Medieval Sword "Kata"

[Mark Driggs]

I asked my wife, a translator and editor of Japanese, what word she would translate drills as going from English to Japanese and she said: kata. The word is pretty all-inclusive.

The trouble here is that the applied modern context of kata seems to be more narrow than it's many possible meanings. Take for instance tameshigiri which seems to be synonomous with cutting tatami mats. If an EMA practitioner were to ask a WMA practitioner if he does tameshigiri , the WMA guy might answer that he does 'test-cutting' with various objects, not just cutting bamboo mats. Even though the term is inclusive, in the western martial artist's mind, he is not invested in the term and its nuances. There are sufficient and many times more specific analogues in western terms to the eastern terminology.

As for the concept of doing basic drills or 'patterns' before mastering more complicated maneuvers, I would liken our modern 8 and 16 cut drills to scales on a piano. Just as an improv pianist will familiarize himself with the positions of the 8 notes in a scale, so does the extemporaneous sword fighter gain command of the eight cutting directions in the segno before performing an adequate flouryshe.

So there's no need to be overly defensive or declarative in these semantic matters. I prefer not to use the term kata when referring to my drills and warmups, but if I had to explain what I'm doing to someone of Japanese descent, I'd have no choice but to use the word kata.

[Audra Grapes]

Mark, I agree with what you said. Analogies can be useful when explaining the unfamiliar. I think the thing we need to be careful of is this: throughout history there is a trend of the majority overwhelming the minority. Those in a minority always have to fight hard to keep their culture, language, etc. alive and "pure". The danger I see is that an analogy of drills to kata can be taken too far. EMA practitioners (and the general public) may miss some of the finer points of the process and purpose of drills and, perhaps more importantly, the history. WMA is always in an uphill battle (now there's an interesting analogy ) to distinguish itself from EMA because the latter is more prominent in martial arts cultures. Therefore, I understand why some WMA scholars balk at the idea of using EMA terminology.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

EMA practitioners (and the general public) may miss some of the finer points of the process and purpose of drills and, perhaps more importantly, the history.

If it's any comfort I think the finer points of the process and purpose of katas is misunderstood widely enough as well... Possibly it's also an effect of the number and personal implication of the practitioners.

The problem is that, as has already been said, the term "kata" seems to cover such a variety of things that it's difficult to say something general about them, other than the fact that they are scripted.

It seems to me that the relative efficiency of katas vs. drills for learning might be a cultural one. In my experience of kenjutsu, there is a difference in the expected way of learning of Europeans and Japanese (of course there are exceptions in both cultures). The katas are meant to contain everything from physical conditionning to tactical considerations. The traditional way is to repeat them endlessly until all these teachings are internalized, without even being explicit. Of course this only works with a painstaking attention to the form, timing, intent... Many europeans are not at ease with this type of learning, and start looking for the explanations of the katas, i.e. expressing the fundamental principles behind them, then "deducing" the techniques. But since everything's mixed up it's not quite so easy...

The danger of doing so is modifying the katas to suit what we think the ideas behind should be. Be wrong there and everything goes downhill.

The interesting part is that many european historical manuals are much better suited to the "European" way of learning. They begin with the principles and show techniques that explicitely highlight these principles. The explanation is already in plain text...

Indeed I've started to look at kenjutsu katas through the prism of the European tactical advice, and it's all there... Often quite more simple than some very convoluted interpretations of said katas

[Shane Smith]

I use the word "kata" when practicing Asian arts. I do not use the term when practicing RMA. I use the word "floryshe" when performing RMA. I do not use it when performing Asian MA. I count in Korean when doing Asian martial arts. I count in English or German when working RMA drills.

The art can never be wholey divorced from the culture that created and perfected it -nor should it be for that matter in my personal opinion. I prefer to use the historically-correct terms at every turn because they are part of the whole art. Others will disagree and I'll lose no sleep.

[Jaron Bernstein]

"It seems to me that the relative efficiency of katas vs. drills for learning might be a cultural one. In my experience of kenjutsu, there is a difference in the expected way of learning of Europeans and Japanese (of course there are exceptions in both cultures). The katas are meant to contain everything from physical conditionning to tactical considerations. The traditional way is to repeat them endlessly until all these teachings are internalized, without even being explicit. Of course this only works with a painstaking attention to the form, timing, intent... Many europeans are not at ease with this type of learning, and start looking for the explanations of the katas, i.e. expressing the fundamental principles behind them, then "deducing" the techniques. But since everything's mixed up it's not quite so easy...

The danger of doing so is modifying the katas to suit what we think the ideas behind should be. Be wrong there and everything goes downhill.

The interesting part is that many european historical manuals are much better suited to the "European" way of learning. They begin with the principles and show techniques that explicitely highlight these principles. The explanation is already in plain text..."

There is a danger in "deducing" techniques from movements that are learned by rote without original application being shown at the same time. Sure, you place you arm precisely at the 45 degree angle exactly 4" from you chest as you were taught, etc. through a long form. If you don't train for WHY you doing this movement with a partner both in drill and sparring, you will have meticulously learned a dance routine. Tai Chi is the classic example of this. What was once a vital and effective art....that has largely and unfortunately faded away to exercise for senior citizens.

Compare that with western boxing or Muay Thai, that still retains its fighting utility among average practicioners. Then look at how you train for Muay Thai or boxing: Single techniques put together in situational combinations, emphasis on fitness and working with partners/opponents.

"Indeed I've started to look at kenjutsu katas through the prism of the European tactical advice, and it's all there... Often quite more simple than some very convoluted interpretations of said katas"

There most likely are similar applications. An elbow only articulates so many ways. But that illustrates my point. How was the guy who originally created any given JSA style trained? Primarily with long solo forms or single techniques, athleticism and other people to work with? One nice thing about WMA is that you don't have to guess in many cases what that original applications were. Just look them up.

[Stewart Sackett]

The katas are meant to contain everything from physical conditionning to tactical considerations. The traditional way is to repeat them endlessly until all these teachings are internalized, without even being explicit. Of course this only works with a painstaking attention to the form, timing , intent...

The timing of a fight is not the timing of music. It is not an abstract, which exists unto itself, but is instead a pace developed in relation to the pace of an opponent. To attempt to learn timing without the pressure of an opponent introduces artificiality to training which leads to distorted understanding. It actually inhibits a person's development as a fighter.

P.S. it is only fair to add the disclaimer that I really don't like kata in general & believe it is of little value & the source of many problems with regards to developing functional ability in the combat arts. If anyone reading this is a fan of kata then obviously my ideas of what constitutes effective training are probably dramatically divorced from theirs.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

The timing of a fight is not the timing of music. It is not an abstract, which exists unto itself, but is instead a pace developed in relation to the pace of an opponent. To attempt to learn timing without the pressure of an opponent introduces artificiality to training which leads to distorted understanding. It actually inhibits a person's development as a fighter.

I agree but in many traditions katas are not just solo forms, or were not originally. In a paired kata you can have the pressure and variations of pace of the opponent, as you can in a drill really, with the same limitations.

Indeed over-emphasizing solo forms is detrimental, but it's not the case in every art that has katas.

How was the guy who originally created any given JSA style trained? Primarily with long solo forms or single techniques, athleticism and other people to work with?

Well most JSA styles that I know of do not have long solo forms anyway. Katori shinto ryu has the longest katas, I believe, it's mostly as a physical work-out, and they are not solo. It's quite possible to switch back and forth between phases of different katas if you feel like it. I don't know how the training was back then; my personal belief is that it included long katas as a work-out, shorter ones as drills, maybe some mixing of both, little solo work, and the occasional duels outside school, possibly with training weapons, but a healthy deal more violent and dangerous than anything done as free sparring today. If the founders were doing free-play in a safer fashion as part of their daily training, at least they did not consider it important to transmit...

[Jay Vail]

I use the word "kata" when practicing Asian arts. I do not use the term when practicing RMA. I use the word "floryshe" when performing RMA. I do not use it when performing Asian MA. I count in Korean when doing Asian martial arts. I count in English or German when working RMA drills.

The art can never be wholey divorced from the culture that created and perfected it -nor should it be for that matter in my personal opinion. I prefer to use the historically-correct terms at every turn because they are part of the whole art. Others will disagree and I'll lose no sleep.

Not with you there, Shane. The combat arts express universals, or they should if they are effective.

[Jay Vail]

Hello Margret, thanks for your opinions, we appreciate your view-point. I must say though that in ARMA the great majority of us do not beleive that Kata's develop any real fighting skills.

The problem with kata's etc in terms of them translating into any fighting ability is context. I will grant you that in learning a set routine you do learn the motions required in combat, but herein lies the overall issue.

The motions learned in a set routine could never prepare a person for the psychological stressors of combat. Stress-innoculation only occurrs under some similar stressors are added, and then techniques for countering them taught. Techniques like tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, time-delay, loss of fine motor skills etc...all of these change the ways in which we are able to respond in a real combat situation. Katas could never compare to this kind of training.

This is why in Military and Law Enforcement training these stressors are identified and specfic training objectives devised to overcome these kinds of effects. The other problem with Kata is that combat as discussed earlier is not routine, or set but random. To "pre-program a set routine is not only poor preperation, but actually quite detrimental to preperation for actual combat.

As a Police trainer I can assure you that in the past, training was conducted in a more kata type setting where set routines were practiced against training bags etc....I shudder to think how many Officers got thier butts kicked or worse...due to this ineffective and wasteful training.

Currently, modern Police training closely mimics ARMA's core curriculum, and is part of what brought me into this Organization. So unless your profession or other life expirence changes these much discussed factors Margret you will not change many people's minds- they have all-ready seen the benefits to non-kata combat training-! -AP

Aaron, I have to say that I'm with Margaret on this. This thread seems to miss the point about what "kata" is and the function it plays in training -- now and historically.

Step away from our preconceived notions about kata, which no doubt arise from our exposure to the modern budo arts, which misuse, misunderstand and misapply kata. Strip away all that ceremonial, cultural baggage found especially in Japanese systems, and you can readily see that in essence kata is nothing more than drill. Drilling on technique (repetitive practice against a prescribed attack using a prescribed response) is a universal form of training which is found in every effective combat art in the world, and has been so throughout history. I have vids of the U.S. Marines doing bayonet drills in WW2 that are in essence kata. You see the same thing on the Human Weapon series episodes on Krav Maga and MCMAP.

This does not mean that drill/kata is the ONLY means of training. Just that it is a core training component. Yet for some systems, it is indeed the main component.

However, you can successfully apply techniques used only in drill in real combat situations. I have known many people who have done so, most of them in the law enforcement community.

European manuals generally are silent about training methods. But from the looks of them, I think we can safely agree that the old masters did not rely on the sort of formalized practice patterns found in Asian systems. However that does not mean they altogether rejected practice patterns — the essence of kata. In fact, I would argue that they did rely on such practice patterns, which fit the base definition of kata even though they may not be formalized with names and superfluous ceremonial behavior and all the other bells and whistles we normally associate with kata.

The manuals set out particular techniques which typically involve an attack and a counter. Fiore’s plays against the dagger are an example. If these techniques are practiced with a partner, they satisfy the definition of a “kata.” They are prescribed movements that teach both the technique itself and the principles behind the technique, and if the attack and response are executed with intent, the drill will also provide necessary psychological preparation.

With all due respect to Meyer expert Mike Cartier, in my opinion Joachim Meyer appears to have expected students to use practice patterns with a partner. His manual describes scores of practice patterns containing what he calls “devices.” He clearly intends for the student to base his beginning practice on these patterns by mimicking the devices in order to learn techniques and fundamental principles: “Also you shall fully fix in your mind the devices that are appointed for every posture, practice them, and make them familiar to you, so that as you come into a posture in the middle of a fight, you are ready and prepared with counterdevices.” The Art of Combat, Joachim Meyer (Greenhill Books 2006), p. 137.

Meyer, whoever, clearly views these devices, and practice patterns, merely as a the floor for training. He stresses that these things can and should be modified as a student’s skill increases: “Further you shall also know that although I have assigned to every posture its particular devices, it is not my intention that these devices shall not be executed or take place from other postures. The chiefest reason that I have assigned some devices to one posture, others to another, is so they can be discussed in an orderly fashion. Also these devices are not so set in stone that they cannot be changed in practice — they are merely examples from which everyone may seek, derive and learn devices according to his opportunity, and may arrange and change them as suits him. For as we are not all of a single nature, so we also cannot all have a single style of combat; yet all must nonetheless arise and be derived from a single basis.” Meyer at p. 137.

Meyer cuts to the heart of how kata/forms should be used. They are not a box constraining your practice. They are a launching pad. Learn the device/pattern/kata in order to master techniques and principles, then learn how to change things to suit your personality and your opponent, or a different circumstance than originally contained in the pattern.

[John_Clements]

No.

Anyone arguing otherwise is deluding themselves.

There are only a few suggestions of two person practice routines, but even these are not structured in any source to represent the Art itself or even the primary means of acquiring skill in techniques.

JC

[Mike Cartier]

yes i agree with Jay here that
A) we must be careful of our preconceived notions of what KATA is

and

B) Meyer serves us drills and devices meant to be played with rather than simply memorized. But devices which contain many combat handy attributes which we can use as we like later.

Meyer has quite a few two person devices, i dare say far too many to effectivly memorize anyways.

These attributes are very useful for combat but of course if we diont spar with them we wont use them anywhere.

I find that as i apply devices in realtime during sparring, i rarely if ever get the whole device in, but instead hit many of its elements during the process.

[Lorraine Munoa]

One of the several reasons I quit doing EMA at all was that most schools I can get to around here require the performance of kata. I have a learning disability that makes learning things like long line dances or special routine kata patterns Very Difficult. However, flouryshing is a lot like what I used to do as a kid, swinging around the backyard fighting imaginary enemies, just with more focus on technique. It's vastly easier for me.

[I. Hartikainen]

Hi!

Here is a video of the two forms from Giovanni dall'Agocchies 1572 work on spada da filo. The longer one, while described as actions against attacks, works well as a solo form too (better than nothing if you have no "attackers" around). The short one, however is described as an intended solo exercise and no applications are given (although they are obvious when the whole text is read).

Not medieval, but at least it's hema. Enjoy!

http://www.artedellearmi.net/articolo.asp?articolo=109


Yours,
Ilkka

[Benjamin Smith]

I'd just like to briefly pipe up again. There are thousands of examples of one and two person techniques and even series of technique-counter-technique in ancient European manuals. These, however, are distinct from what is commonly understood as kata or forms in most popular Asian martial arts. Nor do the European masters stress that their demonstrations or training exercises encompass, contain, or otherwise comprise alone "the Art" as happens in these examples: http://www.bugei.com/kuroda.html or here http://shitokai.com/kata.php.

Indeed the most similar point, the existence of technique-counter-technique sequences, which some might compare to partner kata, have an important difference from some "kata" as practiced by many modern martial artists: each technique is shown as an attempt to end the fight immediately. As such they must be practiced with that intent. In other words even the sequences of 3-4 pairs of techniques, such as those shown in I.33, are but one example of how a fight can play out and the individual techniques and counters are treated as individually important in a way that is absent from many modern martial arts. Some of these manuals, again such as I.33, even give examples in text of variations or alternate techniques employed in a given tactical situation by other teachers or in subtly different situations.

I consider it fortunate that the ARMA emphasizes the intense, intent driven, and non-compliant paradigm to serious training that it does rather than adherence to specific forms. I feel it accurately reflects the evidence at hand and the injunctions by masters like Joachim Meyer to seek to "add to the Art" with our own creativity and skill. To me it means that the arts practiced by Europeans emphasized flexibility, fluidity, and a drive to understand all the ways available to deal with a situation.