I have always interpreted the ”form follows function” when it comes to kata as if the structure, dynamics, bio mechanics and so on that you practise by doing the kata supports the principles/spplications of the fighting system the kata belongs to.
But, to not narrow down peoples mind to much and showing explicit applications, everything is generelized to make it it adaptable and give different aoplications depending on an actual situation/attack. A gedan barai (as found in e.g pinan nidan) can be used to redirect a kick, attack someones elbow in case of lapel grab, as a throw and so on, even to the actual body movement is the same.
This also exists in some chinese martial arts. Here is a good example:
The same motion (which looks very similar to e.g seishan to me) is used to handle punches, kicks and grappling.
One also have to remember that all karate kata probably isnt made up for all the same reasons. In Chris Denwoods books ”Naihanchi - The seed of shuri karate” he refers, with good explenation, to e.g naihanchi and sanshin as ”kihon kata” while e.g kushanku and chinto as ”application kata” (there was another expresseion as well which I cant remember now).
Yet another interesting variant here is by looking at e.g kishimoto-di; They are using a variant if naihanchi called ”tachimura no naihanchi” which would look both familiar and odd to a wado practioner. One interesting thing here is though that even if every motion have unlimited applications, you can also find highly effective applications by doing the techniques more or less exactly as they are shown in the kata.
Finally, arent we using ”form follows function” in wado as well? I mean, if you train the kata correctly, you develop skills which are desired for wado?
In other pieces I have tried to present the idea of Wado kata being more organic and less mechanical. Mechanical kata methods have the advantage that they are easily packaged for mass consumption. A more organic approach chimes with the changing nature of combat and the zone of movement rather than static form.
Otsuka's Naihanchi (and Seishan) are tapping into an older methodology, one that I would argue predates the 19th century versions of Okinawan karate.
A friend of mine recently went to a seminar conducted by someone teaching 'Bunkai' and turning them into throws. I asked his opinion, and he said all he could see was 'bad judo'.
People are free to play with their interpretations, and it's not my place to push my opinions on them, that's why I stick with Wado.
Over the decades I have tried to get a handle on master Otsuka's creation, it's still something that intrigues me and the more I find out the more I realise that the depth is almost unfathomable. On top of that, my views are changing all the time.
Example; I have written two versions of 'Wado and Jujutsu' and recently, re-reading the last article I realised how far off the mark I am... yet again.
Questioning what we are doing and never settle down sounds very sane to me :) And, if I ha e understood you correctly from other articles, you are hinting that wado should not be considered fixed system, but rather a framework from which to explore options? At least that seems what Otsuka himself have been doing :)
”Seek what the masters sought”, ”Keep the flame burning rather than worship the ashes” and so on… Then there will of course always be the question on how much something can develop and still be wado. Maybe it is the same philosophical question though that if you have a woodem boat, replace the wood bit by bit (and maybe building another boat by the old bits), which boat is which than?
Anyway, would you say that we should look at e.g the kihon kumite the same way? When I first was exposed to them, I thought that they didnt seem very useful, since no one would fight like that ”in real life”. However, could it be that they are designed to be slightly ”impractical” to encourage the practioners to explore their own applications based in the same principles?
Remember once reading a post on a wado forum by a finnish guy named Lasse Cande, who suggested that people should take t ex kihon kumite 1, and then change the attacks to hooks, overhands, kicks and so on, and try to use the same principles and find new applications.
Havent had time to experiment with that much myself, but the few times I tried it seems like it have made sense to my students. Remember e.g how I ”by accident” found that alot of what Lyoto Machida told about how to deal with kicks (in his video series ”Karate for MMA”) could be found in kihon kumite 3.
The Theseus Paradox sometimes applies, but with Wado the projection is always forwards never backwards. The problem we have is that as the first generation masters disappear the future generations suffer a kind of existential angst, they cling desperately to the corpses of the past masters and miss the message and the clues that Otsuka Sensei left us. The plan was always that the inheritors of the system would continue with 'project Wado' and take it forward. But oh how people have kicked back against that idea. Wado is a progressive entity, but that takes boldness and courage. Not that you have to step outside of the system to do that, no, all the information is there.
Lasse Cande is a good guy, I have exchanged information with him many times, I think he gets it.
Re. the Kihon Gumite; they set out a political backdrop that supplies options. I enjoy teaching them, I have so much fun with them, because in their external rigidity they are amazingly flexible.
Interestingly, BJJ is such a young art (here in the US, anyway, but young in general) that we are sort of experimenting with different ways of creating something that has some of the benefits from kata.
I think I told you, Tim, but I railed against the idea of learning judo kata for the longest time. I knew it was a necessary step to get to black belt, but I didn't appreciate it for what it was until after I sat down and learned it. Either my mind was desperate enough to find a silver lining (not super likely), or my mind was just open enough to start to wonder WHY the moves were so rigid, so mechanical and artificial seeming. Why did kata look like kata?
It took going through it, coupled with mental maturity, to see how valuable and important these fundamental lessons were.
It was those particular 5 kata from judo that created an ideal example to support my theory. To an outsider they look absolutely crazy, but an explanation of what is going on really takes the lid off them. They help to supply Principles that I suppose are the bedrock of judo (I don't know, I observe judo from the outside).
I suppose BJJ have no kata, but has 'Principles'. I am guessing that these are drilled into you guys, a bit like the old judo principles of 'kuzushi' (destabilising), 'tsukuri' (advantageous position) and 'kake' (execution of technique). The origin of those predate judo.
Yeah, BJJ borrows from judo (closest existing art, very close cousin) and of course from old ju jitsu techniques, but also from American wrestling (techniques more so than style).
I like flow drills a lot with students, moving from position to position. It's not kata, exactly, but it's also not sparring or rolling in any sense. It's a bit of a cooperative, coordinated dance designed to teach lessons.
I would say for uchikomi: yes and no. It's deliberate practice for sure, but it's designed to maximize a repetition so that your body can be trained to do the move correctly. Of course, a lot of that is also exploring what that "right way" is!
I would say that flow drills tend to be more back-and-forth choreographed, much like judo's two-person nage no kata, but sometimes scripted and sometimes unscripted, so there can be notable differences as well.
I have always interpreted the ”form follows function” when it comes to kata as if the structure, dynamics, bio mechanics and so on that you practise by doing the kata supports the principles/spplications of the fighting system the kata belongs to.
But, to not narrow down peoples mind to much and showing explicit applications, everything is generelized to make it it adaptable and give different aoplications depending on an actual situation/attack. A gedan barai (as found in e.g pinan nidan) can be used to redirect a kick, attack someones elbow in case of lapel grab, as a throw and so on, even to the actual body movement is the same.
This also exists in some chinese martial arts. Here is a good example:
https://youtu.be/ZOkmEskejww
The same motion (which looks very similar to e.g seishan to me) is used to handle punches, kicks and grappling.
One also have to remember that all karate kata probably isnt made up for all the same reasons. In Chris Denwoods books ”Naihanchi - The seed of shuri karate” he refers, with good explenation, to e.g naihanchi and sanshin as ”kihon kata” while e.g kushanku and chinto as ”application kata” (there was another expresseion as well which I cant remember now).
Yet another interesting variant here is by looking at e.g kishimoto-di; They are using a variant if naihanchi called ”tachimura no naihanchi” which would look both familiar and odd to a wado practioner. One interesting thing here is though that even if every motion have unlimited applications, you can also find highly effective applications by doing the techniques more or less exactly as they are shown in the kata.
Finally, arent we using ”form follows function” in wado as well? I mean, if you train the kata correctly, you develop skills which are desired for wado?
It seems like we are on the same page.
In other pieces I have tried to present the idea of Wado kata being more organic and less mechanical. Mechanical kata methods have the advantage that they are easily packaged for mass consumption. A more organic approach chimes with the changing nature of combat and the zone of movement rather than static form.
Otsuka's Naihanchi (and Seishan) are tapping into an older methodology, one that I would argue predates the 19th century versions of Okinawan karate.
A friend of mine recently went to a seminar conducted by someone teaching 'Bunkai' and turning them into throws. I asked his opinion, and he said all he could see was 'bad judo'.
People are free to play with their interpretations, and it's not my place to push my opinions on them, that's why I stick with Wado.
Over the decades I have tried to get a handle on master Otsuka's creation, it's still something that intrigues me and the more I find out the more I realise that the depth is almost unfathomable. On top of that, my views are changing all the time.
Example; I have written two versions of 'Wado and Jujutsu' and recently, re-reading the last article I realised how far off the mark I am... yet again.
Questioning what we are doing and never settle down sounds very sane to me :) And, if I ha e understood you correctly from other articles, you are hinting that wado should not be considered fixed system, but rather a framework from which to explore options? At least that seems what Otsuka himself have been doing :)
”Seek what the masters sought”, ”Keep the flame burning rather than worship the ashes” and so on… Then there will of course always be the question on how much something can develop and still be wado. Maybe it is the same philosophical question though that if you have a woodem boat, replace the wood bit by bit (and maybe building another boat by the old bits), which boat is which than?
Anyway, would you say that we should look at e.g the kihon kumite the same way? When I first was exposed to them, I thought that they didnt seem very useful, since no one would fight like that ”in real life”. However, could it be that they are designed to be slightly ”impractical” to encourage the practioners to explore their own applications based in the same principles?
Remember once reading a post on a wado forum by a finnish guy named Lasse Cande, who suggested that people should take t ex kihon kumite 1, and then change the attacks to hooks, overhands, kicks and so on, and try to use the same principles and find new applications.
Havent had time to experiment with that much myself, but the few times I tried it seems like it have made sense to my students. Remember e.g how I ”by accident” found that alot of what Lyoto Machida told about how to deal with kicks (in his video series ”Karate for MMA”) could be found in kihon kumite 3.
The Theseus Paradox sometimes applies, but with Wado the projection is always forwards never backwards. The problem we have is that as the first generation masters disappear the future generations suffer a kind of existential angst, they cling desperately to the corpses of the past masters and miss the message and the clues that Otsuka Sensei left us. The plan was always that the inheritors of the system would continue with 'project Wado' and take it forward. But oh how people have kicked back against that idea. Wado is a progressive entity, but that takes boldness and courage. Not that you have to step outside of the system to do that, no, all the information is there.
Lasse Cande is a good guy, I have exchanged information with him many times, I think he gets it.
Re. the Kihon Gumite; they set out a political backdrop that supplies options. I enjoy teaching them, I have so much fun with them, because in their external rigidity they are amazingly flexible.
Interestingly, BJJ is such a young art (here in the US, anyway, but young in general) that we are sort of experimenting with different ways of creating something that has some of the benefits from kata.
I think I told you, Tim, but I railed against the idea of learning judo kata for the longest time. I knew it was a necessary step to get to black belt, but I didn't appreciate it for what it was until after I sat down and learned it. Either my mind was desperate enough to find a silver lining (not super likely), or my mind was just open enough to start to wonder WHY the moves were so rigid, so mechanical and artificial seeming. Why did kata look like kata?
It took going through it, coupled with mental maturity, to see how valuable and important these fundamental lessons were.
Thanks for your input.
It was those particular 5 kata from judo that created an ideal example to support my theory. To an outsider they look absolutely crazy, but an explanation of what is going on really takes the lid off them. They help to supply Principles that I suppose are the bedrock of judo (I don't know, I observe judo from the outside).
I suppose BJJ have no kata, but has 'Principles'. I am guessing that these are drilled into you guys, a bit like the old judo principles of 'kuzushi' (destabilising), 'tsukuri' (advantageous position) and 'kake' (execution of technique). The origin of those predate judo.
Yeah, BJJ borrows from judo (closest existing art, very close cousin) and of course from old ju jitsu techniques, but also from American wrestling (techniques more so than style).
I like flow drills a lot with students, moving from position to position. It's not kata, exactly, but it's also not sparring or rolling in any sense. It's a bit of a cooperative, coordinated dance designed to teach lessons.
Flow drills I suppose can be another form of paired kata. And then there's 'uchikomi' in judo, probably a similar thing.
I would say for uchikomi: yes and no. It's deliberate practice for sure, but it's designed to maximize a repetition so that your body can be trained to do the move correctly. Of course, a lot of that is also exploring what that "right way" is!
I would say that flow drills tend to be more back-and-forth choreographed, much like judo's two-person nage no kata, but sometimes scripted and sometimes unscripted, so there can be notable differences as well.
Fun talk, Tim!