During the past 20 years, there would
appear to be a greater acceptance for the study of kata within the
M.A. Community, The majority of that “study” (IMO) has been
limited to interpreting those motions to (only) revolve around the
most obvious (if not simplistic) interpretations of/for those
motions. The objective of those interpretations is evidently to
justify the interpretations that already exist (rather
than being an attempt to expand that understanding).
I am inclined to view kata as providing
examples of/for application principles (rather than being only
examples of technique applications). I can understand why some
instructor's would “Poo-Poo” the practice of kata (if the only
purpose of the kata, would be for the exampling of “techniques”).
That belief makes no sense.
Without the understanding of the principles
for how and why a technique can/will work, those motions are
limited to singular applications.
When Oyata lectured at seminars, or
during his classes, those lectures were provided in regards to
various application principles. The (individual) “techniques”
that he utilized (to illustrate those principles) were not the intent
of those lectures. Oyata wasn't concerned if the attendees learned
those applications, the goal was to demonstrate a “principle”
(that could be utilized in/for multiple applications).
There are a vast number of Kata that
are commonly taught within the martial art's community. Many of those
kata repeat various motions (between them). If those motions
were intended to represent specific techniques, what would be
the purpose for their being repeated? (amongst those different
kata). It makes greater sense (IMO), that they would represent the
application of principles in varying circumstances.
If you take any specific motion, you
can (on average) only come up with a limited number of ways that the
motion can be utilized (whether alone, or in combination with
additional actions). The kata that Oyata included in his system of
instruction included those (popular) kata that he believed provided
the most common of those uses. Once the principle of that use
was understood, he saw no reason that it be (further) repeated. Oyata
did develop separate exercises (that could easily be
considered to be “kata” in their own right), but those were
developed for his student's (further) understanding for the expanded
use/application of those motions.
Having “knowledge of/for” a large
number of techniques (for responding to a number of specific
situations) is all well and fine, but it will not make you a
“well-rounded” practitioner. The well-rounded practitioner
can/will be able to respond to any aggressive action attempted
against them. That ability is achieved by the student understanding
the application of the defensive principles that are utilized
in their practiced actions.(regardless of the “system” that they
are practicing). By understanding those principles, one is able to
make any motion/action be/become used as a defensive action or
application.
No comments:
Post a Comment