Kata?

[JujitsuFreak]

Ive had kata's before in my old styles and always thought highly of them. Gave foundation to moves, balance, built concentration, etc etc...

At my new school we have no katas, it's all 1-on-1 training or 1-on-1+, such as many Jujitsu styles are. I like this in that one is always working on another person's reaction or action. Perhaps one day I will be interested again in kata's and forms, IMO-very graceful and artistic pieces of an art.

My question is, Ive done some looking up and found schools of Jujitsu having kata's in their syllabus's, I have never seen katas or forms in this style before. Ex: Why would the Gracie's have a kata since it may not relate to their style of MA? Can anyone define or be specific as to why katas are apart of a Jujitsu style? And better yet, from a personal standpoint - how do you view forms and/or katas in your own style?

[Luebbers]

I'm not sure what styles you found that had katas (I really don't know much about JJJ), but one of the major points the Gracies harped on about BJJ was that there were no katas. They, like Bruce Lee, thought that they were a poor excuse for live training and that sparring was the surest method to learn and test your techniques. I would be curious as well to hear about these katas.

[John Bennett]

> "At my new school we have no katas, it's all 1-on-1 training or 1-on-1+,"

Jim, if you are drilling pre-arranged sequences, you are doing kata. Doesn't matter if they are called kata or not, they are.

[Luebbers]

So, for example, at the beginning of the night, we do, let's just say, ten arm bars from the mount. That's considered kata?

[John Bennett]

> "ten arm bars from the mount. That's considered kata?"

Yup.

Your instructor may say otherwise and perhaps this is really just semantics, but that's what I consider it.

One of the primary purposes of kata is to rehearse sequences and combinations so that the become automatic. Drilling armbars is just doing a very short kata.

That way, when sparring, the sequence of actions is already burned into your head. You don't have to think "Let's see...crowd the arms...uh...oh yeah...wrap them to chest...leg across", it just happens.

That's one thing that irritates me about the flowery, acrobatic kata you see in some standup styles. I think "What the heck is THAT supposed to be for"?!

Kata for teaching new techniques to beginners, refreshing the memory of experienced students, or refining details, is a valid learning tool.

Kata for the sake of kata is not martial arts, it's dancing.

[wab25]

John, you hit that right on the head. What really bugs me is guys who stand there and tell you how horrible katas are, and that their system NEVER does katas. Then they ask you to practice a choke, or escape from the mount, or a particular guard pass.

Like John said, every system has kata, whether they admit it or not. If you show someone a particular technique, or let someone practice getting a particular technique, its kata.

Many people missunderstand Bruce Lee, to their own detriment. He was against people getting stuck in kata, not people practicing kata. He himself practiced kata. ( ever seen the movies of Bruce Lee doing spinning kicks, punches and breaks? all kata. his one inch punch? kata ) He wanted people to look beyond kata. Looking beyond kata is to learn the principle being taught in the kata, and learn to apply that same principle in as many different places as possible, even with out thinking about it.

My other rant is people doing JKD as their first art and throwing out many techniques as not valid, because they can't make them work. JKD is a masters art, it was meant to be taken after learning a few other arts. Then, you have the ability to really understand what works and what does not. Nobody can do a kick to the head or a hip throw really well, without years of study, but those techniques should not be thrown out because I, with my 1 month of training, can't make them work in sparring. Too many JKD newbies throw out too many techniques because they are afraid to learn something new or even increase their ability. Bruce Lee was all about learning new things and increasing his ability. To his credit, Bruce Lee came up with some pretty amazing stuff. The problem is that you have to be on his level to understand what he said. I think too many of us have convinced ourselves that we are on his level, when really, we have a ways to go.

[Luebbers]

I guess that definition of kata was just not what I had pictured in my mind. I was thinking of one person, alone, practicing footwork and hand/leg techniques; but I totally agree with what you're saying.

I also totally agree on irritation with newbies that think they can be Bruce Lee. I totally know tons of 17-year-old kids (okay, not tons, but several) who've been taking TKD for like a year and a half and are already talking about throwing out useless techniques and absorbing other techniques they've "picked up," (which I assume means, saw someone do). It never seems to occur to them that the reason some technique doesn't work is because they can't do it correctly.

[RA Miller]

Jim-

The old-style katas were a training tool. In the sixteenth and seventeenth century, the bushi's unarmed art was for one situation only... finding yourself disarmed on the battlefield.

The only good option in that situation was to kill someone else as quickly as possible and take his weapon. An unarmed person never has and never will be much of an asset in a military battle. Traditional jujutsu styles were a very small number of very simple techniques. Those techniques were practiced as kata.

In order to get good (reflexive level was your only decent chance) required a lot of reps. Unfortunately, killing a lot of people wouldn't be economical. You couldn't pad your weapons like you could with a sword or spear (even if the gloves didn't decrease your ability to grip (which is vital in infighting) they screw up your distancing. Wearing training armor was pointless, since most of the techniques were designed with armor in mind... using the training helmet for a grip for a neck break wasn't any safer than using the battle armor.

What they came up with was kata. Once the basic skills were down, uke would attack with a full speed, full power comitted attack and tori would respond at full speed and power. The safety came in because uke would respond to that kata, such as going completely limp just before tori put full body weight on a neck shear. Or dropping his weapon in a specific place in the kata because if he held on to it (and he would hold on for dear life in a real encounter) he would land with his floating ribs on the tsuba.

It was the best way they'd found to program someone with lethal techniques against a fully resisting (actually, a fully attacking) opponent, with a minimum of crippling injuries.

Rory

[Lex]

Hey guys. We have quite a few kata's in the style of JJJ i learn at my dojo, for e.g katas of bloks and kicks. but i do learn mostly modern JJJ so im not to sure. It may just be the fact that some instructors find it easier to use katas than others. i personally think kata's are a good thing. otherwise im not to sure , has anyone else got anything to add?




---------------------------------------------------
Live by the sword, then die by it!

Lex williamz!

[Andrew Green]

In order to argue on whether or not something is there you have to define it first.

Most people think of kata as the long series of excercises done by karate/kung fu/TKD/etc.

Those I do not do, and think are counterproductive to my goals.

Literrally I believe kata translates to "form". So doing anything where the emphasis is on form is kata. Doesn't matter if it one move, or a series of 100 moves.

As for the first definition, Yes some exist. Judo has some kata. Series of throws / Locks / Pins / Self-defence moves that are practiced for form (ie very formal, lots of bowing, etc.)

That sort of thing I do not do.

But if you want to define it as doing anything then everyone does kata all the time. Before reading this you did your turning on the computer kata. Then you did your opening Internet Browser kata.... and it is kind of a pointless argument.

[Mekugi]

....every system has kata, whether they admit it or not. If you show someone a particular technique, or let someone practice getting a particular technique, its kata.

This is a key here, I believe.

Ultimately this is all about a misconception of what "kata" is. Judo is something everyone on this thread is fairly familiar with, calls these type of techniques "randori no Kata" or "kata for freefighting." If you're into Tomiki Aikido or familiar with it, they go a step further and seperate their training into "Randori" and "Koryu" kata.

-Russ

[Nikolai]

kata can be anything really.

[Jack Stay]

Hello Jim,

I think one must understand the difference between Kata (static practice) and Randori (free practice).

Most 'jitsu' styles use kata out of necessity - how does a practitioner of Ken-jitsu do free practice using live blades without death or serious injury? It is impossible to do Randori with real swords without a messy drop in your student body. So all Ken-jitsu people must practice their Katana techniques in kata.

Same thing with Ju-jitsu; a ju-jitsu person must practice his nasty bone breaking and wrist snapping techniques in kata, because there would be serious injury or death if done in Randori (free practice).

In the old days in Japan, the transition from kata to reality usually took place in the form of a duel or actual combat, with one person left standing.

It was with the advent of the 'do' styles that Randori came into its own. When Ken-jitsu became Ken-do, Randori (free practice) became possible because of the shinai (bamboo sword) and body armor.

When Ju-jitsu became Ju-do, Randori (free practice) also became possible because of the modification of nasty techniques into safe techniques, and the emphasis on safe falling.

In karate-do, kata was complemented with its own form of free-practice called 'kumite'. Both Randori and kumite allow for safe competition.

I don't know how well martial arts theory is explained, or required, in today's dojo? But these concepts were the fundamental basics in my kyu days.

Thanks!
_______________________________________
John 'Jack' Stay
Boston, MA.

Nidan - Judo
Nidan - Hakko-Ryu Jiu-Jitsu

[Mekugi]

Hey,

One thing that is important is a combative attitude. This is something you maintain in order to keep training "alive".

That is not to say you are really going to kill one another and go at it tooth and nail; it means you have to keep the mindset that you are in "combat" in order to make the training worth while. It's a combative agreement that you have with one another to take your training to an "extreme" and not go beyond it; I have heard this idea termed "riai".

This goes for both Kata and Randori (not shiai) IMHO.

-Russ

[corsarius]

It definitely all hinges around definition.

Kata can be:

a. A sequence of formalised movements practiced without an opponent: in this case, kata are of limited use for actual application, but provide valuable knowledge of techniques - transitions between techniques, footwork, etc.

b. A sequence of formalised movements practiced against a live opponent: this is more like the kind of training found in jujutsu etc. For example, hontai yoshin ryu's yoku-no kata (sp) contains a sequence of 10 specific attacks and defences, practiced in pairs. These are extremely useful for training, as they provide a means of learning the application of a technique's principle while maintaining a safe environment. Note that these kata teach the PRINCIPLE of the technique, which may differ significantly from the combative application of the technique.

This means we cannot define ANY movement as being a kata - only movements which are formalised and rendered for training purposes.

[Jack Stay]

It definitely all hinges around definition.

Kata can be:

a. A sequence of formalised movements practiced without an opponent: in this case, kata are of limited use for actual application, but provide valuable knowledge of techniques - transitions between techniques, footwork, etc.

b. A sequence of formalised movements practiced against a live opponent: this is more like the kind of training found in jujutsu etc. For example, hontai yoshin ryu's yoku-no kata (sp) contains a sequence of 10 specific attacks and defences, practiced in pairs. These are extremely useful for training, as they provide a means of learning the application of a technique's principle while maintaining a safe environment. Note that these kata teach the PRINCIPLE of the technique, which may differ significantly from the combative application of the technique.

This means we cannot define ANY movement as being a kata - only movements which are formalised and rendered for training purposes.

Yes, I agree that Kata are formalized. They are not 'free practice'. As a quick example, Dr. Jigoro Kano only emphasized Shiai (tournament) 3% of his Judo training repetoire and Randori a full 88% with 9% left over for Kata. Both kata and randori were more important to the founder of Judo than mere tournament play, and for good reason.

Yet without randori, Judo would be practiced only in kata just like ju-jitsu.

Kata does serve a lot of purposes, and safety was one of them.
_______________________
John 'Jack' Stay
Boston, MA.