two-man katas for karate

I'm not convinced the Okinawna kata were formulated with set 2 man versions myself - granted a lot has been lost but I don't think there is one 'real' example to base this on. If they were something would have survived?

That's not to say of course they cannot be worked that way, I just don't think (in their current format) they ever were meant to be- the only exception I could say different is with Naihanchi as practiced with Kodo Ryu (Nathan Johnson Sensei group) - but this most certainly wasn't practiced on Okinawa, but it fits like a glove the solo kata more than anything else I have seen inc reasons for working the way the kata does in terms of different combinations.

All just IME and IMO of course.

That’s a very interesting collection of clips (I’ve embedded them to make them easier to view).

How people choose to train is obviously up to them, but I personally don’t like drills like the ones demonstrated. They look good and have a nice flow … but they are entirely fixed and predictable. The back and forth nature means that if one of the participants does anything other than exactly what the drill demands – as is certain to happen in actual conflict – the whole thing falls apart.

I’m a big believer in two person drills, but it needs to reflect reality, be devoid of choreographed back and forth, and dominate the enemy (like on my pinan / heian series: the complete fighting system drills), be unscripted (as I do for naihanchi / tekki on the beyond bunkai dvd) or entirely live (kata based sparring).

Drills like those in the above clips are not for me as I feel there are far more realistic and beneficial ways to drill bunkai and construct two-person kata drills.

I doubt such drills were ever a part of historical karate training, but if such drills were ever “re-discovered”, I’d reject them in favour of something more practical. They would never be part of my karate. Each to their own, but I really don’t like carefully choreographed drills (wrong combative feel) and drills that involve willing sacrificing a position of advantage so the enemy can have their turn (wrong combative mindset). I know of people who do train like this and it seems to work for them, but they are not for me.

All the best,

Iain

What is interesting to me is that just about all Japanese martial arts are are based on two man kata. Look at Kendo or its predecessors kenjutsu, look at koryu styles of jujutsu, or even Judo. it is only Okinawan karate and Chinese arts that focus on the solo kata. Western arts have two man kata also, boxing wrestling, fencing, all have "idealized" movements that teach principle. I believe that two man kata teach principle better than solo kata, because you have distance timing, and a human response. Those kata can be modified into drills that take the principles and make them more applicable to real modern situations. Wado ryu karate the branch tha tI study (WIKF under Tatsuo Suzuki) has 16 solo kata and 50 formalized paired kata. Versus a style like Shitoryu which has close to 50 solo kata. .

Matthew Matson wrote:

I believe that two man kata teach principle better than solo kata

Totally agree and I think it would be hard for anyone to argue otherwise. The first issue then is what kind of “two man kata”? I’m not a believer in the kind of drills shown above, or the “oi-zuki from ten feet away and then stand there” one-step training so prevalent in karate. Any drill / two-person kata has to have a direct relationship to conflict and avoid dangerous errors and practises in my view. Not all two-person drills have equal relevance to conflict.

Matthew Matson wrote:

Those [two-person] kata can be modified into drills that take the principles and make them more applicable to real modern situations.

Yes, but we can also take the solo kata and develop two person drills from them. As I see it, the two-person practise came first and the solo kata developed from that as a means to record combative concepts and ensure continuity of information though the generations. There is therefore no real need to make a set of two-person drills divorced from the kata. Nor is there a need to then practise the solo kata in isolation. If we do that, kata then becomes “stand alone” as opposed to an integral part of practise.

The point is that we don’t need to make a choice between solo kata and two-person drills. Personally, I have found that making them “one” as part of the whole process to be what works best. It’s therefore my preference to have kata, two-person drills and kumite all be directly linked and directed towards function in conflict. There is no separation and no conflicts in practise.

In my dojo we have 10 kata (beginner to 4thdan), around 100 formal two-person drills all directly linked to kata, and all of our many forms of kumite make direct use of the techniques and concepts recorded in the kata and expressed in the drills. All of it is directly applicable without the need for modification.

I’m not saying what I do is the ideal approach for everyone, but it certainly works for us. Each to their own. The central point though is that it is the type of two-person drills we do that is the defining issue. I see that as being more important than how many two-person drills are done. Personally, the type of drills in the above clips, and the one-step type found in much of modern karate, is not for me.

All the best,

Iain

Interesting, though they seem more orinetated towards showmanship. But hey, that's okay if you're trying to drum up business and keep the crowd's interest. I know several practitioners who have their "display" forms and "work" forms.

Myself I'm a big believer in two person drill. Some of my favorites, aside from taking things out of the kata are:

1: Having both fighters pad up and make one work on only body shots while the other works head shots.

2: One person can only do stand up grappling while the other can only punch.

3. One person kicks while the others punches

4. One person blocks while the other kicks and punches

5. One person fights thier way up from the ground while the other fights stand up.

Also if the fighters tend to stand to far away during these drills I'll take a piece of rope, or a belt, and attach it to their belts so that they keep within arm's reach. That, or make one person stand in a corner while the others strikes them.

The more realistic the drill the less eye appeal it will have. I guess that's one reason why everyone likes to see spinning back-kicks instead of a good right cross. The same applies to working kata in two person drill. The real application has very little appeal, except to those working it.

Mike

michael rosenbaum wrote:

The more realistic the drill the less eye appeal it will have.

Very true. One reviewer of my Kata-Based-Sparring DVD commented on how ugly the drills were and how it would have been better to see some “higher level” people sparring. The thing is that drills are supposed to be “ugly” (it’s a good sign they are realistic) and there was plenty of high level people involved! The reviewer was obviously conditioned for a certain view and there is often an expectation of a certain type of aesthetic which is entirely absent from all realistic training … which, when you get used to it, has an aesthetic all of its own.

People know the tale of the “ugly duckling” right?

All the best,

Iain

My views on two-man drills.

There are two major types of drills I train with.

The first one is a collection of the kata applications, pieced together in a way that has me dealing with an attack, finishing them off (or them countering it), and then they come back with another technique. This drills ONLY purpose to get the students use to the applications and to practise them over and over again. A side benefit occurs when the drills have coincidentally fitted nicely for the defender to practise his countering ability also.

The second one is one of "total dominance", it is free flow from one technique to another as the partner tries to defend and (occasionally attack back) depending on the "rules" we have in place. I do this type of drill to get use to knowing when to use applications I know and how to move on from one application which isn't working (either by poor technique or ressistance from the partner). The purpose of this drill is to emulate a real fight to the degree that the students want. Some of these drills can allow the attacker only to cover, others allow the attacker to resist, fight back etc.... (and depending on the amount of pads and protection, depends on the power of the techniques used).

Finally I also like to have fun and practise, kung-fu style pak sau, just to get warm and maybe build reflexes if I want to spend time on them.

The major thing, like anything in martial arts, is knowing why you practise what you do. I practise the first drill type to practise the applications, the second to know when to use the applications, and the third mainly for fun.

Finally, is it just me? or is the "messiness and roughness" of a good two man drill the exact thing that makes it beautiful? I really enjoy watching them for that reason.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

One reviewer of my Kata-Based-Sparring DVD commented on how ugly the drills were and how it would have been better to see some “higher level” people sparring. The thing is that drills are supposed to be “ugly” (it’s a good sign they are realistic) and there was plenty of high level people involved! The reviewer was obviously conditioned for a certain view and there is often an expectation of a certain type of aesthetic which is entirely absent from all realistic training … which, when you get used to it, has an aesthetic all of its own.

I've heard that argument made against professional boxers, one of which was Mike Tyson, another being George Foreman. It's easy to make statements like that if you've never been involved in full-contact training, or practiced live drills. However the more experienced the fighters are then it usually means the fight will look sloppy simply because each fighter's tactics negates the others. Clean shots- as seen in tournaments- do happen, but often because its an experienced fighter verses an inexperienced fighter. For instance a bar brawl in which the inexperienced fighter performs a grab while the experienced fighter simply throws a cross, uppercut or haymaker, or all the above thus ending the fight within a few moments.

So much of how we view karate has been influenced by one-step and two-step sparring, not to mention point tournament play and solo kata exhibitions, that we shreek in horror at the even thought of grappling/sloppy fighting. However, its been my experience most fights are sloppy and its not the person with the picture perfect kata who wins, but the one most accustomed to loosing and regaining their balance, molding with or avoiding an oncoming attack or dealing with someone who is trying to dominate you through the use of grabs, shoves and pushes. In other words all the things two-person drills simulate. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, at least that's how I view good training.

Mike

michael rosenbaum wrote:

So much of how we view karate has been influenced by one-step and two-step sparring, not to mention point tournament play and solo kata exhibitions, that we shriek in horror at the even thought of grappling/sloppy fighting.

I agree and feel many have been conditioned for the wrong aesthetic. If it is neat it is “good” and if it is ugly it is “bad”. The truth is that ugly is what it is and there is no choice in the matter.

The fighting within the chaos will be highly skilled, and it is the chaos that creates the ugliness. That ugliness is not the failure of technique, and an ugly fight is not the result of sloppy technique, but the very nature to the environment in which the skilled technique needs to operate.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

However, its been my experience most fights are sloppy and its not the person with the picture perfect kata who wins, but the one most accustomed to loosing and regaining their balance, molding with or avoiding an oncoming attack or dealing with someone who is trying to dominate you through the use of grabs, shoves and pushes. In other words all the things two-person drills simulate.

Again I totally agree, but would like to add that the nature of the two-person drill is pivotal. Some two-person drills don’t simulate conflict (i.e. the one-step and two-step sparring mentioned above).

Also worth mentioning that from a self-protection perspective we also need three person, four person and group drills too. Lots of chaos to be found there! ;-)

All the best,

Iain

Leigh Simms wrote:

The major thing, like anything in martial arts, is knowing why you practise what you do. I practise the first drill type to practise the applications, the second to know when to use the applications, and the third mainly for fun.

Totally! Nothing wrong with doing something for enjoyment. Indeed it’s a very good reason to some something … the problem is only when people think something has relevance to conflict when it does not.

Leigh Simms wrote:

Finally, is it just me? or is the "messiness and roughness" of a good two man drill the exact thing that makes it beautiful? I really enjoy watching them for that reason.

Again I agree. Seeing the “skill within the storm” has a beauty that totally outshines “the fanciful on flat seas”. As Mike points out, some have a differing conception of the aesthetics of conflict, but I'm totally with you there.

All the

It's obvious that what I initially said has sparked much debate, which is good.  I've added additional youtube links to this posting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i0NalQ1UdU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZFtG6Ml3kI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olS3hYAQ9pc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vueDk__iW4&playnext=1&list=PL9C329B412DD3F87A&index=27

A lot of individuals like to describe certain kata as belonging to a specific style, whether they are solo or partner drills. Gin Foon Mark of Jook Lum Southern Mantis developed a number of two-man katas for his style, and they were added to other southern mantis styles as well. The point is that it takes a certain amount of creativity to adapt or apply ones martial arts skill into different methods of training.

For example, the article on applying naihanchi kata to a mook jong wasn't based on any particular style of karate. It's main purpose was to illustrate that naihanchi has possibly more than one application. Recently, I watched a demo of naihanchi performed not on a sideways pattern, but on a forward walking application. The karate stylist who performed the hybrid version used the phrase "okinawan wing chun."  While this may set some purists on edge, it does show that beauty/application is always in the eyes of the beholder.

This is also why in wing chun the use of the rattan ring is considered a substitute for the mook jong-wooden dummy. As I understand, the boat people of hong kong (who practiced wing chun) were not always able to train on a wooden dummy, therefore the rattan ring was used. The ring helps simulate most, if not all of the hand techniques and patterns used within the wooden dummy kata/form. Here again, the ring, like the mook jong, helps simulate fighting an opponent and/or performing a two-man kata.

We need to realize that the web has made forums like this possible. For example here's another youtube vid to help prove what I'm saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY9Cku6E3SY

Herman Melville's novel "Moby Dick," is a huge source for literary-subjective interpretation. Used in either oral debate, or written essay, there are literally thousands of applications taked from its pages. However, I doubt that Melville ever dreamed his novel would have gone this far.

The late Jimmy Woo of Kung-fu San Soo once said that kata/forms could be used/applied in different ways: solo drills, partner skills, grappling, weapons, healing, etc. In short, interpretation is subjective.