Kaze Uta Budo Kai Forum Archive

Okay, everybody, I want to hear all the reasons you can think of. Go!

1. Its a point of reference
2. It ingrains the technique into our subconscious
3. It produces muscle memory (see #2)
4. Its fun
5. It never gets old

Here's a few random thoughts that come to mind.

If we take weapon arts such as Jyodo (and potentially Iaido if Jack or Tristan want to chime in), kata is the sole means of knowledge transfer in the art. There is no randori in Jyodo. This is a serious safety thing -- it's too dangerous. Roger Wenzel worked up a drill for folks to check their trap blocks, but even that is a limited set of techniques available, applied in a very controlled fashion.

Kata serves as a tool for preservation of technique. The classical Judo katas (Nage, Katame, Koshiki) were designed to preserve techniques from various jujutsu ryu who joined Kano. For example, Nage-no-kata is representative of the Kito Ryu Jujutsu lineage, and was formulated as a way to preserve concepts they brought to Judo.

There's a lot of useful information stored in kata, but it seems like you really have to dig to get it out sometimes. Why do we attack this way? Why does tori defend here instead of there? Those sort of questions. Derek & I studied Judo's Nage-no-kata for a good long time, and Karl taught two different clinics just to get us through the first 9 techniques. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but I had to do it for many months before I ever started recognizing common threads. I should probably pick that back up at some point.

As a teaching tool, kata provides a known scenario to safely perform repetition. Uke and tori work under prescribed conditions. Jyodo is a good example, but so are the releases and the 17.

As a demonstration tool, kata is a cooperative demonstration of principle. What principle? It depends on the art & the kata. I'm still learning. Aikido's Koryu-dai-san (San Kata) represents varying maai. Tegatana-no-kata (Aikido Walking Kata) provides a vehicle to practice all the various principles that we try to affect during practice. These principles are built-in to the kata, so by working repetitions we're working on learning principle whether we recognize it or not.

It's also interesting to me how Judo is very randori-driven (kata is of secondary concern for us), and how Aikido used to be more kata-driven (with randori being something that made us scratch our heads for a long time). Being able to work in a randori environment, then demonstrate individual techniques becomes a fairly easy task for most folks. But, kata guys tend to not like randori so much because it's very random.

I had heard (not necessarily from a reputable source) that, once up a time, when Japan was much more volatile and violent, the kata represented which techniques actually worked on the battlefield. Later, once Japan became much more peaceful, newer katas were developed based on the theoretical application of principles, but which may or may not be all that realistic in a practical application.

Anyone agree/disagree?


Also, what does kata do for randori? What does randori do for kata?

Sean Ashby wrote:Also, what does kata do for randori? What does randori do for kata?

I think kata teaches us techniques, and randori is the environment where we put them to work. In school, be it grade school, trade school, college, etc., we go to class to study in preparation for the exams. We prepare, then we test.

I think randori, acting as a proving ground, sends us back to kata to study technique more carefully, to look at actions and seek improvement.

Today, I saw something neat with JW Bode. I had always looked at controlling uke's arm in tate-shiho-gatame as a way to affect a choke. I learned it also serves to control uke's arm so it doesn't choke us. I had never noticed this before, but it's an example of doing a technique, having it fail, then going back to study it further.

Okay, last question. Can an art still be viable with only one of the two?

Sean Ashby wrote:Okay, last question. Can an art still be viable with only one of the two?

I don't think that it is possible to come up with an art that does not have kata. You can have kata but no randori system but you cannot have a randori art without kata.

if you were to try to teach someone judo (for instance) via randori with no kata, that would basically be beating them up in random ways over and over from day #1 without telling them what you are doing to them.

As soon as you try to tell them what you are doing, then you have foreknowledge and form, which implies drilling, which is kata.

On the other hand, you can have an artform with kata but a very limited or no randori. jodo comes to mind, though there are some limited randori-like exercises. The old (pre-judo, non-kito) jujutsus also come to mind.

I think you can have both.

Jyodo is very kata-driven, with virtually no kata.

We successfully teach people to Judo without applying any kata work until sankyu. Even then, it's viewed by most as something you have to do for promotion. We don't really teach people to do Judo via kata.

As I pointed out above, the kata in Judo is largely a preservation of historical information. I doubt there are many places in the world where folks can point out what it preserves and why. Judo is largely a sport nowadays, and it's all about ippon -- there aren't a whole lot of super technical folks left in the world.

Kyle Sloan wrote:I think you can have both...
We successfully teach people to Judo without applying any kata work until sankyu. Even then, it's viewed by most as something you have to do for promotion. We don't really teach people to do Judo via kata...

It seems to me that anytime you do a pre-arranged series of motions where both parties have foreknowledge, that's kata. If you do a drill or an uchikomi of a particular technique, you are doing kata. You are just not doing a kata with an old Japanese name.

Meatgrinder and Envelope are a couple of the new names for the kata we do.

So I think we do teach judo using kata at early levels.

I suppose it really boils down to how you define kata.

Uchi-komi as kata? I'll disagree. If it were kata, why not call it uchi-komi-no-kata?

Uchi-komi denotes a particular type of practice, but I don't think it qualifies as kata. Kata typically demonstrates a clear & concise principle throughout. Does uchi-komi have this? No, which is why things like Nage-no-kata exist. Uchi-komi are not the same set of prescribed motions in every dojo in the world. We do uchi-komi in motion, while most of our sport-oriented breatheren do it from a static position. With these sort of basic inconsistencies from dojo to dojo in the same town, I find it difficult to call uchi-komi a kata form.

Nage-no-kata is Nage-no-kata, regardless of what continent you are on.

Well-designed kata are like a hologram, presenting different information on different levels. San-kata deals with differing maai, but also different attack modes, and of course application of aikido with weapons. It introduces techniques (kote mawashi, forward kotegaeshi) and principles (splitting power as in #4 kneeling sukui nage, #7 standing bear hug). There are multiple other layers of information, such as development of uke and cataloguing types and directions of kuzushi (culminating in the offensive jo).

Seitei jo starts with tsukizue, which is short, sweet, and deep. The tsuki is hidden, and only reveals itself after studying other kata. It is a key form that Shimizu pushed up to the front because it has everything you need. Still it gets revisited as you learn more about the sword’s vulnerabilities, and open up to variations. In jodo this usually happens when your partner forgets (or doesn’t know) the proper reaction, and you get to improvise. The progression of seitei jo is fairly straightforward, moving from defensive in the first half to offensive in the latter, adding kihon and applications along the way, and developing the sword.

In the classical jo katas, I can’t help wonder if tachiotoshi and tsubawari are placed first to discourage newcomers. The swordwork is complicated and the jo side is harried, with bailout moves required in each case. So maybe inoculation is the point, like shomen ate starting on the wrong side of the balance break. In large part the whole Omote set is there to teach maai – making room for hikiotoshi, or adjusting to proper attack distance in tachiotoshi, hissage, and especially ukan. By the time you get to ichirei, you are throwing honte uchi right into the swordsman from the raiuchi block position. The final strike of hosomichi must be altered to keep your hand from being cut – initially people pull it back, but later it is done with just timing (that dynamic maai thing). Nishioka sensei states that Omote is just to teach the difference between honte and gyakute. I keep finding different associations and threads running through the techniques.

This is true in the 17 also. The transition from ikkyu to shodan does not have anything to do with adding 5 owaza juppon. After learning and demonstrating the floating techniques, the shodan candidate (ideally) spends 6 months practicing intensely with a partner to hone the techniques. During this time, ALL the 17 are relearned in light of the ukiwaza, and all of the 17 become floating techniques. The shomen ate of a shodan is very different from that of a sankyu, and a sandan or rokudan’s should be different again.

We have a Suenaka-trained (2 years) aikidoka who just entered, and his “gyakugamae ate” includes shoveling the face to the back corner with the wrist. All of his techniques are what I would consider variations within the categories represented in each of the 17 techniques. There are at least a half dozen waza contained in udehineri. Randori insights begin with recognizing when you are in the middle of a technique; you almost never perform one exactly according to the instructional kata. Broadening the mind to see principles and classes of techniques (eg. not getting stuck on the form) is an important step in the growth of a student.

So kata creates a body of knowledge that progressively deepens, as layers of experience are added and alter the execution of earlier forms. Randori is based on kata, but kata is established and refined and validated by experimentation and experience that occurs in randori. Randori is a tool that deepens kata, and kata is a tool that deepens randori.

Sean Ashby wrote:I had heard (not necessarily from a reputable source) that, once up a time, when Japan was much more volatile and violent, the kata represented which techniques actually worked on the battlefield. Later, once Japan became much more peaceful, newer katas were developed based on the theoretical application of principles, but which may or may not be all that realistic in a practical application.

I would agree with this. In Iaido, the oldest kata sets are situational -- walking at night, being trapped under a gate, beneath a ledge, guarding a doorway. Then formal sitting techniques were added, in the posture of samurai in armor. Then seiza techniques were added, with theoretically pure movements. The seiza teaches principle and correct body movement, newest and introduced first. The midlevel (tatehiza) teaches movement from difficult positions, failure modes, and grappling concepts. The okuden (oldest and last taught) forms are the combat scenarios. It is likely that experienced samurai knew how to stand and cut, so the foundation material was not needed. Also, the art was refined and principles identified later, so the modern system and people trained in it will have better fundamentals than in ancient times. Sometimes you see old pictures and they look just sloppy (not just iaido but all arts).

"Well-designed kata are like a hologram, presenting different information on different levels."

Cool... ive always seen that but never been able to put it into words.... well said..

Doing kata without an enemy visualized is only dancing


"Practice your forms and kata as if you were fighting a real enemy present with intensity and intent....when you fight , fight as if there were no one there".....Master Li