Most retarded arguments you've ever seen/heard?

[mike321]

But I did a spin kick clockwise and broke a board and got a green belt! It must be true!!!

[Tetsujin]

An old one I have mentioned on these forums before: spin kick clockwise only. If you kick clockwise you pull ko/chi from your opponent, if you kick counterclockwise your ki/chi is lost to your opponent.

Wow, that's pretty retarded. Sounds like a half-assed rationalization for not wanting to train kicks on one's weaker leg.

kata represent a real fighting situation
learning kata is correlated to learning how to fight

Actually, in my opinion, both of these are true, in a sense at least.

Does kata accurately model a real fighting situation? No, of course not. Does proficiency in kata by itself directly translate into real fighting skill? Not at all.

But kata most certainly does REPRESENT (albeit in a formalized and somewhat abstract manner) a real fighting situation. That's a simple fact, following from the definition of kata. And while of not much value for fighting by itself, when trained in conjunction with actual contact sparring and padwork kata can be quite valuable in contributing to fighting skill by teaching fundamentals of balance, movement, timing, and smooth transitions between various techniques and combinations.

That said, there's obviously a whole lot about real fighting that kata can never teach you. (And kata can be an end in itself, independently of it's value for fghting.) But to write off kata as completely worthless with respect to actual fighting just because there's no live resisting opponent and the techniques are formalized is itself one of the worst arguments I've come across.

[hungryjoe]

[quote=TetsujinThat said, there's obviously a whole lot about real fighting that kata can never teach you. (And kata can be an end in itself, independently of it's value for fghting.) But to write off kata as completely worthless with respect to actual fighting just because there's no live resisting opponent and the techniques are formalized is itself one of the worst arguments I've come across.[/quote]

Kata is good exercise. Nothing more, nothing less.

Randori? Please comment.

[It is Fake]

But kata most certainly does REPRESENT (albeit in a formalized and somewhat abstract manner) a real fighting situation. That's a simple fact,

No not a fact.

[Tetsujin]

Kata is good exercise. Nothing more, nothing less.

Randori? Please comment.

If you mean that kata can only contribute to physical fitness, like pushups or other exercises, then I disagree. But I would agree that kata is a good exercise in that it helps develop the fundamentals of balance, movement, timing, and smooth transitions between various techniques and combination, as I said above, and all of these can contribute to developing actual fighting skill.

Take two hypothetical new MA students. One who trains free contact sparring, padwork, drills, and basic physical fitness. And another who does all of the above, with the addition of kata. Do you really think that the second student will have no advantage when it comes to fighting?

I'm not saying that kata is a necessary training method. Nor am I saying that it's a sufficient one. I'm saying that it is a valuable complementary training method that is too often rejected by those who haven't used it or who don't understand it's purpose.

[It is Fake]

Take two hypothetical new MA students. One who trains free contact sparring, padwork, drills, and basic physical fitness. And another who does all of the above, with the addition of kata. Do you really think that the second student will have no advantage when it comes to fighting?

Yes, if you are trying to imply that Kata imparts something that non-kata practitioners are missing concerning fight ability.

.

[Tetsujin]

No not a fact.

Please don't make me link to a dictionary definition.

I said "represent". Kata is by definition a formalized and somewhat abstract REPRESENTATION of an actual fighting situation.

A painting can be as impressionistic as you like, and yet still represent a very real scene or object.

[Tetsujin]

Yes, if you are trying to imply that Kata imparts something that non-kata practitioners are missing concerning fight ability.

I didn't say that. I specifically stated that kata is not a necessary training element, so that which can be learned from kata can certainly also be learned by other means. What I reject is the idea that there is nothing at all that can be learned from kata that is applicable to fighting.

Edit: I'll add that kumite, i.e. free contact sparring, certainly IS a necessary component of fighting training. I would never advocate kata as any kind of substitute for kumite, and kumite can even be a sufficient method by itself. But kata is also a complementary training method which does have something to offer. That's all I'm saying.

[It is Fake]

Please don't make me link to a dictionary definition.

I said "represent". Kata is by definition a formalized and somewhat abstract REPRESENTATION of an actual fighting situation.

A painting can be as impressionistic as you like, and yet still represent a very real scene or object.

Yes, which would leave it up to interpretation of any particular individual unless the artist gives it a specific meaning.


Kata was "created" before you or I existed. The true purpose is lost to antiquity. So, no, it isn't a fact, it is your opinion.

[Tetsujin]

Yes, which would leave it up to interpretation of any particular individual unless the artist gives it a specific meaning.


Kata was "created" before you or I existed. The true purpose is lost to antiquity. So, no, it isn't a fact, it is your opinion.

I don't think that historical purpose equals 'true' purpose. But my point stands. Do you really think that kata might have been created without being intended as any kind of representation of combat whatsoever?? Kata isn't exactly like a truly abstract work of art, where it could be interpreted as anything at all. Kata is quite clearly a representation of actual combat (regardless of its actual value for real fighting). It is not a representation of gardening or sexual intercourse (unless you're doing it very wrong).

When performing kata, you are supposed to imagine the opponents your techniques are being applied against. It would be logically impossible to this without your kata at least representing an actual fighting situation.

[hungryjoe]

I wish I had back all of the time I spent on kata.

Be it spent on imagery of opponent or for rank.

Kata is, without a background of resisting opponent, of little use.

[Tetsujin]

I'll offer a more concrete example of what I'm talking about to clarify my point:

From kata I learned that bobbing up and down when stepping and punching is a bad thing. I learned that for economy of movement and for delivering maximum power I should keep my head at the same height, and minimize any 'bobbing' up and down motion that TKDers for example even deliberately train when stepping and punching. I learned this through kata, and was able to directly apply this in sparring to improve my stances and movement when fighting.

This clearly wasn't the only way I could have learned this. But it was how I learned it. So kata can help develop one's fighting ability beyond mere physical fitness.

I'll add that if I didn't enjoy kata in and of itself, i.e. if my only goal was to be an excellent fighter, then I might not not bother with kata either. I'm not saying that kata is the best method for developing fighting skill any more than I'm saying it is a necessary one.
The only point I'm rejecting is that it cannot contribute in any way at all to one's fighting ability. That, in my experience, just isn't true.

[It is Fake]

I don't think that historical purpose equals 'true' purpose. But my point stands. Do you really think that kata might have been created without being intended as any kind of representation of combat whatsoever?? Kata isn't exactly like a truly abstract work of art, where it could be interpreted as anything at all. Kata is quite clearly a representation of actual combat (regardless of its actual value for real fighting). It is not a representation of gardening or sexual intercourse (unless you're doing it very wrong).

I know for a fact that there are many Katas, that exist right today, for no other interpretation than being judged. So yes, I can see forms being created and having zero applicability to fighting. I can see someone with a large class thinking, "hey what can I do to keep all these students busy until I can pay them some individual attention?"

Before you go ah ha, I never said that the techniques weren't fight moves pieced together. I reject the "forms" are necessary to fighting" dead horse argument we are going to devolve into.

When performing kata, you are supposed to imagine the opponents your techniques are being applied against. It would be logically impossible to this without your kata at least representing an actual fighting situation.

Funny, I have heard from many a respected master many different things concerning Katas.


The Five Animal Frolics for example supposedly created by Dr. Hua To.



Thrusting your pelvis in the air, imagining you are copulating, isn't the same as actual sexual intercourse.

Do it all day and minus the exercise it isn't having sex.

[hungryjoe]

Sorry

I like to step into a punch when possible. Not into my aggressor's punch, but leading off of the back foot.

Whether it be off line or into my aggressor's punch, I consider the ability to counter punch a huge benefit.

Kata never helped me much there, be it KMA or JMA.

I do not "bob" up or down, but kata never taught me that. (more Aikido than anything else ....insert Aikido joke here please....

How much do you actually fight? Contact beyond tappy pulled punches?

Have you ever sparred "live" against anyone else other than your dojo?

Just asking and not trying to be an asshole.

Joe

[It is Fake]

I'll offer a more concrete example of what I'm talking about to clarify my point:

From kata I learned that bobbing up and down when stepping and punching is a bad thing. I learned that for economy of movement and for delivering maximum power I should keep my head at the same height, and minimize any 'bobbing' up and down motion that TKDers for example even deliberately train when stepping and punching. I learned this through kata, and was able to directly apply this in sparring to improve my stances and movement when fighting.

This clearly wasn't the only way I could have learned this. But it was how I learned it. So kata can help develop one's fighting ability beyond mere physical fitness.

I'll add that if I didn't enjoy kata in and of itself, i.e. if my only goal was to be an excellent fighter, then I might not not bother with kata either. I'm not saying that kata is the best method for developing fighting skill any more than I'm saying it is a necessary one.
The only point I'm rejecting is that it cannot contribute in any way at all to one's fighting ability. That, in my experience, just isn't true.

That is fine. You believe what you want. No one is telling you not to love kata.


Yet, all of this anecdotal evidence rejects the idea that, there are hundreds of thousands of people out there that have never done kata that learned all the things you just experienced.

Some of them have videos and make a ton of money.