movement variance

I think you should alter any movement according to your needs, remember that the form is one thing and the use of the information in actual combat is another thing.

Back in the old days the master showed you a movement in a certain way. The student right besides you performes the movement in a slightly different way, because the master told him to do so.

With the introduction of karate into the okinawan school system, adjustments had to be made. The teacher could not longer concentrate on the individual needs of the students. That and the introduction of military standards like lining up in a row and so on formed the base of "modern" karate. After that merely all movements in kata were formalized again, this time to make them comparable in tournaments.

Here you can see John Burke explaining his thoughts about that certain movement.

(I hope it is that movement you are talking about.)

Thats my take on this.

Regards Holger

John has got the best explanation and practical application  for that movement I have heard of.

nice one.

One thing I have always had a problem with regarding "literal interpretation" of movement in kata within bunkai, is human physiology.  No cookie cutter technique is ever going to be universal.  Of course, the theory behind the application of the movement will be universal, but differing heights, body types etc, will allow for some alteration of technique in application.

I know I am preaching to the choir here, but kata should be made to fit the practitioner, not the other way around.

Respectfully,

Nathan Ogden

I agree that we can't do the movement exactly the way that it is done in the kata. i guess my question is how much can we change a movement before it becomes divorced from the kata?

Finlay wrote:

I agree that we can't do the movement exactly the way that it is done in the kata.

I agree too. We can’t and we shouldn’t. Funakoshi said in his 20 precepts that, “Always perform karate exactly; Combat is another matter.” In Nakasone’s explanation of that, which Funakoshi endorsed, in “Karate-Do Taikan” he said that “we should never be shackled by the rituals of kata, but instead move freely according to the opponent’s strengths and weaknesses.”

The way I see it is that the kata gives us an example of the methodology to be studied. A vital part of that study will be practise that allows us to vary and adapt that example to be relevant to exact circumstances (stages 3 & 4 of my 4 stage approach).

If we have a misplaced desire to always stick exactly to the kata example – and therefore fail to grasp the true purpose of that example – then we will be unable to apply the kata in a free flowing way.

Finlay wrote:

I guess my question is how much can we change a movement before it becomes divorced from the kata?

If we think of the kata movement as an example of methodology and core underlying principle, which I think we should, then it is only when the principle is violated / no longer present that a movement becomes divorced from the kata.

All the best,

Iain

Movement Variance

Guess my question is how much can we change a movement before it becomes divorced from the Kata?

I spent many years training with seniors telling me change this, change that, you’re doing that wrong. One week we did this in the Kata next time that had changed we don’t do that anymore.

I would train in Scotland and the Kata was very far in my eyes from the teaching I had from the most senior of instructors in London, then in Wales, Newcastle, Southampton, Birmingham, Finland, Europe you name it, it was all change.

I can remember cross training with-in a Shotokan group and the Kata had changed in this group Video was new (Early 80’s) and the students had to buy the video (VHS or Betamax) if you needed to pass the next grading as the Kata had ‘Changed’. You would fail if you failed to understand these changes.

My first instructor Mitsusuke Harada trained with Master Funakoshi and frequently collected him by taxi and escort him to Waseda dojo. He described Funakoshi as having an impressively strong grip for which the old master was noted. He would say to his young students: “This is how Itosu/Azato could stop a man”. As was his custom, Funakoshi would only teach only Kata. Funakoski believed that the Kata was the soul of Karate, and that kihon and kumite was an aid to Kata and not, as is commonly the interpretation today, the other way around. Harada said “We didn’t realise the importance of Kata then.... and Funakoshi didn’t explain, and that’s where he made the mistake. We, as students, were concerned with the second dimension black belts wanted more – they wanted kumite? Funakoshi spoke in the third dimension.  

Master Harada made it quite clear that it was Funakoshi’s daily practice of Kata that allowed him to continue training at 81-years-old. Master Harada said Funakoshi changed moves in Kata – he quite openly admitted it? There was nothing wrong with that, in the sense that other masters at the time were doing exactly the same thing. The motive was one of refinement. Despite more than 40 years passing Harada noted that many of the things that Funakoshi had done or said was coming back to him as truths, and he was very grateful to Sensei.

So is any one of us doing the Kata as it was over a 100 years ago, all I say is I seek what the master sort. My Kata won’t win any competitions but its mine all I need to know it works and students tell me in real combat it translates and is tested in the world of Guns, Knives and modern weapons / attack situations.   

This is a good question, and it is at the heart of what makes karate, 'karate' to most people.

The question is also at the heart of what makes 'good' training for most people.

It has baffled me for a long time that, on the one hand, karateka insist on extremely tight PRECISION as a component of 'good' kata practice.  (And, of course, there are all sorts of justifying reasons that can be offered to explain why this is important... think about some of them for a moment.)

Other areas of practice where karateka insist on precision also abound:  point sparring:  hit the target with something called 'control', or generally, there is no point awarded.  Self-protection:  hit something called atemi or 'pressure points' on your opponents body that are, by any standard, absolutely MINUTE in size.  Hit them precisely for a specific effect.

Precision is even a factor in how we 'feed' simulated attacks...  if the drill is to punch the face with an oi-tsuki, nobody ever just kicks their partner in the shin unexpectedly.  Why?  (Because this would be a highly IMPRECISE method of training, and admittedly, one where a higher degree of injury potentially exists due to the surprise factor).

And, before I proceed, let me say very clearly that I have observed many, many arts besides karate who are just as guilty of the criticism I will now level against the art, which is:  sometimes we try to talk out of both sides of our mouth.

Here's a question:  If you are instructing a class, and you are teaching a parry followed by a counter punch to the jaw (or even more simply 'the face') followed by a wrist grab and pivot to a straight arm bar, what degree of precision do you insist on for you students?

Is it 'OK' if, in applying their parry, the defending student taps the offending punch weakly such that a 'real' punch would blow right through?

Is it 'OK' for the defender to counter punch a foot in front of their attacker's face, or do you require them to have the appropriate distance such that there is some 'load' left in the technique so that it could be extended THROUGH the target?

Is it 'OK' if, in making their arm bar attempt, the defender applies the force at a point on the arm FORWARD of the elbow, closer to the wrist, or would you correct that?  If so, why?

Is it 'OK' for the offending partner to just 'dead fish' for the defender after throwing their strike, or, after a certain number of 'setting' reps has been achieved, should the offending partner start to offer some degree of physical resistance?

My theory is that most instructors will see the deliberate fallacy in the preceding questions, and will see the primary point:  that, as instructors, in 'application training' we almost always **INSIST ON** extremely tight precision.  (Sometimes too much, IMO, but that's another post).

 So, if we look at literally **ALL** other aspects of training, we generally insist on WYSIWYG applications, and tight exactitude.

And, I'm betting if, without allowing them to see the 'hook' in the question, if a person were to ask, one instructor to another, why the second instructor does that, many, many reasons would be articulated about why precision is so important in developing something called "technique".

 So, seen in that light, the question I believe every karateka ultimately needs to artiucluate and answer for themselves is: 

Are my katas a)  a precise combative 'rehearsal', or b) are the something else?

If the answer to that question is 'a', then I think that a person had better be practicing application to the motions that follow the motions of the form exactly.  Or rather, it should be the other way around:  the form should FOLLOW the applications with the same degree of exactitude that will be insisted upon IN application.  This is because, (presumably), the entire purpose underlying the existence of the form is to act as 1) a repository for the student to 'remember' technique combinations and applications, and 2) to act as a vehicle for solo practice (i.e. solo combative rehearsal) when no partner is available.

On the other hand, if the answer to that question is 'b', further questions become necessary.  If you decide that your forms are NOT a direct combative rehearsal, then what are they?  Are they an inventory of single moves?  Are they an inventory of combinations?  Are they meant to be a NON-APPLIED training device, for instance are they **DELIBERATELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF** conveying attributes which merely SUPPORT actual combat?   Are they a Rubick's Cube intended to deliberately challenge the students intellect?    Is it a form of 'hard' yoga?  All of the above?  What?

I capped 'deliberate purpose' above, because this is the central problem I see with many karate programs-- there is no deliberate purpose for the use of forms other than 'sensei says so'.

The associated generalism which results from drills with NO CLEAR PURPOSE is decidely absurd  in the face of the precision insisted on in literally almost every other area of the dojo.

If I was instructing weight training or swimming, I would not want a student to learn improper technique.  It would be ludicrous in such situations to insist on precision with a particular type of body movement that did not PRECISELY MIMIC the 'form' of the applied exercise. 

Why then, when I am teaching someone a much higher-risk activity, like blocking a punch, would I then say "OK, move your arm like this.  We call this a 'Swan block'.  Its really a [secret] strike to a dime sized spot on the ooponent's occipetal ridge using the finger tips.  But first, you have to turn the guy like this, which move is [also secretly] not shown precding the swan-block-which-is-not-really-a-block move in the form.  And really, when we go to do it FOR REAL we apply it this way anway.  (kicks student in balls first, then pivots him, then swan beaks the $hit out of him).

Hey that sounds like a new Enter the Dojo epsiode.    

But... "Karate without kata is not karate"-- to some.  If I have heard that once, I have heard it a hundred times. (I even used to believe that myself.)

Anyway, I am trying to be funny and thought provoking, not to mock karate. Like I said, I have talked with LOTS of martIal artists who are just as 'in love' with THEIR inherited patterns and exercises.

I have always been interested in Miyagi's suggestion that more research was needed into the application of karate forms, along with what he described as the creation of new forms.  That was in the mid-1930's, I think, and that sentiment goes a long way IMO to articulating what even the revered 'past masters' may have known or not known about the contents of the forms THEY inherited. It's interesting that the first karate club was called a "research society".

So, I am not saying 'kill your kata'.  I AM saying 'decide what they are for', such that they have a deliberate purpose in your training, and so you can supplement areas of your training with other exercises that you have decided that kata is NOT for.

Personlly, I ultimately opted to abandon the inherited forms for new forms which I use as WYSIWYG inventories for beginning students.  The student learns the applied motion FIRST.  They go on from here to insert a 'placeholder' mechanic in a sequential form so that they have a 'body picture' to RECALL the applied lesson physically, almost like the physical equivalent of 'adding a page' to a physical notebook.  This is useful for them in helping them to initially learn, and, from a memory standpoint, to subsequently 'recall' a prior section of the curriculum.  But I tell them from day one:   the forms are entirely, completely and totally **USELESS** from the standpoint of applied combatives.  Yes, they develop supporting attributes, but the fact is, 99.9% of these are just as readily available (most are more available) from other methods of training which DO have more specific applied purposes.  So, for me, that is the 'answer' to the question that I ultimately settled on personally.  But,  it is also my point that this IS a personal decision, and ultrimately, it is a bridge that all self-crictical karateka will come to in pursuit of quality training and instruction.  

Belated PS upon re-read:  reference the idea that WYIWYG type forms are implausible on the basis that multiple opponents with divergent body types exist, I'd like to add the point that to me, literally any SOLO or non-applied training exercise:  bag, mitts, ippon kumite, wrestling, what not, needs to be adapted to fit the opponent and opening.  Forms are, therefore, at best, an illustration of what you are 'supposed to do' to the other guy.

I was just watching an interesting video from a system that uses forms.  The guy showed how some applications could NOT be practiced very well without the attacker's momentum and or body weight to counter-balance themovement of the trainee. i.e. it was an illustration of the idea that some moves are ONLY possible to tarin with physical resistance from an uke.  Therefore, the movements from the form needed to be custom 'fit' to the threat.

miket wrote:

I'd like to add the point that to me, literally any SOLO or non-applied training exercise:  bag, mitts, ippon kumite, wrestling, what not, needs to be adapted to fit the opponent and opening.  Forms are, therefore, at best, an illustration of what you are 'supposed to do' to the other guy.

I’d agree with that but would perhaps rephrase the last sentence to say, “Forms are an illustration to what can be done to the other guy in order to illustrate key principles to inform partner training.” I totally agree that there is no “one size fits all” motions as there are many variables in conflict. What kata gives us then is not a fool proof “will work as is every time” motion, but solid example of principle and concept. If we don’t practise varying motion – while staying true to principle – in partner training the whole thing becomes useless. The past masters were quite clear on this:

Motobu: “It is important to understand the principles of kata such that we can bend with the winds of adversity”

Funakoshi: “Always perform kata exactly. Combat is another matter”

Nakasone (when expanding on the Funakoshi quote above): “Never be shackled by the rituals of kata, but instead move freely according to the opponent’s strengths and weaknesses”

Otsuka: “It is obvious we must train the formal kata, but we should not become stuck within them. We should withdraw from the kata to produce countless other forms of training otherwise it becomes useless.”

In short: kata is not the pinnacle of training, but a solid foundation.

All the best,

Iain

First, nice post miket. That nicely articulates some stuff I've been thinking, but didn't have words for yet.

Second:

My training partners are mostly MMA guys. They have ZERO interest in practicing kata. But they do like the applications.

My approach has become this: I practice the kata. I use the kata to "discover" a technique or concept. I develop some (solo and/or partner) drills I hope will support the lesson. Then I take the lesson to the guys and we see what sticks. Some things get modified, for a variety of reasons. I write it all down. They don't. I never show them the kata, because they don't care.

This approach supports the "kata as textbook" idea. You need the text to teach. You don't necessarily need it to learn.

Maybe someday I'll take my notebook and create a kata of my own like miket. But probably not, because I don't see anything wrong with the ones I've got.

Hi Iain,

Iain Abernethy wrote:

What kata gives us then is not a fool proof “will work as is every time” motion, but solid example of principle and concept.

do you distinguish between principle and concept? Or are those two terms used by you interchangeably?

To me a principle is like a law or fact. It is always true. A Concept on the other hand is like a first idea of something or like a recipe or plan to do something.

Regards Holger

ok old thread but...

to bring it back to original 'block' in question

in the form example the things that i would take away from the movment would be

both arms moving at the same time with force being genralted from the hips with a stamping motion.

Mr. Burkes application, although good, seems to break the basics of the movementespecally that both arms are not moving together and there for one or both are losing the hip generated power.

so, i guess my question with regarding this is, does it matter? again i am not saying that we have to fight exactly like the forms or anything so silly like that but surely the movement is presented in the form/kata for a reason. we have many techniques where the hands move seperately but this particular one was performed differently should we not be asking why? rather than altering it slightly to make an application

I actually think that the original application implication or strategy with this type of movement is probably more likely associated with defence against a Bo or pole wielding assailant...

This would fit into the Jitte Kata theme which to my mind is a bo-based kata...The movement itself seems very expansive and would lend itself to stripping a pole-like weapon off your opponent once grabbed.

My thought on what is might be:

Stand in the posture with your leg behind the opponents leg, the elbow on the opponents chest, now turn, keeping the elbow down as you do so.

Why is the other arm out? I don't know exactly, but sometimes when you do a knockdown/throw like this it helps to use the other arm to connect the upper body..that's how i've seen it done in some Tai Chi as well.

As to whether it matters that it is exactly the same, I don't know...one thing is that you can take totally different people and if they are using a reasonable method to 'read' kata, they seem to come up with similar results, with some variation. It should bear enough simialrity to the kata that large, gross movements are the same, but beyond that it seems best to not get to nitpicky.

You took the words right out of my mouth........Everytime I practice my Kata, I would discover new bunkais with a class mate that is intereted in learning with me so we can embark on a new journey of discovering new techniques and we would review and write down notes so we can go back and learn something new such as from a stand up or ground technique situation. If certain techniques flow, we stick to them until we continue to practice what we've learned.

Katas are so beautiful, yet It also encourage us (MA students) that theres countless technique's and It's up to us to do this discovery on our own and with a partner.

Michael Hough wrote:

First, nice post miket. That nicely articulates some stuff I've been thinking, but didn't have words for yet.

Second:

My training partners are mostly MMA guys. They have ZERO interest in practicing kata. But they do like the applications.

My approach has become this: I practice the kata. I use the kata to "discover" a technique or concept. I develop some (solo and/or partner) drills I hope will support the lesson. Then I take the lesson to the guys and we see what sticks. Some things get modified, for a variety of reasons. I write it all down. They don't. I never show them the kata, because they don't care.

This approach supports the "kata as textbook" idea. You need the text to teach. You don't necessarily need it to learn.

Maybe someday I'll take my notebook and create a kata of my own like miket. But probably not, because I don't see anything wrong with the ones I've got.