Kata & Natural Movements

Dear Michael,

help me getting clear about the matter. What is a natural, what an unnatural movement? Does one know intuitively?

Masters move smoothly, others sometimes like robots or if they should have visited the toilet before practicing kata.

If I comprae the movements of naifanchin shodan (Ishito ryu), naihanch (wado ryu) and tekki shodan (shotokan), the movements are different. Is there a difference in naturalness?

But I am convinced that naturalness is important for doing a single technique, a combination and also for application. But it is not so easy to make clear  the concept of naturalness, I´m afraid.

Working with the things you do does not break trradition or whathever, but practicing kata is a different thing. You can perform the kata in different ways, thereby working on different aspects like fluid movements or kime...

All the best,

Harald

P.S.: Unfortunately without makiwara, sand bag or a partner in these days. Kata is my resort.

Hi Mike,

Good thread! Should be some really interesting thoughts and training drills recorded here as everyone contributes.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

I’m curious as to what methods you guys use to help a student develop fluid body movements

For us it is taking the lessons of kata into free flowing drills and live sparring (as shown on the “Beyond Bunkai”, “The Pinan / Heian Series: The complete fighting system” and “Kata Based Sparring” DVDs).

This is all part of the process of kata for me. The kata is the map and not the terrain. We use the information in kata to fight, but we don’t fight with kata. Likewise, we use recipe books to cook good food, but we don’t eat the actual recipe book!

It is a mistake for people who only ever practise the solo kata to think that will make them a better fighter. To return to my analogy, they are someone who own a map but who has never ventured into the territory. Study the map and then you can successfully navigate the terrain. Firstly, stick to the well defined paths to get a feel for the environment (set drills). Secondly, wander off the fixed path but not too far (semi-live drills). Finally, when you know the map like the back of your hand, get a good feel for the terrain and enter the “wilderness” (live kata based sparring).

Solo kata is a vital part of the process … not a good idea to enter the wilderness without a map! However, to fully realise the value of the map – and to fulfil the map’s actual purpose – we need to take the information into the terrain. Looking at the map and not understanding it is effectively the same as having a blank piece of paper. Understanding the map but not entering the terrain makes one an “armchair woodsman”. Wandering into the terrain without a map will get you lost and put you in danger. Understanding the map and gradually exploring the terrain will lead to you successfully navigating it and knowing all there is to know about the environment.

Back to the question and away from the analogy, it is primarily the “time in the terrain” (drills and sparring) that will enable the information in kata to be applied in a flowing, instinctual and highly effective way.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

1.       How important do you feel natural movements are in karate?

If by “natural” we mean flowing and instinctive techniques applied without any hesitation then I would say it is absolutely vital.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

2.       Do you feel this is breaking with tradition?

Definitely not. Looking at the example of former generations, the converse of never understanding kata and never making use of the information within kata is untraditional though.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

3.       Is this breaking with kata?

Definitely not. Seeds are supposed to grow into plants. If people refuse to let a seed grow, they are not allowing it to fulfil its purpose. If people stick at the solo kata stage, and never develop flowing and instinctive application of the information within kata, then that is breaking with kata. What I have been describing is the fulfilment of kata.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

4.       Is the kata at fault, or is it the way we interpret kata?

Kata is perfectly fine and functional when utilised correctly. Things need to be broken down “step by step” in the beginning (the kind of motion we see in kata), but we need to build upon the “ABC stage” and start freely expressing the information kata in a flowing and dominating way.

All the best,

Iain

Nice Topic....(I think this is going to be fun)

It is surprising to me (although by now- it really shouldn't be at all) how often what I am thinking and figuring out seems to 'pop' up in other areas of my life, unrelated to anything I am actually doing. This is a good example. Last night I couldn't sleep. I tried lying awake for a couple hours in bed, before I sat up and read for a while. Finally got tired and tried the sleep thing again. Just as I'm drifting off- bam! A little brilliant karate thought has made its way into my head, and now is getting me excited and keeping me from sleeping again. I know from experience that I will be actively thinking on this and won’t be able to sleep at all. There is only one cure for me- as part of the process is digestion of the information to relevant and cohesive theory, and the other part is fear of forgetting the thought string. The cure? Sit up again, and write it out. Put my notes on paper and I can let it go to re-ponder in the morning or whenever is better than 3am.  So what the heck has this got to do with the posted topic? My thought last night was what is ( to me) the difference between Training and Conditioning? See, and then unrelated to anything I could possibly do in my life, this topic pops up online today and seems to go right along these same lines. Surprising......(but again, shouldn't be as this is the exact same way I discovered Iain's web site in the first place a few years ago- and the concepts he presented in all of the DVD's and articles. Thanks again mate for plugging away on all that you do- Podcasts are great!)

One thing I should clear up now I guess is my lines of thinking in karate. Lately (like 5 years lately, lol) I have come to a place where I can now put some of my thoughts in enough of a logical construct that I can explain them (somewhat). So as I gather my thoughts on everything karate- I have been pushing myself to define or explain a few different areas of my thinking. Topics such as Why do I call what I do Karate? ( I cross train so much it could be called anything). What do I mean when I speak of Training? How does one go about training? What environment do I train for? (Martial Map stuff- thanks again) and what is it about that particular environment that brings me back onto the mats every time? Where do I get my enjoyment in this art from? Etc...Follow your bliss. 

So let's try to get back to this topic....Training and Conditioning?

In my view Training is what we do to develop our techniques as we would use them in fighting. It is the sparring part of training, and even if we are just hitting the heavy bag, our body motions are exactly the same as what they would be in an alive and free sparring match. Training is developing the tools for function. It is the bunkai free form. It is resistance from your partner. In training we are primarily concerned with developing the skill set required for a given area through progressive resistance, while maintaining awareness and relaxation in our bodies. The ability to think on the fly, and adapt to changing circumstances, etc... All are a part of training. 

Conditioning is what we do to make our training better. It is working on the tools of the delivery system. It is physical. It can include strengthening, and movement analysis. It can also be impacting and body development through repetitive contact. It is developing the tools for delivery. Our primary concern is the physical anatomy and movement or activation sequences that allow for athletic output. When we are developing our condition, we do it under load with friction. Becoming stronger, moving faster, analyzing motion for the correct kinetic chain sequence, transfer of electrical impulses through the body, increasing proprioception, etc... Are all parts of conditioning. 

So again- where am I going in terms of fluid movement and point of topic? It all comes back to something a student of mine said 7 years ago when she first began training. We were working on kata and single fundamental movements of technique while utilizing dynamic tension. The statement was "wow! Kata is like having your own personal gym. You can strength train without any equipment." and to me this had the same impact as when I read Funakoshi's statement of "you can train karate anywhere, with no equipment, and no special clothing" or something similar. Can't remember the exact quote but that's close enough. You don't need a gym to get stronger- there is kata for that. And to me that is the heart of the issue. What kata is for is conditioning, not training. How we do things in kata is not how we fight. To develop your punches- get stronger. Ok, we use a bench press to increase muscles- but we don't punch with a bench press in reality. Yes, the strength increase helps us hit harder, but for a proper punch our posture is much different than when we are in the gym. Shoulder hunched to protect the jaw line, versus square and pinching towards the back to stabilize the lift of the load. 

So I can see in the past when karate was trained in secret, that from an outside perspective without the instruction of the master, what people saw was just the kata. It was the conditioning. It was not the use of the techniques, and this is where people go wrong. Thinking that the use is the same as the development. Use kata for posture, for knowledge increase of combinations or techniques, for strength, etc... But remember conditioning is done under load and friction. This muscle tension and friction naturally slows us down and provides resistance (hence the ability to increase strength). It is not a natural kind of motion, and when we try to put it into free movement it looks awkward and becomes ineffective. The transition into using the techniques from the kata requires you to unclench. You need to relax. Training is done under pressure (as in resistance from an opponent), without muscle friction. Ever wonder why your coach keeps telling all the beginner students to relax so much when sparring? To be effective in the fight, you need the muscles to be able to respond. No tension. Your posture should look and feel different, and it will take a while to become comfortable doing this (just as it took a while to be comfortable performing the basic techniques as a white belt). Just let all the other technical training go. Don't try to move or hit like a karate person, or like you do in the kata, or like you think you should (this is the cause of a lot of unnatural movement as well), just relax, let it go, and hit how you do. If you want to tweak it a bit, then go back to the gym (kata). Keep the 2 areas of training and conditioning separate. 

Back on point once again- 

michael rosenbaum wrote:

1.       How important do you feel natural movements are in karate?

Natural motions ARE karate. the less natural motions are a conditioning program

michael rosenbaum wrote:

2.       Do you feel this is breaking with tradition?

No

michael rosenbaum wrote:

3.       Is this breaking with kata?

No

michael rosenbaum wrote:

4.       Is the kata at fault, or is it the way we interpret kata?

It's the way people interpret how they use the kata, not the kata in its self. It's the same as going to the gym and doing leg presses, and then wondering why that exact motion won't let you kick a football (soccer ball) down the pitch. You'll have to adjust the motion of the technique to use it, however the technique will benifit if you get stronger in the gym with the leg press. 

So there you go...sorry for the essay. I'm happy to clear up any of my roundabout way of thinking- just drop me a line. 

1.       How important do you feel natural movements are in karate?

Critical of course. I don't think any of the movements should be/are unnatural - some perhaps feel odd to begin with but unless they become natural, they are unlikely to be of any benefit to the user. Hence the repetitive/drill type nature of some karate schools.

2.       Do you feel this is breaking with tradition?

No. Tradition for me is about developing efficiency of movement in a combative environment. Used correctly, kata helps us to do that.

3.       Is this breaking with kata?

As above. No, to my mind kata helps in the early stages of this process.

4.       Is the kata at fault, or is it the way we interpret kata?

I think the problems you describe would only really occur in the absence of kata interpretation. Simply repeating the form is not (IMO) interpretation and is unlikely to develop any real combative benefit. Sticking to set rigid bunkai, may or may not, develop realistic fighting skills depending upon the bunkai being drilled.

Karate for me is about efficiency of combat and natural movement lies at the heart of this efficiency.  It's just that sometimes you need to spend a lot of time working on a specific movement in order to make it 'natural'.

Gavin Mulholland wrote:

It's just that sometimes you need to spend a lot of time working on a specific movement in order to make it 'natural'.

Nothing to add to this and no comment to make … I just thought I should quote it because it is worth reading more than once :-)

Gavin Mulholland wrote:

Sticking to set rigid bunkai, may or may not, develop realistic fighting skills depending upon the bunkai being drilled.

Sticking to rigid bunkai will never develop realistic fighting skills regardless of the bunkai being drilled. You need to jump into the deep end so to speak, and allow all the various bunkai to come out as they will during live sparring. You can't have set and rigid drills that translate. The ability to take the kata apart and use any sequence, in any order, without breaking from the drill or flow of the moment. That will translate into fighting skill. Set flow drills without the alive context will not...My 2 cents...

Gavin Mulholland wrote:

Karate for me is about efficiency of combat and natural movement lies at the heart of this efficiency.  It's just that sometimes you need to spend a lot of time working on a specific movement in order to make it 'natural'.

You can't work on a technique to make it 'natural'. It is or it isn't. If you are spending time working on creating something natural- I'd argue that you are just becoming better at an unnatural motion. But I can see this being misinterpreted quickly- so let's define 'Natural Movement' as motion or action that is carried out by the receptors in the body firing in the correct kinetic sequence to carry the signal from the brain with the least amount of hindrance from the anatomy and structure of the body.  

What I am reading from your post is more (to me), sometimes you need a lot of time working in a particular environment, or under a particular pressure, in order to be able to use a natural movement. 

In this scenario, it isn't the movement that we are working on- it is the timing of the movement in execution, or the ability to do it under fire, or another part of the fighting construct that isn't due to the motion, it's you.  And that is Training to me, not Conditioning (where we would be working on strengthening the signal from the brain to the muscle and the kinetic chain). So, I believe that we are kinda saying the same thing- I'm just using different descriptive words.

And absolutely- it is about efficiency of combat and natural movement lies at the heart of this efficiency. Well said. 

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

Sticking to rigid bunkai will never develop realistic fighting skills regardless of the bunkai being drilled.

I kind of disagree on the basis that all forms of practise are part of the process. If you isolate any single part of the process then it will of course be deficient. However, when it is part of the whole, as it is supposed to be, it will work fine. Set bunkai as a means to learn motion and start to explore underlying concepts can be very useful … so long as the intention is to move on to semi-live (by which I mean there is some freedom of action but restrictions are in place on both parties) and live drills. If we stick there, then I agree with you … but it should be part of the process.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

You need to jump into the deep end so to speak, and allow all the various bunkai to come out as they will during live sparring.

I disagree here too. I’m a great believer of kata-based-sparring and if any process lacks live drills then it is deficient and will not develop useable combative skills. It’s the “jump in at the deep end” part of the sentence that I disagree with.

The thing about the “deep end” is that people drown if they have not previously developed some swimming skills. They will first hold on to the side in the shallow end and practice kicking, hold on to floats, swim in the shallow end where they can put their feet down if they need to, etc. They will do none of that when swimming for real, but to skip those steps and head for the deep end with a “sink or swim” approach is most likely to end in “sink”. There needs to be a process.

Throwing people into live drills without a solid understanding of the techniques and tactics to employ in those drills is pretty pointless. Conversely, drilling set and semi-live bunkai gives the student an idea of what to try in the live drills. Putting them into live drills without that understanding is not an efficient or effective way to train in my view.

I totally agree that live drills are vital, but they need to be part of a structured process.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

You can't work on a technique to make it 'natural'. It is or it isn't. If you are spending time working on creating something natural- I'd argue that you are just becoming better at an unnatural motion.

I hear this a lot, but again I disagree with it. There is an assumption that people can jump to optimum practise in a single leap. A beginner is simply incapable of delivering any technique in a fluid and highly effective way when they are in the chaos of conflict.

First we need to take away the chaos so they can concentrate on the right body motion. Having done that they are still incapable of performing any technique effectively in a fluid way, so we need to break it down for them in to “bullet points” i.e. this is what your hips do, this is what your feet do, this is where you hands need to be … got that? Good, now move from there to here … and so on. This breaking things down step by step, will result in step by step practise.

Step by step practise involves motions that are not “natural”; so there would be a problem if people mistook this stage for the end of the process (and we do see that). However, step by step practise allows people to learn the key points of a given technique so that they can then “smooth it out” which results in a good flowing technique that contains all the component parts.

If people could practise a technique in the optimum way from day one then they don’t need to train. They can already do it! Assuming they can’t do it, then there needs to be a process that leads them to effective technique.

That technique also has to be further forged in live training. But throwing people in at the deep end will only result in those who can already do it being successful. Again, there needs to be a process that develops that skill.

The key point is this: “Natural technique” is not natural. If it was then we’d all be innately born with it and all training would be unnecessary. I was never taught how to breathe, how to feel hungry, how to feel fear, how to cry, how to laugh, etc. All these things are truly natural. However, even something as seemingly natural as walking needed to be learnt. Babies lie on they backs and wiggle their limbs as they learn to coordinate them, they learn to turn over, they learn to crawl, stagger for a few steps (sometimes using a walker), and eventually they walk “naturally”.

I no longer need to practise wiggling my limbs, I can move around without crawling, I don’t need a walker and I hardly ever fall over when walking these days … but it took time and a process to reach this point. I also never expected my children to walk 'naturally' the moment they were born.

It’s the same with conflict. Things I do very naturally now were not always that way. As Gavin said, “sometimes you need to spend a lot of time working on a specific movement in order to make it 'natural'.”

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

let's define 'Natural Movement' as motion or action that is carried out by the receptors in the body firing in the correct kinetic sequence to carry the signal from the brain with the least amount of hindrance from the anatomy and structure of the body.

I’d broadly agree with that definition. Where we may differ is that I feel we need training and a process to get us to the point where such a motion is “natural”. I don’t fee it is innate and hence it needs training to develop.

“Innate Natural” requires no training at all. “Trained Natural” is not innate (otherwise it would be “innate natural”) and requires a structured training process.

Trying to jump steps and begin at the optimum is unrealistic and impractical. This will not develop natural technique. It will result in confusion, injury and poor quality technique because the student will be overwhelmed as they are asked to do things that they are incapable of doing.

We aim to achieve the optimum from day one by beginning at the beginning and following a structured process to gradually develop all the elements so we arrive at “natural”. It’s a mistake to thing we can begin there … if we could we would have no need to train.

All the best,

Iain

I was told a few years that karate ain't natural, we need to train it so it becomes natural!

Of course it's an idea to follow and it makes alot of sense in my mind, one of the areas I do work with is the natural range of motion - I believe that it makes real sense to work within that range for long term training and application.

I really like this thread, so many good points and ideas.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

Sticking to rigid bunkai will never develop realistic fighting skills regardless of the bunkai being drilled.

Yes/No. Sticking to rigid bunkai drilling will not result in realistic fighting sills.  But rigid bunkai are an important step in the development of those skills.  Good quality flow drills are the transitional stage in learning to apply statically acquired skills into the mobile context of fighting.  The final stage is alive drills.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

You need to jump into the deep end so to speak, and allow all the various bunkai to come out as they will during live sparring. You can't have set and rigid drills that translate. The ability to take the kata apart and use any sequence, in any order, without breaking from the drill or flow of the moment. That will translate into fighting skill. Set flow drills without the alive context will not...My 2 cents

Absolutely disagree here.  I'm with Iain on this.  Jumping in the deep end creates sloppy less effective technique.  You need to build in staggered stages.  This was one of the things I discussed in the last Issue (7) of Jissen with my article on the use of Speed in Training.  Slow considered (and prearranged/compliant) training is essential part of building superior biomechanics for employing in dynamic situations.  Dynamic training is important for assessing those skills.  Alive training is the final stage.  This does not mean you have to spend years training in one before going into another, it should be a continuous cycle of building and testing.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

You can't work on a technique to make it 'natural'. It is or it isn't. If you are spending time working on creating something natural- I'd argue that you are just becoming better at an unnatural motion. But I can see this being misinterpreted quickly- so let's define 'Natural Movement' as motion or action that is carried out by the receptors in the body firing in the correct kinetic sequence to carry the signal from the brain with the least amount of hindrance from the anatomy and structure of the body. 

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but as Iain says - the majority of our common motor movements are learned.  The only ones that are 'truly' natural/instinctive are the unconscious ones we cannot overide such as flinch reactions to move a part of the body from unanticipated danger, or to protect the head or eyes.  These can be seen even in babies - though generally only recognisable when you slow footage of them responding to stimuli down.  I am puzzled by what you intend by 'correct kinetic sequence' since any sequence of neural transmission from the body to the brain is 'correct'.

For me there are two key criteria to create natural movement in Kata.  The first relates to solo practise, the second to paired practise.

With regard to solo practise, it must be based on an understanding of application and paired practise or the intent is not present.  Without intent the movements will always be hollow and seem unnatural, no matter how well the Kata is performed.  In addition to this a proper understanding of kime is required to make the movements flow together properly.  Kime is focus, it is not rigidity, it is not tension.  To 'freeze' and lock up at the end of every movement is unnatural, not kime, and in the majority of cases applying the focus of the movement at the wrong point.

As I've mentioned above I see paired practise as an essential part of creating natural flowing movement in Kata.  It is important for learning not only the correct kime for individual movements, but also how to move between the freeze frame postures so commonly seen.

A lot of the stuff I use at work I learned at work  and not from any instructor or kata , tried the fancy arm bars etc and got smacked a few times before it dawned on me that it wasn't right for me and just did not feel natural  and no matter how I tried they never would, thats in practice. So over the next few years I learned myself  a few tried and tested things that I can adapt and vary depending on the persons size height and weight and also so that I and they don't get hurt.  They are more natural to me than some of the things I have been shown as bunkai but in saying that  I am not knocking Karate kata or bunkai  its just I find some of the things shown are 'not for me'  at this time more than likely due to my job and whether I could reasonably use it. 
 

I like Iains post very much. It´s kind of philosopical and quite analytical! Great!

Martial arts is a result of civilazation not of nature! For an ape/monkey it´s natural to dug if you try to beat it. That´s "natural movement". The same applies to human beings. Otsuka emphasized the importance to behave differnently (go towards/inside the attack)

I agree with Iain that it takes training to develop an adequante behavior, call it "natural" or whatever.

Is speech a natural thing? No and yes, you have to practice it for lots of years before you are accepted in a linguistic community.

If someone says kata and kihon and rule-governed kumite is of no use, I would disagree. Of course, if you have to train someone to be able to defend against a knife attack in a couple of weeks, you don´t refer to the five years blackbelt programme of the different systems.

If you want to knock down a couple of persons, karate might not be the first choice. Budo should work for persons who are inferior in strength. It does not make sense to send a 70 year old man into a cage to fight a 20 year old experienced fighter ! This is obscene. But when provoked in a bar, the senior could just stick something into his oponent´s eye or throat.

Still we have the question oo how to differentiate beween a natural and a non-natural movement.

In my opinion, kata helps to get naturl lmovements. Kata is form and forms the student (in his way to move).

Bye.

Harald

Mr Rosenbaum,

this is a great question which adresses what in my opinion is "wrong" with karate..

Kata - and Kihon within limits - are essential elements of karate. However, every style/sensei I know and trained in focuses too much on it. Kata - to me - is quite an advanced learning tool: it contains various "moves" and tactics to counter common attacks, possibly including strategies against multiple opponents. Adaptions to the "foundational movement scheme" of the kata have to be made by the practitioner according to the combative situation -i.e long range, short range , what exactly am I grabbing with the pulling hand, what about the initial movement (is this the right expression?) in almost every technique ( "elbow" in shuto uke, gedan barai)

These movements contain a lot of possible effective movements depending on the specific situation. So on the one hand you can say "every possible fighting move is in kata" especially if you apply lateral thinking; on the other hand, because of this, it makes it very difficult to train. Here's why:

Standard kihon movement (ignoring or totally abusing the combative value of the initial movement) trains wrong fighting patterns. If after some years you eventually show the "secrets" of the initial movements the trainees have been programmed wrongly for years. I personally assisted my former sensei in a course years ago and have witnessed the -unbelievable- inability of ordinary people to break the pattern of using the initial movement of say a shuto uke (parry a straight puch + chop to the face/neck area). People who have learned kihon the standard way know&believe that "this is proper karate because sensei says so". And who could blame them? that's the way to pass gradings! Including the "applications" of THESE kihon movements - that's the reason why I "retired" from my instructor job: too much bulls##t up to green belt and beyond - although my former sensei knows SD/fighting - I have talked with other "traumatised" ex-karate people about this: The first years you're programmed to do it all wrong/ f##k up your natural instincts, and then - in a "good" club, you slowly work them back in.  

This is the great shame: I think karate with its kata is a great background for developing general fighting skills. You have it all in there: grappling, joint locking, puching, kicking - and all of it packed in tactics that combine it for effective SD. therefore certain kata moves should be seen as a finger pointing at you with the order: learn some grappling, learn some punching, etc. These skills are NOT trained by the kata imho but through proper training of these skills. Again, for a beginner, starting with kata has it all backwards. You need knowledge to reap the info of the kata in the first place imho. Nowadays this is done very well - I have not seen anybody being able to construct/reconstruct a comprehensive fighting system out of the katas such as Ian has done. Awesome!

Now to be specific ideas for improving natural movement:

people come in our classes with - mostly- lack of fitness, lack of natural movements (e.g.walking!) into our classes. Therefore, a sense for "natural movements" does not exist. I employed some recommendations from Vern Gambetta (athletic developent) and a certain Steve M***is:

in the warm-up:

- crawling, crabwalking to force people to use diagonal motor patterns. Then add some sit-outs, some forward rolls from the arms and knees. Finally combine all of it + add their own creativity in a  "freestyle breakdance" just to explore various movements in a fun and relaxes way.

- walking/jogging in combination with punching. Again, the cross-motor-pattern (also paying attention to weight shifts). Same stuff backwards, side-ways etc. Focus on contiuous flowing punches - adding hooks and uppercuts if possible. Adding some (semi) sprawls to all those movements / angling off etc.

in the main session:

- lots of padwork: show them "normal" boxing technique (heels do come of the floor here :-)) and that a hikite motion is far shorter here -> leads to the difference between puching in to open position standing vs. puching while grappling in some sort where heels are down again for the most time.

- playfighting: touching shoulders, touching upper thighs,

- throughout the whole session: role of head in leading the body 

- intervalls: 30secs burpees/30secs something else. Burpees will teach you a lot imho.

- knee drills: focussing on the grounded leg as the driver of the movement (again, cross-motor-pattern here)

- knee drills/punching drills where you switch stance / fit a knee in - in a "half-beat".

I had several senior people in my group (late 60'3, early 70s) - had an awesome relationship with those guys - and those guys did move better after after I included some of the drills. Hell, I moved better as I started to incorporte stuff like this into my routine.

Another thing I did - recommend also by Steve M - was to watch clips of great fighters and analyse their movement patterns. Also to emotionally "connect" with the moves they did.

To sum up my experience: there are natural athletic people out there who just move very well by default. The move well in kata & kihon - but they would move well in everything. Case in point: my best buddy and karateka is one of those. High vertical jumping ability, excellent hip mobility, great eye in sparring, etc. I had lots of discussions about training with him - and here's one part you might like: years ago he had to do Tekki Shodan for brown belt: "how long did you train for it? "Two weeks max". "What did the sensei say?" "Now, this is what a kata should look like."

I believe natural athletic people do not know where their abilties come from, and also have little ideas plus interest to develop these abilities in their students. Again, my experience, yours may differ.

I know for sure why I moved better and when that was the case - because I was fed up with the results I was getting with standard training and was consciously trying to improve.

An idea:  I think that natural movement and athletic movement hugely overlap.

Does it break with tradition?

We are talking about a tradition that is maybe a hundred years old (introduction of karate to the public + creation of heian katas). This tradition was -imho- not focused on effective self-defense but more on general fitness building with a strong military bias.  Feeling strong but not actually figthting strong (unarmed).  Everbody moves exactly the same as everybody - culturally important in Japan but not really relevant for SD.

I couldn't care less about a tradition that is unfit in my eyes to deliver what I want from karate: effecte SD/fighting skills.

Is it against kata ->what kind of kata?

There is a great clip on youtube showing 4 versions of "Sanchin" with audio commentary by Harry Cook. You clearly see the switch from a more combative posture aka slight crouch to the upright Japanese version.  Again, a switch from combative origins to more health/finess-orientation. And one major fault I have witnessed time and again is the too-upright posture of karatekas who start with (kick)box-like sparring.

Hi All,

Awesome thread this! I wonder if unnatural movement is one further result of training and teaching methods becoming the objective?

In the past kata was done to help develop fighting skills; kihon was done to help develop fighting skills; partner work was constructed to develop fighting skills, etc. Nowadays many people do kihon to get good at kihon; kata to get good at kata; and ippon kumite to get good at ippon kumite, etc. The link to conflict has been lost. The grading system now also frequently tests how well people can replicate the training methods and totally ignores how well they can actually function in the chaos of conflict.

Essentially, the initial training methods have became the objective and are now ends in themselves as opposed to the means to an end they were supposed to be. The result is that “natural motion” is never developed because training never develops.

All the best,

Iain

Real fighting real violence can not become stylized it is to chaotic unpredictable and unforseeable in it's direction to ever allow for stylized rigid concepts to work.Many military commaders have remarked "the 1st thing to get lost in the fog of war is THE PLAN"

Any attempts by you to try and force the enemy to fight according to any rigid concept at which you may be quite adept usually ends in disaster for that concept.Trying to impose "structure" on instinct is self defeating rather instinct should impose itself on structure.Give it free reign end the conflict between regimen and naturalness.

VIC

Hi Vic,

VIC wrote:

Real fighting real violence can not become stylized it is to chaotic unpredictable and unforeseeable in its direction to ever allow for stylized rigid concepts to work.

It’s true that real fighting is chaotic … but the training for that chaos needs structure. Chaotic training from day one does not give people the ability to deal with chaos. We need structure to prepare for the chaos.

Nothing but chaos as a means to prepare for chaos = ineffective training.

Fixed structures as a way to prepare for chaos = training not matching the environment and hence it is also ineffective.

Structured training progressing from set examples of concepts to the free reign of those concepts in training that recreates as accurately as possible the chaos of conflict = effective training.

We have to be careful not to polarise things into chaos OR structure, natural OR trained, etc. There is a process and a continuum and sticking at one end and trying to leap to the other end from the beginning are equally ineffective.

We need structure to learn to operate in chaos. If nothing but chaos could teach us to deal with chaos then all formal training would be unnecessary. Just throw them in the deep end and they will always swim and never sink… reality tells us a different story however! Likewise, we need training to fight “naturally”. If we did not, then all training would be pointless as we would all naturally have the attributes that we know take time and effort to develop.

As I say, there is a process and for it to work we should not forever stick to the basics nor should we try to leap to the optimum in a single bound.

I also disagree with the use of the word “concepts”. I think concepts are unchanging and universal … although the way they manifest through technique and tactic can never be fixed in application. As you rightly say, the “plan” can disappear as things don’t go according to plan … so what we need to do is be able to adapt in accordance with the solid combative concepts and principles that underlie all effective techniques and tactics.

To do that we need to intuitively internalise these solid combative concepts and principles thorough set examples in which they are manifest. Combative principles cannot be detached from the techniques and tactics which they give rise to. Structured examples are needed in the early stages of training as I outlined in the above post: http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/kata-natural-movements#comment-962

This thread is on how we attain “natural movement”. I don’t think anyone is saying fighting is not chaotic? It’s how we most efficiently train to deal with that chaos that is the issue. Structure needs to be a part of that. But structure should be a “means to an end”. When it becomes the “end”, no progress can be made.

My four stage approach to kata application includes both structure and chaos and I find it to be very effective for that reason.

All the best,

Iain

See, I thought this was going to be fun. 

What I would give to be able to have this conversation in person, where we can all be in the same room and demonstrate what we are talking about. What a good afternoon that would be. 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Essentially, the initial training methods have became the objective and are now ends in themselves as opposed to the means to an end they were supposed to be. The result is that “natural motion” is never developed because training never develops."

Great summary. Are karate techniques used to solve combative problems (outcome-based) or is it  the "perfection" of kata&kihon the goal (l'art pour l'art)?

I have just reviewed your Applied Karate DVD with the use of blocks (could never figure out the use of uchi-uke really). These sections clearly show common scenarios (various graps) and their solution. What became clear to me - or better: reinforced my understanding - is that the same situation can be solved with various blocks; i.e the chopping of the opponents arm at the elbow can be done with a)the first part of age uke b) first part of uchi-uke) or c)  first part of gedan-barai. 

Depending on the relative size of the practioner , the way the opponent grabs etc. it could be any of the mentioned blocks to solve the situation. The problem starts if people are led to believe that - even useful applications - are the better the execution resembles the "perect" Kihon form.

In a grading syllabus you could do the following:

1. demonstration of standard kihon: make clear how you want it performed

2. application/showing understanding: combative solutions (difficulty depending on rank) such as the common graps and solutions to it.

3. demonstration of power: puching/kicking/kneeing/judo-throws with dummies. This is a great way to demonsrate "spirit" in a way that is conducive for combat.

Since this is in the grading syllabus it will be trained for - and not as an "extra". From what I see that is what Ian is already doing   and "natural" movement will develop quite quickly - you still need a good instructor who sees faulty movement patterns and has proven ways to correct them.

Bonus of the new syllabus: time to throw out the nonsense elements i.e blocking mae-geri with gedan-barai, age-uke against oi-zuki etc. etc.   And do away with one hand in hikite if their is no reason to it - goddamit

Funnily enough, when I originally wrote: Sticking to set rigid bunkai, may or may not, develop realistic fighting skills depending upon the bunkai being drilled.I had worded it ...can never develop realistic fighting skills.

The reason I reworded it was that it does depend on what you are drilling. We used to endlessly drill 'common scenario' attacks that we would face on the door and it worked a high percentage of the time. Of course, not always, but  we were happy with an increased probability approach.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

Sticking to rigid bunkai will never develop realistic fighting skills regardless of the bunkai being drilled.

I kind of disagree on the basis that all forms of practise are part of the process. If you isolate any single part of the process then it will of course be deficient. However, when it is part of the whole, as it is supposed to be, it will work fine. Set bunkai as a means to learn motion and start to explore underlying concepts can be very useful … so long as the intention is to move on to semi-live (by which I mean there is some freedom of action but restrictions are in place on both parties) and live drills. If we stick there, then I agree with you … but it should be part of the process.

I'll point out that what I didn't like particularly when I commented on the note was the wording of rigid. I still don't think set and rigid drills are very useful. To me even set bunkai is borderline 1st-step sparring which I believe not to be useful at all. It has to be adaptable- as in not rigid. Now to do this, there is a process but I feel that the athlete or student can learn and explore the underlying concepts in the live environment from the start, and in fact this will translate better to the learning objective anyways.  

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

You need to jump into the deep end so to speak, and allow all the various bunkai to come out as they will during live sparring.

I disagree here too. I’m a great believer of kata-based-sparring and if any process lacks live drills then it is deficient and will not develop useable combative skills. It’s the “jump in at the deep end” part of the sentence that I disagree with.

The thing about the “deep end” is that people drown if they have not previously developed some swimming skills. They will first hold on to the side in the shallow end and practice kicking, hold on to floats, swim in the shallow end where they can put their feet down if they need to, etc. They will do none of that when swimming for real, but to skip those steps and head for the deep end with a “sink or swim” approach is most likely to end in “sink”. There needs to be a process.

Throwing people into live drills without a solid understanding of the techniques and tactics to employ in those drills is pretty pointless. Conversely, drilling set and semi-live bunkai gives the student an idea of what to try in the live drills. Putting them into live drills without that understanding is not an efficient or effective way to train in my view.

I totally agree that live drills are vital, but they need to be part of a structured process.

Now just because I'm advocating starting with live drills, doesn't mean there is no process, and it also doesn't mean that there isn't progressive resistance. When we drill live we start off at a light pace, then slowly add more resistance a bit at a time. However throughout this progression, there is no set or rigid sequence to go through. There is no if the opponent does move-A, then I do counter-B, if he punches like-this, then I defend like-that, etc. The idea is more to set a loose framework, and let the student develop their own way of doing things naturally. So an example of this would be to limit the experience to grabbing and hitting. The opponent can do any grab, and/or any hit (closed fist or open hand) in any order as they see fit. The student gets introduced to a defence structure and maybe an option or two for counter-attacking. This is not done as a drill however, it is not a flow pattern. It is a show and tell. The student only gets to repeat (with no resistance) the movement(s) a few times until they can do it. It should take no more than a few seconds up to a minute. Then the live drilling starts. Completely random choices in the moment to develop technique and skill in that environment. The student then gets to play in a live environment without preset responses or attacks, which results in them naturally developing what works best for them. 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

You can't work on a technique to make it 'natural'. It is or it isn't. If you are spending time working on creating something natural- I'd argue that you are just becoming better at an unnatural motion.

I hear this a lot, but again I disagree with it. There is an assumption that people can jump to optimum practise in a single leap. A beginner is simply incapable of delivering any technique in a fluid and highly effective way when they are in the chaos of conflict.

First we need to take away the chaos so they can concentrate on the right body motion. Having done that they are still incapable of performing any technique effectively in a fluid way, so we need to break it down for them in to “bullet points” i.e. this is what your hips do, this is what your feet do, this is where you hands need to be … got that? Good, now move from there to here … and so on. This breaking things down step by step, will result in step by step practise.

Step by step practise involves motions that are not “natural”; so there would be a problem if people mistook this stage for the end of the process (and we do see that). However, step by step practise allows people to learn the key points of a given technique so that they can then “smooth it out” which results in a good flowing technique that contains all the component parts.

Here's the point. a lot of fighting movements are natural. If we take any very young child and give them a target and say hit it as hard as you can- they will be able to hit. They have not been 'trained' how to do it. It is the same as gorilla's aggressive display for territory, or an ape throwing a temper tantrum. They all have various hitting, swinging. and balled fist pounding type motions that are all very natural. For us, this is the same. Now I'm not saying that with training we can make the motion more efficient- we can, and this is important if you want to be able to do it well. The point is that we are starting with a natural motion and augmenting it through proper training and conditioning. What I was getting at before, was I have seen motions in some karate/martial arts that are not natural- at all. They are ridiculous. And to try to force something into a 'natural' motion is a waste of time. We don't have to feel comfortable or look good while performing a motion for it to be natural.

Now I'll contest the whole training for chaos thing, and how you are breaking down a motion. (Please remember this is all in effort to learn from each other, and discuss different points of view. Debates are highly useful- and none of this is intended to devalue anything anyone else is doing. It is difficult to get context while typing- so I am not trying to belittle the training methods of anyone else, or say that anyone should do it the way I am.) So, in the beginning the student can't handle the chaos of the environment. We are talking about making a motion fluid and functional for a chaotic environment. IMO the best way to do this is twofold. First the motion its self. I'll disagree that how you describe to break it down into steps and perform each one separately then put them together is the best way for fluidity. It is great for analyzing the technique and the sequence chain (making sure each muscle group responds to the preceding one and transfers the signal and movement to the next group). What I would do to develop motion, is the motion in its entirety. Fluid motion happens when several things are working together. So let's get them moving first. It doesn't matter how good it is- just that its moving. Take a uppercut or body shot as an example. 1st-get the arm swinging. keep the motion constant and repetitive. Now that the arm/hand is hitting we can look at other areas. Maybe this student needs coaching on using the hip more- but we do it from motion. We don't stop- teach the hip action, then start again trying to add it in. We just keep the motion going in a very relaxed manner and add in little parts slowly one at a time until the totality is reached. The Second part to this is the environment-the chaos. I don't believe that it translates to remove the chaos completely then bring the student back into it with technique. We reduce the chaos to a level we can work with, but there still is movement and energy, and some albeit minor, chaos. At no point is the student standing without motion while learning the technique. Then as they develop competence with the current level of chaos, we add in more slowly a bit at a time until the totality is reached. This way the student gets used to the environment, as they develop their techniques for that environment. 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

If people could practise a technique in the optimum way from day one then they don’t need to train. They can already do it! Assuming they can’t do it, then there needs to be a process that leads them to effective technique.

That technique also has to be further forged in live training. But throwing people in at the deep end will only result in those who can already do it being successful. Again, there needs to be a process that develops that skill.

The key point is this: “Natural technique” is not natural. If it was then we’d all be innately born with it and all training would be unnecessary. I was never taught how to breathe, how to feel hungry, how to feel fear, how to cry, how to laugh, etc. All these things are truly natural. However, even something as seemingly natural as walking needed to be learnt. Babies lie on they backs and wiggle their limbs as they learn to coordinate them, they learn to turn over, they learn to crawl, stagger for a few steps (sometimes using a walker), and eventually they walk “naturally”.

I no longer need to practise wiggling my limbs, I can move around without crawling, I don’t need a walker and I hardly ever fall over when walking these days … but it took time and a process to reach this point. I also never expected my children to walk 'naturally' the moment they were born.

It’s the same with conflict. Things I do very naturally now were not always that way. As Gavin said, “sometimes you need to spend a lot of time working on a specific movement in order to make it 'natural'.”

To use your analogy- walking and crawling are natural movements for us (humans- if they weren't then we'd all be moving much differently with no upright posture at all). We start off not even being able to perform this task however, but at the beginning we start with body wiggling (a type of conditioning) to develop the strength in our structure to attempt more complex tasks. When we are ready though, and get to standing we simply just stand-up. If we fall, we fall. Then we try again or not. Eventually we learn to stand. We did not do any standing drills to get there. Then walking, similar thing. although for balance we begin by holding and standing and holding and movement, progressing to actual walking. I'd argue that holding and walking or standing is more conditioning similar to body wiggling. You're not training walking, your building the strength in the structure to be able to begin to train walking. I agree with the thought, I'm just saying that what we are actually needing time developing isn't the motion to make it natural. It is developing how/when to use the natural motion. Sometimes you need to spend a lot of time working on a movement to make it fluid, or smooth, or functional-but not natural. I still don't think you can force naturalness. But that's why I ended with a redefining of how I was describing it, because I also believe we are arguing the same point with different descriptive language. And it was a point well said by him. Things take time. usually lots of it. 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

let's define 'Natural Movement' as motion or action that is carried out by the receptors in the body firing in the correct kinetic sequence to carry the signal from the brain with the least amount of hindrance from the anatomy and structure of the body.

I’d broadly agree with that definition. Where we may differ is that I feel we need training and a process to get us to the point where such a motion is “natural”. I don’t fee it is innate and hence it needs training to develop.

“Innate Natural” requires no training at all. “Trained Natural” is not innate (otherwise it would be “innate natural”) and requires a structured training process.

Trying to jump steps and begin at the optimum is unrealistic and impractical. This will not develop natural technique. It will result in confusion, injury and poor quality technique because the student will be overwhelmed as they are asked to do things that they are incapable of doing.

Of course they they will be overwhelmed, if they were able to do these things then we wouldn't need to train! As they train they become more competent, and they just go through this stage once. Compare to learning technique separately (student feels awkward learning new motion- more so if they have coordination issues), then again learning to use the technique in a flow drill (learning curve here), then again in semi-live sparring (same learning curve), then finally put into a live sparring situation where again they have to re-learn the use and motion of the technique under pressure which again brings the same feelings of being overwhelmed. Now granted, at each stage the overall feeling is reduced, but there is still a certain amount of stress and relearning going on at each stage because the environment changes from drill to drill. The starting at the end method only has this learning curve of dealing with the feeling of being overwhelmed once, at the beginning where its going to be anyways regardless. If we start with alive training (at a reduced level of pressure and intensity- but with some pressure all the same) then as the student feels comfortable with the technique we increase the pressure. However, from here on out- even if the pressure is increased there is no feeling of being being overwhelmed because they have proven success with the technique under lighter pressures. The game doesn't change-just the level they play at, therefore they don't feel like they have to memorize a few different games or relearn different sets of rules for different avenues of play. 

Now on another note, thank you to all. It is so refreshing to be able to have in-depth conversations such as these, with people who can post and articulate their thoughts with well presented arguments. It really helps get my thoughts in order to have friendly challenge and feedback- as well as get me thinking in new directions. I enjoy so much all of our ideas and thoughts- so THANK YOU.

Iain marvelous job on the forum, and what a good group of people you have attracted to the site through doing what you do with your approach to training, pod casts, books and dvd. Cheers. 

This reply is for Mike:

1.       How important do you feel natural movements are in karate?

Extremely important! Why go against nature! That is the big problem with most traditional martial arts...they sometimes go against natural movements and practice dead patterns without alive energy.  Bruce Lee coined the term "classical mess".  And he is absolutely right.  Due to mass marketing of NHB events now, the world is aware of aliveness in training, and pretty much every school and their grandma addresses grappling, realistic striking, tight defence, and quick/less complicated motions.  The bottom line is you react the way you train...so why not train realistically...against a live un-cooperative opponent....the athletic approach.  So it all boils down to the methodology...no necessarily technique.

2.       Do you feel this is breaking with tradition?

It depends who you talk to! From my experience with the arts (over 30 years), the answer is totally subjective and quite frankly, the answer really shouldn't effect our training objectives anyway.  Whether we incorporate natural movements in karate or not.....it's all about the methodology and the purpose for training.  So lets say you train the traditional chambered punch to learn how to punch.......that's fine...but understand that the chambered punch is simply an exercise to develop attributes: focus, power, shoulder strength, relaxation, and tension, etc.  It shouldn't be relied upon for your punching technique.....as this movement is clearly UNNATURAL.  Then you migrate into more boxer-type punching etc.  This progression though is vital, and again, it's back to methodology.  Training "unnatural" techniques in Karate has it's purpose....and that is....it's an exercise! One might argue, that why do all of these unnatural techniques...why not just cut it out from the curriculum and focus on the natural movements? I've heard counter arguements to this, that these so-called unnatural movements have natural components to them, and are actually natural...like the chambered punch....but then unnatural natural-ness, and natural-unnatural-ness, which one is better? (Bruce Lee used the these terms). Hey, at the end of the day...only you know what works for you!

3.       Is this breaking with kata?

Well, my immediate answer is yes.  But this is assuming that there exists unnatural movement in kata, and I think there is.  You see, we all know that under pressure, kata-like movments or any movement that was practiced in a text-book like fashion in the dojo will get strained and slurred, if not, even cancelled and deleted.  Even if you practiced the somewhat natural movments in the kata....again, you're subjected to that element of strain under pressure.....so it all boils down to methodology.  There has to be some "play time" with all techniques...spar with it...spar with the kata movements.

4.       Is the kata at fault, or is it the way we interpret kata?

Well, i'd have to agree with the later option....it's subject to interpretation.  We can't blame our historical karate ancestors.  They left with us the kata, and in my opinion, it's the photo album of that style at that time.  But with any technique, and an open mind, you use the kata, and modify it's application to match your needs.

Whew! That was a long one....now, i'm off to read the other responses....man, it's nice to have a day off!

Peace!

Chris.

Guys,

Thanks for all the replies. Its really been fun for me to just set back and read the responses. To take this a little further along the  "flow" path or "progression of natural movement" let me ask you the following questions.

1. In light of the above replies, many of which are based on decades of experience, do you feel that karate is as soft of  a fighting art as say, Tai Chi? 

2. By practicing or developing natural movements are we taking our karate to a softer level, (i.e. more yeilding, molding,) of practice than what is normally found?

Thanks!

Mike 

Tai Chi is only "momentarily" soft.  The premise behind it's slowness is the breath development or Kung.  The Chi-Kung development.  If you look at all the applications behind their forms, you'll see it's "hard" applications. Karate, has it's "soft" moments too. In katas that have slow breathing and slow movements that follow fast and hard movements.  If you want to talk about "Style" then sure...karate and tai chi share similar soft/hard, up/down, slow/fast movements.....after all, doesn't all styles have this blend? It's the whole Yin/Yang mix that all styles have.  After a while....style is irrelevant...it's all about movement really.

Chris. 

I am deeply impressed by this thread,. im particular by the comments of Iain and Andrew, their controversial points of view on training methods. And I am impressed by the way such a controversy is expressed, well-tempered and in an objective style. Great!. One can read the fighting experience out of those comments. And nice to find such deep reflections on this matter. Although the question of naturalness seems to be overridden by the reasonableness to strive for natural movements.

A biological definition of naturalness is of no use in my eyes. It´s a bit better to have one from the point of view of an observer. But really important is one that has the practioneer.The feeling to move in a natural way. Putting a partner/enemy into the picture: You become one with him. That´s a cool feeling :) It is difficult to explain. It seems that one can only identify unnatural movents.

Who doesn´t share the experience Antrew reports on. People learn techniques, kata, learn kihon ippon kumite, but when it comes to fighting all got lost. E.g. someone saying above that he never understood what the insdie-outside block is good for (´uchi-uke´in shotokan, ´soto-uke´in most other karate styles). One is confronted with things like these. The technique itself is not (necessarily) self-explanatory. You have to put context, i.e. a partner (in German we said "Feind" = enemy up to the sixties, "Gegner" = opponent up to the eighties and at least from the nineties "Partner". A verbal reflection of  the way from budo to sports karate).

But as Andrew admits: When you want to improve fighting skills you have to use a system, begin slowly, add stuff continuously....perhaps end up at a close to reality situation. This is a great method.  All this has to be done with a partner and perhapsa teacher, since things easily get out of control. But what should you do if no partner is available. In karate you can work on techique, since your motion is quite similar to that in sports-fighting at least. I think all old martial arts make a point here: on posture. The effecective movement without a partner is the same as with a partner. That´s theory. All martial arts or moderns sports have "formal" exercises, a Judoka in my youth kicked 100x or more ashi-barai against a wall, I need to refer to boxing...You can´t do many thing with/on a partner, I think, and can do lots of useful things without  partner.

For me, Andrew´s method is a very important one and advanced one, but there are other reasonable ones as well. The problem is limited time. Thus, it is up to the aim. To can cope with some trouble within a short period of time, Andrew´s offer is quite good. If you give yourself 30 years or so to investigate techniques, your body and your mind within all this, karate is a wonderful way to do (jap. shin gi tai).

On Okinawa traditional karate did not isolate a technique, the classification of techniques is a modern Japanese thing which started in the 30s. A "technique" was perhaps a kata, and this was predominantly partner training! This is the information I got from Mabuni (Empti Hand, 2008?).

I´d like to refer to the ape and learn to walk examples...but now it´s time to greet you,

Harald

I haven't read every response here so apologies if I repeat anything.

The whole purpose of drill (focussed repetition) is to transfer skills from the concious mind to the subconcious mind.  Once that's achieved movements appear and feel 'natural'.  I feel too many modern martial artists look for a more scientific way to do this, but IME repetition - painful and boring though it may be - is the surest way in the long term.

Gary

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for such a thorough post! That clarifies a lot and I think I better understand where you are coming from. The dividing issues seems to be that I see set drills to be a useful part of the overall process, whereas you have no set drills at all in your teaching? I also think that good technique does not come naturally and need to be trained. You seem to think that good technique is instinctive and needs to be “refined” as opposed to taught?

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

Istill don't think set and rigid drills are very useful. To me even set bunkai is borderline 1st-step sparring which I believe not to be useful at all. It has to be adaptable- as in not rigid.

I dislike one-step sparing because the range, timing, mindset and methodology employed have no relevance or relationship to actual conflict. I don’t dislike them because they are set because I think there is a need for set examples as part of the training process. All our set bunkai employs a realistic range, timing, mindset and methodology and hence it is a long way from one-steps. So I guess it depends on the nature of the bunkai being drilled.

I see set drills to be a useful part of the process (as described in the above posts), the problem I have is when set drills are not part of a process and they become the “be all and end all”. There needs to be the progression to the free flowing once the set examples are understood and internalised (and that can happen quickly).

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

Here's the point. A lot of fighting movements are natural. If we take any very young child and give them a target and say hit it as hard as you can- they will be able to hit.

A fundamental difference here. I see good technique as something that needs to be learnt and that most instinctive striking motions are ineffective. They may be able to hit, but that’s a long way from being able to hit effectively.

I’ve never yet came across a beginner who could hit hard (as in “real hard” not what some think of as hard). It’s never been “refining what they naturally have”, but teaching them to do it right.

As an aside, the natural motions untrained humans make when striking are considered by some anthropologists to be akin to “clubbing”. Humans don’t have natural weapons so taking a tight grip on a hard object and smashing the enemy’s head in with it is a good way to go. That’s why we instinctively make fists when stressed (tight grip on the weapon) and why untrained people “windmill” when they strike (clubbing).

This repetitive windmilling / clubbing action is nothing like technically solid striking with the empty hands and has no bearing whatsoever on kicking, elbowing, trapping, locking, throwing, strangling, combative gripping etc. They are all leant skills.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

What I was getting at before, was I have seen motions in some karate/martial arts that are not natural- at all. They are ridiculous. And to try to force something into a 'natural' motion is a waste of time. We don't have to feel comfortable or look good while performing a motion for it to be natural.

I’ve seen such ridiculous motions too. Bad technique is bad technique. Ineffective is ineffective. However, it’s whether something works or not that is the defining issue; not whether it has an instinctive basis or not. The vast majority of effective techniques are not instinctive (natural) but trained.

My lead hand hook is dynamic, explosive, technically very good and has a massive amount of weight behind it (even if I do say so myself … but others have said it too ;-). But is has no “natural” basis. I was not born with it; I had to train to get it. Anyhow, I think we’ve opened this up enough.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

Now to do this, there is a process but I feel that the athlete or student can learn and explore the underlying concepts in the live environment from the start, and in fact this will translate better to the learning objective anyways.

We agree live drills are needed. The difference seems to be that I feel set drills help support those live drills whereas you don’t use set drills at all?

In relation to “athletes” I’m struggling to think of any other physical activity that does not have set drills? Footballers dribble the ball around cones, tennis players isolate practicing their serve, rugby players drill set pieces, etc. Sure they drill live, but set drills are also included too.

For the record, my students drill live from day one, but in a restricted way and in way that support and develop the skills they are leaning from their two-person set drills, pad work drills, etc.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

Compare to learning technique separately (student feels awkward learning new motion- more so if they have coordination issues), then again learning to use the technique in a flow drill (learning curve here), then again in semi-live sparring (same learning curve), then finally put into a live sparring situation where again they have to re-learn the use and motion of the technique under pressure which again brings the same feelings of being overwhelmed.

There is one single learning curve that makes holistic use of the various training methods in a structured gradual progression towards the objective. There are not several separate learning curves.

They are never overwhelmed as the pressure increases as their ability increases. They will be pressured, but never overwhelmed. All activities are relative to their level of skill and experience.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

The starting at the end method only has this learning curve of dealing with the feeling of being overwhelmed once, at the beginning where its going to be anyways regardless. If we start with alive training (at a reduced level of pressure and intensity- but with some pressure all the same) then as the student feels comfortable with the technique we increase the pressure.

Depends what you mean by “the end”. For me that would be the ability to fight full on with no restrictions. If we start there they will get smashed to pieces on their first session. Not just overwhelmed, but also badly injured and probably put off training for the rest of their lives. All they learn is not to learn if training truly begins at the end … but I don’t think you are saying that because while the first sentence said, “starting at the end” then second sentence says something else.

Sparring “at a reduced level of pressure and intensity- but with some pressure all the same” is not the end. For us, that is part of the start along with all the other stuff we do - including set drills for things they are not yet ready to do live - to ensure progress. We have live drills for all grades that progress as they progress (discussed in this podcast:http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/kata-based-sparring-revisited-structure)

Your desire to ensure that when “the student feels comfortable with the technique we increase the pressure” is something we share. Which is why our live drills progress and we have set drills to enable the students to practice techniques and concepts they are not yet ready to drill live.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

It is so refreshing to be able to have in-depth conversations such as these, with people who can post and articulate their thoughts with well presented arguments. It really helps get my thoughts in order to have friendly challenge and feedback

It’s what we do!

Thanks once again.

All the best,

Iain

michael rosenbaum wrote:

1. In light of the above replies, many of which are based on decades of experience, do you feel that karate is as soft of a fighting art as say, Tai Chi? 

2. By practicing or developing natural movements are we taking our karate to a softer level, (i.e. more yielding, moulding,) of practice than what is normally found?

I’m not sure karate can be classified a soft art? But as Funakoshi said:

“Hardness should be contained in softness, and softness should be contained in hardness. In other words, in order to make softness completely soft, hardness is required, and for hardness to become completely hard, softness is needed. Originally hardness and softness were one.” – Gichin Funakoshi, Karate-Do Kyohan.

Softness, yielding, moulding, etc should therefore be just as much a part of karate as the harder elements. Whatever can be used to win should be part of training.

All the best,

Iain

PS Been a really good on this Mike! Thanks for kicking it off.

1 I don't know anything about Tai Chi so cannot comment but from the Karate I have personaly seen,  no its not a soft art and still seems clunky when a kata is performed or the two man drills are applied where its back and forth.

2.  I would not say it is practicing the Karate in a softer fashion that would  cause any issues and would prefer to do more of it alongside the harder aspects of training ,   the softer more accepting side allows you free movement to then apply the harder aspects . I found this with grappling at work that if I gave and took with the other persons body movement it allowed me to put myself in a better more dominent position as I am only 5-8 and not particulary strong. If we did grappling at class I found the same but what is/was missing is the 'this is for real' mental edge adrenlin dump that  adds another dimension to what you are doing and makes you a lot more focussed on achieving it. Again my view is tainted by my job which is the need to dominate and  control when its needed.

I often wonder if I had never done the job I am doing would I hold different views

Harald wrote:

I am deeply impressed by this thread,. im particular by the comments of Iain and Andrew, their controversial points of view on training methods. And I am impressed by the way such a controversy is expressed, well-tempered and in an objective style. 

You can only have a good argument, when both sides of the table are able to debate. It's been fun. 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Thanks for such a thorough post! That clarifies a lot and I think I better understand where you are coming from. The dividing issues seems to be that I see set drills to be a useful part of the overall process, whereas you have no set drills at all in your teaching?

more or less, to use yourself as an example, when you came to Toronto as part the Canadian seminar tour. During one session we were working on the Niahanchi/Tekki bunkai, we must have gone through all of your material on this as it lasted the entire session. At the beginning we were starting to look at the kata and the bunkai for each section of movements, from the beginning- in sequence. We would observe the section and then learn the bunkai, and do some drilling set for that one section of the kata. Then move on to the next bit with much the same format. Once through, and having all the options, we then began more live drilling. This time it was up to the person applying the movements of the kata to decide which option and technique they would use in the moment. With no set parameters as far as technique selection. Any portion of the kata bunkai could be inserted at any time, it did not have to follow the sequence of the kata. It is this portion of the drilling that I would start with, skipping the sequence and the more preset drilling (I also understand that this was a seminar, and we asked for the kata and its breakdown). 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

I also think that good technique does not come naturally and need to be trained. You seem to think that good technique is instinctive and needs to be “refined” as opposed to taught?

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

Istill don't think set and rigid drills are very useful. To me even set bunkai is borderline 1st-step sparring which I believe not to be useful at all. It has to be adaptable- as in not rigid.

I dislike one-step sparing because the range, timing, mindset and methodology employed have no relevance or relationship to actual conflict. I don’t dislike them because they are set because I think there is a need for set examples as part of the training process. All our set bunkai employs a realistic range, timing, mindset and methodology and hence it is a long way from one-steps. So I guess it depends on the nature of the bunkai being drilled.

I might argue that it's the rigidity of the bunkai being drilled which makes in close to step-sparring. I also know that your set drills aren't that rigid, that they are set-up for adaptability, compared to some others (like bunkai where the 'attackers' begin 10 feet away waiting on the cardinal points to 'attack properly', lol).

Iain Abernethy wrote:

I see set drills to be a useful part of the process (as described in the above posts), the problem I have is when set drills are not part of a process and they become the “be all and end all”. There needs to be the progression to the free flowing once the set examples are understood and internalised (and that can happen quickly).

Agreed. 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

Here's the point. A lot of fighting movements are natural. If we take any very young child and give them a target and say hit it as hard as you can- they will be able to hit.

A fundamental difference here. I see good technique as something that needs to be learnt and that most instinctive striking motions are ineffective. They may be able to hit, but that’s a long way from being able to hit effectively.

I’ve never yet came across a beginner who could hit hard (as in “real hard” not what some think of as hard). It’s never been “refining what they naturally have”, but teaching them to do it right.

As an aside, the natural motions untrained humans make when striking are considered by some anthropologists to be akin to “clubbing”. Humans don’t have natural weapons so taking a tight grip on a hard object and smashing the enemy’s head in with it is a good way to go. That’s why we instinctively make fists when stressed (tight grip on the weapon) and why untrained people “windmill” when they strike (clubbing).

This repetitive windmilling / clubbing action is nothing like technically solid striking with the empty hands and has no bearing whatsoever on kicking, elbowing, trapping, locking, throwing, strangling, combative gripping etc. They are all leant skills.

I was advocating that by starting with the motion they have (poor proper hitting, windmill), and using that motion as a base to learn more efficient movement (windmill to overhand to more tight hook or punching), the efficiency will be integrated more quickly naturally. The primary is that it is done through movement, not through robot like start from here and end here, then retract, etc...Instead teaching the sections of the kinetic chain one after the other (from base to leg to hip to core to shoulder to arm to fist) separately, use motion even if its poor and add in the missing parts (more hip, turn like this, core twist, etc). But yes, I am not saying that without training one can do it naturally. 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

What I was getting at before, was I have seen motions in some karate/martial arts that are not natural- at all. They are ridiculous. And to try to force something into a 'natural' motion is a waste of time. We don't have to feel comfortable or look good while performing a motion for it to be natural.

I’ve seen such ridiculous motions too. Bad technique is bad technique. Ineffective is ineffective. However, it’s whether something works or not that is the defining issue; not whether it has an instinctive basis or not. The vast majority of effective techniques are not instinctive (natural) but trained.

Do you think there is merit in trained instinctive techniques? and in comparison, do you think there would be a difference in the result of a highly trained technique depending on wither it started out as instinctive or not. IMO the end result being the same (a highly useful and effective technique), the difference is how quickly we get there through what we do in training. With a lot of what we are both saying, I think our end results are equal, we just presenting different paths and points along the way- which really just makes the whole journey much more interesting. I love when I can feel like a tourist, ooooh- take a look at that technique over there, quick grab the camera that's something to see! (as the tour guide says over the loudspeaker 'and if you look to your left, you can see at this point along the path...'. HA!

Iain Abernethy wrote:

My lead hand hook is dynamic, explosive, technically very good and has a massive amount of weight behind it (even if I do say so myself … but others have said it too ;-). But is has no “natural” basis. I was not born with it; I had to train to get it. Anyhow, I think we’ve opened this up enough.

Yes, I think we have. 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

Now to do this, there is a process but I feel that the athlete or student can learn and explore the underlying concepts in the live environment from the start, and in fact this will translate better to the learning objective anyways.

We agree live drills are needed. The difference seems to be that I feel set drills help support those live drills whereas you don’t use set drills at all?

In relation to “athletes” I’m struggling to think of any other physical activity that does not have set drills? Footballers dribble the ball around cones, tennis players isolate practicing their serve, rugby players drill set pieces, etc. Sure they drill live, but set drills are also included too.

For the record, my students drill live from day one, but in a restricted way and in way that support and develop the skills they are leaning from their two-person set drills, pad work drills, etc.

Sorry, I think that is my fault in using the term 'athletes' . Read it in the context of combat athletics. Athletes = students, practitioners, etc. But as far as a sports analogy, think swimming. Yes, they use drills to get better motion and correct movement deficiencies, but to do it they have to get in the water and jump into the pool. For us, I feel that alive drilling, even at a reduced pressure and intensity is the pool for us. So we jump in to do our drills there. 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

Compare to learning technique separately (student feels awkward learning new motion- more so if they have coordination issues), then again learning to use the technique in a flow drill (learning curve here), then again in semi-live sparring (same learning curve), then finally put into a live sparring situation where again they have to re-learn the use and motion of the technique under pressure which again brings the same feelings of being overwhelmed.

There is one single learning curve that makes holistic use of the various training methods in a structured gradual progression towards the objective. There are not several separate learning curves.

They are never overwhelmed as the pressure increases as their ability increases. They will be pressured, but never overwhelmed. All activities are relative to their level of skill and experience.

Gotcha. Makes sense.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

The starting at the end method only has this learning curve of dealing with the feeling of being overwhelmed once, at the beginning where its going to be anyways regardless. If we start with alive training (at a reduced level of pressure and intensity- but with some pressure all the same) then as the student feels comfortable with the technique we increase the pressure.

Depends what you mean by “the end”. For me that would be the ability to fight full on with no restrictions. If we start there they will get smashed to pieces on their first session. Not just overwhelmed, but also badly injured and probably put off training for the rest of their lives. All they learn is not to learn if training truly begins at the end … but I don’t think you are saying that because while the first sentence said, “starting at the end” then second sentence says something else.

Sparring “at a reduced level of pressure and intensity- but with some pressure all the same” is not the end. For us, that is part of the start along with all the other stuff we do - including set drills for things they are not yet ready to do live - to ensure progress. We have live drills for all grades that progress as they progress (discussed in this podcast:http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/kata-based-sparring-revisited-structure)

Your desire to ensure that when “the student feels comfortable with the technique we increase the pressure” is something we share. Which is why our live drills progress and we have set drills to enable the students to practice techniques and concepts they are not yet ready to drill live.

"the end" was probably referring to the end of the list (of examples), and by extension we are talking about a live free form environment. Even at a reduced level (or greatly reduced level) of pressure and intensity, we are starting where all the other drills lead to as far as environment goes. I think the point was that the student doesn't have the structure of learning in a set drill (environment #1), and then progresses to a live response drill (environment #2). They begin at a very mellow live response drill, and then gradually increase pressure and intensity, so the entire time they are within the same environment.

anyways, on to the rest of the topic now...

michael rosenbaum wrote:

Thanks for all the replies. Its really been fun for me to just set back and read the responses. To take this a little further along the  "flow" path or "progression of natural movement" let me ask you the following questions.

1. In light of the above replies, many of which are based on decades of experience, do you feel that karate is as soft of  a fighting art as say, Tai Chi?

It is arguable that Tai Chi as it is commonly known and referred to is a fighting art at all anymore, because the training methods don't have any actual fighting in them. It's similar to saying do you feel karate is as soft a fighting art as say, Yoga?  I know this is a huge generalization, and there are people I'm sure who practice the slow movements and then try to spar with them a bit, etc. But we are talking generalities here, and looking at the way most of Tai Chi is trained is has come a long way from where it started as a fighting art. 

michael rosenbaum wrote:

2. By practicing or developing natural movements are we taking our karate to a softer level, (i.e. more yeilding, molding,) of practice than what is normally found?

Are you saying that natural movement are inherently 'soft'? Does the motion have to be 'soft' for it to have 'flow'? 

Tai Chi can be dynamic if you speed it up, as Karate can look more smooth if you train it like Tai Chi. Another question, is do you think that Jiu-Jitsu or Judo is a 'soft' art? There is nothing soft feeling about kneeling on someone's throat trying to break their arm, or landing flat on your back from going over someone's shoulder. Take a boxer''s combination on the hand pads, although very smooth and usually with a certain amount of flow too, is it soft?  So we are getting to what defines 'soft'? 

Is yielding, blending, molding, etc taking away from karate at all? I don't think so, but I also am conscious of training it in that manner. We want the ability to redirect force coming at us through techniques of yielding, etc. But we also want to be able to stop-hit, and smash block. To discontinue the force coming at us through damage to it's delivery system. I believe you can have both, and should have both in your training. 

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the clarifications. I feel we are much closer in views than earlier posts lead me to think.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

when you came to Toronto as part the Canadian seminar tour. During one session we were working on the Niahanchi/Tekki bunkai, we must have gone through all of your material on this as it lasted the entire session.

Nope! ;-) I’ve a great deal more for the kata than that … and I regard my own knowledge as being a fraction of what that kata has to offer. Funakoshi spent nine years on it, it was the core of Motobu’s teaching, and Otsuka said that there was “something deep about it” and it “would take more than a life time to master.” I don’t feel that kata can be covered in single session.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

At the beginning we were starting to look at the kata and the bunkai for each section of movements, from the beginning- in sequence. We would observe the section and then learn the bunkai, and do some drilling set for that one section of the kata. Then move on to the next bit with much the same format. Once through, and having all the options, we then began more live drilling. This time it was up to the person applying the movements of the kata to decide which option and technique they would use in the moment. With no set parameters as far as technique selection. Any portion of the kata bunkai could be inserted at any time, it did not have to follow the sequence of the kata. It is this portion of the drilling that I would start with, skipping the sequence and the more preset drilling (I also understand that this was a seminar, and we asked for the kata and its breakdown).

What we covered was part of the drill shown on the Beyond Bunkai DVD. You see how quickly we can get it live (it can take minutes), but I would still isolate sections to ensure the technique is understood before putting it in the semi-live drill. We have a difference in teaching methods.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

Sorry, I think that is my fault in using the term 'athletes' . Read it in the context of combat athletics. Athletes = students, practitioners, etc. But as far as a sports analogy, think swimming. Yes, they use drills to get better motion and correct movement deficiencies, but to do it they have to get in the water and jump into the pool.

I used swimming as an analogy earlier on:

Iain Abernethy wrote:

The thing about the “deep end” is that people drown if they have not previously developed some swimming skills. They will first hold on to the side in the shallow end and practice kicking, hold on to floats, swim in the shallow end where they can put their feet down if they need to, etc.

As you say, swimmers do use set drills to “get better motion and correct movement deficiencies” and that’s exactly what I am saying martial artists should do too. The swimmer’s set drills are in the pool (shallow end and they may be holding on to the side), and the martial artist’s set drills need to be put them in the environment too (i.e. have the right combative feel, but still not in "open water") … but they are still set drills.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

I think the point was that the student doesn't have the structure of learning in a set drill (environment #1), and then progresses to a live response drill (environment #2).

It should be the exact same environment if the set drills are structured correctly. We agree that there needs to be a progression in intensity; I see set drills as part of the progression. All part of the one learning curve and the difference would seem to be I start one step further down that you do. As is often the case here, I also think we may see and define “set drills” a little differently. You said earlier:

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

I might argue that it's the rigidity of the bunkai being drilled which makes in close to step-sparring.

Bunkai drills should never be anything like one-step sparring.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

I also know that your set drills aren't that rigid, that they are set-up for adaptability, compared to some others (like bunkai where the 'attackers' begin 10 feet away waiting on the cardinal points to 'attack properly', lol).

Exactly. As I say, the set drills we do are part of the process. They are “snap shots of conflict” and hence the lessons learnt move easily into live drills. The contrast with one-step is that is their set nature that makes them “work”. They have no relevance to reality and if you take away the set nature, even a little bit, they fall apart and can’t go anywhere.

We agree that resistance should increase. I feel we are better starting with “no resistance” (i.e. a set drill) before moving onto “a little resistance”. From what I understand you are saying you prefer to start with “a little resistance”? If that’s the case then our start points are not that far apart.

In your original post it was the use of lines like “You need to jump into the deep end so to speak, and allow all the various bunkai to come out as they will during live sparring” that made me think you were suggesting no gradual development and no process. You following posts have made it much clearer to me what you mean and I don’t think we are that far apart.

Thanks once again for this.

All the best,

Iain