Always perform kata exactly. Combat is another matter!

www.iainabernethy.co.uk/ In this video I discuss the need to understand that kata provides an illustration of principle and the vital need to be able to adapt to specific circumstance. This is well established in the writings of the past masters (see below), but today many mistakenly believe that the need for a exacting precision of movement in solo kata (to develop body awareness and a high level of muscle control) is something that should be also adhered to in the everchanging world of live combat i.e. the movement must be applied exactly as per the specific version of the kata being practised. Not so! We MUST strictly adhere to the underlying principles, and we MUST also be able to adapt to circumstance. However, to deny the specifics of a given situation and seek to apply an un-adapted “example” kata motion, irrespective of specific circumstance, is counter to the traditional kata process.
All the best,
Iain
“Kata must be practiced properly, with a good understanding of their bunkai meaning … the ways of attacking and defending have innumerable variations. To create two-person drills containing all of the techniques including each and every one of their variations is impossible. However, if one practices kata correctly, it will serve as a foundation for performing, when a crucial time comes, any of the infinite number of variations.” - Kenwa Mabuni
“Always perform kata exactly, combat is another matter.” - Gichin Funakoshi
“Never be shackled by the rituals of kata, but move freely according to the opponent’s strengths and weaknesses” - Genwa Nakasone
“We must seek to apply the principles of kata, such that we can bend with the winds of adversity.” - Choki Motobu
“"It is obvious that these kata must be trained and practised sufficiently, but one must not be 'stuck' in them. One must withdraw from the kata to produce forms with no limits or else it becomes useless. It is important to alter the form of the trained kata without hesitation to produce countless other forms of training. Essentially, it is a habit - created over long periods of training. Because it is a habit, it comes to life with no hesitation - by the subconscious mind." - Hironori Otsuka
My Newsletter: www.iainabernethy.co.uk/join-...
My App: iainabernethy.co.uk/iain-aber...
Shop: iainabernethy.co.uk/shop/

[@onlyhuman7420]

Karate community is thankful for having such an authority and one of the leading Karate experts in the western hemisphere.Your lessons are priceless.

[@DivineZeroResin]

You‘re delivering all the answers my Taekwondo (I personally believe Taekwondo being just another style of Karate due to its historical development) masters hadn‘t been able to (which is why I turned to Muay Thai). Still doing Muay Thai I started taking Taekwondo classes again together with my son (who is also doing Karate) the other day. Having had my Taekwondo class yesterday, having had my Muay Thai class today and watching this video right now I feel how everything merges into just one thing: My personal Do. Thank you for that experience! Greetz from Germany.

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

I ALWAYS do my KATA as if I'm fighting myself! - - - - - - - an out of shape old, slow, fat guy! (and it always ends up with the imaginary me beating the crap out of me)

[@yopglomusic8872]

Another awesome video, man. Thanks for these.

[@Emcron]

I suspect Hideyuki Ashihara had this statement in mind when he created his katas. though he caught alot of flak from traditionalists for eschewing the original katas, Ashihara karate’s katas are designed to blend as seamlessly as possible into full contact kumite.

[@Emcron]

@@tatumergo3931 awesome! glad to hear u had a fruitful experience! oss!

[@nicholasflamel1134]

Ashihara's "Kata" are not kata. They are practice drills. Kata has a very strict code (or language if you want to think of it that way) for what the movements are showing you, and Ashihara does not know how to read it.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

@@tatumergo3931 Yes, I understand that they are CALLING them Kata, but they are not Kata. They are drills of techniques, They do not follow the line/angle/stance rules of actual Kata. Do you know what horse-stance or back-stance MEAN in kata? Do you know why some techniques are done standing sideways or at 45 degrees? Do you know why some techniques are only done on one side, or both sides, or 3 times in a row? If you don't, then you also do not understand how Kata are structured and how to read them.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

@@tatumergo3931 The fact that you think Kata is "nothing more than a set of different techniques put together to formulate a strategy for fighting" shows that you have no clue what Kata actually show you (not the word, but the actual Kata itself). Kata movements were never meant to be used as they appear in the Kata. They are a code that you have to figure out, and then you will see how the actual technique works. Kata is a shorthand memory device for remembering a collection of techniques, but they are not the full techniques themselves. As Master Motobu said, " Twisting one's way of thinking about Niahanchi left and right, the meaning in each movement becomes clear" Why do you think the old Okinawan Masters spent at least 3 years studying just Niahanchi? You can learn how to perform that Kata in a week, and in several months you can get good at it. The reason they spent so long is that it takes a very long time to decode what the Kata is telling you, and no, it cannot be interpreted a hundred different ways as this guy would have you believe. There is a definite technique hidden in each movement, and when you finally decode the Kata it will be obvious. It isn't punching and kicking either. Those skills were taught in drills. You are stuck in the "kickboxing/MMA" mentality of the modern era. That is not what the Kata are.

[@nicholasflamel1134]

@@tatumergo3931 I have already explained to you that I am not talking about the WORD kata. I am talking about TRADITIONAL Okinawan Kata, not the surface level shadow boxing that people invent and call kata now. Nothing invented past 1920 is a traditional Kata written in the actual kata language. The meaning of the Kata was lost when Karate got exported to Japan and America, and every book you pick up and read about it from the 1940's on gets it laughably wrong. Patrick McCarthy, Iain Abernathy, and the other 2 guys here are good at modern kickboxing based Karate techniques, and they try to do some things that kinda sorta looks like the movements in the Kata, but they don't actually understand how to read the Kata, or interpret what it is telling them to do. They don't even know that the stances and angles in the old Kata are showing them. Do you know any of the original Okinawan Kata from the Shorin lineage? (Niahanchi, Passai, Kusanku, Chinto, Gojushiho, Wankan etc)

[@YoukaiSlayer12]

As usual very solid point.

[@makenjikarate]

When it comes to learning from keys I always think of it as a standard template, when we spar then we can make changes to the opponent and situation as we see fit

[@MarshOakDojoTimPruitt]

thanks Iain!!!

[@leetshots]

i've always considered learning karate a matter of principles, shifting your weight, striking distance, moving off line of attack and what have you. but then, i'm no good at karate haha and currently off with another injury. i'm good at injuries!

[@leetshots]

@@tatumergo3931 ah no, this injury came from a large man throwing me over his hip and my foot getting stuck on the mat instead of straightening as it normally would, expanding and twisting my knee joint. not much that could be done about it. well maybe he could have applied a bit less force and a bit more technique, but he's learning like me and sh1t happens.

[@kampar82]

Training the variations is somewhat lacking in my experience. Unfortunately.

[@miklos_369]

Any tips on how to recognize a good karate teacher/dojo? I think my teacher knows what he's doing forsure but I dont recall learning any of the practical bunkai you talk about like the "blocks". But I'm also a beginner so i wouldnt know.

[@sramdeojohn4428]

👍👏🙌✌️

[@RRTNZ]

Hmmm.....Sensei, would you then accept that boxing combinations, worked with pads or a bag are a form of kata, rather than just kihon ? Because they certainly develop very precise body control. IMHO every karate system should incorporate some study of boxing. After 30+ years of karate, it has been boxing style defence and punches that have served me best when I've had to deal with a real life attacker ( fortunately not that often). As for karate ka and adherence to a precise form of kata, I would say that until one has achieved some degree of competence that adherence is essential. However, as one develops one's own skills past a certain point, the kata changes to suit the practitioner - which is why variations arise. It is then the practitioner who takes the Kata and its applications in new directions.

[@thinkdistinct1282]

Let's check the thinking articulated in this video's position. There are three related claims. 1. Karate Kata should be practised precisely. This is an Ideal. 2. The Kata illustrates a "principle, concept, idea". 3. Application derived from the Kata should not be limited to the precise movements in the Kata Whenever we say "should" in this way we are hinting at an epistemology (set of values, how to know what we know) and when we say "is" in this way, it points to an assumed ontology (set of ideals) The claimed epistemology is that if I can reproduce the Kata in a precise way it demonstrates our "body control". But is this kind of body control really a good thing? Why is this kind of body control even relevant? How is this kind of body control different from, say, dance, or the tea ceremony for that matter? Can a boxer or MMA fighter demonstrate a more relevant kind of control? Is there any less body control value in doing the kind of shadowboxing you might see in MMA, Boxing or Thai or rolling in BJJ. Why do full contact practitioners not have their own precise kata, if kata if it is such a good training method for body control? In the video, Abernathy claims without (fixed) Kata, "Anyone watching would have no way of knowing if you could control your own muscles or not!". Really? Again this is another epistemological claim. We don't need kata to test control generally and muscle control is easily demonstrated without the appeal to Kata. What value does Kata add? "This (precise movement) show's you EXACTLY what you need to know". This statement is an epistemological claim. Of all the variations possible, the kata is supposed to illustrate an important principle, concept or idea? An idea for what? If it's an idea for combat, how come the different styles idealise it differently? Do I really need the traditional kata to illustrate the idea? Since the idea is not limited to specific techniques, maybe I can just tell people the idea directly and then illustrate it with examples.....no kata is required. That's how functional martial arts like BJJ teach principles. No need for kata just tell people or show examples. The reverse claim is that application should not be limited to the Ideal/precise Kata movements. Why not? If it's an appeal to reality (an epistemology of reality) why relate any movement to the kata at all? In application, I should be allowed to vary the movement. Then why not in the Kata? Why is Kata fixed? Iain, I think you do a great job at trying to make Karate more realistic. And I think your martial map goes a long way to clarify the issues and mistakes possible. But I think we need to go much much further in dismantling the confusing epistemology and ontology. I submit the only remaining value in Kata is based on either an ontology of "tradition" or of "DO". When we say "train the kata is the RIGHT way" there is no coherent principle of "rightness" other than tradition "that's the way we do it" or "we just picked one way and called it right" It is a cultural artefact. A "Ritual". OR It's a fixed standard designed to be meditated on in the pursuit of zen. Nothing wrong with that. But we can clear up a lot of confusion by just saying "that's the way it was always done" or "There is no reason other than having an idea to practice ZEN". I submit there is no combative principle that is best taught through Kata practice.

[@practicalkatabunkai]

Thanks for the reply. A short video can’t explain the entirety of an issue, so it’s understandable there are a few misunderstandings about my position in your post. A key one would be I have not claimed that kata (as karate does it) is a must for all martial artists. I’m sure everyone will know martial artists who are very skilled who don’t do kata (as it would be recognised in karate). I’m not arguing for all martial artists to do the traditional karate kate, what I am saying is that the kata process described was key to the way the art of karate was structured, whereas nowadays kata is often seen as a stand-alone pursuit. I also know that when practised as part of that process, it does what it is supposed to do. I frequently say, “I am a martial artist first, and a karateka second.” Karate is therefore the “vehicle” by which I prefer to explore the martial arts. I’ve trained in numerous other systems, and they just didn’t do it for me long term. It’s not that those arts were not “as good”, it’s just that I did not enjoy them as much. Karate fascinates and engages me in a way that all other arts I have done do not. Other arts have been something I did for a while, whereas karate is the one that has engrossed me from childhood to middle age. I like it; therefore, I keep doing it, therefore I am a better martial artist than I would have been had I been forced to study any others exclusively. Karate is the best martial art FOR ME. I’m not trying to convince anyone that it will be the best one for them. Personal enjoyment is subjective, but very important because it will lead to consistency, which will in turn lead to greater levels of competence. I am, therefore, not trying to argue that other martial artists should take up karate because it is inherently superior to other arts, nor am I saying solo kata (again, as karate does it) is a must. Your post seems to be labouring under that misunderstanding, so I hope that clarifies. If karate is the art of choice for others, then the points I make in the video will hopefully help them better understand the kata process, so they fully realise the value of the solo kata (which are just one part of that process). To other points: YOU WROTE: “Why do full contact practitioners not have their own precise kata, if kata if it is such a good training method for body control?” I would argue they do. They certainly had set combinations / movements to illustrate key ideas when I trained in boxing and kickboxing (a kata is just a number of such sequences put end to end). When drilling such combinations solo, I would be corrected if any motion or alignment is off. That’s exactly the same as kata. YOU WROTE: “In the video, Abernathy claims without (fixed) Kata, "Anyone watching would have no way of knowing if you could control your own muscles or not!” Really? Again this is another epistemological claim. We don't need kata to test control generally and muscle control is easily demonstrated without the appeal to Kata.” I can only speak from experience, but if I was working a jab-cross-hook-cross combination in the air in the boxing gym (or on the bag too for that matter) and the punches were all at different heights, then the coach would point out that I was failing to control my punches. They would tell me exactly where they wanted the punches to go (i.e. establish a datum) and then check that I was able to accomplish that datum. The exact same thing is what we do with solo kata. YOU WROTE: “If it's an idea for combat, how come the different styles idealise it differently?” Because principles can be expressed in a wide variety of ways. They transcend specific technique. Therefore, it is possible to show numerous examples of that principle in action. YOU WROTE: “Do I really need the traditional kata to illustrate the idea?” As above, no you don’t. But you do need some initial examples to get started otherwise the principle remains ethereal. You need to see it in action. All arts do that. That is kata. YOU WROTE: “Since the idea is not limited to specific techniques, maybe I can just tell people the idea directly and then illustrate it with examples.....no kata is required.” Form my perspective, the above is self-contradictory. In karate, it is that kata that provides those “illustrative examples.” It’s important to understand that I mean “kata” in terms of the process ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/r2GVlWCHisSUpQ ) not just the solo encapsulation for continuity of knowledge and to provide a supplementary form of solo-training. That solo training has value too: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3zCioqmn8xnfck Here is Rener Gracie discussing the value of such supplementary solo training from a BJJ perspective: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oYKXfayIo9ZomM0 I’d also agree with what he says as it is entirely congruent with kata from a karate perspective. It’s a valuable part of a process, but it is not the entirety of that process. You and I seem to mean very different things by “kata”. I see it in all arts. The key difference in karate is we put our illustrative examples end to end for solo training. YOU WROTE: “In application, I should be allowed to vary the movement. Then why not in the Kata? Why is Kata fixed?” For the reason exampled in the video. To give a simple example, people are a wide variety of heights. In application the position of the jaw will likewise vary. If people did punches in kata at whatever height they felt like, an observer would have no way of knowing if that was deliberate or accidental. So, we chose a set height and say we want the punches delivered exactly there (just like in the showdown boxing / bag work example above). YOU WROTE: "When we say "train the kata is the RIGHT way" there is no coherent principle of "rightness" other than tradition "that's the way we do it" or "we just picked one way and called it right" I don’t think that is correct. The function of the movement is what determines “right”. For example, if a student’s “stance” is off (i.e. weight moving in the wrong direction), then that can be objectively show to be wrong because the method won’t work. Combat is variable and therefore it could be that if the enemy was moving backwards instead of forward, for example, then the weight shift will need to be different. As per the Mabuni quote above, it would be impossible for a kata to include all the variations, and it’s not necessary to do that to illustrate the principle either. Therefore, different variants show different examples, but all are functionally correct. However, we also need the ability to adapt and vary what is correct as the situation changes. YOU WROTE: “But we can clear up a lot of confusion by just saying "that's the way it was always done" or "There is no reason other than having an idea to practice ZEN". That would add to the confusion. It’s better to show specifically why a movement is the way it is by demonstrating its function. That’s an objective measure as opposed to a subjective one. The Zen thing is also a whole can of worms that I will leave here. Suffice to say the link between karate and Zen has nothing to support it historically and is modern addition (in some quarters) based on marketing, propaganda and entirely debunked historical myths. Again, I am not trying to convince you or anyone to take up karate and learn all the kata. What I am saying is that the kata process definitely works and, when you understand it correctly, you can see the process is present in all martial arts i.e. start with a specific example of principle, gain an appreciation of that principle, learn to vary the example in line with the underlying principles in accordance with the needs of the specific situation, etc. Some arts also have forms of supplementary solo training (boxing, BJJ, karate, Arnis, etc) that are based on those principles. In karate, we take our “examples of principle”, put them end to end for our solo training and call them “kata”. I like the way karate does that, so it remains the art of choice for me. All the best, Iain

[@thinkdistinct1282]

@@practicalkatabunkai Hi Ian, thank you for your time and thoughtful response. Much appreciated. I wanted to take some time to digest what you said, sit with it for a while, take seriously what you said and circle back to you. Firstly I want you to know I follow a lot of your material and I really appreciate your critical approach. I have big respect. I'm a fan. I appreciate that in this kind of exchange it's hard to capture all the nuance and background connections. For both your points and my points. I'm going to try and work with my original critique, rather than respond to the parallel positions (for example I am not saying that you said "everyone should practice it" or defending an alternative position. So I'd like to try and keep you and I focused on a central issue) Next, I want to say I think you make a lot of great points about solo practice. That seems to be true in Karate and in other arts. So no argument there. So I would love to focus on a key point. And I'm genuinely interested in your answer. I really hope you can demonstrate a key point and I hope your argument prevails. I'm happy to be corrected for the sake of learning. So let me try and ask this question a different way: How come Kata does not look like bunkai? Hold on! You might say "yes it does! Look this move is a head crank. It might look like a punch across my body but it's actually a head twist and my Hikite hand is grabbing too". But the problem is the solo movement does not look like the head crank. The solo movement has closed hands, for example, and the head crank has open hands. The weight shift is different (crucially). Or "this returning wave kick, is actually stepping through and can be a sweep!" Whenever we see bunkai, it seems to me, it no longer looks like the Kata. In fact, the instructor often has an attitude of "reveal". "Surprise! This move that you thought was a block, and looks like a block is actually.......(something else)" Whenever an instructor says "this is ACTUALLY.." or "It CAN be a ". He's really saying "I know the kata doesn't look exactly like this but bear with me, it's close enough" (I should say Ian, I'm using a tone that is a little exaggerated because in text we don't have non-verbals, and I'm trying to demonstrate a point. I still want to show my respect and genuine curiosity. So please forgive any sense of facetousness) So, to follow your argument of the benefits of solo practice, which I agree with, I think are reduced is Kata form. So back to the core question: "How come Kata does not look like bunkai?" thanks again Ian for all your work, thoughts and reflections with respect Andy

[@practicalkatabunkai]

@@thinkdistinct1282 YOU WROTE: “Hi Ian, thank you for your time and thoughtful response. Much appreciated.” Not a problem! Comments and questions can lead to discussions which add something to the value of the original video. I therefore appreciate your contribution. YOU WROTE: “But the problem is the solo movement does not look like the head crank. The solo movement has closed hands, for example, and the head crank has open hands.” As per the video, the kata shows an example, which is to be used as an illustration of concept for all possible variants. The kata can’t contain all possible variations. As Mabuni said: “the ways of attacking and defending have innumerable variations. To create two-person drills containing all of the techniques including each and every one of their variations is impossible. However, if one practices kata correctly, it will serve as a foundation for performing - when a crucial time comes - any of the infinite number of variations.” To the example you point to above, if the enemy had long hair (or a top knot, as many did at the time the kata were created) and a beard (again, as was common in the past) then you would grip the hair and beard, hence hands closed. If the enemy’s hair, at either end of the head, was too short or not there, then the variant would be to grip the actual head / chin and therefore the hands would be open. It is different because the specific situation is different. If people are expecting the kata to be ALWAYS identical to the bunkai, then this may seem like something is off. However, if we understand the nature of kata - as is clearly explained by the past masters - then we realise that this is exactly as it should be. We need to adapt to the specific circumstances. YOU WROTE: “The weight shift is different (crucially).” Can’t say I observe that. I can’t think of a single crank in kata were the “stance shift” does not support it. YOU WROTE: “Whenever we see bunkai, it seems to me, it no longer looks like the Kata.” Again, I can’t say I see that. When we look at the kata at the level of principle (as we should) then we can see the exact same principles in play regardless of the specific variations required for the specific circumstance i.e. height, motion, previous position, etc. As Motobu said, “We must learn to apply the principles of the kata so that we can bend with the winds or adversity.” As way of analogy, we can point to the way children learn basic addition. 1+1= 2 2+2= 4 You could look at the specific examples above and say that “3+3” is different from the example given in the text book (kata), but others would grasp that although there are an infinite number of possible additions, you only need a few examples to grasp the process at work to know how to add up any other numbers you are presented with (in line with the Mabuni quote above). YOU WROTE: “This move that you thought was a block, and looks like a block is actually ... (something else)" I can’t say that those “blocks” look like blocks to me. When people then see how the same motion can be applied as traps, locks, strikes, etc the normal response is, “Of course! That’s obvious now someone has pointed it out.” YOU WROTE: He's really saying "I know the kata doesn't look exactly like this but bear with me, it's close enough" Most would accept that combat as lots of variables. I therefore think it’s unreasonable (and inaccurate) to expect to see total uniformity irrespective of those variables. For example, if your opponent is taller, the punches will he higher. That’s not a case of “close enough”, but what one would expect and is as it should be. YOU WROTE: So back to the core question: "How come Kata does not look like bunkai?" I would say it does look the same. If you want EXACTLY the same, then you would need the variables to be as per the kata example (i.e. enemy has a beard and a top knot … kata is perfect for hipsters and Samurai as I jokingly point out at seminars). If you grasp that the kata example is there to illustrate the principles, that combat contains lots of variables, and that we need to apply the kata in a way that considers those variables (as it is endlessly documented that we should) then you can see that the exact same principles are in play, but the motion has been adapted to take into account the specific circumstances. It therefore continues to look the same to me, and those like me, because we are aware of the nature of kata. To return to the analogy above, if we compare “1+2” and “1+3” we could say, “but three is not the same as two!” or we could say, “I see that it’s the exact same process in play, but on the second one we are required to add in a three and not a two”. Kata is all about principle-based learning. We don’t seek to enact every possible single variation of a given combative method, but instead get initial examples of a principle in play and then work to internalise that principle so they become combative habits. We fight in accordance with those principles and, in that way, we can adapt to the specific circumstance. As above, I’m not arguing that everyone must do karate or practise kata. However, those of us that do find value in the kata process. One issue we have is that not all karateka get how kata is supposed to work, despite it being clearly explained in the older texts. I therefore occasionally get, “but in the kata the punch is here, and you’ve punched higher!” from fellow karateka too. Even when I say, “That’s because his head is higher because he is taller” some still don’t get it because they wrongly conflate the precision of solo kata with the free-flowing application of the principles in combat. That’s one of the reasons I made this video so I would have something to refer people to. These old articles explain this in more detail: www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/understanding-kata-textbooks-and-tactics www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/magnitude-kata www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/four-stages-kata-practise Thanks for taking the time to discuss. All the best, Iain

[@tevman69]

Unfortunately, I witness students, some up to 3+ years training, that lack the skills in ‘the basics’. Their Katas are atrocious. I’ve trained in three different systems and this present one is next to worthless. The students, mostly under 13, are more concerned about ‘playing’ with balls, frisbees and just horsing around upon arrival to the dojo. Unfortunately, the only Instructor believes, if one lacks ‘the Blackbelt’ you cannot teach unless there’s an ‘Instructors’ shoulder-patch on the Gi jacket. At 72, with about 10 years training and teaching fellow students,. If bad habits’ are allowed to continue, depending on the age and skills, they must be dealt with immediately. Even a fellow student, 5 years in this school before I started and claims to be a Sho Dan in ‘Kung Fu’ is a joke. He lacks the skills of someone with 3 months experience and holds a Brown Belt. All Katas start with the basics, moving on to combinations and techniques. Basics ARE the foundation! Sorry in advance for rant but, it’s frustrating to witness the decline of a once respected ‘Art of Empty Hand Fighting’.

[@MarcuustheMoose]

Going through the same thing.

[@ansgaranzinger493]

I am sorry but I have to say that for me kata is more or less a waste of time. I like the principles but I won´t spend another minute into practising solo katas. I do Karate (Shotokan and Kyokushin) and I do Muay Thai. I know kata is very much misunderstood but I´ve got only a certain amount of time to train and kata is the most inefficient way to learn how to move. Too much ballet not enough myself! I like the way you look at katas and how you apply them. You do an amazing job! Unfortunately the karate world is very different to you. Too many kata practitioners have no idea of fighting and you see this in the bunkai too.....But I will hang on your channel cause your stuff is different!

[@markostojanovic6973]

valid point, but it also shows you missed the 'do' part in 'karate do'. i think that in this video it is nicely explain why you should train kata and how. it doesnt say not to train 'fighting', on the contrary, practice and learn kata (as it was taught by your school/dojo) then examine it and apply it in a fighting scenario (you see, you get to practice kata and fighting at the same time)

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

If you’re only into it for the fighting part, I’m curious why you don’t just stick to Muay Thai, or do MMA, or Krav Maga? From my experience, a lot of the people I know in the martial art community who focus a lot on Kata/Hyeong/Pumsae/Jurus/Quyen etc. doesn’t have much interrest in how to apply it directly to fighting, and this is probably also why it sometimes, (to those of us who want any "form" exercises to be applicable to fighting as well), ends up feeling more like a choreographed dance. So I understand your frustration in regards to time spend. And yes, the distance between how it’s trained to actually applying it is to big. What I myself uses Kata for is mostly meditative, so to me there’s a mental benefit from doing it anyway

[@Bondirob2000]

Karate is an art and kata is the ultimate representation of that art. It doesn't matter what you practise unless it's done in a live scenario ie full contact then it will be next to useless in real life. Enjoy kata for what it is but in no way does it translate to real life.

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

@@Bondirob2000 Exactly!

[@ansgaranzinger493]

@@markostojanovic6973 ..Marko, I am into karate now for allmost 45 Years and maybe I missed what you call "karate do"...maybe. I highly respect Ian ´s way of working on the world of kata and he shurely is on the right path. My way is different: I do drills, I watch applications, I spar and I build this into my fighting style...If I do this on my own it leads to a kind of shadow boxing which is something like a free evolving kata...