Grappling in Karate article

Roper

MartinC2006 pasted this article in another thread wrote:

In a mixed martial arts tournament (such as the Ultimate Fighting Championship) it is quite common to see contestants opt for the fight to go to the ground. This is a sound strategy if the contestant knows that they possess superior ground fighting skills to their opponent. In today's society real fights are rarely one on one for any length of time and hence opting for a ground fight is a sure way to get 'a good kicking' from your assailant's colleagues (or anyone else who fancies a 'free shot'). In the UFC, techniques such as biting, crushing the testicles, gouging the eyes etc. are banned. And yet these are the norm (and a highly effective 'norm') in a self-defence situation. Possibly the most significant difference between sport ground fighting and real ground fighting is the 'intent' behind the fight. In a sporting contest your aim is to win the tournament. In a real fight your aim is to assure your safety. In my dojo, the ground fighting practice revolves around the regaining of an upright position so that student can flee. In a competition match the strategy may well be: A, Take the fight to the floor. B, Keep the fight on the floor. C, Weaken and tire the opponent. D, Get the opponent to submit using the techniques allowed in the rules. In a real fight (and hence the method used in the katas) the strategy would be: A, Avoid going to the floor at all costs. B, If the fight does go to the floor, regain your feet as quickly as possible. C, If getting up is not immediately possible, then hurt the opponent using simple (probably brutal) techniques. D, Once back to your feet, escape and seek shelter or help.”

Hey, I'd just like to start a new thread on this as I didn't want to spoil the other.

I think the guy who wrote this article has a fundamental lack of understanding of MMA, and should not attempt to write articles on it. Discuss!

Millionaire

On the SD angle of this post, I feel I am qualified to comment on it, (as I'v been attacked and had to defend myself for real in the past), is I agree on Street SD, avoid ground, and if you hit ground, you should do all possible to get back on your feet.

I think re SD we all have agreed (SAS thread)that you must have skill in all ranges, train proper alive methods, etc (please lets avoid going over all that again!!!!) .

If SD is your focus, IMO I would devote more time to strikes and a little less to ground training, as my aim would be to spend little time there, (in case of attackers buddy kicking me in head).

If I was training for an MMA competition, I would be devoting more time to ground skills and fight conditioning.

Leaving "how does he train" out of it, I do not think he is too far from wrong, regarding SD strategy re going to ground.

Roper

But Gerry,
Going to ground in a self defence encounter is SO obviously a bad idea. Nobody disputes that, not even the best BJJ practitioners. Saying that isn't a controversial, anti-MMA opinion, its common sense.

In my dojo, the ground fighting practice revolves around the regaining of an upright position so that student can flee. In a competition match the strategy may well be: A, Take the fight to the floor. B, Keep the fight on the floor. C, Weaken and tire the opponent. D, Get the opponent to submit using the techniques allowed in the rules. In a real fight (and hence the method used in the katas) the strategy would be: A, Avoid going to the floor at all costs. B, If the fight does go to the floor, regain your feet as quickly as possible. C, If getting up is not immediately possible, then hurt the opponent using simple (probably brutal) techniques. D, Once back to your feet, escape and seek shelter or help.”

This is the real problem section. The guy obviously knows nothing about MMA since he assumes all fighters are grapplers. Do you think maybe he advises Crocop or Liddell?

The world is full of renowned Karate "experts" throwing their opinions around on a sport they simply don't understand.

Millionaire

I think your being a bit hard on him. I think he is just give an example for how a cage fight could go...

Why ya getting all worked up over this?


Its nearly the weekend, the weather is lovely!

Think of 2 things, your realll really happy about today??? (see... feels better does it????) ; - )

Miles Long

... Discuss

In a competition
In a real fight

A, Take the fight to the floor.
A, Avoid going to the floor at all costs.

B, Keep the fight on the floor
B, If the fight does go to the floor, regain your feet as quickly as possible.

C, Weaken and tire the opponent.
C, If getting up is not immediately possible, then hurt the opponent using simple (probably brutal) techniques.

D, Get the opponent to submit using the techniques allowed in the rules.
D, Once back to your feet, escape and seek shelter or help.

That's easier to read. Now for my observations, If the SD aspect is not the point being debated the thing that strikes me is that the main point here is that the MMA strategy is just the direct opposite of the SD approach. That seems IMHO to be a wrong approach to any competition/match. The MMA strategy is very general, i.e. "weaken and tire", not all MMA is an attempt to gain a grappling -> submission win. The Arlofski vs. Silvia fight didn't even clinch let alone go to ground for the full 25mins.

Dragan

Roper wrote:

This is the real problem section. The guy obviously knows nothing about MMA since he assumes all fighters are grapplers. Do you think maybe he advises Crocop or Liddell?

To be honest i don't see it, he has already covered that the fighter may opt to bring the fight to the ground, if the fighter feels his best chance of sucess is there......he clearly shows why an MMA fight might be taken to ground....his listing of options A,B,C,D is just what may happen after the fight goes to ground.

I think your seeing something that isn't there dude.

Miles Long

I just read the rest of the pasted piece in the other thread ...

... furthermore... I don't really see the point in the comparison to MMA. Why contrast the two. MMA, I might be wrong so call me if I am, trains to compete in a sport/competative event, not to kick arse on a street or take on multi-attacks or anything, making the arguement that it is unsuited to SD void.

No? (I am a little confused btw)

MartinC2006

I think your being a little harsh on him as well. It should also be noted it’s an article on Grabbling in Karate not MMA, as such it’s only a comparison on the Goal of a MMA event and a SD situation.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think Iain is Brilliant, his ideas are forward thinking and he’s no small Fish in the martial arts community. I do not however have this position because he’s a KarateKa, it’s more that his stuff makes sense to me. Hes also a full time martial artist, a memebr of the BCA, trains with some of the top guys in various martial arts and Geoff thompson is a fan of his work etc.

I’d urge you to have a read through some of his articles and they cover a broad spectrum.

Martin.

Roper

The implication is that if you're training for MMA, you will be unable to defend yourself on THE STREET, if you're doing grappling Katas, well then you'll be super.

Of course tactics change for different situations, street, ring, jungle, playground. What doesn't change.... anyone? Anyone?

MartinC2006

No the Implication is that if your use the same strategy in SD as you would in an MMA fight you may well be ill advised. But Remember the Article is trying to explain why the Techniques in the katas arn't like those seen in an MMA event as the Goal is totally different. Hes in no way implying that the ability or technique of an MMA fighter are any less effective if used properly.

Go to the guys website and read the full article tbh!

Martin.

Dragan

Roper wrote:

Of course tactics change for different situations, street, ring, jungle, playground. What doesn't change.... anyone? Anyone?

Delivery systems ftw!

droc

I've rewritten the article in plain english ...

I am full of ****! I know nothing about the subject that I have decided to write about today. I see MMA as a threat to my livelihood as I have been selling dreams for years to my students. Instead of learning something about this new form of MA competition I have decided to poo poo it. Poo pooing is one of my favourite hobbies.

DROC

Valmont

droc wrote:

I've rewritten the article in plain english ...

I am full of ****! I know nothing about the subject that I have decided to write about today. I see MMA as a threat to my livelihood as I have been selling dreams for years to my students. Instead of learning something about this new form of MA competition I have decided to poo poo it. Poo pooing is one of my favourite hobbies.

DROC

This dismissive attitude is just plain ignorant and has been written to death on internet forums, only post if you have something constructive to add to the argument.:mad:

If you have no choice but to defend yourself against a group of attackers I don't think it matters whether it goes to the ground or not, you are more than likely going to get an ass whipping anyway. Not that I would willingly go down but you get the idea.

Ger Healy

droc wrote:

I've rewritten the article in plain english ...

I am full of ****! I know nothing about the subject that I have decided to write about today. I see MMA as a threat to my livelihood as I have been selling dreams for years to my students. Instead of learning something about this new form of MA competition I have decided to poo poo it. Poo pooing is one of my favourite hobbies.

DROC

Now that a bit harsh, there is no way that poo pooing is his favourite hobbie, unless you know him

Dragan

To be honest, i still can't see where this guy is supposed to be attacking, knocking or disrespecting MMA.

He seems to deal very much in generalities, " a fighter may" , "in a compeition match a tactic may be". While i don't particularly agree with comparing a sport on one side to a street fight on the other ( would we compare sharp shooting contests to front line fire fights in such a way? ) i still don't think he is saying anything to disparage the image of MMA.

If someone would like to point out, in a reasonable manner, where he is doing this then that would be great.....maybe i'm just missing it.

Damo W

Has anyone one here trained with Ian Abernathy, read his books and/or watched his video's???

Roper

My question is based upon the article above, which I'm sure he stands over. Not upon any other work which may be entirely complimentary to MMA and such.

john kavanagh

Dragan wrote:

To be honest, i still can't see where this guy is supposed to be attacking, knocking or disrespecting MMA.

He seems to deal very much in generalities, " a fighter may" , "in a compeition match a tactic may be". While i don't particularly agree with comparing a sport on one side to a street fight on the other ( would we compare sharp shooting contests to front line fire fights in such a way? ) i still don't think he is saying anything to disparage the image of MMA.

If someone would like to point out, in a reasonable manner, where he is doing this then that would be great.....maybe i'm just missing it.

i think its lines like these

"In a competition match the strategy may well be: A, Take the fight to the floor. B, Keep the fight on the floor. C, Weaken and tire the opponent. D, Get the opponent to submit using the techniques allowed in the rules."

it implies an MMA athlete is such an idiot that he would not be able to change the strategy to 'quick finish standing' - he'll have the proven delivery systems and functional training methods behind him to make that happen.

i've said it plenty of times before that just because you compete in MMA doesnt mean that if something kicks off you'll immediately slip into robotic mode "MUST GET TAKEDOWN....MUST GET SUBMISSION....WAIT FOR REF TO STOP FIGHT.....OH NO WHY IS THE REF KICKING ME IN THE HEAD...":rolleyes:



on another note about hidden killa grappling in kata i've a quick question. would 3-4 hours practicing kata grappling per week translate to street as well as 3-4 hours practicing grappling against a live opponent working with progressive resistance? obvious answer i'm sure but then why would you spend even 3-4 mins on the kata if functional grappling ability is your goal? if its for cultural/historical reasons then more power to you but not if its to be able to grapple a resisting person.


"Has anyone one here trained with Ian Abernathy, read his books and/or watched his video's???"

yes damo, i have. i was asked to review one for irish fighter mag. to me it seemed like a pointless exercise of trying to 'prove' there is techniques hidden in kata that you can use in grappling. i didnt see the connection myself. BUT even if you did take genuine judo/bjj/sambo or whatever techniques and arrange them into a set pattern the question above would still stand.

Dragan

john kavanagh wrote:

i think its lines like these

"In a competition match the strategy may well be: A, Take the fight to the floor. B, Keep the fight on the floor. C, Weaken and tire the opponent. D, Get the opponent to submit using the techniques allowed in the rules."

it implies an MMA athlete is such an idiot that he would not be able to change the strategy to 'quick finish standing' - he'll have the proven delivery systems and functional training methods behind him to make that happen.

Cheers John!

I guess i just wasn't really looking at it that way, i would just assume that with his reference to the fighters better ground skill in the early part, and then a pretty okay run through of one particular tactic that he was simply saying that while doing this on the ground is a perfectly viable path to victory in a fight, on the street it would most likely not be.

I didn't take from it that he was implying anything else......guess maybe i just think to to much of people!!!!

Hope those Bodyweight WOD's worked out btw!!!

john kavanagh

Dragan wrote:

Cheers John!

I guess i just wasn't really looking at it that way, i would just assume that with his reference to the fighters better ground skill in the early part, and then a pretty okay run through of one particular tactic that he was simply saying that while doing this on the ground is a perfectly viable path to victory in a fight, on the street it would most likely not be.

I didn't take from it that he was implying anything else......guess maybe i just think to to much of people!!!!

Hope those Bodyweight WOD's worked out btw!!!

ah maybe i'm looking to much into it too?? just being on forums so long now and well used to the usual Sport v Street arguments

"Hope those Bodyweight WOD's worked out btw!!! "

killer stuff bro, killer stuff!

Colm_OReilly

droc, consider this as a warning. Valmont is correct. You've got to add to the discussion through decent points or good comedy.

droc

Excuse me, my post was ****ing hilarious !

As for my comment being dismissive, I didn't dismiss anything he said, I simply said that it's obvious that he knows little or nothing about MMA

Damo W

john kavanagh wrote:

i think its lines like these

"In a competition match the strategy may well be: A, Take the fight to the floor. B, Keep the fight on the floor. C, Weaken and tire the opponent. D, Get the opponent to submit using the techniques allowed in the rules."

it implies an MMA athlete is such an idiot that he would not be able to change the strategy to 'quick finish standing' - he'll have the proven delivery systems and functional training methods behind him to make that happen.

i've said it plenty of times before that just because you compete in MMA doesnt mean that if something kicks off you'll immediately slip into robotic mode "MUST GET TAKEDOWN....MUST GET SUBMISSION....WAIT FOR REF TO STOP FIGHT.....OH NO WHY IS THE REF KICKING ME IN THE HEAD...":rolleyes:



on another note about hidden killa grappling in kata i've a quick question. would 3-4 hours practicing kata grappling per week translate to street as well as 3-4 hours practicing grappling against a live opponent working with progressive resistance? obvious answer i'm sure but then why would you spend even 3-4 mins on the kata if functional grappling ability is your goal? if its for cultural/historical reasons then more power to you but not if its to be able to grapple a resisting person.


"Has anyone one here trained with Ian Abernathy, read his books and/or watched his video's???"

yes damo, i have. i was asked to review one for irish fighter mag. to me it seemed like a pointless exercise of trying to 'prove' there is techniques hidden in kata that you can use in grappling. i didnt see the connection myself. BUT even if you did take genuine judo/bjj/sambo or whatever techniques and arrange them into a set pattern the question above would still stand.

Cheers John,

I have tried to get to Antrim on a few ocassions but have failed to attend his seminars, have watched his video's anf read his books.
Do you still have that review could you post it, if not do you know what edition of IF it was in?

Your question still stands... and we all know what the answer is, well any reasonable person does.

'Kata teaches you nothing that you should not already have learned'

'It is a memonic tool'

[Rushing here a little ]

and by all means its part of the trad. and if you follow the trad. then it should be preserved.

Cheers

Damien

Dragan

john kavanagh wrote:

ah maybe i'm looking to much into it too?? just being on forums so long now and well used to the usual Sport v Street arguments

"Hope those Bodyweight WOD's worked out btw!!! "

killer stuff bro, killer stuff!

I'm working on a new workout specifically for MMA fighters, involving bag work, wrestling, very specific lifts and other goodies....basically coming up with a system to make it completely random....just like a fight...and designed to replicate as much of the physical element of a fight as i can safely duplicate in a training situation.

This way, hypothetically, the fighter will never do the same workout twice, so this should do fantastic things for conditioning!!!

As soon as i am happy with the system i will send it on to you.

john kavanagh

Dragan wrote:

I'm working on a new workout specifically for MMA fighters, involving bag work, wrestling, very specific lifts and other goodies....basically coming up with a system to make it completely random....just like a fight...and designed to replicate as much of the physical element of a fight as i can safely duplicate in a training situation.

This way, hypothetically, the fighter will never do the same workout twice, so this should do fantastic things for conditioning!!!

As soon as i am happy with the system i will send it on to you.

look forward to it

also put your mind to one for grappling....might have big comp coming up soon and looking at different methods to getting myself ready:D

Dragan

john kavanagh wrote:

look forward to it

also put your mind to one for grappling....might have big comp coming up soon and looking at different methods to getting myself ready:D

Will do!

Roper

Dragan wrote:

Hope those Bodyweight WOD's worked out btw!!!

Share please! I put up with you dissing my argument above the least you can do is send these on to me:D

MartinC2006

I think a little to much is being read into this to be honest. The only Implication I can see is that an MMA situation MAY lead you to a different outcome as SD situation, as such the training required will be different. Its more a justification of the Katas containing grabbling methods but they are generally basic and not MMA based.

Of course if anyone, including Iain would like to learn how to Grapple in an MMA sense they would study an art suitble such as Judo. the reality is Iian is a SD expert and is just making a comparison to be honest.

BTW I have trained under Iian several times and read some of his books/articles, hes a cracking coach imo.

Martin.

weemate

I wouldnt mind a look at those bodyweight drills either if you have the time to mail them!!
to put my 2p's worth into this post......surely by drilling techniques designed for mma/bjj or whatever you should reach a point where all this should become a natural reaction to a situation,for example,if an attacker throws a punch/kick you should automaticly be able to avoid or block as you would in a tournament likewise if taken to the ground by maybe tripping up or whatever you should again be able to get to your feet/protect yourself or if the attacker goes to ground as well,you by all rights should be that bit more able to defend yourself or escape due to the many repititions spent drilling said techniques?
Can I also say that some people take this stuff way to seriously......I thought it was supposed to be enjoyable on occasion!

kenpo_dave

weemate wrote:

I wouldnt mind a look at those bodyweight drills either if you have the time to mail them!!
to put my 2p's worth into this post......surely by drilling techniques designed for mma/bjj or whatever you should reach a point where all this should become a natural reaction to a situation,for example,if an attacker throws a punch/kick you should automaticly be able to avoid or block as you would in a tournament likewise if taken to the ground by maybe tripping up or whatever you should again be able to get to your feet/protect yourself or if the attacker goes to ground as well,you by all rights should be that bit more able to defend yourself or escape due to the many repititions spent drilling said techniques?
Can I also say that some people take this stuff way to seriously......I thought it was supposed to be enjoyable on occasion!

Although drilling technique is very important, its not enough. You must put those techniques into sparring to be able to use them properly when the time comes.

OSU,

Dave.

Mola.mola

Never say MMA guys can be conditioned for fights they can no longer make decisions on the fly - It makes JK very angry.

SorGan

Mola.mola wrote:

Never say MMA guys can be conditioned for fights they can no longer make decisions on the fly - It makes JK very angry.

( imagines jk at home, steam whistling out of his ears, trying to choke out the computer)

weemate

kenpo_dave wrote:

Although drilling technique is very important, its not enough. You must put those techniques into sparring to be able to use them properly when the time comes.

OSU,

Dave.

obviously you need to spar the techniques in a real environment or the movements will not become natural nor will you find what works and what doesnt.Lets face facts,regardless of anyones main reason for starting in martial arts,be it for fitness,self defence or whatever we still would like to think that if we where attacked the stuff we learn at the gym will be of some use however minimal.Now would you like in such an event,hopefully it will never happen but if you were attacked,that you wouldnt need to have to take the time to think about what you needed to do and that your natural instincts and movements would be enough to help you out and that the strikes etc that you were taught were in fact now a natural movement and instinct?

john kavanagh

dont take it so seriously 'weemate'

Millionaire

john kavanagh wrote:

i think its lines like these

"In a competition match the strategy may well be: A, Take the fight to the floor. B, Keep the fight on the floor. C, Weaken and tire the opponent. D, Get the opponent to submit using the techniques allowed in the rules."

it implies an MMA athlete is such an idiot that he would not be able to change the strategy to 'quick finish standing' - he'll have the proven delivery systems and functional training methods behind him to make that happen.

.

Common guys, the writer did not say that for a sec.

I think yis are reading into it a bit too much?

FiannaGym.com

MMA homework:

1. Print off picture/photofit of baddie (fun tip: why not draw your own!)
2. Stick to wall in office
3. Throw 20 "eyepokes" at this target

You now have trained eye pokes as much as most Karate guys, good luck in the big bad world.

Peace

weemate

john kavanagh wrote:

dont take it so seriously 'weemate'

it's this fookin heat!!!!!
I cant take no more of it :eek:

Roper

People are ignoring Funk Dancing as a form of self defence, as per Moe Sislak from the Simpsons. Don't know if it has eye gouges in it though...

"Now say someones dissing your fly girl...."

john kavanagh

Millionaire wrote:

Common guys, the writer did not say that for a sec.

I think yis are reading into it a bit too much?

but why bother writing what the strategy may be?? why not write out Silva's strategy (or any of the many other striker orientated MMA guys)

A. punch him in the head lots B. grab and knee his face C. when he falls stamp on head

and rave about how great a strategy this is for SD? obviously because he stills has the WRONG idea that MMA = grappling, get the fight to the ground as quick as possible and lay there while friends jump on your head?

also what is the difference between a 'brutual street armlock' as opposed to a sport armlock anybody??

i love the fact he mentions UFC too! LOL at the idea of ANY fighter in the UFC not having enough stand-up to deal with the average drunk punk in a bar (where most senseless violence occurs).

kenpo_dave

FiannaGym.com wrote:

MMA homework:

1. Print off picture/photofit of baddie (fun tip: why not draw your own!)
2. Stick to wall in office
3. Throw 20 "eyepokes" at this target

You now have trained eye pokes as much as most Karate guys, good luck in the big bad world.

Peace

LOL

john kavanagh

sorry damo just seeing your reply now. my review never made it in the final edit but it basically said what i'm saying here.

Damo W wrote:

'Kata teaches you nothing that you should not already have learned'

'It is a memonic tool'

not sure what that means but i think if you have a partner and want to improve performance in grappling then grapple - simple really. if you're looking for solo training to improve performance in grappling/fighting then lift, run etc.

Damo W wrote:

and by all means its part of the trad. and if you follow the trad. then it should be preserved.

agreed!:)

Millionaire

I like Baz Rutten strategy for the street...

"kick him in the groin that will do the trick"!

http://www.realfighting.com/0102/basrutint.htm

who cares what people write or think about what you train or do.

Whats important is that you train hard, and you know yourself you got your bases well covered, in a calm and confident way. Thats what matters!

just a bit of trivia , found this on the same site as Baz inteview. I trained with this dude, actuall both of them...
http://www.realfighting.com/0102/yigal.htm

john kavanagh

Millionaire wrote:

who cares what people write or think about what you train or do.

lol although thats true if someone came on here saying they thought you were a lunatic or slightly unbalanced because you talk to punch bags you may care enough to reply;)

Millionaire

I never ever claimed to be a pillar of sanity!!! LOL!! life would just be too boring!!!

Anyway punch bags are great to talk to, they don't contradict what you say! ; -)

Right, got to get back to work! I am going to explore way up North Thailand and cross Lao for the weekend... should be interesting!

MartinC2006

Just FYI guys,

I sent the thread to Iain via is website and he replied with.

"Hi Martin,

Thanks for letting me know about the discussion – seems like a good one! I think
yourself and others have communicated what I meant by that paragraph – I
couldn’t say it better myself!

The point, as you and others have pointed out, is that the strategy that may be
used very effectively in one scenario, may not be the strategy you’d want to use
in another scenario. So how you’d approach “a ground fight” would depend upon
where that ground fight was taking place. I think all the people involved in the
discussion agree with me on that - regardless of what style you are: you'd fight
differently in the street than you might on the mat.

My comment, as has been pointed out, is certainly not a slight on MMA - anyone
who knows me knows I’m a big fan MMA. I can see how it could be taken that way
though if people read just that one paragraph and take it out of context.
Nothing wrong with that though as it makes for exciting discussions .
Thanks for the message and all your support – I really appreciate it.

All the best,

Iain"

Martin.

ShaneT

Damo W wrote:

'Kata teaches you nothing that you should not already have learned... ...It is a memonic tool'

Kata is the first (isolation of techniques, without partner or resistence) stage of what is intended to be a progression into full resistence and total non-compliant combat with a partner. There are many stages in between a la "aliveness".

Unforunately, over the years, people became a little obsessed with the whole kata deal and failed to notice that it was step ONE of the process. Step two being the "Bunkai" (application) promoted by Iain A. with multiple progressive steps thereafter leading to non-compliant practise (equally promoted by Iain A.).

Where a sufficient stage of ability has been reached in Kata to move on (progress), one should move on. Where a partner is not available, kata can be used as a tool to "tidy up poor technique without resistance". Additionally, it can be used as a tool to keep the techniques clean and ensures the body has the movement necessary to allow instant access to any known technique when under duress.

However, it's tool - not an art.

Learning Kata and only kata would be like shrimping and bridging all day alone and believing that makes us a grappler.

However, dismissing kata would be like rolling regularly and solely under pressure, with poor or zero techinique, bypassing the isolation (early learning) phase and never returning to it in situations where "this armbar just doesn't seem to work for me". Usually, the armbar is just being incorrectly applied.

Naturally, in such a situation, one would return to total compliance, figure out where the error in technique is coming from, subsequently returning to an appropriate level of non-compliance.

Kata is the "striking" form of such progression and allows us to return to the FUNDAMENTALS of a technique when it's just not working in a fight.

Sadly, 90% of people that practise kata just haven't figured this out yet... ....and likely never will.

john kavanagh

ShaneT wrote:

Kata is the "striking" form of such progression and allows us to return to the FUNDAMENTALS of a technique when it's just not working in a fight.

why don't boxers use kata? i would imagine millions and millions of dollars are spent on research into better coaching methods for this sport which still probably generates more money than all other combat sports together. i'm guessing any training method which would give them significant gains in performance would be used.

would a better progression not be drills on the focus pads with coach to improve technique then limited sparring with progressive resistance (jab only etc) then moving onto free sparring.

if i was on my own, personally i think time is better spent on attribute development (lifting, running etc) but if i did want to work on technique then i'd slowly shadow box in front of mirror to check form - making sure it didnt become a 'dead pattern', good shadow boxing should be random.

ShaneT

john kavanagh wrote:

why don't boxers use kata?

They do. It's called shadow boxing. Dead kata is dead pattern. Good kata is shadow boxing and "alive". Good shadow boxing is not random. It would typically involve the use of combinations. The combinations themselves however, may be strung together randomly.

Tim_Murphy

Good kata is shadow boxing and "alive".

can't see how this can be true.
As John said, good shadow boxing is random, katas on the other hand have fixed movements, in a set order.

When shadow boxing one should be doing the techniques as they want to in the ring, in kata one generally does abstract versions of techniques (i.e. a traditional punch in a long stance)

kata and shadow boxing are two completely different things.

ShaneT

Tim_Murphy wrote:

can't see how this can be true.
As John said, good shadow boxing is random, katas on the other hand have fixed movements, in a set order.

When shadow boxing one should be doing the techniques as they want to in the ring, in kata one generally does abstract versions of techniques (i.e. a traditional punch in a long stance)

All things in context Tim. I mentioned a progression and a "use at the appropriate time for the appropriate reasons". And Kata being "step 1". Shadow boxing is hardly step 1. However, falling back to basics to get technique right is the way to go in grappling and striking.

Incidentally, I haven't done a kata in about 14 months... :-)

Tim_Murphy

However, falling back to basics to get technique right is the way to go in grappling and striking.

Indeed it is, but using kata as Step 1 with regards to either is essentially counter-productive. There are much better methods out there.