opponent in front of you. Since there is no timing to be had, your reflexes, or response time against a resisting opponent, will not change, increase, or be helped in the least.
Second, there is no impact, as there is against a heavy bag. So there will be no benefit to your strength, body mechanics, or conditioning. In fact, your body mechanics may become altered in correctly due to the fact that you are not making impact against anything, but merely striking 'air'.
Thirdly, even when shadowboxing (another comparison morticians like to make when making zombies), you never want to repeat the same series of movements to many times in a row! This is a basic rule all boxing coaches are very familiar with. Go to the well to many times and your opponent becomes 'wise' to your arsenal. An example would be a boxer whom always hooked off the jab. After the second attempt he becomes predictable, and easy to set up for a counter attack or knockout. This is why it's important to make sure your athletes shadowbox fluidly. Watch them to insure that they are NOT repeating the same sequence of movements, in the same order, over and over again.
One basic difference that can be seen between a JKD Concepts Instructor, and a performance orientated Coach, is the difference in patterns. JKD Concepts Instructors, and indeed most 'traditional' Martial Artists, are consistently looking to learn, memorize, and repeat more and more patterns. A performance orientated Coach is always looking to break patterns, and movements that are repeated in the same order. A Coach should instead be watching his athlete to insure that when shadowboxing, working the heavybag, or any other piece of equipment, that athlete is not always repeating the same route of movements or combinations. This makes a fighter robotic, stiff, predictable, and creates bad habits. There really is no justification for maintaining the antiquated bad methodology of 'form' training.
blck_soft_hit_hard
07-02-2004, 18:10
If you're going to stray off the subject at the very least, answer the forum's question first. Katas are important because all of your style's techniques are hidden in them, they are a perfect way to master your stances and basics, and just a good overall workout if youre doing them right. Now, I'm going to get off a little bit ;) Someone in an earlier post said that there are no blocks in a kata. That is, I feel, incorrect. For one thing, why would you be taught blocks in your style but then none of your katas incorporate them. Secondly, even if you make the argument that your blocks should act as strikes, they're still blocks. You are stopping an attack, which is defensive, blocks are defensive, strikes are offensive. And finally, all katas start off, or should start off, with a block. This is to symbolize the no first strike in karate belief.
A lot of people here are very close minded about katas. All these statements about "no katas have blocks," "all katas start with a block," and "kata is only against one person." I don't even have to leave my own style to show katas that refute every one of those statements. Each Art has its own katas, which are different. Such general statements do not show any appreciation for any other art but your own.
Also, all systems have kata, by its simplest definition. By its simplest definition, it is a set of moves practiced repeatedly. If you learn to punch, kick, roll, fall, choke..... you learned a kata. ( you may have called it something else though, drill, routine, way to practice.... ) Kata is not defined as having to be solo, or without using a bag. Most of my kata has an uke. Some have bags to hit. Very few are actually solo.
One thing I have found in my kata, that I think goes for other systems kata, is that kata is about principle. Our kata is not the best way to handle a given situation, but it is the best way to teach you a principle. Learn the principle, and you can apply the principle anywhere. This is what I think Lee was saying. If you can never apply the principle of the kata anywhere else, then you are bound to the kata and have learned nothing. But to learn the principle, and learn to apply it everywhere, is to free yourself from the kata. ( every time he demonstrated something, like his one inch punch, it was kata )
YiLiQuan1
07-02-2004, 20:02
Item #1 - I have yet to train with a JKD person whose skills impressed me.
Item #2 - There is nothing "hidden" in a form. Everything that is or is not in a form is or is not there depending on the level of your training. The people who say things are "hidden" in forms have a desire on one level or another to have some mystique in their training. Fine. Those who say forms are useless antiques know little to nothing about forms at all, even when they have a TMA background of some kind.
Forms are textbooks. And like textbooks, they vary from class to class, school to school, program to program. Sometimes a textbook is also a workbook, asking you to fill in the blanks with what you have learned in class. Sometimes a textbook is a reference text like a dictionary or thesaurus. Textbooks are used to supplement what is learned from the teacher, to codify it for preservation and transmission.
However, if you don't learn everything the class has to teach you, and you take the textbook home anyway, two things can happen. First, you can hang onto the textbook and never crack it open again, having it in your library taking up space and collecting dust while you forget what you learned in class. Or you can go back to the textbook from time to time, re-reading the things you went over in the class, thinking about them and exercising the knowledge you gained. In this way the textbook continues to teach you.
So pick one...
Item #1 - I have yet to train with a JKD person whose skills impressed me.
Item #2 - There is nothing "hidden" in a form. Everything that is or is not in a form is or is not there depending on the level of your training. The people who say things are "hidden" in forms have a desire on one level or another to have some mystique in their training. Fine. Those who say forms are useless antiques know little to nothing about forms at all, even when they have a TMA background of some kind.
Forms are textbooks. And like textbooks, they vary from class to class, school to school, program to program. Sometimes a textbook is also a workbook, asking you to fill in the blanks with what you have learned in class. Sometimes a textbook is a reference text like a dictionary or thesaurus. Textbooks are used to supplement what is learned from the teacher, to codify it for preservation and transmission.
However, if you don't learn everything the class has to teach you, and you take the textbook home anyway, two things can happen. First, you can hang onto the textbook and never crack it open again, having it in your library taking up space and collecting dust while you forget what you learned in class. Or you can go back to the textbook from time to time, re-reading the things you went over in the class, thinking about them and exercising the knowledge you gained. In this way the textbook continues to teach you.
So pick one...
A very good post I agree with everything you said there
I like the way this thread has gone, very constructive and open.
Kata is different from art to art, even from person to person. The kata i do has blocks. It can be done in a way that makes it against a single opponent or against multiple. You can even do it with 2 people.
The people who say things are "hidden" in forms have a desire on one level or another to have some mystique in their training.
If i say this about anything i do its more that I dont "understand" what im doing. Why do I move my feet this way? Whats the purpose of this strike. Its hidden to me, but not to others.
YiLiQuan1
07-03-2004, 13:22
I like the way this thread has gone, very constructive and open.
That could be attributed to the fact that no "anti-kata" people have come in to rail against kata practice... So far, for the most part, everyone here is "pro-kata."
Kata is different from art to art, even from person to person.
Yes and no. While I'm no expert, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that:
a) Kata interpretation within a given style (that practices and teaches their interpretation) has an "orthodox," or "approved," interpretation.
b) Interpretation outside of the "approved" version is not necessarily incorrect.
c) Though two styles may use the same kata, because their method of application of technique differs (otherwise why is it a different style?), their kata interpretation will differ as well.
Just some thoughts. However, individual interpretation shouldn't supplant the "approved" interpretation because the individual prefers it. Oftentimes an individual who comes from a style that really has little in the way of instruction in kata interpretation will create a set of interpretations that go completely against the intention of the form in the first place. As long as the individual bears in mind the "intent" of the form, their interpretations can be passed along side by side with the "approved" version.
The kata i do has blocks. It can be done in a way that makes it against a single opponent or against multiple. You can even do it with 2 people.
And this makes your kata different from anyone else's how exactly? :wink2: ALL kata have strikes, blocks, kicks, joint locks, takedowns, throws, ground fighting techniques, and vital point striking. But if these elements of fighting are either not taught in your school or how they are encoded in the kata isn't described to you (which typically goes hand in hand with the techniques not being taught in the first place), then don't expect to find them.
If i say this about anything i do its more that I dont "understand" what im doing. Why do I move my feet this way? Whats the purpose of this strike. Its hidden to me, but not to others.
I'm probably debating semantics once again. While I'd agree that in common usage the term "hidden" is understood by all involved to mean simply that a technique is somehow incorporated into other movements and may have multiple interpretations of application, when debating with "anti-kata" proponents it is a word that they will key in on and use to discredit TMA practice as antiquated and deluded with mysticism. It would be best to find a way in which to describe "hidden" techniques in another fashion.
Enjoy.
If y'all want to get technical about it, no kata has blocks, strikes, etc. They only have movements. How you use those movements depends on your art, your preferences, and so on.
YiLiQuan1
07-04-2004, 14:13
If y'all want to get technical about it, no kata has blocks, strikes, etc. They only have movements. How you use those movements depends on your art, your preferences, and so on.
Nicely handled. :cool:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.