Kata 10-Point Observations by Patrick McCarthy

Damo W

Hi Guys,

Patrick McCarthy was recently mentioned in a thread here and with his permission I am reposting his article 'Observations on Kata'.

This may better represent his position....

Kata: Geometrical configurations of defensive composites. Despite their obvious anaerobic & holistic value, I do not believe that kata (by themselves) teach self-defence, but rather culminate the lessons one should have already learned. Understanding this, I would like to share ten important points we consider mandatory study for learners of Koryu Uchinadi.

1. Our position is that the physical culmination of animosity (manifested acts of violence) historically served as the catalyst from which early & innovative people first struggled with to develop plebian defensive practices.

2. Identifying the varying acts of physical violence that plagued this early period most probably allowed innovative pioneers the opportunity to divide them into separate categories for the purpose of empirical observation.

3. By recreating each act of violence in a safe learning environment, innovators were better able to study their habitual nature & understand them.

4. By developing two-person drills innovators were provided with an opportunity to come into direct contact with each act of physical violence in order to develop functional responses while also discovering how to react to human error [Murphy's Law].

5. Physical emulation and, the inner-drive to better ourselves, has certainly formed the foundation on which more important discoveries could continually be extrapolated & interpolated over successive generations.

6. By removing the attacker [HAPV-side] from the two-person exercises a solo composite [i.e. a re-enactment of the application principles] remained, which ultimately became ritualized into a mnemonic tool: i.e. something used to aid the memory.

7. Kata (Hsing/Xing in Mandarin Chinese) unfolded from (Chinese) innovators linking together mnemonic tool. By linking together solo composites into signature configurations those pioneers developed abstract forms of human movement with wonderfully holistic overtones. Not only culminating the defensive lessons already imparted the abstract forms could be embraced at various levels of intensity, depending upon the learner's individual prowess, as unique methods of nurturing physical fitness and mental well being...a from of moving Zen.

8. Understanding this evolution should help make it more evident that kata, by itself, does not teach self-defense, but rather, culminate the lessons one should have already learned.

9. I believe that this art, as understood and embraced by the Uchinanchu (Okinawan people), was never a cohesive or coherent practice during Okinawa's old Ryukyu Kingdom. At the turn of the 20th century innovative pioneer, Itosu Ankoh, brought various embryonic practices out from behind the closed doors of secrecy, synthesized and simplified them into a single practice and introduced it to the school system: see note below. With kata being the principal vehicle through which to drill large groups of school students, emphasis was placed upon physical fitness and social conformity, rather than on understanding what acts of physical violence its defensive applications addressed. Supported by Government-serving [DNBK] propaganda ["Budo (of which karate became a part) was the way that common men built uncommon bravery"] an entire nation was lured to such practices. In an effort to forge "bodies of steel" and compliancy, in support of Japan's war machine during that radical period of military escalation, Itosu (by mistake or design) reshaped the original practice & purpose of kata to form over function and established a modern cultural phenomenon.

10. Ponder this question, whether by mistake or design, what happens to functional application rituals if and when their original outcomes are lost or changed? Outcomes always dictate the training methods used to accomplish such goals. Change the outcomes and you'll need to change the training methods! Studying kata for many years, I was lost in what Bruce Lee described as the "Classical Mess." I wonder what Sir Winston Churchill knew about kata with his comments about mother Russia ("A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma").

Note: Based on older practices [i.e. Kusanku, Passai, Useishi, Chintou, Jion, Naihanchi, Chinte, Jitte, Jiin, & Seisan, etc.] Itosu Ankoh, in April of 1905, while in his mid-seventies, "officially" introduced five reconfigured sets of mnemonics [Pinan kata] at both Okinawa's First-Junior Prefectural High School as well as the Shihan Gakko [Teacher's College] as a simplified form of human movement.

pearsquasher

I've read some of Mr McCarthy's observations before and while he specialises in Okinawan Karate, whereas I study a form of classical Jujutsu, my experiences of classical kata are in line with his.

If you go back to pre-modern ways of doing kata, like we do and like he has studied, you don't get the form of movement that most MAists seem to think kata is. Instead you get a two person drill that encapulates certain principles, which, once understood, can be played with to any degree of "aliveness" that you want - including weapons/armour/mulitples, within the confines of the training area. This is a far cry from the solo, robotic, sequenced forms that for reasons explained in point 9 below, seems to be the image most people have - possibly justified if you do a general scan of TMA's. Certainly I visited my nephews karate class one time and was astounded at how different the kata practiced there was to the more fluid kata I have experienced. Same when I studied a style of kung-fu years ago and we drilled static forms. It's good to hear that someone with Mr McCarthy's experience has gone back to the origional form to discover what karate kata really are about.

This is the misunderstanding that I think is a major reason for TMA bashing on forums. If you studied kata the way they were meant to be studied, as McCarthy has, then you'd see the dynamic, "alive" training that is so applauded by the general modern MA community. Its always been there. Indeed, I can hazard a guess that the "alive" drills done in BJJ and the like are pretty much equivalent to classical kata in terms of learning principles. Unfortuneately, not all teachers have had the opportunity to research their art to the depth McCarthy has.

Roper

Thats all well and good, but most people don't do MA to learn their history and there have been great leaps forward in psychology, sports science and the art of coaching since feudal Japan. So unless you're interested in learning the history of what was (which a lot of people are, more power to them) there really doesn't seem to be much point to taking a giant leap into history to learn an outmoded, outdated form of training.

pearsquasher

Studying kata the way they were origionally developed is not about learning an MA's history. Its about doing it correctly in the first place. Look at points 1 - 5 again for the origional reason kata were developed. Don't they make sense? Are they the same reasons experienced MMA coaches develop drills in their sport? Aren't these reasons history-indepenant and are probably used in all types of warfare across all cultures?

Now look at 6-10 to see where the kata veared off into abstract, less alive forms. i.e. ritualisation, zen-movement etc.

How are kata, as described by myself and Mr McCarthy (in points 1-5), outmoded/outdated?

I put it that the drills done in modern arts , from what I can see from video clips, are pretty much equivalent to classical kata (ppints 1-5) and that the solo, static kata (6-10) are modern anomolies that got all out of hand for the reasons given. This and the decline in hand-to-hand combat gives us the modern TMA with its different understanding of kata to the origional form.

Caveat: My opinions are singularly related to combat efficacy.

I think the point is raised over and over again and never seems to be addressed. Trying to project values onto kata whether actual or imagined is needless when we have developed and are constantly developing better training methods. There has been a massive phase shift in training methods where the dynamic have continued to learn and the static have regressed. Why not learn from the constantly evolving dynamic rather than trying to jumpstart a long dead and overflogged horse.

If you want to learn to deliver strikes effectively to head or body just look at olympic boxers and high level thai boxers. To learn how to break bones look at olympic judokas or world class submission fighters. Why bother trying to dig through centuries of devolution to try and validate something that should have been put to bed years ago. Katas are useless and to make them useful requires 100 times the effort than to simply use modern training methods as a starting point.

Efficiency is meant to be a feature of martial arts...

pma-ire

hi damo w,

nice summary by master mc carthy.

kata is like a catalogue of movements that must be trained with a partner with the use of commonly used attacks on a person. otherwise they are really pretty useless and no more than a martial dance form. which for some people is fine.

now if you look at the work of iain abernethy on kata then you will see how movements can be taken out of a kata and drilled with a partner pushing the level of contact as far as is wanted. resulting in a learnt skill that can be useful for defending yourself.

i would only say that if you are doing a martial art that uses kata of forms then you should maybe look to do something more with them?

if you don't then thats fine! we can learn from everyone and typecasts can blinker a persons perception of fact.

Roper

I don't mean to disect, but in response to Pearsquashers reply to me above, I'll take points 1-5.

Damo W wrote:

I do not believe that kata (by themselves) teach self-defence, but rather culminate the lessons one should have already learned.

So, if you've already learned them, why do them again? whats the value? Culminate is an unfortunate choice of words here since people learn kata the first time they walk in the door of karate schools. How is that culminating when its the first thing you learn?
Anyway, point 1.

1. Our position is that the physical culmination of animosity (manifested acts of violence) historically served as the catalyst from which early & innovative people first struggled with to develop plebian defensive practices.

I get it, plebs got beaten up, plebs fought back. No argument there I'm sure this is how many fighting forms grew. But this is history.

2. Identifying the varying acts of physical violence that plagued this early period most probably allowed innovative pioneers the opportunity to divide them into separate categories for the purpose of empirical observation.

Okay, seems like a reasonable theory. But again, this has nothing to do with today's training methods, this is history.

3. By recreating each act of violence in a safe learning environment, innovators were better able to study their habitual nature & understand them.

The same thing happens in gyms around the world today. "He hit me here in this way, how do I stop it" etc. Grand, but how does this justify Kata as a training exercise TODAY?

4. By developing two-person drills innovators were provided with an opportunity to come into direct contact with each act of physical violence in order to develop functional responses while also discovering how to react to human error [Murphy's Law].

How to develop functional responses... okay, once developed, what then?

5. Physical emulation and, the inner-drive to better ourselves, has certainly formed the foundation on which more important discoveries could continually be extrapolated & interpolated over successive generations.

Excellent point, at which stage we arrive in the 21st Century and we can discard what we don't need to use anymore.

I really don't see how any of this applies to today's training methods, other than to say "back in the day, we reckon they did it quite like we do now", okay, I can accept that might have been the case, but how do we know they were doing it any better? With the onset of better communications, I reckon todays martial artist can fight better as he can share techniques with people 100s of miles away, get noted masters to fly over and teach him, has exposure to a better diet, more information, a greater understanding of how the human body works etc.

All of which makes Kata a history lesson, and a bad one at that.

pearsquasher

Why not learn from the constantly evolving dynamic rather than trying to jumpstart a long dead and overflogged horse.

Properly trained classical kata are a "constantly evolving dynamic" actually. Been doing it a while and they're never static. Seem like Mr McCarthy had to go back a bit, sifting through his own karate training to understand this, but not all arts need this re-learning, re-evaluation... only the ones that drifted from their origional purpose.

If you want to learn to deliver strikes effectively to head or body just look at olympic boxers and high level thai boxers.

Don't they wear gloves? Aren't worried about weapons, armour? Know the match ends soon? Aren't worried about death?

You're speaking about delivering strikes in a sporting environment, right?

Classical Kata aren't for sporting environments.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks nail-shaped. Fighting is more than 2 people, padded without weapons in a specific time period. Classical kata account for this by teaching principles that account for it.

Roper

pearsquasher wrote:

Don't they wear gloves? Aren't worried about weapons, armour? Know the match ends soon? Aren't worried about death?

Weapons are all very well. There are many good weapons arts out there but I don't think thats what we're talking about. No, I'm not too worried about armour. If I see a guy wearing armour I'll just assume he's on his way to his day job, standing in a hotel corridor.

You're speaking about delivering strikes in a sporting environment, right?

Classical Kata aren't for sporting environments.

Convenient. Negligible difference between hitting a sportsman and hitting an attacker. Trained the same way, hours on the pads, hours with a sparring partner moving in random and unpredictable ways.

pearsquasher

Em, what part of my description of a classical kata..

a two person drill that encapulates certain principles, which, once understood, can be played with to any degree of "aliveness" that you want - including weapons/armour/mulitples, within the confines of the training area.

is contradicting with

hours on the pads, hours with a sparring partner moving in random and unpredictable ways.

You CAN do one with the other.

Damo W

Roper wrote:

So, if you've already learned them, why do them again? whats the value? Culminate is an unfortunate choice of words here since people learn kata the first time they walk in the door of karate schools. How is that culminating when its the first thing you learn?

Roper,

You are quiet right, how is this culminating when it’s the first thing learned, and there lies the problem.

It should not be the first thing learned! It should be the last

It should culminate the learning curve; his choice of words is intentional.

All other training should precede the kata, the kata should only be used as a mnemonic tool. The kata first style of teaching is a modern phenomenon reflecting the desired outcomes of that time/political climate etc.

Its not hard to see that if you teach a person a kata and let them off it would take a significant amount of reverse engineering to gain maximum value from it and they would probably end up where they should have started.

Cheers

mark.leonard

*Continues flogging the dead horse*
(well eveyrone else is!)

Damo W

mark.leonard wrote:

*Continues flogging the dead horse*
(well eveyrone else is!)

SorGan

so if kata should be trained as a two man drill with progressive resistance, then why do kata?
and if kata is a catalogue of movements that must be trained with a partner, wouldn't it be easier to write them down, until said partner shows up?

question to all..
is kata an efficient method of training combat ability?

You CAN do one with the other.

Problem is most "classical" progressive drills don't reflect an ongoing progression of resistance/skill development. You just do the poor quality drill faster and harder with the uke taking more of a hiding.

As for weapons training: well the dog brothers are the real deal as far as I'm concerned. Most other training methods are prancing around sports halls swinging a bokken around. Or at least do some kendo. But it has to have sparring in some shape or form or else it simply won't work...

pearsquasher

Problem is most "classical" progressive drills don't reflect an ongoing progression of resistance/skill development. You just do the poor quality drill faster and harder with the uke taking more of a hiding.

That's not my experience. If it's yours then you were thought incorrectly. No pint in going faster and harder in a kata if the kata isn't thought correctly.

(I'm talking classical Jujutsu/bujutsu 2-man kata with/without weapons)

I had a chat with some high level teachers who were going through weapons kata - bo versus sword - once if did they do sparring with these weapons once they practiced and became familiar with the kata. After all, the principles the kata teach should come out in a realtime environment, right?

They laughed and said they'd do it maybe twice a year and it always resulted in broken bones, and that's just with a wooden sword. You cannot do full on sparing with weapons without serious injury to one or both parties - period. I've seen dog brothers clips - while it looks like fun, there's so much you do with padded weapons and padded armour that you simply wouldn't do with real weapons, in my experience. Look at kendo - the epitomy of doing stuff with bamboo you wouldn't do with a blade. At least they acknowledge its a sport.

I've seen bo-staff versus bokken in real time (with 2 very senior practicioners)where the swordman does a predetermined defence against a predetermined attack - very scarey and the swordsman hadn't a chance - over in about 5 seconds. Sparring with weapons has its merits when studying certain things but full speed free-for-alls with real weapons is inappropriate. Weapons kata give you the tools to do light free-sparring in a controlled way, once the priciples that the kata teach is understood.

Scramble

Pearsquasher, if you have broadband take a look at 'What is aliveness?' and let us know what you think.

Roper

Unfortunately, this forum doesn't have a "loaf head off wall" emoticon but I think Mark had it right. This horse ain't getting back up anytime soon.

Pearsquasher, I've invited Jimkel to come meet and train a bit sometime soon, maybe you'd like to come to the same session and show what you mean. The internet isn't a great medium for physical demonstrations!

Jimkel

Kata helps develop control over the entire body to a minute degree, helps identify correct muscle groups, strenghtens body, and teaches self discipline. It is merely a training tool that compliments fighting yet does not teach how to fight. it is not outdated, it just doesnt fit in with the whole, Quick fix appeal of modern sports martial arts in which they concentrate purely on learning to fight and ignore the spiritual and physical benifits of repetition that helps one to empty oneself of ego and emotion, in order to train clarity and stillness of mind and therefor react to a situation without distraction.

Kata is a tool for training the mind as much as the body, teaching not fighting but control.

still water = clear reflection.

Karate is not about fighting it is about truth, karate can help prepare you for the many obsticals you face in life not just self defence but mental fortitude and general well being and happiness. It is self defence only on the surface, it is a philosophy.
training in karate is designed to teach humility, selflessness, fighting ability, both in mind and body, and an understanding and peace with oneself .

"A punch should stay like a treasure in the sleeve. It should not be used indiscrimately." ~ Chotoku Kyan

"The ultimate aim of Karate lies not in victory or defeat, but in the perfection of the character of its participants." ~ Gichin Funakoshi

"To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill." ~ Sun-Tsu ~The Art of War

"Karate-do is definitely a martial way, and its identity lies in do or principles. Any martial art without proper training of the mind turns into beastly behavior." ~ Shoshin Nagamine

"Karate-do may be referred to as the conflict within yourself, or a life-long marathon which can be won only through self-discipline, hard training, and your own creative efforts." ~ Shoshin Nagamine

Damo W

Sorgan,

SorGan wrote:

so if kata should be trained as a two man drill with progressive resistance, then why do kata?

Remember that kata is at the end of the learning experience, remove one person from the two-man drill and you have kata.

SorGan wrote:

and if kata is a catalogue of movements that must be trained with a partner, wouldn't it be easier to write them down, until said partner shows up?

Writing it down, yea a possible method, probably better would be to tape it. Brining your catalogue with you in written format wasn’t always possible or the done thing , with ipod etc you can watch video any where now.
So as a mnemonic tool possibly it has been over taken by technology but this was its original purpose, and not to ‘teach self defence’.

SorGan wrote:

question to all..
is kata an efficient method of training combat ability?

This question becomes redundant when kata culminates the learning process, as your ‘efficient method of training combat ability’ should have occurred before you reach the ‘kata’.

But, if kata is removed does the tradition remain, should every other item of tradition be removed, gi, obi, bowing, grades, Japanese/Chinese terminology etc.??

Cheers

Quick fix appeal of modern sports martial arts in which they concentrate purely on learning to fight and ignore the spiritual and physical benifits of repetition that helps one to empty oneself of ego and emotion, in order to train clarity and stillness of mind and therefor react to a situation without distraction.

I love this argument. Its an internet classic. "Just because you train with measurable results in mind you couldn't be getting any psychological benefit out of your MA. The only way you can get true spiritual growth is by using defunct training methods."

Beautiful.

Jimkel

columok wrote:

I love this argument. Its an internet classic. "Just because you train with measurable results in mind you couldn't be getting any psychological benefit out of your MA. The only way you can get true spiritual growth is by using defunct training methods."

Beautiful.

What argument??
It was a statement about kata.
I never said that you dont get any psychological benefits, of course you do.I am saying that this is ACTIVELY sought in kata training whereas in a fighting sport it is more like a side effect.
Altough the benifit is much the same. The purpose of kata is being discussed here, I am talking about that yet you still think its part of the MMA V TMA debate? jesus man relax a bit on the defensive position, I am not always critisising MMA.

And before you rip into the qoutes in my previous posts dont take it up with me they're not my statements they are just there for the purpose of illustrating the philosophical elements of Karate. Not to critisise any other martial arts. Not to make karate out to be better then any other MA, not to piss anyone off. Its a conversation about Kata stop looking to gloat at people because you have come up with a "clever" comment, you must have better things to do because obviously you dont have the time to read carefully someones post before deciding to rip into them.:rolleyes:

SorGan

Damo W wrote:

Sorgan,



But, if kata is removed does the tradition remain, should every other item of tradition be removed, gi, obi, bowing, grades, Japanese/Chinese terminology etc.??

Cheers

cheers for your answers.
to the above id like to say yes.
im irish, i dont bow to anyone, its anothers tradition not mine.
i know people still want the whoe deal with the martial "art" experience, so im sure the traditional ones will retain that side of things.

Nothingcompares

Karate is not about fighting it is about truth,

MMA is not about fighting it's about honesty. There is no deceit, no make up, no pretending in the cage. I could go on with poetic waffling. Karate is nothing special, it's a white guy in a pair of pyjamas indulging himself.

it's a white guy in a pair of pyjamas indulging himself.

sounds like you there K!!!

Jimkel

Nothingcompares wrote:

MMA is not about fighting it's about honesty. There is no deceit, no make up, no pretending in the cage. I could go on with poetic waffling. Karate is nothing special, it's a white guy in a pair of pyjamas indulging himself.

Hmm yeah kinda like BJJ. yet the point again is where did this MMA vs TMA debate come from again, last i checked I was talking about Kata. Or is that not allowed here? Should this forum be called the MMA forum?? Because everytime someone posts about anything other then MMA they get verbally put down.

In another thread i simply asked if there where any Traditional Jui Jutsu classes in north dublin and once again a debate about MMA vs TDA springs up, its usually either you or Columok for some reason.

Mark Hamill

pearsquasher wrote:

I've seen bo-staff versus bokken in real time (with 2 very senior practicioners)where the swordman does a predetermined defence against a predetermined attack - very scarey and the swordsman hadn't a chance - over in about 5 seconds. Sparring with weapons has its merits when studying certain things but full speed free-for-alls with real weapons is inappropriate. Weapons kata give you the tools to do light free-sparring in a controlled way, once the priciples that the kata teach is understood.

But if the swordsman can't even defend himself when he knows whats coming (you said it was predetermined) then surely its because his kata training has ingrained that he should react with six or seven predetermined steps even though he should react one step at a time.
It seems to me that even though you can speed up a kata and do it with more force, you are still learning it in the form: "he does this, then you do this, this and this". The problem is what happens when the first "this" doesn't work? Maybe the guy is huge and doesn't recoil like you expect, maybe he recoils too much and you miss with the second step and leave yourself open, hell, maybe you slip and you make a mess of what you are suppose to do.
Kata is what happens if everything goes perfectly, but things never do. You might have to adapt or even abandon your intended moves halfway through whatever you're trying to do.

Mark Hamill

Jimkel wrote:

Hmm yeah kinda like BJJ. yet the point again is where did this MMA vs TMA debate come from again, last i checked I was talking about Kata.

Em, you brought it up when you said

Jimkel wrote:

What argument??
It was a statement about kata.
I never said that you dont get any psychological benefits, of course you do.I am saying that this is ACTIVELY sought in kata training whereas in a fighting sport it is more like a side effect.
Altough the benifit is much the same. The purpose of kata is being discussed here, I am talking about that yet you still think its part of the MMA V TMA debate? jesus man relax a bit on the defensive position, I am not always critisising MMA.

No-one else said anything about that particular argument, you where the first to bring it up, we where talking about training methods...

Nothingcompares

Jimkel wrote:

Hmm yeah kinda like BJJ. yet the point again is where did this MMA vs TMA debate come from again, last i checked I was talking about Kata. Or is that not allowed here? Should this forum be called the MMA forum?? Because everytime someone posts about anything other then MMA they get verbally put down.

In another thread i simply asked if there where any Traditional Jui Jutsu classes in north dublin and once again a debate about MMA vs TDA springs up, its usually either you or Columok for some reason.

sorry man if you feel that way, did you find a jj club yet? There is one in Coolmine and another in I think Donnycarney. I can see you love Karate, enjoy your training. I just think, because you actually don't understand MMA you make statements and you imply certainly things that just aren't true. And I feel compelled, by the power of Fedor, to dispute these inaccuracies. rember 9/10 (I made that stat up) "MMA" guys are black belts or have several years training in something that isn't MMA. You don't have the same experience in MMA.

Jimkel

Nothingcompares wrote:

sorry man if you feel that way, did you find a jj club yet? There is one in Coolmine and another in I think Donnycarney. I can see you love Karate, enjoy your training. I just think, because you actually don't understand MMA you make statements and you imply certainly things that just aren't true. And I feel compelled, by the power of Fedor, to dispute these inaccuracies. rember 9/10 (I made that stat up) "MMA" guys are black belts or have several years training in something that isn't MMA. You don't have the same experience in MMA.

True man, I want to find a local BJJ club and a local Jui jutsu club, check em both out and join whichever i feel will be best for me. I really want to give a grappling art a go, Im compelled towards Bjj but I just wanted to see the difference first hand before I join a club.

Nothingcompares

Well I have to applaud you for that because that's the best way to see if something is effective/enjoyable, go and give it a go. Let us know how you get on with your research.