15 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joseph O'Neill
Joseph O'Neill's picture
Performance quality of kata for practical martial artists.

Good evening everyone, 

During lockdown, I have entered a couple of online kata competitions. I don't really do competition karate much, but thought it would be fun to have a crack at. 

I understandably have not done fantastically well. 

My question is - how "good" do the practical karateka (and TKD-ists and Kung-fu practitioners for that matter), expect the solo performance of their students forms to be for the practical application? I consider my form to be generally fairly solid (as an example, I will put a link to an entry using Gankaku at the end of this post for you to disabuse me of this idea), but it is obviously not competition standard. 

I have also seen kata performances by some great karateka with an excellent knowledge of practical application which I personally prefer the look of, but which again I don't think would find competitive success. 

I know Iain often mentions being exact in the positions in the kata when carrying out the solo performance (To paraphrase, "Are you fighting a taller opponent, or are you just bad?"), but how do you decide on what good is, and how close to a commonly agreed performance standard do you expect your students to perform the kata, whether within a club, organisation, or wider community (i.e. as close to the "Wado" or "Shotokan" form as possible)?

Does anyone here expect their students to acheive a level of skill in solo kata which would be successful in competition? If so why, and if not why not?

I understand in this situation "good" is purely subjective, and in fact it's mentioned in this thread (https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/changes-funakoshis-karate-during-his-lifetime) that Funakoshi's Tekki Shodan probably wouldn't pass muster at a karate competition nowadays even though it was evidently sufficient in quality at the time for his goals which were probably closer to what we desire.

I also acknowledge that there is probably a difference in what constitutes good from a competition and practical standpoint, but I'm curious to know how people on here judge the solo performance of kata as being adequate alongside the more practical elements which have more objective performance measures, particularly with regards to gradings, and especially as I would wager many people here have made the transition to practical karate from a 3K or competition focussed club.

Tl;dr - What standard do you hold solo performance of kata/hyung/tao lu to in the context of a holistic and practical martial arts curriculum?

Thanks in advance for any replies,

Joe

P.S. - This is my most recent kata entry:

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

My view is that practical Kata doesn't look that cool, it's faster and harder to tell what's going on...here's an example from Taira Masaji sensei:

 

To me this is a top notch performance, but I imagine it wouldn.t do all that well in Shiai. I did tournament Kata as a kid an teenager, I feel it's a completely different skillset and would just recommended students learn Shiai versions as an add-on if they are interested in that.

I judge solo performance of kata from students on basic biomechanical abilities and simply on how "comfortable in their skin" someone is going through a kata at a fair level of intensity in a way that reflects the application, which includes pacing.

On Funakoshi failing a Shiai competition, in my experience that is completely correct, as I have had friends who did "traditional" Naihanchin kata and did not do well, I assume because of the aforementioned factors - good Karate doesn't look that cool, and often doesn't look like much of anything at all, particularly if people are judging using criteria of sport/shiai. As an example, hard punches often don't look hard, think of things like shovel hooks and close hook punches.. you can gauge some of this stuff by looking at someone's body mechanics, but there are lots of things that just don't look like much but are very effective. To do them in Shiai Kata you have to de-engineer them to some degree to make them more visible.

Without meaning to jump on anyone in particular, JKA-style Kata performance typically involves stances that are deep enough that they simply cannot be utilized as-is, even by different body types, they are simply too deep for anyone to utilize effectively. This kind of aesthetic change is pretty central to Shiai kata stuff.

I don't have an exact standard for people at all, if they are understanding the applications and practicing well, a Kata will often look different between individuals. Honestly I have had such an issue with getting some of my students to do Kata on their own that I feel like they are better off with a funky version than no version at all...ha.

I think getting  good at "practical kata" is a pretty in depth thing, and involves taking small parts of movements working them over and over, then integrating them, alongside the applicatoin. At some point one has to ask how much of that is practical vs. just doing partner work, but it is something that I don't see anyone but higher level students engage in in my little world anyway, to be honest. For instance, there are a bunch of ways to do an oi-zuki, not all of which look particularly cool, but will yield different results when actually used.

I thought your performance was solid, Shiai Kata is just it's own thing, and while your pacing was approaching what I remember as being good in that arena, I think if you want to do better you should....artistically exaggerate more, if that makes sense. Shiai kata is about the appearance of Kime I think, whether kime is there in any real sense or not. Obviously though, I am no expert and haven't tried it since the 1990s!

I wanna enter one of these just to see how bad I do, heh. Where can I find them?

Joseph O'Neill
Joseph O'Neill's picture

Thanks for the response Zach,

Zach Zinn wrote:

here's an example from Taira Masaji sensei:

[...] To me this is a top notch performance, but I imagine it wouldn.t do all that well in Shiai.

I'd agree with that, I think that looks fantastic, but I can imagine the comments of people where I've trained about his finegers not being together and other minutia.

Zach Zinn wrote:
Without meaning to jump on anyone in particular, JKA-style Kata performance typically involves stances that are deep enough that they simply cannot be utilized as-is, even by different body types.

Coming mainly from a Shotokan base, this is my main problem with Shotokan specifically and Competition Style more generally. In my personal training I use much narrower, higher stances than Shotokan typically does, which from a Shotokan club position is "bad" form, which is part of where my question came from.

Zach Zinn wrote:
I don't have an exact standard for people at all, if they are understanding the applications and practicing well, a Kata will often look different between individuals.

This is great feedback on how you apply kata in a club, my follow up question would be do you ever have any issues with students, or other instructors, taking issue with different performances where they think one is subjectively worse than another and therefore one person isn't as skilled as the other?

Zach Zinn wrote:
I thought your performance was solid, Shiai Kata is just it's own thing, and while your pacing was approaching what I remember as being "good" in that arena, I think if you want to do better you should....artistically exaggerate more, if that makes sense.

Thanks for the kind words, I watched several competition performances to try and get the timing down, as well as a Luca Valdesi seminar on Youtube, as the timing is quite drastically different to how I would normally do it, with this recording being somewhere between the two, and the overall performance has some differences from how I normally do it. I get what you mean about exaggerating more for artistic effect, though.

Thanks again,

Joe. 

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
Thanks for the response Zach,

No problem, going crazy with being locked down and so have posted more here recently than I have in many years, missing the dojo a lot and it is nice to keep my mind active with these kinds of conversations.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
I'd agree with that, I think that looks fantastic, but I can imagine the comments of people where I've trained about his finegers not being together and other minutia.

Yes..non-functional minutae... I have some students from Wado Ryu that often have questions about things like this and most of the time I don't have an answer because aestehtic changes to kata are just a different category than I am used to thinking in anymore. The other thing is, there is more than one right way to do most Karate technques, even from a practical perspective.. so lots of times quibbles over footwork etc. can be answered by "sure, if it moves you where it needs to fast enough, it's good".

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
Coming mainly from a Shotokan base, this is my main problem with Shotokan specifically and Competition Style more generally. In my personal training I use much narrower, higher stances than Shotokan typically does, which from a Shotokan club position is "bad" form, which is part of where my question came from.

From my perspective people's "personal" way of doing kata is often the best from a pracitcal standpoint, because they are learning how to move comfortably and swiftly in their own body, rather than a template set by someone else. The idea that people should all move and look the same is contrary to my experience in martial arts, so I have moved away from it...though I know it was the standard in my early Karate education.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
This is great feedback on how you apply kata in a club, my follow up question would be do you ever have any issues with students, or other instructors, taking issue with different performances where they think one is subjectively worse than another and therefore one person isn't as skilled as the other?

It's mainly a non issue for me, Kris Wilder is my main Karate mentor, and his comments on how to do things are usually in the form of suggestion and explanation, rather than saying something is out and out wrong. Other than that I usually interact with "functional karate" types at occasional seminars (been able to see Iain a couple times, a number of others) where the issue of how to do Kata rarely comes up, which doesn't mean it shouldn't, it just rarely gets talked about, that I see. I'm sure if I asked people's opinions though, I'd get all kinds of flack for ugly kata...especially from people with a more uniform background and organizations.

So I guess to me "bad" performance tends to be someone who does not have the fundamentals of movements down, too clunky, transitions between moves and stances are awkward, putting too much effort without the requisite technique to support that effort, etc., other than that there is a pretty wide range in individuals, and truthfully I think some people (I'm not one of them) are just more coordinated and able to "get" Kata better due to it. I think there is a large amount of personal bias to what constitutes good kata, for instance I tend to value fuid movement and the ability to take a contigous series of techniques and execute them with speed rather than an appearance of power neccessarily...however, that is not a pre requisite for good kata, just what I like, and I am sure it filters down to my students, for better or worse. Among my own students, the only different I notice in quality is those who practice and attempt kata on their own have objectively much better kata than those who only do them in class, and usually have a far greater "movement vocabulary" as well. So objective quality there is just related to amount of practice.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
Thanks for the kind words, I watched several competition performances to try and get the timing down, as well as a Luca Valdesi seminar on Youtube, as the timing is quite drastically different to how I would normally do it, with this recording being somewhere between the two, and the overall performance has some differences from how I normally do it. I get what you mean about exaggerating more for artistic effect, though.

I remember one of the things that we did back in the day was exgagerating the "looking" with the head, where head-turning was actually separated from the movement for the purposes of "demonstrating that you are looking the right direction"..something you would hope would be built in:) I know I've seen some Shiai performances where they are still doing something akin to this - turning the head first - silly from a practical standpoint, but it does look cool. I imagine that winning this competition would be similar to what it used to be, pick up on enough little performance details, add them in, then personalize. It also matters a lot who is judging, of course.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
Thanks again,

Gladly. Like I said, just being able to virtually talk martial arts has been a therapeutic thing in quarantine.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi All,

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
My question is - how "good" do the practical karateka (and TKD-ists and Kung-fu practitioners for that matter), expect the solo performance of their students forms to be for the practical application?

Short answer, “Very” :-)

There need to be a high level of coordinated movement, body awareness and body control if higher levels of skill are to be reached. Efficient and coordinated human movement is always pleasing to the eye; so even to the uninitiated a kata should look “good”. However, dancing and gymnastics can have the same aesthetic appeal, but we would acknowledge that that “good” is not the same as combative “good”.

In short, functional movements are aesthetically pleasing, but movements which are aesthetically pleasing as not automatically functional.

The standard of kata for the pragmatically minded should be high because we have an objective measure of “good” as opposed to a fluid and subjective measure of “good”.

I talk about that is this video:

 

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
I have also seen kata performances by some great karateka with an excellent knowledge of practical application which I personally prefer the look of, but which again I don't think would find competitive success.

In the late 1990s I was a national level kata judge. I even had the privilege of being tatami chief for both individual and team finals at national level. I did some international level judging too. I’d therefore like to think I had a very good understanding of the rule set of that time.

The rules were totally clear that kata must be judged in line with the bunkai of the kata and all asthenic or athletic add-ons should be marked down. If the bunkai needed the kick low, but it was high, then less of a score. Excessive pauses, gi slapping, exaggerated breathing, excessively deep stances, changing the flow of the kata for dramatic effect, etc should all be marked down. There were therefore zero difference between a good competition kata and good practical kata. You still heard people argue that “competition kata are not real kata”, but that was flat out wrong … when the rules were being correctly applied. Poor, unqualified judges at local level may have favoured flashy over functional, but the rules were clear that should not be the case. That did not happen at national level otherwise the judges would have their qualifications pulled.

I’ve been out of that world for over 20 years now, and I’m not sure what the rules are now. I do see things like gi slapping at high level these days, so maybe there’s not the same emphasis on marking down for these things. No doubt there are some incredible kata demonstrated through.

I used to do OK in kata competitions (placed top 4 in almost all that I entered), but I was never going to win national and international level competitions simply because my kata was never good enough. I’d like to think my kata is good, but it’s not elite level. I could do what many others do and point at the competitors and say their kata looks better because they are doing “competition kata” whereas I’m doing “real kata”, but the truth is their kata is simply better than mine. They may not be spending as much time on bunkai practise, sparring, impact drills, etc so their ability to apply may well not be at the same level as mine, but their solo kata, when isolated from the wider matrix, is nerveless superior to mine.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
I know Iain often mentions being exact in the positions in the kata when carrying out the solo performance (To paraphrase, "Are you fighting a taller opponent, or are you just bad?"), but how do you decide on what good is, and how close to a commonly agreed performance standard do you expect your students to perform the kata, whether within a club, organisation, or wider community (i.e. as close to the "Wado" or "Shotokan" form as possible)?

So long as the group has a clearly defined datum from which to work, they are good. They need a clearly defined and precise solo kata in order to develop body awareness and control. Naturally, in combat, we maintain the principles but adapt the way we manifest those principles in line with the variables of conflict. However, we still need a clearly defined example in that kata.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
Does anyone here expect their students to acheive a level of skill in solo kata which would be successful in competition? If so why, and if not why not?

To get to elite level at solo kata alone, you have to dedicate a great deal of time to it and that could mean neglecting other areas of practise. However, I think that most pragmatically minded karateka should be able to give a decent show of themselves in a well-judged competition i.e. kata judged against traditional standards not “gymnastics in a gi”.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
What standard do you hold solo performance of kata/hyung/tao lu to in the context of a holistic and practical martial arts curriculum?

It’s unlikely to be elite level competition standard, because training time is more evenly distributed. However, it should be high quality.

All the best,

Iain

Joseph O'Neill
Joseph O'Neill's picture

Hi Iain and Zach,

Thanks for the responses, a lot of good things to think about, I won't reply to every point if that's okay otherwise this post will take forever, just a couple of follow-on questions.

Zach Zinn wrote:
From my perspective people's "personal" way of doing kata is often the best from a pracitcal standpoint, because they are learning how to move comfortably and swiftly in their own body, rather than a template set by someone else. The idea that people should all move and look the same is contrary to my experience in martial arts, so I have moved away from it...though I know it was the standard in my early Karate education.

[...]

So I guess to me "bad" performance tends to be someone who does not have the fundamentals of movements down, too clunky, transitions between moves and stances are awkward, putting too much effort without the requisite technique to support that effort, etc., other than that there is a pretty wide range in individuals, and truthfully I think some people (I'm not one of them) are just more coordinated and able to "get" Kata better due to it. 

My question here is do you have a set standard which you would use as a base (and if so, how did you decide it), and then allow a certain amount of deviation from this depending on a student's individual criteria (injuries, body type, age, etc.), or for you is it a case of as long as you can see the techniques in the right order with the body and limbs in the right place, then that's a sufficient level of solo technique for you? That sounds accusatory but I don't mean it to be, I just can't think of a better wording.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

In short, functional movements are aesthetically pleasing, but movements which are aesthetically pleasing as not automatically functional.

The standard of kata for the pragmatically minded should be high because we have an objective measure of “good” as opposed to a fluid and subjective measure of “good”.

[...]

So long as the group has a clearly defined datum from which to work, they are good. They need a clearly defined and precise solo kata in order to develop body awareness and control. Naturally, in combat, we maintain the principles but adapt the way we manifest those principles in line with the variables of conflict. However, we still need a clearly defined example in that kata.

So my follow on from this is what do you use as the objective measure of good? Is it resemblance to the application of the techniques when used against an opponent (i.e. if someone were to perform a move, and you photoshopped out their uke, you'd want the kata to look like that), or do you have different objective criteria for judging solo kata? I'd be genuinely interested to know what those were, as I can't figure it out myself as I feel any judgement I made would still be subjective based on my opinion of the form.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

I talk about that is this video:

YouTube tells me I have watched that video previously - I do not remember doing so, so will rewatch it!

Iain Abernethy wrote:

In the late 1990s I was a national level kata judge. [...] I’d therefore like to think I had a very good understanding of the rule set of that time.

In the late 1990s I was only about 7, so it's excellent to be able to draw from people with a greater depth of experience, as I have none from that period - I may go and watch some competition kata from around then to see the difference, if anyone has recommendations for good people to watch I'd love to hear them. 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Excessive pauses, gi slapping, exaggerated breathing, excessively deep stances, changing the flow of the kata for dramatic effect, etc should all be marked down. There was therefore zero difference between a good competition kata and good practical kata.

[...]

I’ve been out of that world for over 20 years now, and I’m not sure what the rules are now. I do see things like gi slapping at high level these days, so maybe there’s not the same emphasis on marking down for these things. No doubt there are some incredible kata demonstrated through.

My general experience has been that this is no longer the case from the competitions I've entered, and from watching some competition kata as part of my prep towards the virtual competitions. I suppose this is part of where my initial question comes from, alongside the earlier comment about functionality being aesthetically pleasing, but training only for aesthetics not necessarily being functional. 

With the majority of people's main or initial exposure to kata being competitive kata, which as has been acknowledged has elements added to it to make it flashier, what standard do we use other than how close the form comes to competition forms, which is often the standard used in non-pragmatically focussed dojos, even if they're not directly competition focussed?

Final additional question, how do you accomodate people with injuries or issues which would prevent them from adopting a given stance or posture when doing solo kata? In the gym classes I run, I often have older trainees with hip or knee injuries, who would not be able to get into, for example, the kneeling position for the gedan juji-uke in Gankaku, or carry out the jump into gedan juji-uke for Heian Godan for an earlier example. Would you modify the kata for them, and how far would you be willing to modify it?

Say for example they came to you and said they couldn't kneel like that, but had this application which fit with the rest of the kata, but was instead in kiba-dachi, would that be acceptable and would you allow them to perform the solo form with a kiba-dachi when training the kata as a club/group?

Thanks again for the responses, 

Joe.

P.S. None of this, by the way, is to belittle competition karateka, there are as you say some phenomenal athletes out there performing excellent kata.

P.P.S. Sorry Zach, I didn't notice this first time around:

Zach Zinn wrote:
I wanna enter one of these just to see how bad I do, heh. Where can I find them?
My work computer's not allowing me to load it, but there are some on here: https://www.sportdata.org/etournament if you look for karate. 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
So my follow on from this is what do you use as the objective measure of good?

It’s functional, biomechanically sound, and closely follows the datum example we have chosen or that has been given to us. That last part may seem subjective, but it’s not because you are choosing from a subset of objectively effective examples.  

There are numerous ways to do the same movement in a functional and biomechanically sound way (both objective measures); and there are many variables in combat which will determine which variant is most efficient in the specific instance (again, that’s objectively measurable). For the kata, so we can check body awareness and control, we chose one of those ways. In short, we have an objective example we work from.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
Is it resemblance to the application of the techniques when used against an opponent (i.e. if someone were to perform a move, and you photoshopped out their uke, you'd want the kata to look like that) …

Yes and no. The example will need varied to be optimal for the specific situation when we factor in all the unknowns. The kata will perfectly match one situation, but it can’t match all situations.

We talk about that a lot in another thread:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/comment/16837#comment-16837

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
… or do you have different objective criteria for judging solo kata?

It’s functional, biomechanically sound, and closely follows the datum example we have chosen or that has been given to us.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
I'd be genuinely interested to know what those were, as I can't figure it out myself as I feel any judgement I made would still be subjective based on my opinion of the form.

We need to define terms here:

Subjective: “Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.”

Objective: “Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”

Let’s say that in a given kata you were doing a head height forward punch … and you threw your weight backward and twisted your hips away from the punch. That is objectively wrong. Punches need weight put into them to be effective. We can look at that kata movement at say is objectively wrong using the measure of function.

You could say that you like the way the move looks or feels when reverse shifting and counter rotating. That would be subjective. As pragmatists, that is to be avoided. We seek to measure objectively i.e. it has demonstrable utility irrespective of how we feel about it.   

Now’s let’s say you have two versions of the same kata where they both put weight into the strike, but one throws the punch head height and the other does it chest height. We acknowledge that in combat the head could be high or low; so either could be appropriate depending upon where the enemy’s head is. Both examples are therefore objectively correct.  

It’s no good if we say to the student, “just punch wherever you think the head may be”. If we did we have no way of objectively measuring their ability to get their body to do what they ask of it. So, we pick an example.

Some styles say, “in this example we are thinking that the enemy’s head is high” and others say, “in this example we are thinking that the enemy’s head is in line with your chest”. You have chosen one of the objective examples so you can objectively measure the student’s ability to put their fist in a defined location. You are not subjectively choosing how to do the movement based on feelings or personal taste. Instead, you are choosing an example that can be objectively shown to be functional and biomechanically sound. We can then measure how closely the student follows the datum of the chosen objective example.

In short, you are measuring objectively when the kata can be shown to have real world benefits combatively (application and training effects). We are being subjective when we measure from the standpoint of looks or feeling. Of course, we may like the way an objectively effective movement looks and feels, but the objective measure remains in place.

All the best,

Iain

Joseph O'Neill
Joseph O'Neill's picture

Hi Iain, 

That makes a lot of sense, particularly when you put the subjective and objective descriptions in that way. I suppose because the justification for a given technique is usually "because that's how it's done," I wasn't really thinking in practical terms, so I like the comparison of the different height punches, that clarifies it for me a lot.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
...closely follows the datum example we have chosen or that has been given to us. That last part may seem subjective, but it’s not because you are choosing from a subset of objectively effective examples ... Some styles say, “in this example we are thinking that the enemy’s head is high” and others say, “in this example we are thinking that the enemy’s head is in line with your chest”. You have chosen one of the objective examples so you can objectively measure the student’s ability to put their fist in a defined location.

I think this is where I was getting hung up, as I was viewing differences in different styles kata as having to be subjectively good or bad. 

That answer clears a lot of things up for me, so thanks again,

Joe. 

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Joseph O'Neill wrote:

My question here is do you have a set standard which you would use as a base (and if so, how did you decide it), and then allow a certain amount of deviation from this depending on a student's individual criteria (injuries, body type, age, etc.), or for you is it a case of as long as you can see the techniques in the right order with the body and limbs in the right place, then that's a sufficient level of solo technique for you? That sounds accusatory but I don't mean it to be, I just can't think of a better wording.

Yeah, I have certain standards for Kata, I've never bothered writing them down or anything, and they have changed gradually over the years. As an example, in Goju Ryu as I learned it there are certain postural habits that one develops from the practice of Sanchin (among other things, but it's pretty central) that determine how someone steps, punches, changes level etc. I look at those things and I guess I would say they form a large part (maybe 80%?) of the "required" criteria. The other 20% is catered to the individual and their capabilities, particularly because I have only adult students with a huge age range, people with injuries, etc.

There are also "traditional" ways of doing Goju Ryu kata that I eventually decided were bunk, so I removed those after consultation with teachers, and new habits became the standard.

It strikes me that part of this is a bunkai standardization question. In order to judge "good" in terms of a kata reflecting the applicaion, I judge it against a "standard" bunkai - that's the objective standard. I learned standard applications for most movements, and then innumerable variations in practice. So I am judging people's solo kata performance by how close they are coming to what is needed for the standard application.

I know you asked Iain (and his answer is likely to be much more authoritative than mine) but I figured I comment on the modifications part simply because I have injured students. From my perspective the best case there is a bunkai that simply requires a less athletic movement. larger athletic movements in Kata tend to be somewhat more specialized I think (for instance, they don't repeat usually, which says to me they are less strategically emphasized), so I am not sure how you'd do that in the examples mentioned.

With Goju Ryu there are not as many of these sorts of movements as in Shorin Kata I think, the only ones I can recall are a spinning screcent kick in Suparinpei and a dynamic squatting motion in Kururunfa. With the Suparinpei movement I would have people simply do it without the spin, and the Kururunfa movement is a throw, in both cases the addition of the dynamic movement is helpful for bunkai variation, but not neccessary for the basic technique.

It's also reasonable in my opinion (even desirable) that students simply focus on one to three kata that they truly delve into. This might be tougher with the larger set of kata to choose from in Shorin styles, but there is no rule that everyone needs to do everything. I have three Shorin kata I still do that are optional material in my Dojo, as well as Naihanchin which is pretty foundational for us, despite being a primarily Goju class. Students can learn all kata according to expectation, but "archive" the ones they don't get as well, and reach an acceptable/competent level of performance. They pick two or three to focus on at a time. That way you end up with students gravitating towards the kata they can do well, and challenging themselves a bit with the one's they cannot.

Joseph O'Neill
Joseph O'Neill's picture

Thanks for the response Zach,

Zach Zinn wrote:
As an example, in Goju Ryu as I learned it there are certain postural habits that one develops from the practice of Sanchin (among other things, but it's pretty central) that determine how someone steps, punches, changes level etc. I look at those things and I guess I would say they form a large part (maybe 80%?) of the "required" criteria.

This is an advantage of Goju-Ryu, I suppose, in that you have a single reference point to which the other 8 or so other kata can be compared, and with the body position testing often used for Sanchin you then have an objectively good or bad sanchin-dachi for example. 

It reminds me of Robert Twigger's theory of Micro-mastery, i.e. learning to do one thing which includes all the skills for a given activity, to make learning the rest of the activity easier, for example learning to make a proper omelette encompasses all the techniques required for a wider range of cooking, learning to perform a strong Seio-Nage includes all the skills needed to learn the wider curriculum of Aikido (he's an aikidoka, for context), so Sanchin fills this role for Goju-Ryu, I suppose.

Zach Zinn wrote:
 It strikes me that part of this is a bunkai standardization question. In order to judge "good" in terms of a kata reflecting the applicaion, I judge it against a "standard" bunkai - that's the objective standard. I learned standard applications for most movements, and then innumerable variations in practice. So I am judging people's solo kata performance by how close they are coming to what is needed for the standard application.

This links well with what Iain's said above, and I think it's a good way of having an objective standard by matching the form to something which would be combatively effective if you put someone in the way of it.

Zach Zinn wrote:
 I know you asked Iain (and his answer is likely to be much more authoritative than mine) but I figured I comment on the modifications part simply because I have injured students.

Sorry, this question was to anyone reading the thread, not just Iain. Everyone will have different experiences so I'm interested to learn from any and all of those. 

I think you're right in looking at whether the more athletic presentation is actually necessary for the performance of the actual technique - I will bear that in mind and then develop specific adaptations to the kata for those who need it.

Zach Zinn wrote:
 It's also reasonable in my opinion (even desirable) that students simply focus on one to three kata that they truly delve into. This might be tougher with the larger set of kata to choose from in Shorin styles, but there is no rule that everyone needs to do everything.

How do you implement this with regard to gradings? Is this something you would only expect students to begin doing when they're higher in the syllabus, or from a lower level? 

I can actually imagine it being easier with something like Shotokan's 24 kata as there's more range for different preferences than the 8-10(?) in a Goju-Ryu syllabus, as you could say the Heians and Tekki 1 are needed before black-belt, then across the next 5 black belts, you'd need to learn the solo form of all the kata in the syllabus, but only delve deep into and develop bunkai for 1 additional kata at each level?

Thanks again, really appreciate your thoughts on this,

Joe. 

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
It reminds me of Robert Twigger's theory of Micro-mastery, i.e. learning to do one thing which includes all the skills for a given activity, to make learning the rest of the activity easier, for example learning to make a proper omelette encompasses all the techniques required for a wider range of cooking, learning to perform a strong Seio-Nage includes all the skills needed to learn the wider curriculum of Aikido (he's an aikidoka, for context), so Sanchin fills this role for Goju-Ryu, I suppose.

I will check out Twigger's theory, thanks for the info. Yes, I think that's the aim. Interesting about half the eight traditional Goju Kata adhere to the "sanchin" standard, the other four are more nebulous in that while you could argue they still share the same internal architecture, they get pretty "Kung Fuey" in places and don't look like Sanchin anymore...so, it's a good model for standards but not perfect.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
I think you're right in looking at whether the more athletic presentation is actually necessary for the performance of the actual technique - I will bear that in mind and then develop specific adaptations to the kata for those who need it.

One of the most impressive Karateka I've had the opportunity to get training from was a (I think) mide-sixties Japanese gentleman who, while not in particularly athletic shape was a phenomenal Karateka. One of my big regrets is that I never got to see him to do Kata (everything I did with him was application-based), as I think it would have been very enlightening on this exact subject. The guy could toss me around like a rag doll, hit like a mack truck, move swiftly and decisively, but I imagine he might have a more difficult time with some of the more athletic aspects of kata, simply due to the normal changes of age, it did not impair him in particular, and he is still sought after for instruction. Old folk can kick ass...they're just gonna do it differently:)

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
How do you implement this with regard to gradings? Is this something you would only expect students to begin doing when they're higher in the syllabus, or from a lower level?

Tough question. I have a small group of dedicated students (8 to 10) who have been around for years, and who have pretty different learning styles. Some people just want the application, drilling, and rough -n- tumble bit mostly and slack off quite a bit on kata on their own, expecting to only do it in class. Getting pas the point of a new brownbelt involves doing kata enough that you know which ones you vibe with in the first place. I'm willing to put up with that up until they get to brownbelt, at which point a person can't appropriately develop further without taking on kata study as their own practice, not simply something they do for gradings or to look a certain way when they present them. I have a some students who I think will probably struggle with this over the next few years as they hit a place where they must study and practice kata, or will not be able to progress to shodan...which is the highest I can promote anyone to. I also only have four belts (white, green, brown, black) so there's lots of time in between gradings typically, I throw in "stripes" on rare occasions where they make sense and someone needs a motivational bump.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
I can actually imagine it being easier with something like Shotokan's 24 kata as there's more range for different preferences than the 8-10(?) in a Goju-Ryu syllabus, as you could say the Heians and Tekki 1 are needed before black-belt, then across the next 5 black belts, you'd need to learn the solo form of all the kata in the syllabus, but only delve deep into and develop bunkai for 1 additional kata at each level?

The way I have my curriculum set up, by the time someone is a shodan all they need to know pattern-wise is:

Gekisai I and II, Sanchin,Tensho, Saifa, Seuinchin, Seisan, Sepai, Shisochin. Naihanchin is there, but not a grading requirement. The other three kata go beyond where I can even promote people to. Even this is a lot of pattern to ask people to learn, from my perspective. I feel it's not bad though when you consider that someone will spend probably 2.5-5 years getting a shodan, depending on the speed they are learning/progressing at.

As far as bunkai I teach stuff for all kata, but most people end up not only focusing on one to three kata, but eventually with a handful of "their" things that they do well, are more likely to excecute and spend time pressure testing, dynamic drilling, using in live training etc. And of course, it is the same for me, I am good at some stuff and not good at other stuff. ideally, by the time someone nears shodan they have become the type of student who is not relying on my limitations anymore anyway.

That is to say, they can learn something bunkai wise even if it is a thing which I am not good at, because they now understand the principles involved, how to pressure test a technique etc. I might give them the basic seed, but they grow it into something I've never cultivated to the degree that they are...and then -I- get to learn from my students...which I have.

That's what I aim for in a practical Kata syllabus integrated with bunkai..hopefully that makes sense.

So to be clear, while I teach bunkai for all the kata I teach, there is no way for any of us to adhere to the same level of quality for all applications, unless we simply do everything in the most rote,"dead" technical way possible. I have seen and been involved in systems where this is the expectation, and frankly in my my personal opinion they quickly devolve into "teaching to the test" and nothing but.

So with both Kata and bunkai,  an advance student (-and- a teacher, of course) should know functional bunkai for most of the kata, but this does not mean there should be an expectation that they can apply it all it equally, That said, once someone gains knowledge of some of the principles underlying bunkai, a large chunk of stuff will be doable competently anyway, and "application" becomes an organic thing, rather than a rote one. Does that make sense? To give an example, I know alot of application from my Sun Taiji form, and can apply some of the principles, even though I have never been taught Sun Taiji application, bunkai principles are pretty universal.

Enjoying the conversation, some of this stuff I have not thought about overtly until you asked, or haven't thought about in a long time, so it's actually helpful for me to talk about this stuffl.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
My work computer's not allowing me to load it, but there are some on here: https://www.sportdata.org/etournament if you look for karate.

Thanks, I may do this, if I do I will share my attempt as well. I'll share my kata even if I don't, since you did;)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Joseph,

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
That makes a lot of sense, particularly when you put the subjective and objective descriptions in that way.

I’m pleased that helps.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
I suppose because the justification for a given technique is usually "because that's how it's done," I wasn't really thinking in practical terms, so I like the comparison of the different height punches, that clarifies it for me a lot.

Totally. If someone states, “because that’s how we want it done” then it’s a subjective measure. However, it’s they state, “because this is demonstrably functional” then an objective measure.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
I think this is where I was getting hung up, as I was viewing differences in different styles kata as having to be subjectively good or bad.

My take is that all versions of the kata are right if they can be shown to be functional. Where the kata differ, it’s most often different examples of the same concept. Sometimes it can be the same message written in a different “font” too i.e. motion done in a Shotokan way, Shito-ryu way, etc. It’s all remains objective if the motion can be shown to be functional. We move to things being subjective when the justification for a motion is a reference to how it looks or feels irrespective of demonstrable function.

There is a fair bit of subjective justification when it comes to kata; especially in “style vs. style” and “group vs. group” debates i.e. “We have our hand here, but those mislead heretics have it one inch higher.” Bottom line, there is a subset of numerous effective examples and all of them are objectively solid.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
That answer clears a lot of things up for me, so thanks again

I’m pleased that helped and thanks for kicking off the thread.

All the best,

Iain

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Ok Joseph, I filmed Saifa real quick in my kitchen, excuse the mess, Covid 19 and all that. I have Covid hair too.

 

Anyway, never quite satisfied with my performance, but if I -were- going to take this and "tournament-ize" it, I think I would slow it down and emphasize the pauses, periods of gazing etc. None of that has to do with using it practically, but does make it look nicer. I still conclude that the pacing of kata is one of the big differences between the solo routines of people practicing mostly with a practical inclination, and those practicing more for aesthetics.

ky0han
ky0han's picture

Hi Joseph,

Joseph O'Neill wrote:

I understandably have not done fantastically well. 

If I was a Kata judge the only thing I would have to criticize is that you missed a technique right before the Manji Uke sequence (standing up into Morote Gedan Barai). And not doing the Kata correctly by missing out on gestures is a big no go I guess. Maybe that is why you were assessed the way you were.

Regards Holger 

Joseph O'Neill
Joseph O'Neill's picture

Zach Zinn wrote:
I still conclude that the pacing of kata is one of the big differences between the solo routines of people practicing mostly with a practical inclination, and those practicing more for aesthetics.

I'd agree with this, I think - that saifa looks nice, though. Much different pacing to how we did it when I did Goju Ryu, but I like the speed of it.

ky0han wrote:
you missed a technique right before the Manji Uke sequence

Even re-watching this before I submitted it, I did not notice I missed this, thanks for pointing it out! This was about the 8th or 9th run through, I wonder whether I missed it in all of them (I've deleted those I didn't use).