Verified answer

1) What he's doing isn't a "biceps slicer". It's a forearm lock. And yes, there IS a difference. A forearm lock (bending center of the forearm, the most breakable part, over a fulcrum) does not NEED to have the arm bent in order to work. There is also no pressure on the biceps. The so-called "biceps slicer" is an elbow compression. It MAY result in a fractured forearm or a ruptured biceps muscle, but the pressure is actually on the outside of the elbow. It was known in old-school Catch wrestling as a short-arm scissors. In order for it to be activated, you need to bend the elbow as much as possible, with a fulcrum inserted into the joint to interrupt its travel. Imagine inserting an unbreakable marble in the hinge of a door, then trying to close the door; the hinge would pop outward. That's the action that gets called a "biceps slicer". You'll probably be upset with me for saying this, but if you're going to try to illustrate a point like this, you should probably have a better understanding of what's actually going on.

2) I don't think that this particular interpretation of Joge Uke was what was intended when the forms were created. My reason is that this particular technique has a rather limited window of opportunity and corresponds to no common Habitiual Act of Violence (instinctual attacks that require no training, like head-level swings). It's an escorting technique in the video; even its most damaging potential requires an unrealistic relationship to the attacker. It's possible the turn in Seiunchin indicates an angle change, but even then, why apply a bone lock instead of a quicker technique that doesn't tie up two hands on one limb? This movement appears in several kata (Pinan Sandan, Jion, Seiunchin, possibly the Naihanchi series and Saifa depending on how you interpret the movements) and I can't believe that each and every one is supposed to be a forearm lock. It just doesn't fit into the civilian self-defense system that karate was developed as, and doesn't work very well into a military paradigm either.

3) No, Bensoku Dachi and Shiko Dachi are not "the guard" except under the most liberal interpretations, in the same way that an ancient Egyptian chariot is the same thing as a FV 101 Scorpion. It's not just a matter of orientation, it's a matter of usage and mechanics. One is far more primitive than the other. In a stance, you are fighting gravity. In the guard, you are wrestling with your legs. Instead of only applying downward pressure with your feet, as you do in a stance to keep yourself upright, you have to apply constantly changing pressure with your heels, insteps, shins, calves, and knees, in addition to a constantly shifting orientation with your hips, torso, and arms, in an effort to respond to a squirming, fighting opponent. A stance is for support vs. gravity, providing a firing platform, and possibly causing disruptive damage to the enemy's base. The guard, in grappling, is used for so much more. Again, it's much, much more complex. A traffic cone can look like a trumpet, too, if you don't have any knowledge of accoustics. I refer you to this article by Stephan Kesting to further your knowledge of guard, at least on a fundamental level. Missing from it, though, is a BIG part- ground movement:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37215515/A-Glossary-of-G...

4) To answer your main question, I still explore kata and likely will for the rest of my life. I do not consider it useless; it is, at the very least, a catalogue of techniques. I do NOT believe that most karate kata are designed to be used in a progressive manner (in other words I think they could be broken down further and simplified for beginners, as many theorized Itosu did in creating the Pinan series) and I question whether they need to be practiced as a whole form instead of simply practicing the waza. I also do not believe that many of the techniques found in ground grappling systems are found in kata except by the most liberal of interpretations. Civilian self-defense does not require wrestling with the legs, which is a whole skill and art unto itself. There just doesn't seem to be much of an historical basis for that claim.

If it's a point of contention, I offer to demonstrate points 1 and 3 to pugpaws2 if he's willing to act as an impartial judge on the matter.

Hi there Basically its all down to which parts of the world the art comes from. History has shaped the forms and how they were practiced. Karate for example comes from Okinawa and its not a Japanese art but more of a chinese one. You find that the chinese arts come from the imitation of animals in battle or a re-enactment of a fight. Bundle this together with the history of banned arts in okinawa and the result is big forms. Japanese arts such as judo and jujutsu come from kobudo or koryu battlefield arts. These schools were mostly formalised after the 1500's when the fighting was all done and dusted in japan. Basically warriors that survived their experiences came back and wrote down techniques that worked for them on scrolls called densho which then became the kata and list of techniques that are practiced today. Theres many views on sequence kata being used to hide its secrets or that it represents a fight sequence? No one other than the founders know for sure. So really its all boils down to history, location and purpose. Theres no real answer other than that. As for the benefits of doing them in sequence rather than singular depends on your opinions and views. Both have benefits and disadvantages but if all you do with them is memorise them and collect them then a kata libarian shall you be. The principles behind the movement are whats important not how they are strung together. Your footwork might be technically correct, your dynamic tension and breathing excellent but if you cant extract it and apply it in a variety of situations then what really is the point? Art for art sake. Yet art is creative by its very nature and not by numbers. Learn it, extract it, use it! Best wishes idai

The "kata is a dance" statement shows, IMHO, a lack of understanding concerning both kata and dancing.

Anybody can 'move' to a piece of music, just as anybody can (try to) imitate a kata. But in both kata and dancing - especially on a more advanced/serious/professional level - each individual element of movement has a meaning (or a function), and the dance or kata in its entirety represents something more than a display of aesthetics. Add a partner or partners, and it (either dance or kata) becomes an expression of connectivity and harmony. Perhaps this is easier to see in dance, but I don't see the interaction in paired kata or bunkai drills as simply action-reaction or force versus force.

So, I have to agree with Iron Mongoose here in that saying how "kata is a dance", is not necessarily pejorative. However, assuming that "kata is just like a dance, since it's just pretty movements" is an insult to both art forms.

The first video using a phone book really doesn't prove anything. For demos I would place a phone book on top of a few patio blocks and then break them. People always found that amazing but paper is actually quite resilient. Any one remember stories of police officers putting a phone book on a guys head and then hitting it? Paper transfers blunt force quite well.

Sure most fighting moves or techniques are in kata but it is making them work is always the problem. Applying them during a fast paced fight so difficult most don't even consider it. Possible and effective but very difficult.

I think most people don't like or dismiss kata only because they had a poor instructor teaching. You have to agree that there are some real retarded explanations out there.

Also there are plenty of retarded self proclaimed "masters" on this site and in the real world. Block, punch, ki-ai! LMAO!

> I disagree with your idea that the phone book was used primarily to diffuse force. Why not use a pad, mitt, or some other safety device? Last time I checked no one uses a phone book as body padding / armor. However It does put on a good show which I believe was the intent. The guy appears to strike well so I am not trying to only criticize. Just making you aware of what you may not understand.

>kokoro- I have withstood strikes that would more than likely level most people, so preach to some one else.

>"This is not about a phone book" That I agree with but not much else...

Iron mongoose gives a thoughtful reply even if it doesn't answer your question. His answer is NOT necessarily evidence that he has a lot to learn.

You're making a "chicken or egg" argument.

What comes first? The technique the kata are composed of, or the kata which contains the techniques?

Sadly, anymore it seems as if kata are rushed through, given the appreciation of "Jesus, aren't we done yet?" and not examined as the lesson they deserve. Does that mean the technique can't be taught another way? No. But the Kata are forms...

If you perform the first three steps of Heian Shodan, have you performed the kata? Ultimately, you fight with the tools you gain from your training – The form, the technique, and ultimately the principle. If you're not to the point where you're using something in that grouping, you're just brawling.

So, which came first? Chicken? Egg?

The problem I think has more to do with the mindset and cultural upbringing more than anything. In Asia, most kids are brought up in a strict and disciplinarian society where elders are not to be questioned, you just train without question and wait until your teacher considers you ready to be taught what it all means. In the west, children are encouraged to question everything at a young age and so are used to being given a reason to do something other than "because I said so" or they lose interest in doing it. Hence you have teen agers who are very opinionated and in a hurry to grow up. They want to experience everything NOW, not later or in the future. Hence the concept of learning something like a Kata which takes time to master and understand is hard for them because they want instant gratification. MMA's more liberal and less restrictive training offers them that instant gratification, it is something they can see themselves doing right away.

People get confused that solely doing kata would make you proficient at fighting.

Great vids Sensei. If kata weren't about the techniques, and their application (bunkai/oyo) in combat there would be no kata. If kata were truly obsolete they would have been long discontinued. And, before they write, to those who like to trash the practice of kata, I'd strongly suggest you learn something of that which you speak. By stating that kata are dances, useless, or other comments, you are only stating unequivocally that you do not understand them or their purpose. Pleas learn of things before posting like you think you are experts. There are real experts here that disagree with you.

edit: @ ironmongoose, your rant is off on many levels. You rant about stuff that is off topic, misunderstand the question amd take exception to it based on misconception. Read your post again in the light of a new day, you will see that too.

People get confused that solely doing kata would make you proficient at fighting.

Kata is a tool, which works similar to shadowboxing. If you do proper technique in kata it would most likely translate in proper technique in kumite.

People don't know how to break down kata as they should.

It's incredibly common for the masses to be swayed by a single example and a loud speaker spouting propaganda.

Honestly, I can give two ***** about that argument anymore. I am more than happy to enlighten those that wish for it, when it comes to martial arts and the reasons we practice certain elements certain ways. Otherwise, the low brow knuckle draggers can go about throwing feces and grunting for all I care. Eventually they will see the light or they will die off.

A little fa jing demo usually sets them straight about traditional martial arts being crap, and taiji just being for old people.