PDA

View Full Version : Good Kata Thread



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Ke?poFist
11/08/2007 2:12pm,
In this thread people will talk about and discuss what they consider good kata. Preferably video should be posted displaying what they consider good kata.

Apparently I am told that nearly all kata I can find on the net is bad kata, but I should trust that THEY have the real kata. I would very much like to see it.

Intentional posting of bad kata, trolling, or discussion between Fantasy Warrior and Soju or Maverick is strictly forbidden! Take it back to the other kata thread where it belongs :qleft6:

To start it off, I'll post a video of what I'd consider "good kata." Although it is unnecessarily formal -and mostly used for demonstration purposes for attaining rank- the techniques therein are sound and can be drilled and applied verbatim in training.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJfG3-FwMT8

I would like to see examples of the elusive Karate, Kung Fu, and Korean MA katas that I hear much about if anyone has those available.

Teh El Macho
11/08/2007 2:30pm,
To start it off, I'll post a video of what I'd consider "good kata." Although it is unnecessarily formal -and mostly used for demonstration purposes for attaining rank- the techniques therein are sound and can be drilled and applied verbatim in training.That's nage no kata or forms of throwing, a traditional kata. I would not say it is "unnecessarily formal" as these katas are not only for grading or training, but for cultural/historical preservation.


The Nage no Kata was developed in 1884 and 1885 at the Kodokan. This kata consists of 5 sets of three throws, each performed on both the left and right sides. The two participants formally bow onto the mat and begin the kata with the tori, or thrower, on your right and the uke, or person being thrown, on your left. In each case, the uke attempts an attack on tori. There is a progression of attack styles here, demonstrating how tori must adjust to these differing attacks. Uke then changes his attacks based on the previous adjustments made by tori.

The other important thing about this kata is that, besides using techniques that are practical, tori must perform the throws as real attacks, full force as in a real application while uke must break the fall (as he should to avoid injury.) That is, these are just not staged drills, but actual execution of throws. I'd be akin (though not the same to having someone throw a body shot full force at you while you do your best to roll with the punch.


There is another kata I like to watch is gonose-no-kata (forms of counter attacks), a modern kata that's not part of the official curriculum. The narrator explains (in Spanish) the role that ceremony and formality has in these kata being performed in Argentina.

Observer the execution of the kata at 1:40 in front of a bunch of young padawans and have fun :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAWuO3-4JdA

ojgsxr6
11/08/2007 2:46pm,
As far as kata goes, I'm a fan of Enshin and Ashihara kata. It's not perfect but they introduced to the concept of fighting kata vs conditioning kata.

Ashihara
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB6o4m45J4E

Enshin Kata
http://www.google.com/videoplay\?docid=9112972018247431046&q

Enshin kata vs people
http://www.google.com/videoplay\?docid=-783968795000940108&q

I really like the fact that they try to make the kata look more like real fighting not using chambered punches, low stances etc.

Frank White
11/08/2007 2:55pm,
Are throws done on your training partner different than throws you would do on an attacker? I can see why you would not try to throw your partner on his head, so would you adjust somehow, or throw harder, on an attacker? (anyone?)

Ke?poFist
11/08/2007 3:16pm,
That's nage no kata or forms of throwing, a traditional kata. I would not say it is "unnecessarily formal" as these katas are not only for grading or training, but for cultural/historical preservation.

In what way was that NOT unnecessarily formal? The very reason I say they are "formal" is because they are performed in such a way here for presentations sake. They could very well just stroll out there, slap hands and show some throws, but rather they walk out, stepping in unison, bow, and grip stepping together with the intention of executing a successful throw and break fall. But the techniques work under resistance as well as in that demonstration. And the manner they demonstrate is a good example of isolation drilling to attain proper form, structure and overall technique.

Most Judo guys I train with see this demonstration as more of a performance than anything else, but a necessary tool used to ensure that students ranked by the Kodokan are knowledgeable of the text-book techniques required for rank in Judo.

Jadonblade
11/08/2007 3:19pm,
AM having trouble finding a good vid of the sum chien, but its one of the only kata/forms Ive done that gives me a sweat when going for it properly.

Ke?poFist
11/08/2007 3:20pm,
Are throws done on your training partner different than throws you would do on an attacker? I can see why you would not try to throw your partner on his head, so would you adjust somehow, or throw harder, on an attacker? (anyone?)


Judo guys train most throws on regular mats, and for ones that intentionally slam your opponent in their head they use crash mats.

MaverickZ
11/08/2007 4:07pm,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM_RFSH5hHg

Ke?poFist
11/08/2007 4:28pm,
WHAT DID I SAY! You broke two rules in one post!!!!

MaverickZ
11/08/2007 4:57pm,
WHAT DID I SAY! You broke two rules in one post!!!!
Sorry, I pretty much stopped reading anything you write. :)

Teh El Macho
11/08/2007 5:18pm,
Are throws done on your training partner different than throws you would do on an attacker? I can see why you would not try to throw your partner on his head, so would you adjust somehow, or throw harder, on an attacker? (anyone?)
You would not want to throw your attacker on his head in a real S/D situation (for humane and legal reasons.) Even though those throws are performed on a mat, they hurt, they are done with force during practice, and they do carry a real risk of injury.

Now, imagine the same throws on a hard surface. Then imagine your typical attacker who has never been thrown like that and who has never been trained to break falls. Automatically, that person is going to arch his back and stretch out his neck, rather than tucking your chin in. The probability of hitting the back of his head on a hard surface increases without you, the thrower, having to do any modification to the throws at all.

Even if you don't hit your head on the floor, unless you know how to fall, you'll either stick your hand out, or fall on your elbow or knee. Even if you fall flat on your side, it will shock you and it will hurt you and it will exhaust you. It takes a lot of a man to shrug it off, specially if you are not accostumed to it. No need to modify the throws (but you could if you master them.)

Also, no need to throw harder. You throw hard during training. Certainly during competitions. In a S/D situation, choosing to do so is debatable, and it doesn't take a lot of force to throw somebody with a poor base.


In what way was that NOT unnecessarily formal? The very reason I say they are "formal" is because they are performed in such a way here for presentations sake. They could very well just stroll out there, slap hands and show some throws, but rather they walk out, stepping in unison, bow, and grip stepping together with the intention of executing a successful throw and break fall. But the techniques work under resistance as well as in that demonstration. And the manner they demonstrate is a good example of isolation drilling to attain proper form, structure and overall technique.

Most Judo guys I train with see this demonstration as more of a performance than anything else, but a necessary tool used to ensure that students ranked by the Kodokan are knowledgeable of the text-book techniques required for rank in Judo.I know, and I agree with you. The reason I say they are "not" unnecesarily formal is because the original intention of the katas were not just as training/demo/grading tools, but also for historical and cultural preservation purposes.

For a strictly training point of view, then yes, all that formality is not needed. Aside from giving an opportunity to train ambidexterity (which would be harder with randori), Judo katas were never meant to be for training - you train with randori and ukichomi. Their intended purposes were broader - cultural and historical preservation and a whole bunch of esotheric reasons that drive these formalities, formalities that do not affect the execution of the throws.

Remember that Judo was not intended to be a system to teach to kick ass. It was to be a physical education program where you develop character by learning to kick ass ;)

Your Judo partners are right. Those katas are demos. They just happen to be far more realistic and practical than a lot of the crap being passed as training.

I've seen another Judo kata (modern, non-cannon) that looks like a flow drill. Pretty fucking cool. Let me see if I have it in one my spared hard drives.

Ke?poFist
11/08/2007 6:18pm,
So we got Judo kata and an Enshin kata that look pretty good. So can we now say that 99.9% of kata sucks?

Virus
11/08/2007 6:30pm,
So we got Judo kata and an Enshin kata that look pretty good. So can we now say that 99.9% of kata sucks?

I agree but for simplicities sake let's just reduce it to "kata sucks".

Teh El Macho
11/08/2007 6:49pm,
So we got Judo kata and an Enshin kata that look pretty good. So can we now say that 99.9% of kata sucks?Duh, of course!!!

:icon_scra

Waitta minute!! Were you trying to collect sample data to backup that statement? Did you just made us unwilling lab rats for an experiment in statistics?

Ke?poFist
11/08/2007 7:06pm,
Duh, of course!!!

:icon_scra

Waitta minute!! Were you trying to collect sample data to backup that statement? Did you just made us unwilling lab rats for an experiment in statistics?

......yes...

DdlR
11/08/2007 7:09pm,
I know, and I agree with you. The reason I say they are "not" unnecesarily formal is because the original intention of the katas were not just as training/demo/grading tools, but also for historical and cultural preservation purposes.

For a strictly training point of view, then yes, all that formality is not needed. Aside from giving an opportunity to train ambidexterity (which would be harder with randori), Judo katas were never meant to be for training - you train with randori and ukichomi. Their intended purposes were broader - cultural and historical preservation and a whole bunch of esotheric reasons that drive these formalities, formalities that do not affect the execution of the throws.

Remember that Judo was not intended to be a system to teach to kick ass. It was to be a physical education program where you develop character by learning to kick ass ;)


Exactly, and these are points that often gets lost in this sort of discussion. The whole concept of kata derives from a time and place when/where literacy and publishing were uncommon (you couldn't just record the techniques in a book), and obviously photography and videography were far in the future. The kata were a formal, practical way of perpetuating the art for coming generations, which made perfect sense in the highly formalized culture of feudal Japan.

By the time Kano was revolutionizing classical jujitsu (late 1800s), kata were accepted parts of the traditional pedagogy. He was at least as interested in preserving these traditions as he was in modernizing them to fit the Western physical education model, so the kata that ended up as parts of the Kodokan canon were compromises between the old school and the new school.

So; yes, from the purely practical POV, the formalities attached to classical kata are "unnecessary", but it's worth bearing in mind that they have other values which have nothing to do with combat effectiveness.