A different question about forms, kata and patterns

Yep, good call

 

It might also include learning a few dozen foreign terms for throws, locks and strikes. However, they will be taught without the context of grammar and idiomatic usage, so will be practically useless for actually having a conversation with someone.

 

In other news, the French technical terms that are used in fencing and ballet training don't allow you to speak conversational French...

 

However, the only conversations worth having would be with those that practice the same art, and so understand the secret language!

 

Are you being obtuse, or did you miss the metaphor?

I'm trying to work out what your statement has to do with mine...

 

I may have taken your post too literally and thought you were complaining about the use of Japanese/Korean language in traditional karate/taekwondo training.

If I'm being obtuse, it's because of a genuine misunderstanding and not some sneaky debate tactic.

 

I don't think it's only taught for money, but I do think it's why that's why there are so many kata-based schools (which was the original question in post #1). Show a school that teaches kata and can produce fighters...how many of those are there for every 50 mcdojos.

So it's not that I'm trying to be rude, but point out an uncomfortable observation: that if you added up all the $ made by martial arts schools, a lot of it is going to learn forms.

Now, if you take any particular school they might teach just forms, forms and combat, or both. But when you look at all the schools around, the primary financial motivator for teaching a martial art is first, getting students who want to learn something new (maybe exotic), and then getting them hooked on learning new material, as opposed to training in combative ability, which is what most arts claim to do.

 

It might be "a" reason, but I don't think if it's the "main" reason for so many schools. You learn kata/patterns in any school, but why are there so many schools devoted just that part (the original question).

I think way more people want to learn movements than actual fighting skills. It's kind of like learning to bowl in a video game, instead of for real.

The market for that is much bigger than the market for getting your hands bloody.

 

There's a spectrum. I can name karate instructors who make millions milking people, but for every 1 of those there are probably 100's doing OK, if they find the right market for people who want to learn forms and get a black belt.

 

I’m in the wrong job!

Who’s made millions from teaching karate?

 

This video just popped up on my YouTube feed. Kind of in line with the discussion in this thread- minus the millionaire karate teacher angle- so I thought I’d share.

 

Unfortunately, he destroys his own argument in the first line:

Ergo, the information is not inherent to the kata and must be communicated separately. Meaning that kata is not performing any useful function that could not be done by other means (as he says at the end of the video).

 

I understood it a little differently. Like here is a use for kata, one that is part of an overall training methodology that includes live training among other things. And that there are other ways to achieve the same things kata does, but that’s just the way Karate does it.

For me personally, I prefer working combinations, even in the air, to kata. So, while I understand his argument I’m not going to defend it for him...

Good guy though. Does respond to comments on his videos. You should leave yours there and see what his response is.

 

Yeah, that's the way karate does it. People did kata, so we do kata. Kata is part of karate, we are karateka, therefore we do kata.

As I said in this thread, or one of the dozens like it, kata is for the benefit of the system, not the practitioner.

 

I could say...

"That's the way boxing does it. People did speed bag, so we did speed bag. Speed bag is part of boxing, we are boxers, therefore we do speed bacg. It is for the benfit of the system, not the practitioner."

I could point out how many other striking styles don't use speed bag and still have very very good strikers. There's no question that it's not a necessary part of being a good striker. But it would be arrogant and silly for me to jump from that to the idea that it's of no benefit to the individual boxers in any way shape or form, and assert that speed bag training is simply nothing more than cultural inertia.

I could say it again and again in dozens of threads, but it wouldn't make it true. (And I'm sure that all the boxers who, unlike me, have firsthand experience training in speed bag would get tired of hearing this repeated assertion).

 

Boxers can point to specific areas of their game the speed bag improves
They agree universally what it for
It only makes up a small part of their training
They don't try to fight like how they use the speed bag
Speed bags don't define how a boxer should look

Now if boxers all disagreed with why they used the speedbag
Spent more time on it than they did sparring or partner work
Criticised others for not looking in a fight how they look when they hit the speed bag

Then your point would probably have more merit

 

Of course Boxing has cultural trappings that could probably be replaced by more efficient and evidence-based methods. But if a study were released showing that the speed bag adds nothing of value in training, most boxers would drop its use and use fill that time with something more useful. All aspects of human activity are subject to that, it's the nature of the beast.

If some kind of cultural custodianship (and I'm not talking about specific ethnic customs, but the cultural trappings of any martial art and local variant of it) is explicit in the ethos of your martial art, then evidence-based practice will necessarily take a back seat to custom and tradition when one may be in conflict with the other.

That isn't a criticism, just a difference.