On Kata...and henka and adapting the art for

There has been a lot of talk recently about kata, henka, realistic techniques for the bad streets, etc. I like to talk about martial arts just as many here do, but I do not like dishonesty, especially when it comes to the arts I practice and cherish the most. There seems to be a lot of creative interpretation when it comes to marketing what one teaches when it comes to ninjutsu.

Some claim to teach the "authentic" art, others claim to have revamped, recreated, reinterpreted what the old(and out of date) arts taught for a modern generation. When it comes to both types of teachers out there, it is difficult for the uninitiated public(consumer) to get a feel for what is true and what is just plain marketing. For those who have invested time and money into learning something, it often becomes harder for them to divest from it, even when they know their teacher is making things up or adding yeast to their story. Due to their difficulty in dealing with their bad choice of teacher, they continue to perpetuate the "new and improved" version of an art that doesn't need modernizing.

Before we get into kata and henka, I will be clear about one thing: if you are claiming to have modernized or improved on ninjutsu(the Takamatsuden), you have to first prove that you have actually learned ninjutsu; and be able to show the rational for making the changes. Since this test will automatically weed out 99.9% of the claims of modernization, we can now begin to look at what kata and henka are and how they relate to realistic fighting.

One will rarely hear a Japanese master of a traditional art saying they modernized it for the streets or today's violence. Why is that one may wonder?


You also often here other people talking about how kata teach principles that are universal and strategies for dealing with violence. However, often these same people will tell you that x technique from y ryu won't work in a modern context or that if the tori doesn't attack with a oitsuki or with a particular foot forward, they won't work. It is logical however, that if something is universal, it would not be subject to such restrictions, so either A) the techniques don't teach universal principles or B) the people selling such rhetoric are contradicting themselves. Since kata do teach universal principles that can be used in a variety of contexts, it is apparent that B is the correct choice.

Now, onto kata. Sometimes kata teach you are particular response to a particular attack(or kind of attack). Sometimes they teach you certain principles of movement or philosophies of a particular art. Sometimes they seem too complicated or detailed to work in a real fight of nanosecond decision making and frayed nerves. Funnily enough, those who really understand and have internalized the kata will know that they serve many purposes at the same time and that they hold the secrets of the arts and to fighting.

Let's look at a few examples of kata so that we can better understand the way in which information is learned and mastery approached. Tehodoki are basic techniques that are learned when starting out. They are simple, quick methods of extracting your hand/arm when grabbed. This is the basic level of kata work. You learn how to move, how not to move, and how to respond to a grab. As you improve, you learn more about relaxation, leverage, and other aspects that make the technique work better. You also do cross grabs, double hand grabs, and other things that move the technique more into the realm of something usable on the street. What if he pulls or pushes with his grab, and other questions are answered in this stage of development.

If one continues to be taught, one eventually comes to the realization that the hand grabs could also be applied to one's weapons, so a basic hand freeing technique now becomes something one can apply to weapons retention. One also finds that the mechanics are the same for different striking attacks and throws as well. So now a basic technique has become much more and one sees applications of it in a variety of areas. One of the universal principles found in all tehodoki is not to move the place/point that is grabbed. Any movement(ishi or will put at that point) begun at that place will send alarms to the attacker and results in a response that is too slow, telegraphic, and/or results in using force against force. So if you understand and can internalize this principle, no matter where or in which manner you are grabbed, you will be able to deal with the situation. This also latter gets to how you use the opponent's senses against themselves.

Since many of the people who used these arts were constantly armed, they put a lot of emphasis on how to deal with grabs to their person and/or weapons. The importance of such knowledge becomes readily apparent to those with a LEO background, and we see how one simple skill was really much more than that. Without learning these techniques correctly, how one can begin to even entertain more difficult abilities(like muto dori) becomes unfathomable.

Now, on the other hand, let's say one only learns the basic kata of tehodoki and later decides to teach them to others. All they can comprehend is the basic beginner level kata and that is all they can impart to others. If asked to teach weapons retention, they will have to learn something from another source and add that to their original repertoire instead of being able to show something that they already teach applied in another context(one that was always there but they didn't know based on the fact that their training, ability, and understanding of the art were all incomplete). They don't realize that the same tehodoki work whether he is gripping you with his left or right hand, whether his left or right foot is forward, and whether or not he is using one or both hands. They also don't realize that the same motion could also be a strike or used to evade a strike.

Looking at bojutsu kata is another way to understand the teaching vehicle that kata represent. The basic sabaki gata of Kukishinden are very complicated affairs dealing with multiple strikes and multiple defenses, in a choreographed attack/defense against another long weapon or sword. They are learned in a certain order, with certain footwork. However, that is just the first stage. Many just practice these kata as they see them in the Quest videos or learned while at a taikai and think that this is all there is to mastering the technique. Clearly, if one just practiced this choreography by rote and nothing more, then they would not really learn the kata or be able to apply it in a real encounter.

However, each part of the complicated kata is a complete attack and defense response. In reality, after his first attack he should be subdued if you have mastered the principles of bojutsu. Beyond that, the real footwork, maai, correct striking mechanics(that will blow through blocks so that even if they intercept your attack it wouldn't really matter), correct interception(that sticks to or displaces their strikes), and many other considerations are held within the kata, they just aren't taught in the beginning to beginner students or those who aren't trusted yet. If you look at the okuden level techniques you will understand the difference, they are very simple and straightforward. It doesn't go from simple to difficult, but the other way around. However, all of the skills learned at the earlier stage must be internalized and mastered to make such simple techniques work as they were meant to.

Yet, without learning the beginner techniques correctly, and working with the right body mechanics, taisabaki, and way of striking, one will never get beyond the first stage of just learning to copy the overt technique that were exposed to. The progression is there for a purpose, it ensures that mastery of all of the vital skills and components is done in order to move on to the next level. So the kata do represent actual fighting techniques, they also represent principles and strategies. They also entail a form of learning that is constantly building upon the level beneath it but one that requires a certain kind of learning environment to work as well.


Henka or bekkei(different patterns) are variations to the original kata that share the same or very closely related principles. They are determined and written down just as the original kata are. They are not the made up exertions of foreign teachers who cannot demonstrate a deep understanding of the original kata. Even the kihon and kiso techniques have henka associated with them, the number depending on the ryu and kata in question. So if you are only teaching one kind of ichimonji kata in your kihon happo, you have a lot left to learn. Same with your sanshin no kata.

Some henka are used when your original technique isn't sufficient to finish the encounter, others when the opponent does something different from the original attack. Any spontaneous change to a technique in the heat of the moment is how you have actually worked your understanding(or lack thereof) into the technique itself. If you are applying a certain technique or principle in a real fight, there is no need for it to mimic exactly the way you did it in practice as long as you are relaxed, balanced, and used efficient and effective technique to complete it.

Concurrently, if the opponent is bewildered, off balanced(you used kuzushi), and unable to deal effectively with your attack, then you have met the requirements of the kata. If however, you had to muscle or force it, were off balance and had bad posture, or got the crap beaten out of you; you obviously failed in your application of the real technique.

Yes kata must be learned.
Yes kata can be used in a real fight.
Yes kata change over one's journey.

Without kata one cannot learn or apply the art.
Without kata one cannot fight using that art's way.
If your kata haven't changed from when you are a beginner, you still are.
If you think you can "henka" your way out of poor understanding/ability to apply the original kata you are fooling yourself.
If you think you can "modernize" the kata you probably haven't learned it to any depth.

 

I would only change the "kata can be used in a real fight" to "kata can appear in a real fight".

Just to try to say that you do not preempt the attack by getting ready to perform a specific kata. But a moment in a fight could lead to a technique or movement that leads to the next and so on until a kata appears. (Does that make any sense to anyone???)

But that's just word play...

I like the bit about bojutsu.

And as you may know, I think "modernisers" are "couldn't-doers" (and can't be bothered to try to learn) and I'm yet to see the exception. They should be made to wear beards and bright red romper suits to identify themselves. Hang on a mo!...

 

Again, if you make it work within the principles of the art, then you are using the kata in a real fight. Even if the choreography is different from what you practice, you "did" the kata or manifested it's important parts in a confrontation.

 

Agreed.

By preempt I was meaning more along the lines of not going in thinking...whatever happens I am going to try for x kata and not y kata, or even seionage and not tomoenage. By all means preempt as in lead him into a certain opening, force a response etc etc.

As for kata versus "free" training, if you haven't learned kata then free training is just brawling and wont contain the arts priciples. Only kata training without any free might not be good either though...

 

Part of the reason is because they haven't had to deal with serious violence outside of Japanese society.

 

How do you know what they have had to deal with?

Not only are you unaware of what violence they have had to deal with, you are missing the point that violence is quite well taken into consideration in the arts as they are. No need to go fishing elsewhere because the rivers, ponds, lakes, and ocean are all fully stocked.

 

Or, it's because the same concepts apply.

The concepts behind Takagi Yoshin Ryu sword retention can most certainly be applied to gun retention in a modern day setting.

 

Because if they'd killed anyone, it would have at the very least been discussed more frequently. And unlike, for instance, MS-13 or New People's Army, the Yakuza are only dangerous to other criminals.

As far as you know. Besides, you going on the defensive like this only serves to illustrate my point. If there were any Jack Reacher-esque exploits taking place in the 80's or 90's, you would have brought them up instead of trying to obscure the issue.

Just because I'm addressing a different issue doesn't mean I haven't taken that fact into consideration.

 

Still has to be adapted to fit the circumstances.

 

And let's *PLEASE* not bring Nagato's acquaintance with Michael D. Echanis into this. Thanks.

 

Sorry, but no.

The "technique" or exact movements (from katas) have to be adapted to fit the circumstances (but then again your movement needs to adapt to any and every circumstance), but the concepts behind them do not need to be "adapted." This is what I meant in the other thread when I said you should be leaning "concepts" rather than "techniques."

 

I will bet the farm Kagete meant the technique needs adapting not the concept - the concept of "dont' let them have your weapon" is hardly revolutionary is it?

The concept of edged weapon retention is also fundementally different - discharge and engagement principles of the retained/seized weapon are almost diametrically opposed

The whole talk of "modernizing" is EXACTLY about changing the techniques and not the concepts....so you are actually arguing against your own point

 

What he said.

 

'All of the reason' (are)
1. ego
2. Making money
3. Failure to learn the primary art ( as I read in another area recently, it's much easier to become good at a new 'made up' art, than it is to become good at an old one' ( might have been hanibal)

Top three reasons IMHO

 

The "technique" should adapt to any situation, modern or not. And I think you know that the concepts being discussed here go a little deeper than "don't let them have your weapon."

 

Nope that is the goal...how you get their is just physical semantics although there are intrinsic efficiencies

The concept behind the PHYSICAL technique is different for a sword, knife, baton or gun. A sword is easier to retain simply due to teh size of the weapon - it is also harder (nigh on impossible) to "deploy" accidentally

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with PR and his core point - despite the fact we occcasionally bristle at each other we get on very well and agree on far more than we disagree - but there is always evolution within a system as times change; that is natural....but you cannot truly change that which you do not possess

 

Something tells me that you missed the part about *JAPANESE* masters.

 

I would have missed heaps kagete, driving and skim reading !

Point stands though, look at all the big name 'plonkers' we all know who they are, the shoe fits.
As for the two Japanese masters, there not 'adapting or updating' or adding to, making up for a lack of skill and knowledge. They are teaching the same arts, albeit in a more structured way.

 

Sometimes people with extensive firearms experience have pointed out to Hatsumi that some of the things he's demonstrating are less than optimal, at which point he's gone on to do it the way they've suggested. I'd say that's a good thing about people with his experience - they have the sufficient knowledge and understanding to evaluate things like these.

 

Because the amount of violence on the streets of Japan the last couple hundred years is only a minute fraction of what it was prior?

Just guessing. Did I win?