# Forms: A total fighting system?



## kidswarrior (Jun 28, 2007)

Do you believe a form or group of forms can contain a complete fighting system?


----------



## exile (Jun 28, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Do you believe a form or group of forms can contain a complete fighting system?



Historically, that's exactly what the forms were. Both Iain Abernethy and Bill Burgar point out that in Okinawa at the turn of the century, individual kata were not considered to be `part' of the fighting system but the actual `style'. I'm not fond of quoting myself, seems a bit arrogant, but since I wrote something a while back that expresses exactly what I want to say on this topic, I hope the following passage isn't taken that way. In the original Okinawan setting where Matsumura, Itosu, Azato and other karate pioneers got their skills, the only way any techniques were transmitted was by the kata themselves. The kihon line drills through which virtually everyone in the West who learned MAs in the current era was taughtthe bread and butter of dojo/dojang/studio teaching methods everywherewere unknown. From all available accounts, including his own autobiography, Funakoshi's training for the first decade with Itosu consisted solely of practicing the Naihanchi kata set and working out their bunkai (even though Motobu didn't think much of Funakoshi's analysis and suspected that Itosu had withheld the most effective applications from him; but then again, Motobu seems to have loathed GF personally); where else would he have learned his techs from except Naihanchi?that's all he had to work with! And as Abernethy notes, Motobu wrote in Okinawa Kenpo Karate-jutsu that `the Naihanchi, Passai, Chinto and Rohai styles are not left in China today and only remain in Okinawa as active martial arts'. That comment makes it pretty clear that these kata were not regarded as `parts' of a martial art, add-ons so to speak, but were thought of as complete stand-alone fighting systems on their own. In a way, `karate' originally corresonded to a general description (in much the same way that the generic term kung fu covers an enormous variety of specific CMAs regarded by their practitioners as quite different from each other) comprising the various kata, each of which was a style unto itself.  And as Burgar points out in his book, 


_the fact is that before circa 1880 it was the norm for karateka to know a small number of kata. We also know that each master of karate was capable of defending himself. Therefore his one, two or three kata contained all of the knowledge that he would have needed to achieve that goal. This means that each kata (or small group of kata) was a `style' in its own right.' _

(p. 29). Motobu also mentions in the same 1926 book that `a master usually only had one kata in his style'. 

So it seems to me that kata, and forms in general, have to be seen as constituting fighting systems on their own; the question is, do karate kata constitute a _complete_ fighting system? And what makes a system _complete_. I've seen it argued, over and over again, that there are no complete fighting systems (karate/TKD/TSD is weak on groundwork, aikido is weak on strikes, this or that style is hopeless at this or that fighting range...), but while I think that you need to _train_ against attacks designed to take you to the ground, or that use empty hand techs that your system doesn't, I don't think that every MA has to contain the whole kitchen sink to be complete. A complete system has to provide you with ways to deal with attacks and ranges even if that system doesn't use such attacks itself, or train you to stay in those ranges (as vs. giving you the goods to get out of those ranges and back to familiar territory, which a complete system definitely has to). 

So with karate, Abernethy and other bunkai-jutsu practitioners have shown, in great detail, how you can use karate in the ground gamenot to `win' in the ground game, but to get _off_ the ground that your untrained, but violent and dangerous attacker has taken you to, before he does. Abernethy's detailed book _Grappling for Strikers_ does exactly this, and there's an increasing literature on how traditional karate-based techs (including those of the karate-based KMAs) can help you keep the fight at the stand-up CQ range that karate was designed for. 

So that's why I checked the top option in the poll choices...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 28, 2007)

Yes, but forms PRACTICE alone is not enough.

You learn the curriculum of your art thru the medium of forms, but you still have to practice your basic techs, hit the heavy bag to develop power and conditioning, and dissect the forms and practice the useage on a real partner.  In addition, you need to do some kind of drills that develop spontaneous useage and reaction.  If all you do is practice forms, and never do anything else, you are missing some important parts of your training.  But if you practice your forms, you are practicing and reviewing the "textbook" of your art.  But the texbook alone won't teach you to use your skills and knowledge effectively and spontaneously.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 28, 2007)

exile said:


> So it seems to me that kata, and forms in general, have to be seen as constituting fighting systems on their own; the question is, do karate kata constitute a _complete_ fighting system? And what makes a system _complete_.


Should have known you'd be the one to ferret out the central issue. 


> I've seen it argued, over and over again, that there are no complete fighting systems (karate/TKD/TSD is weak on groundwork, aikido is weak on strikes, this or that style is hopeless at this or that fighting range...), but while I think that you need to _train_ against attacks designed to take you to the ground, or that use empty hand techs that your system doesn't, I don't think that every MA has to contain the whole kitchen sink to be complete. A complete system has to provide you with ways to deal with attacks and ranges even if that system doesn't use such attacks itself, or train you to stay in those ranges (as vs. giving you the goods to get out of those ranges and back to familiar territory, which a complete system definitely has to).
> 
> So with karate, Abernethy and other bunkai-jutsu practitioners have shown, in great detail, how you can use karate in the ground gamenot to `win' in the ground game, but to get _off_ the ground that your untrained, but violent and dangerous attacker has taken you to, before he does.


I believe this is a critical, and usually overlooked part of the oft-argued point about what is 'weak' or lacking in certain styles.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 28, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, but forms PRACTICE alone is not enough.


I agree Michael, in the sense that forms practice in the West usually means going through the motion of the form, solo, 'in the air'. And I think this is maybe what you're saying in the next part:



> You still have to... dissect the forms and practice the useage on a real partner.  In addition, you need to do some kind of drills that develop spontaneous useage and reaction.


I know I took some liberties with your quote :uhyeah: but am hoping it's OK, since I'm attempting to reinforce your point.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 28, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> I agree Michael, in the sense that forms practice in the West usually means going through the motion of the form, solo, 'in the air'. And I think this is maybe what you're saying in the next part:
> 
> I know I took some liberties with your quote :uhyeah: but am hoping it's OK, since I'm attempting to reinforce your point.


 

yup, and yup again.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 28, 2007)

I certainly believe that the forms of a style ipso facto define the whole of the style.

It can't be any other way if you think about it.  What I feel tends to missed by those that dismiss 'kata' derisively is that part and parcel of the form is the bunkai and sparring applications that go with it.  If you don't know the bunkai then many movements will seem senseless or utterly unnecessary because you've only got half of the picture.  If you don't do the sparring then you don't see how certain things sharpen and adapt when used against a moving and resisting opponent.

The forms educate you as to how a 'perfect' technique is performed.  I always term them as the 'toolbox'.  The bunkai tells you how that technique fits into a combative situation - the 'manual' for the tools if you will.  Applications in the context of sparring teach you how the tools and manual go together in a fluid situation - like a tradesmans apprenticeship after college.

You learn how to recognise the tools and how to use them.  You then begin to appreciate what the tools can be used for and finally you start to put it all together to create the style.

If you refuse to see that fluidity you end up with a false impression like the OP of the recent "Blocking" thread because you see a handful of pieces rather than the puzzle picture they actually go towards building up.

I trully believe that that is the major cause of the myriad "What if?" monkeys that invade dojo's on a regular basis.


----------



## exile (Jun 28, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, but forms PRACTICE alone is not enough.
> 
> You learn the curriculum of your art thru the medium of forms, but you still have to practice your basic techs, hit the heavy bag to develop power and conditioning, and dissect the forms and practice the useage on a real partner.  In addition, you need to do some kind of drills that develop spontaneous useage and reaction.  If all you do is practice forms, and never do anything else, you are missing some important parts of your training.  But if you practice your forms, you are practicing and reviewing the "textbook" of your art.  But the texbook alone won't teach you to use your skills and knowledge effectively and spontaneously.



This is exactly right and the textbook/practice dichotomy contains the secret of the answer to those people who insist that kata has nothing to do with the `martial' content of the MA. I think of it along the lines of learning a branch of physics:  you can read the `text' part of any given chapter without doing the many exercises at the end of the chapter. But you aren't going to be able to answer a simple question about what is the value of what, given some description of a physical situation, unless you do those problems. Knowing _about_ physics, or math, or geology, or whatever, which just reading the text can lead to, isn't the same as actually _knowing_ physics, math, etc. The latter is a lot harder and takes a lot more work. And that's true for every branch of knowledge under the sun. Learning the kata is like learning the basic mathematical relationships in some branch of science; _training_ the kata&#8212;applying the bunkai that you've worked out for the forms to the problems posed a noncompliant training partner simulating a realistic physical attack on you&#8212;is like doing the often hellishly difficult problem-solving that leaves you, in the end, really understanding just how those mathematical relationships play out in real physical situations.

No one ever got an engineering job just because they knew how to take a first derivative. And no one ever really learned a TMA just because they learned how to perform a number of kata. There's a dry-cleaning place near our house that has one of those marquees on which they post wise/witty saying, you know the kind I mean; but whoever owns that place has better taste in wise/witty sayings than most such businesses. The one he currently has up is, `Nothing works unless you DO it.' And really that says pretty much everything about the role of forms: you have to take the techs they embody and DO them&#8212;practice them under unpleasantly realistic circumstances, hundreds or thousands of times. Combat Hapkido doesn't have forms, but they do have drills, and it's the same story: you have to drill, drill, drill, no matter how well you understand just how the biomechanics of the moves work. If people thought of a form as just a set of _drills_, drills which have been `chunked' into a single long sequence as a mnemonic convenience, then their view of how such forms could themselves amount to a MA on their own, and what you have to do with the form in order to get martial benefit from it, would probably be a lot more practical&#8212;and a lot more in line with the intent of the original masters of the art who constructed the forms....

I wrote the above and when I got back to the thread, Mark had posted this:



Sukerkin said:


> I certainly believe that the forms of a style ipso facto define the whole of the style.
> 
> It can't be any other way if you think about it.  What I feel tends to missed by those that dismiss 'kata' derisively is that part and parcel of the form is the bunkai and sparring applications that go with it.  If you don't know the bunkai then many movements will seem senseless or utterly unnecessary because you've only got half of the picture.  If you don't do the sparring then you don't see how certain things sharpen and adapt when used against a moving and resisting opponent.
> 
> ...



This is, in somewhat different words (but not all that different, now I think of it) , exactly what I'm saying here and what FC was getting at, I'm quite certain, in what I cited above from him.... and what Kidswarrior was getting at when wrote that 



			
				kidswarrior said:
			
		

> forms practice in the West usually means going through the motion of the form, solo, 'in the air'.



Burgar, Abernethy and numerous other karateka (and progressive TKDists of that school) complain very insistently about just this point&#8212;the emphasis on `performing', rather than analyzing the kata to determine its applications and then practicing those applications in a tough-minded way, with partners who aren't going to just go along with you to make you feel competent....


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 28, 2007)

exile said:


> So with karate, Abernethy and other bunkai-jutsu practitioners have shown, in great detail, how you can use karate in the ground game&#8212;not to `win' in the ground game, but to get _off_ the ground that your untrained, but violent and dangerous attacker has taken you to, before he does. Abernethy's detailed book _Grappling for Strikers_ does exactly this....



In addition to *Exile*'s extensive explanation and resources, wanted to mention Abernethy's short book, _Arm-Locks for All Styles_, as another venue in which he puts side-by-side photos of a 'pretty' form done in the air to perfection, with photos of the same basic movement used in a 'messy' application on an 'opponent'. It's been very enlightening to me, helping me get out of the form-as-ideal mode, and opening up the form-as-fighting-system way of thinking.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 28, 2007)

That sounds like an interesting read, *Kds*.

Am I interpreting you correctly in that the central tenet of it is that the form does not change when applied in a fight?

If so, despite the fact that above I said that the kata is the form executed perfectly whilst in application the form adapts, I think I do agree.  Because of the mobile and changing nature of sparring, it might seem that the forms are being adapted to circumstances but the actual basic techniques *are* the same.

My sensei has actual talked about this sort of thing recently in relation to karate wherein he was pointing out that the 'technique' is not executed until just prior to contact.  So the path you choose to get to that point of execution is largely irrelevant.  Like we said in the "Blocking" thread, blocks don't start with your fist down at you hip as you do in basic kata i.e. the technique of the block comes into play as you execute the contact.

Oops, the missus is calling me to dinner ... best go as, even with my swords on hand, I'm not certain of victory if I raise her ire by wasting her cooking  :lol:!


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 28, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> ...side-by-side photos of a 'pretty' form done in the air to perfection, with photos of the same basic movement used in a 'messy' application on an 'opponent'. It's been very enlightening to me, helping me get out of the form-as-ideal mode, and opening up the form-as-fighting-system way of thinking.


 
Interesting comment.  

My wife is training kenpo alongside with me, and I have been trying to help her with this.  She has only been training kenpo since about January, is a yellow belt and will probably test for orange within the next couple weeks or so.

The kenpo curriculum centers around a series of self defense techniques, sort of pre-set responses to specific types of attacks.  Many of these techs are also found within our kata, but the techs themselves can sort of be viewed as Mini-kata.

So she has a list of these techs already that we work on, and I let her practice on me to get them right.  But of course this is the ideal phase/stage of the tech.  So recently I've begun working with her to develop a more spontaneous response.

I have her stand facing away from me.  I will attack in some un-announced and random way, bearhug, armlock, grabs, pulls, pushes, chokes, etc., and see how well she can use her techs.  Sometimes I tell her to turn around and face me, and I launch an attack from the front, a punch or kick or grab or push from the front.  It's not "street intensity", but it's a step in the direction in learning to simply respond effectively to something unexpected and unknown.

I tell her that ideally I would like her to use the techs as taught, but really what is important is that she simply defend herself.  If she blanks on her techs, then just DO SOMETHING TO DEFEND YOURSELF!  I don't care what it is, just something that makes sense.

At one point, after she successfully worked a defense against me, she commented, "hey, that was really sort of like 'XYZ" tech!"  Yup.  It wasn't pretty like it's taught, it was only a piece of it, mixed with other stuff, but it really was that tech and it worked.

The form teaches the material in the ideal.  It cannot address all variations or circumstances, or it would never end.  But it gives you that base to work from.  But you still need to be able to adapt it.  And it is usually messy and ugly, as fighting really is.


----------



## exile (Jun 28, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> ...wanted to mention Abernethy's short book, _Arm-Locks for All Styles_, as another venue in which he puts side-by-side photos of a 'pretty' form done in the air to perfection, with photos of the same basic movement used in a 'messy' application on an 'opponent'. It's been very enlightening to me, helping me get out of the form-as-ideal mode, and opening up the form-as-fighting-system way of thinking.



Good point, Mark, I think I ran across a reference to this book somewhere, but it went right out of my head again, for some reason. Thanks for mentioning that source (groan, something else I gotta buy... :uhohh

Abernethy is particularly good at explaining this stuff very sensibly and straightforwardly, with a minimum of mystification or invocation of questionable `hidden moves', and always with a good understanding of the historical background to the technical content he presents.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 28, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Interesting comment.
> 
> My wife is training kenpo alongside with me, and I have been trying to help her with this.  She has only been training kenpo since about January, is a yellow belt and will probably test for orange within the next couple weeks or so.
> 
> ...



This is _exactly _what Abernethy illustrates, Michael. Seen side by side, even a dimwit like me can't miss the implications and possibilities. It's just a collection of photos (with explanation) that point to messy applications taken in bits and pieces from precise solo forms such as the exercises you're providing for your wife (wish someone had done that for me at orange belt! You'd think some of my BB instructors would've thought of it--but I doubt many have done so even yet). You're way ahead of my learning curve. :ultracool


----------



## arnisador (Jun 28, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, but forms PRACTICE alone is not enough.



Yes, my thoughts exactly.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 28, 2007)

exile said:


> Good point, Mark, I think I ran across a reference to this book somewhere, but it went right out of my head again, for some reason. Thanks for mentioning that source (groan, something else I gotta buy... :uhohh


Well, don't want you tapering off and letting Amazon.com languish...:lfao:



> Abernethy is particularly good at explaining this stuff very sensibly and straightforwardly, with a minimum of mystification or invocation of questionable `hidden moves', and always with a good understanding of the historical background to the technical content he presents.


True, but I mostly just look at the pictures, then color in the margins (it's true, my wife'll gladly tell ya')


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 28, 2007)

arnisador said:


> Yes, my thoughts exactly.


 

good to see you around once in a while, sir.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 28, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> ...such as the exercises you're providing for your wife (wish someone had done that for me at orange belt! You'd think some of my BB instructors would've thought of it--but I doubt many have done so even yet). You're way ahead of my learning curve. :ultracool


 

One of my favorite things she did was a defense against a bearhug from behind, arms pinned.  She knows one defense for that, and I came up behind and grabbed her.  She spaced out on the defense she knows, but whipped out something else off the cuff.  She sort of apologized for doing something "wrong" (she's still getting used to the idea of being spontaneous and sometimes forgets that it's never "wrong" as long as it's effective).  The thing is, what she did was very very similar to another of our bearhug defenses, that she hasn't learned yet.  I thought it was pretty funny that she apparently has grasped some basic ideas and it just flowed out of her automatically, even tho she hadn't "learned" that one yet.  brilliant!


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 28, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> ...(wish someone had done that for me at orange belt! You'd think some of my BB instructors would've thought of it--but I doubt many have done so even yet). You're way ahead of my learning curve. :ultracool


 
Actually, this is a drill that I remember from my first kenpo teacher from almost 23 years ago, when I was all of 13 years old.  He had another student in the next town over who was teaching his own students.  My teacher had visited that school, and apparently they had not been doing this kind of drill.  He expressed that he felt our progress was noticably better than the students at the other school.  When he tried this with them, they had a lot of difficulty with it, even those with comparable training time as we had.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 28, 2007)

I can't answer the poll question...  

There are different types of forms.  Some forms are purely demonstrations; they should embody solid principles of a style, but they're done for show, not to teach.  Kind of like precision rifle drill like the USMC Silent Drill Team does; you ain't gonna toss rifles around in combat!  Other forms are catalogs of proven approaches and solutions to particular combat problems.  These forms do contain the system -- but whether one single form contains an entire system depends a lot on the system.  

And, then, there are the ones that are just plain silly like lots of what shows up in XMA events...


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 28, 2007)

"Forms: A total fighting system?"  I would certainly like to think so.  The style of bagua that I have been taught has an interesting approach to this.  There are linear forms which anyone would recognise as a form, kata, what have you, but there is also walking the circle.  

Circle walking has forms and palm changes all of its own.  These are aimed at teaching the essential movement principles of bagua.  I think this is because the movement principles of bagua are so complex that they need to be focused on.

Therefore I have linear forms that emphasise offensive and defensive techniques and circle walking which emphasises the fundamental principles of bagua movement.  

As a result I have about half a dozen forms that encompass the entirety of the unarmed aspect of my art, but they are disjoint.  So, as Flying Crane has pointed out study of them alone will not garner the understanding of bagua that is essential.  They must be examined, combined, pulled apart, and absorbed.  A technique done in the form is very different once the bagua movement principles are applied to it.

Is this all a way of hiding the valuable information?  Probably, but other styles of bagua don't do things this way.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2007)

Such erudite posts! Bit worried about adding my tuppence worth now lol!
When I did Wado Ryu I was told that katas are aide memoires, they were practised along with the Bunkai so you knew and understood the moves. In Wado we had kihons to learn as well.
 The MMA fighters I train with in our adults class scoff at katas, they see me teaching the children in the lesson before the adults one. They think that you are supposed to fight someone using the whole kata and quite rightly think that's stupid. When I explain it's a training aide and that I could reasonably easily make one up for MMA ( I did try, it's not too bad actually!) they begin to see a point in it. When the boxing coach is teaching beginners he'll have them in a row, in a fighting stance repeating many times jab, cross, uppercut,hook, well, what's that if not a very, very basic kata? it contains the movements a boxer needs, the coach will break each punch down and explain it's uses.Each punch will be used separately and in different combinations. You could chuck a bob and weave in there too! A bit simplistic I know but it explains it to the guys!

I used MMA moves the guys could see easily but I know in Ian Abernethy's stuff there is a large amount of stuff they would recognise and could use.
I was also told that when the katas were first used the Bunkai were well known.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 28, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> I certainly believe that the forms of a style ipso facto define the whole of the style.
> 
> It can't be any other way if you think about it.  What I feel tends to missed by those that dismiss 'kata' derisively is that part and parcel of the form is the bunkai and sparring applications that go with it.  If you don't know the bunkai then many movements will seem senseless or utterly unnecessary because you've only got half of the picture.  If you don't do the sparring then you don't see how certain things sharpen and adapt when used against a moving and resisting opponent.
> 
> ...


This is an excellent post, *Sukerkin*, and while I wanted to respond to it earlier, had classes to teach (hate it when the actual practice of the arts gets in the way of MT time :lol.

Not to keep promoting Abernethy, but as Exile has said so much better than I, he (along with others) does have a way with forms and bunkai. And in the case of your post and the metaphor of using your entire toolbox to put together the whole puzzle, IA says much the same thing, I think, in his _Introduction to Applied Karate_. He points out four stages of kata practice: 1) *Practice without a partner* (and I believe, this is as far as many practitioners go; it's certainly all I was taught in more than one art!). 2) *Practice applying the techniques with a partner* (he specifies the attacks should be simple, close-range, and not dependent on the attacker's movements being prearranged)--still, I take it he means very slow motion/little resistance. 3) *Inclusion of variations*. He quotes Hironori Otsuka (Wado-Ryu Karate) thus: 'It is important to alter the form of the trained kata without hesitation to produce countless forms of training.' IA interprets this as HO telling us to vary the applications or risk becoming stuck. 4) *Practice applying the techniques, variations and principles of the kata in live practice* (he clarifies this as live 'any-range' sparring. He concludes by tying it all together: Live sparring and solo performance (his stages 1 and 4) may look very different but are identical at their core.

Anyway, a long-winded way of saying, I believe that you, Mark, and Abernethy are on the same page. :asian:

And *Flying Crane*, it seems to me you are providing your wife with numbers 2-4 simultaneously. Also worthy of :asian:


----------



## bluemtn (Jun 28, 2007)

I think forms have a lot of what is essential in an art/ fighting system, if you look closely and practice the applications.  I've been told (and shown) where there are sweeps, takedowns, etc. in just the one's I do.  However, I don't think just doing forms is enough.  You have to look at what the applications of the moves are, and practice them.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 28, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Such erudite posts! Bit worried about adding my tuppence worth now lol!


Bite your tongue! (Oh, never mind, forgot about your sparring accident ). Really, tho, you apologize and then come up with a great post. :ultracool



> The MMA fighters I train with in our adults class scoff at katas,


I can relate, being an old boxer myself. When I first saw katas I thought they were pretty stupid (actually, with the explanations I was given, they were!). 



> When I explain it's a training aide and that I could reasonably easily make one up for MMA ( I did try, it's not too bad actually!) they begin to see a point in it. When the boxing coach is teaching beginners he'll have them in a row, in a fighting stance repeating many times jab, cross, uppercut,hook, well, what's that if not a very, very basic kata? it contains the movements a boxer needs, the coach will break each punch down and explain it's uses.Each punch will be used separately and in different combinations. You could chuck a bob and weave in there too! A bit simplistic I know but it explains it to the guys!


Seems very sound to me. I'm picturing a really nice form of your design.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 28, 2007)

tkdgirl said:


> I think forms have a lot of what is essential in an art/ fighting system, if you look closely and practice the applications. I've been told (and shown) where there are sweeps, takedowns, etc. in just the one's I do. However, I don't think just doing forms is enough. You have to look at what the applications of the moves are, and practice them.


 
Those low techniques like sweeps, takedowns, and low kicks are often hidden or disguised.  In all the forms I know there are places where a foot is raised off the ground.  It could easily be interpreted as a defence against a sweep or low kick, but they are actually indicators of low kicks, often performed simultaneously with hand techniques.



kidswarrior said:


> I can relate, being an old boxer myself. When I first saw katas I thought they were pretty stupid (actually, with the explanations I was given, they were!).


 
I know whereof you speak.  So often the explanations for elements of forms are incrediblely strange, and usually based on a complete lack of understanding of the form.  I think this contributes greatly to the perception that forms, and by extension any art with them, are of no value.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 28, 2007)

I have a feeling that Exile has already said everything I was going to say (he seems to have that habit). So, I'll post this instead (it's a Cuong Nhu concept). This is called dimension theory, it is not really a formalized concept, more of a mental attitude. For the sake of discussion I have written it more... well... more 2D (pun intended)
0.5 Dimension - What is on the surface is all there is, and unless it's practiced in context, it is completely useless.
1st Dimension - What is on the surface is all there is
2nd Dimension - A strike can be a differnit strike, a take down/throw can be a lock
3rd Dimension - A strike with one part of the body can be a strike with anouther
4th Dimension - A strike can be a lock, a lock can be a strike
5th Dimension - A weapon strike can be a weapon lock
6th Dimension - A weapon strike can be a disarmed strike
7th Dimension - One technique can a be new technique, atleast to the style

Keep in mind this is MY formalization of the concept. The Cuong Nhu manuel does not mention dimension theory. It is an unwritten, unformalized, concept which is all that the style is made of. Ultimately this is what makes Cuong Nhu differnet from the ancestor styles, yet they include it, in their own ways.
Getting back to dimension theory. It is only really mentioned when a student is coming up with applications to forms/drills. And is really just, "don't think in 1 dimension, think in three. Look for what is there, but not on the surface". This makes one think of the line "still waters run deep". It is meant as an informal way of makeing the Cuong Nhu student look for what is deeper then just the surface. 
Stop me if i'm not makeing any sense. And I can't stress enough, this is an *INFORMAL* concept which *I *made more structured for the sake of discussion. If you find a problem with the concept, take it out on *ME* not the style.


----------



## Carol (Jun 28, 2007)

I can't say I'm particularly fond of forms training.

Here's an example...my instructor was walking me through a long form in a private lesson. and he wanted to focus on areas in the middle where I was stumbling.  So he said, "OK, lets start at the strike to the solar plexus."

So I did, making the motion of a punch to the solar plexus in the air.

He chuckled and said "No, not MY solar plexus."

Meaning, my strike was too high.  He was 5' 11".  I'm 5' 2".  I made a strike as if the person was roughly 6 feet tall.   He wanted me to practice my form in the air as if the other person I was fighting was exactly my size.

I understand why that is done, and I agree with why this is done...but _emphasizing_ doing forms in the air against targets that are my height just isn't my cup of tea.

There may very well be something I'm missing and not getting.  So...if I'm not seeing the big picture, feel free to say so.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 28, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> I can't say I'm particularly fond of forms training.
> 
> Here's an example...my instructor was walking me through a long form in a private lesson. and he wanted to focus on areas in the middle where I was stumbling. So he said, "OK, lets start at the strike to the solar plexus."
> 
> ...


 
I can definitely see how things like this might make you a bit leery on forms, but I can also see where your instructor was coming from.  

A form requires the movements to be performed precisely.  So, from your example, a punch to the solar plexus is a straight punch to a mid range target.  By striking at a target some 9" higher you are changing the motion of the strike.  It may feel the same but muscles and balance will be operating in a different way.  Forms are about precision in technique.

Now take the punch to solar plexus of a 5' 2" person and apply it to a 6' 0" person.  By doing the straight punch you maintain the power, balance, and precision of the attack.  The height of your opponent changes the target area, in this case 9" - 10" lower, somewhere around the navel.  You have maintained the integrity of the attack and the result is a powerful abdomen strike which could wind (as a solar plexus strike) and double over an opponent (which a solar plexus strike would not necessarily do).

I think my point is that forms teach precision which then needs to be interpreted for varying situations.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 28, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Such erudite posts! Bit worried about adding my tuppence worth now lol!
> When I did Wado Ryu I was told that katas are aide memoires, they were practised along with the Bunkai so you knew and understood the moves. In Wado we had kihons to learn as well.
> The MMA fighters I train with in our adults class scoff at katas, they see me teaching the children in the lesson before the adults one. They think that you are supposed to fight someone using the whole kata and quite rightly think that's stupid. When I explain it's a training aide and that I could reasonably easily make one up for MMA ( I did try, it's not too bad actually!) they begin to see a point in it. When the boxing coach is teaching beginners he'll have them in a row, in a fighting stance repeating many times jab, cross, uppercut,hook, well, what's that if not a very, very basic kata? it contains the movements a boxer needs, the coach will break each punch down and explain it's uses.Each punch will be used separately and in different combinations. You could chuck a bob and weave in there too! A bit simplistic I know but it explains it to the guys!
> 
> ...


 
Tez I wouldn't mind learning this kata. If fact, I would LOVE to learn this kata. How about PMing me how it's done? And why not post a video of you performing it in the "members in motion" section? You post a video, I'll see about posting one (I'm not actualy allowed yah know).
Course this makes me wounder, did you name it? Do you teach it to your MMA students, or is it just a self practice thing? I'm sure I could come up with more questions, but I cann't think of any at moment.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 28, 2007)

In response to Carol's concern about where to punch in a form...

The inherent beauty of forms training is that your opponent is never too big, never too strong, never too strong, and never does anything you don't want him to.  Your punches never miss (except on purpose), and you never stumble over what to do next or if you should move now.  (OK... as you're learning a form, you'll stumble over what comes next a lot... but you get my drift!)

That's also the inherent pitfall of solo forms practice, or forms practice without also doing applications WITH a partner.

The idea is that, in forms practice, you have the chance to internalize the principles and body structures/alignments/shifts/movements that make a given technique work.  Then -- when you apply them "for real" with a partner, you find out how you need to adjust while still keeping the essence of the move.  Finally, as your partner begins to throw less perfect attacks are counter your actions and just generally makes it harder on you -- you find the way to take those principles and really apply them.  

(Yes -- one step sparring and similar exercises are indeed a type of forms training.)

Or at least that's my opinion.  It and $4 will get you a seriously overpriced and overhyped cup of coffee at Starbucks.


----------



## Carol (Jun 28, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> In response to Carol's concern about where to punch in a form...
> 
> The inherent beauty of forms training is that your opponent is never too big, never too strong, never too strong, and never does anything you don't want him to.  Your punches never miss (except on purpose), and you never stumble over what to do next or if you should move now.  (OK... as you're learning a form, you'll stumble over what comes next a lot... but you get my drift!)
> 
> ...




* Woot!  *:caffeine:


Thanks very much JKS, that makes a lot of sense.

I guess the way I saw it is, I was naturally gravitating towards making my moves against a larger opponent.  It wasn't just because my instructor was in front of me (I actually was facing a blank wall when I threw the Solar Plexus strike), it was because I had mostly practiced with bigger people (most adults are bigger than me...LOL)

I guess to my (still very uneducated) eyes, it made more sense to emphasize practicing against the most likely scenario.  I can see where that could lead to improper body mechanics but it just seemed like developing the instincts for fighting a bigger opponent was a good thing.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 28, 2007)

It also applies to the training purpose of maximizing one's power. Striking to your own proportions keeps you in balance structurally, maximizing the power. Plus, in training, one can't guess what their attacker's size will be, or where the targets will be. So, using yourself as a guide gives a reference point. I don't think many mirrors were around back then either.


----------



## RBaddorf (Jun 28, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> The MMA fighters I train with in our adults class scoff at katas, they see me teaching the children in the lesson before the adults one. They think that you are supposed to fight someone using the whole kata and quite rightly think that's stupid.


 
Exactly.  I understood it best when it was explained to me; that the kata is like an alphabet.  A B C does not make a word, but C A B does.  The old masters' best self defense moves were put together into a kata so they could remember the moves (ever come up with a great application and then the next day can't remember what you did?), were able to practice anytime anywhere, and could practice full speed and power with out damaging a training partner.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 28, 2007)

In response to Carol, a way to get used to striking to specific targets when refernced to your own body is posture training. Stand in front of a full sized mirror and throw a punch to a high target (I'm not sure if your school teaches striking to more then height, but I'll assume you do). Hold for one minute. Throw the same punch with the opposite hand. Repeat with a mid-level target, then low. Over time the height will come instintivly. And the punch will get much faster and harder, and your shoulders will get stronger. Over time one minute wont be enough, so feel free to increase the time. But do it slowly, it'll hurt regardless.


----------



## Carol (Jun 28, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> In response to Carol, a way to get used to striking to specific targets when refernced to your own body is posture training. Stand in front of a full sized mirror and throw a punch to a high target (I'm not sure if your school teaches striking to more then height, but I'll assume you do). Hold for one minute. Throw the same punch with the opposite hand. Repeat with a mid-level target, then low. Over time the height will come instintivly. And the punch will get much faster and harder, and your shoulders will get stronger. Over time one minute wont be enough, so feel free to increase the time. But do it slowly, it'll hurt regardless.



Thats a great idea, CN.  The instructor that was working with me on my form had us do a very similar thing.  I'm not training under him any more (job change made me change schools) so I really appreciate you bringing this up.  It has slipped my mind that we used to do this.

Thanks very much for the memory jog!  :asian:


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 29, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> I guess to my (still very uneducated) eyes, it made more sense to emphasize practicing against the most likely scenario. I can see where that could lead to improper body mechanics but it just seemed like developing the instincts for fighting a bigger opponent was a good thing.


 
And it is a good thing to practice for different heights or sized opponents -- both bigger and smaller.  You just learn to do it in a perfect situation first.  Let me try to make a techie analogy...  (It'll probably blow up in my face, but I'll try anyway!)

You work in the telecom industry.  You get a kid straight out of college with a degree in EE...  On day one, do you hand him a problem involving a bunch of switches that don't work, or do let him monitor a system that's working more or less correctly and maybe needs a tweak or two to run right?  You don't hand the newbie a system that's been twisted so far out of shape that it's almost unrecognizable to the folks who twisted it...  You let him work on stuff that's close to the way it's should be, and let him learn how to do the big jobs from the little ones.

We do the same thing in law enforcement.  My very first night on the street, my Field Training Instructor and I were called in for a rape complaint.  Guess what?  I watched, learned and took notes; he did the interview.  But the DIP a couple of hours earlier?  That was mine to handle...


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 29, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:
			
		

> I know whereof you speak. So often the explanations for elements of forms are incrediblely strange, and usually based on a complete lack of understanding of the form. I think this contributes greatly to the perception that forms, and by extension any art with them, are of no value.


Yep.



Steel Tiger said:


> By striking at a target some 9" higher you are changing the motion of the strike.  It may feel the same but muscles and balance will be operating in a different way.  Forms are about precision in technique.
> 
> Now take the punch to solar plexus of a 5' 2" person and apply it to a 6' 0" person.  By doing the straight punch you maintain the power, balance, and precision of the attack.  The height of your opponent changes the target area, in this case 9" - 10" lower, somewhere around the navel.  You have maintained the integrity of the attack and the result is a powerful abdomen strike which could wind (as a solar plexus strike) and double over an opponent (which a solar plexus strike would not necessarily do).


Excellent points, *ST*.


----------



## still learning (Jun 29, 2007)

Hello, IS FORMS ENOUGH?      Off course NOT.

To learn to fight for real is to train for real.  Forms is NOT real fighting. (you do not have to worry about getting hit back) ,& is set movements, all fights do not react the same all the time.

Take a school who practice forms and more forms.   Then take a school who practice to spar alot.   NEXT have them challenge each other?  Who do you think will have more success's?

Forms has a place for some of our martial art training.  BUT is not the answer for REAL fighting, timing, distance training,actully hitting and getting hit.   Facing a real person set's up a different situtions from forms.

Who fights like forms movements.  Look at the World Combat league, look at Mix martial arts, look at JUDO, look at boxers, look at wrestlers, look at Muay thai?   Do they have forms like Karate forms?   WHY NOT?

IF forms work? ....more sports will have forms training as an important part of there training......(like karate style of set movements).

Reactive training -spontaneous - is what happens in a real fight.

Forms work great for Martial art movies.

We do have forms in our style which was pass on down.  We must learn them because it is a part of our system.

IS forms effective for real fighting?    NOPE ...but just my thoughts on this. .............Aloha


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 29, 2007)

Hi *SL*

I think it may be that you missed the part earlier in the dicussion where it was posited that 'forms' is not simply the rote practise of "Punch Number One".  Also, I don't know if Britain has taken to MA differently than the rest of the West but I've never known a school that practised forms *only*.

It has become the mistaken norm to think that forms = kata and that's it.  Whereas the forms actually equal the style and should have the bunkai and applications bonded within them rather than split apart from them.

In part I think this has come from the Western mindsets' need to deconstruct and compartmentalise everything (it tends to be the way we learn).

All I can say at the end of the day is that I learned in an environment where the three elements were kept combined (other than at the very start where things were kept simple by being kata only with a seasoning of bunkai).  When I needed to use what I had learned it came out, unbidden and true to form D) ... and it worked.


----------



## Carol (Jun 29, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> And it is a good thing to practice for different heights or sized opponents -- both bigger and smaller.  You just learn to do it in a perfect situation first.  Let me try to make a techie analogy...  (It'll probably blow up in my face, but I'll try anyway!)
> 
> You work in the telecom industry.  You get a kid straight out of college with a degree in EE...  On day one, do you hand him a problem involving a bunch of switches that don't work, or do let him monitor a system that's working more or less correctly and maybe needs a tweak or two to run right?  You don't hand the newbie a system that's been twisted so far out of shape that it's almost unrecognizable to the folks who twisted it...  You let him work on stuff that's close to the way it's should be, and let him learn how to do the big jobs from the little ones.
> 
> We do the same thing in law enforcement.  My very first night on the street, my Field Training Instructor and I were called in for a rape complaint.  Guess what?  I watched, learned and took notes; he did the interview.  But the DIP a couple of hours earlier?  That was mine to handle...



Thats a darn good analogy...I can read a lot in to it.  Something that you and I also deal with are concerns because some issues are more political/sensitive than others.  We don't start the new folks off working with on very visible or sensitive issues until they have proven themselves on the the less-visible switches.

It's starting to make more sense!


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 29, 2007)

Sukerkin is right, I think we had all agreed that kata/patterns/forms aren't a fighting system and you have to learn to fight for real with real people!
I think one of the problems is that the Bunkai seems in many cases have been lost in the translation somewhere. I'm pretty sure when the katas were originally devised all the practioners knew what is was for.

Still Learning, I have to tell you Judo has katas, I know some of them the Kime-No katas, there's even a very good thread on them on MT.Muay Thai has forms too.

Another useful use of katas I've found is for teaching people balance, their left from their right ( don't scoff! often in a sparring situation beginners get confused easily and lose co-ordination), if you do kata as a group you learn instinctively where everyone is without looking which is useful in a self defence situation where you have more than one attacker. I'm sure there's a posh word if not a Japanese word for this sense! Kata helps give confidence without which it's harder to spar.

I love kata! I also think Ian Abernethy is the best thing since sliced bread!


----------



## Yari (Jun 29, 2007)

Well, it really doesn't depend 100% on the style/form, but more on the individual and if they have the perception to get what they need from a form.

/yari


----------



## LawDog (Jun 29, 2007)

Forms are multiple preset patterns connected by transitional moves. 
*A form will teach a student the floor clock principle. This principle is how to properly flow from one direction to another direction.
* A form will teach the internal awareness clock. This is the ability to keep the location of all your oppents in your head at all times. In this way you will be able to turn and locate your many different opponets more accurately.
A form, like many preset patterns, is a tool that is used to help the martial artist within the many areas of his training.
:knight:


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Jun 29, 2007)

Any isometric exercise is good for building strength but developing proper muscle memory is the greatest benefit.  I prefer to keep my kata in class and shadow box on my own time.


----------



## MJS (Jun 29, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Do you believe a form or group of forms can contain a complete fighting system?


 
WOW, I guess I'm late to this thread!  Great topic! 

The problem with forms, and the #1 reason, IMHO, why they take such a beating, is because you need to be able to extract the info that is contained in them.  People look at them at face value and thats all they see...a bunch of moves put together in a different pattern.  However, what they're not seeing, is the hidden moves contained in them.  Nobody ever said the Martial Arts were going to be easy.   I had this problem for the longest time.  I went thru the moves, but never understood the deeper meaning of them.  Fortunately, that has changed! 

I like to view every aspect of the arts as a piece of the puzzle.  Kata is a piece of that puzzle.  I think that if someone were able to break apart the moves, yes, you can find fighting applications.  However, I still feel that the other parts of the puzzle, ie: sparring, partner drills, etc. need to be included as well.  The hands-on part is key in developing your skill IMO.  Without that, that would be like saying that all you had to be do be good at sparring is shadow box.  Well, shadow boxing is good to do, but you also need that person who is throwing punches and kicks at you, so you can work your defense.  Same thing with kata.  

Just my .02 

Mike


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 29, 2007)

Thanks to all who have responded or voted in the poll. :asian: 
I'm still hanging on a couple of things, though, so wanted to probe the subject just a little further.

Many people have responded that forms are important, but that they lack two-person training, which is also needed (examples: in performing techniques and sparring). But I'm wondering if forms can't be--and shouldn't be--done as two-person exercises after a point. In fact, looking back at Abernethy's sequencing which I first outlined in an earlier post, it seems he believes exactly that: forms practice includes techniques practice, just as forms practice includes sparring. Looking again at his progressive levels of forms practice brings up some questions for me I still don't believe I have answers for.

1) *Practice without a partner.* I believe _this is the extent of many MA's understanding_ of what a form is. 
2) *Practice applying the techniques with a partner*. That is, _have someone 'step in' as an attacker_ (as we do when practicing techniques).
3) *Inclusion of variations*--*using the same element of the form, *but *to get a different result* (as our 'opponent' steps in, instead of a strike, turn it into a lock, or a throw or a strike to another target--as *Steel Tiger* mentioned could happen with a strike intended for the solar plexus could become a strike to the lower abdomen)
4) *Practice applying the techniques, variations and principles of the kata in live practice.* _I don't know of anyone who does this_, other than perhaps some internal arts practitioners, and Iain Abernethy's own group. And I've certainly never learned it or even seen it done this way. I'm wondering if anyone has heard of or seen forms practiced to the extent of live practice (#4)? Or for that matter, with a partner, as IA's #2 and 3? I was never taught forms as anything beyond #1, but believe this is a potentially rich area. Thoughts?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 29, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Thats a great idea, CN. The instructor that was working with me on my form had us do a very similar thing. I'm not training under him any more (job change made me change schools) so I really appreciate you bringing this up. It has slipped my mind that we used to do this.
> 
> Thanks very much for the memory jog! :asian:


 
VERY WELCOME! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I love being of help.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 29, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Thanks to all who have responded or voted in the poll. :asian:
> I'm still hanging on a couple of things, though, so wanted to probe the subject just a little further.
> 
> Many people have responded that forms are important, but that they lack two-person training, which is also needed (examples: in performing techniques and sparring). But I'm wondering if forms can't be--and shouldn't be--done as two-person exercises after a point. In fact, looking back at Abernethy's sequencing which I first outlined in an earlier post, it seems he believes exactly that: forms practice includes techniques practice, just as forms practice includes sparring. Looking again at his progressive levels of forms practice brings up some questions for me I still don't believe I have answers for.
> ...


 
In my opinion, the answer is absolutely yes.  Forms should be practiced solo, with a partner, in variants, and eventually through sparring-type unscripted exercises.  

I've practiced my various forms with various modifications (add a kick, block down instead of up, etc).  I've also practiced most of them with a partner, both following the "perfect" script, and with adaptations , like using an extended step because I don't need a full step due to the difference in position, and I've even managed to use techniques or principles from the forms in sparring, and in the real deal a few times.

This is what I mean when I talk about developing *Style*...  Developing the skills and principles to a point that when someone watches you -- they know that you're a X-style fighter... not just another kickboxer/wrestler.


----------



## MJS (Jun 29, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Thanks to all who have responded or voted in the poll. :asian:
> I'm still hanging on a couple of things, though, so wanted to probe the subject just a little further.
> 
> Many people have responded that forms are important, but that they lack two-person training, which is also needed (examples: in performing techniques and sparring). But I'm wondering if forms can't be--and shouldn't be--done as two-person exercises after a point. In fact, looking back at Abernethy's sequencing which I first outlined in an earlier post, it seems he believes exactly that: forms practice includes techniques practice, just as forms practice includes sparring. Looking again at his progressive levels of forms practice brings up some questions for me I still don't believe I have answers for.
> ...


 
I've done this in the past during group classes.  We'd pick a form and have one person perform the kata, while the others attack.  Doing this, certainly gave a different feel for things.  I'd have to say that #3 would have to be done, so as to give the variation, otherwise, we're confined just to the attacks in the kata.

I dont know, but for me, I still feel that without the other aspects of the arts, I'd still be missing out on something.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 29, 2007)

still learning said:


> Hello, IS FORMS ENOUGH? Off course NOT.
> 
> To learn to fight for real is to train for real. Forms is NOT real fighting. (you do not have to worry about getting hit back) ,& is set movements, all fights do not react the same all the time.
> 
> ...


 
While I agree with you about 60%, here is my disagreement with you. My Cuong Nhu school (like all Cuong Nhu schools) puts a HUGE amount of empasis on kata and proper form. It is the only thing we do EVERY single class. On the rare occasion a Cuong Nhu student goes to a tournament, we almost always do well. 
Master Bao has even made jokes about the number of tournaments he's won. For a while it was fashionable to own a differnit pare of Gi pants to tournaments, with the patch of the tournament/hoster on the leg (if you took first place). Master Bao has joked that if he did that, he wouldn't have been able to ever move. See what I'm saying?
Also, my Sensei has been in countless sparring matches with a Tae Kwon Do guy in our area. My sensei is a Shodan (keep in mind that in Cuong Nhu you become a shodan AFTER black belt, not at it), this guy is a Godan. The Godan spent all his time practicing combos and sparring. He never won once.
Forms in of themselves are not enough. One must also understand application. See my first post in this thread for a breif explantion of Cuong Nhu Dimension theory for our further thoughts on the subject.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 29, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> 1) *Practice without a partner.* I believe _this is the extent of many MA's understanding_ of what a form is.
> 2) *Practice applying the techniques with a partner*. That is, _have someone 'step in' as an attacker_ (as we do when practicing techniques).
> 3) *Inclusion of variations*--*using the same element of the form, *but *to get a different result* (as our 'opponent' steps in, instead of a strike, turn it into a lock, or a throw or a strike to another target--as *Steel Tiger* mentioned could happen with a strike intended for the solar plexus could become a strike to the lower abdomen)
> 4) *Practice applying the techniques, variations and principles of the kata in live practice.* _I don't know of anyone who does this_, other than perhaps some internal arts practitioners, and Iain Abernethy's own group. And I've certainly never learned it or even seen it done this way. I'm wondering if anyone has heard of or seen forms practiced to the extent of live practice (#4)? Or for that matter, with a partner, as IA's #2 and 3? I was never taught forms as anything beyond #1, but believe this is a potentially rich area. Thoughts?


 
Cuong Nhu used to require a two person form some were in the post black belt ranks (not sure were, it was removed simply because it was difficult to train a two person form with one person who may or may not be testing with you). And many other schools include two person forms. One could also make the argument that two person systemized drills could be a form of two person kata. Drills like those of Wing Chun and Filiphino styles. May not be what you mean, but I think you can understand what I'm saying.

In Cuong Nhu, if you cann't do it with a partner, we don't really care how well you can do it. Perfect form with no understanding is completly useless. So, we make sure everyone can do applications. It's pretty cool some of the things that have been come up with for differnit forms. And we dont use standerized Bunkai either. You have to come up with them ALL on your own.

At tests, and upper level practice in general, it is not uncommon to include all kinds of fun variations to doing your kata. And random, "hay whats X move from Y kata all about?" Spontanious applications and variation are what make Cuong Nhu more mental then physical.

Simple answer to four is yes. I cann't count the number of times I have let muscle memory kick in and did a spontanious application. Sadly, it's normaly a technique that is meant to break someones arm, or really hurt them.


----------



## exile (Jun 29, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Thanks to all who have responded or voted in the poll. :asian:
> I'm still hanging on a couple of things, though, so wanted to probe the subject just a little further.
> 
> Many people have responded that forms are important, but that they lack two-person training, which is also needed (examples: in performing techniques and sparring). But I'm wondering if forms can't be--and shouldn't be--done as two-person exercises after a point. In fact, looking back at Abernethy's sequencing which I first outlined in an earlier post, it seems he believes exactly that: forms practice includes techniques practice, just as forms practice includes sparring. Looking again at his progressive levels of forms practice brings up some questions for me I still don't believe I have answers for.
> ...




Hi all, I had to get to bed earlyish last night to get going very early this morning on a daytrip around various parts of central Ohio that we'd had in the works for a while, so I couldn't participate further in this thread till now (we got back just a little while ago). I'd like to take up Kidswarrior's summary of the Abernethy kata training progression (clearly, it holds for hyungs, tsings and any other MA's pattern set) and speculate a bit on what's behind it and how it has to work. 

So (1) involves solo practice. But it's not just rote performance you're working on, with the goal of executing a choreography routine with martial movements prettily enough to wow some judges; what you're doing is fixing in your mind just what the instructions were for the various combat scenarios that the kata creators were trying to give you. The fact that in a certain subpart of a kata you use a reverse punch rather than a forward lunge punch is probably important, so listen up!&#8212;the kata may well be telling you that in the situation that part of the kata depicts, you're keeping your assailant controlled or anchored by your forward-projected weight, and the simplest thing to do at that point is to keep him under control and strike him with the rear fist, rather than changing your weight distribution and maybe letting him have a chance to escape. So in the combat scenario in question, it's really important that you understand not to change your weight at that point, but to dig in and use the reverse punch the the optimal target. Training the form so you have a clear understanding of the _logic_ of the scenario the kata is presenting to you is therefore the crucial necessary first step. But it's understood that at the same time you're learning the form, you're working out the bunkai&#8212;the _meaning_ of those movement sequences&#8212;analyzing them as you learn the form. This is part and parcel of learning the form: learning how the movement sequence could be applied. And that involves, very importantly, determining what kind of attack the various subsequences of the kata are supposed to apply _to_. Something that looks absurd as a response to a roundhouse or a double grab may make perfect sense if you think about it as a way to respond to a bearhug, just as a sequence that looks loony if you assume you're going to be going to the outside may suddently look totally natural in a scenario where you're going to the outside. This is why kata are actually rather demanding: you have to combine your knowledge of how the body moves and where the weak points are with a certain analytic skill in figuring how to get maximum firepower from actually converting a sequence of movements into linked _moves_; something that looks like a punch, and may very well be interpreted as a punch in one context, might be much more effectively (and dangerously) applied as a head twist if it comes at the end of a different sequence. You have to do stuff like think, what the hell good is this middle-level spearhand strike going to be?&#8212;the masters of old are telling me to slam my unconditioned fingers into this guy's abdomen or solar plexus?&#8212;and then go on to think, hmmm, maybe the previous moves were designed to force this guy's head way down, and the striking surface of the `spearhand' isn't the fingers at all, but the palm heel&#8212;it's really a palm-heel strike rotated 90º! And when you look at the preceding moves, they fall into place from this new point of view... because most definitely the masters of old are not going to tell you to do anything that wasn't practical, effective and straightforward. That's how they themselves fought, and the kata are in the end the record of their own fighting methods, their `notes' on effective combat. 

Now on to (2): yes, you've nailed down the moves, and you begin to understand them. That `uppercut' wasn't actually an uppercut; it was you cranking your assailant's trapped punching arm around your forearm under his armpit so that you can lock that limb, hyperextend his shoulder and by a quick hard hip twist, completely unbalance him so he falls to the ground. Well... does it work in practice? Let's see... so you and your training partner now have to do some preliminary experimentation to see if this scenario, this _drill_, works in practice. I think that Still_Learning's earlier post is based on an erroneous picture of how the great karate pioneers of the past expected you to train: they gave us a kata as, basically, a sets of drills... and then expected us to actually _drill_ them. The fact that something is itself a `drill' doesn't mean that just by learning it, you're drilling it; once you learn the drill, you then have to go out and _drill_ the drill. People like Itosu, Motobu, and Funakoshi would have laughed in your face if you told them that all you did was solo practice and `back-of-envelope' bunkai. From what we know of training practice in the Okinawan context, before the mass export to Japan, you worked with your instructor one-on-one repetitively. Kata was the textbook, but to solve the end-of-chapter exercises, you had to start by seeing if they actually work with a partner. If your training partner is totally unimpressed by your ingenious bunkai for the form and can escape your `control' easily, or can counter with an uncontrolled limb before you can apply a terminating strike, then it's back to the drawing board. This is the stage of roughing out the picture, as the draughtsmen would say: deep-sixing the impractical apps, the ones that look good on paper but fail to take into account a resource that your attacker can still bring to bear. 

Let's assume that you've leared the movement sequence the kata creator wanted you to learn and have mentally decomposed it into four to six combat scenarios corresponding to different attack initiations, or to different approaches to a single attack initiation in some cases (go outside or go inside? Attack high or attack low? Try to bring the assailant to the ground in the first couple of moves, or try to apply a severely damaging strike to a vulnerable weak point?). And further, that you've tested it out with a training partner who's worked with you on the various analyses you've come up with, so that the flawed analyses have been spotted and flushed. That leaves a core of techs that could be very effective, if trained to be automatic responses. But you know full well that in the heat of a real, violent attack, your assailant may react unpredictably; more to the point, for one reason or another&#8212;differences in height or build or other differences between you and your attacker&#8212;you may find it convenient, or necessary, to improvise a different continuation from some point in the bunkai action, the oyo, on the spot. That means that full destructive testing of your analysis requires you to see just how versatile your techs are: if the guy somehow is able to get away, can you use your preprogrammed response somewhat differently to still put through a sufficiently damaging 
move? So that leads you to (3): making your analysis what the engineers call _robust_&#8212;giving you a set of alternative options requiring minimal deviation from your original plan if your preferred scenario goes sideways. As Kane and Wilder say about the (2)/(3) phase of training,

_Dojo practice affords practitioners a safe and sane way to learn new kata, decipher applications, and increase their skills through trial and error. It is an opportunity to understand strategy, tactics, principles and rules to see what works and does not work for you._

(_The Way of Kata_, p. 187.)

So now we come to (4). Inevitably&#8212;because (2) and (3) are what you have to do to see whether a certain kata interpretation _can_ work; but once you've established that that's the case, you still having reprogrammed your own fighting reactions so that the application you've worked out becomes your automatic, reflexive reaction to an attack initiation of the kind the kata subparts are designed to counter. As Abernethy notes, Gichin Funakoshi insisted in his _Karate-do Kyohan_ that  

_Once a form has been learned, it must be practiced repeatedly until it can be applied in an emergency, *for knowledge of just the sequence of a form in karate is useless*_

(my emphasis). And just in case anyone misinterprets this statement as a recommendation for endless kata performance `in the air', IA reminds us of Funakoshi's further dictum in the same source that 

_Sparring does not exist apart from the kata, but [rather] for the *practice* of kata._

(my emphasis). Similarly, he cites Chojin Miyagi, Goju-ryu's founder, to the effect that

_Through sparring practice one may identify the practical meaning of kata_

(_The Outline of Karate-Do_). The understanding that these masters had of `sparring' is illuminated by the comment of H. D. Plee, one of the first great European karateka, quoted by Abernethy from Plee's 1967 book as follows: 

_One must not lose sight of the fact that Karate is "all-in" fighting. Everything is allowed &#8230; This is why Karate is based on blows delivered with the hand, the foot, the head or the knee. Equally permissible are stragulations, throwing techniques and locks._

The message is that `kumite'&#8212;sparring practice&#8212;exists not for tournament competitive practice _*but for training the techiques encoded in the kata*_, and that, as per Plee's observations, these techniques involve not only the familiar strikes of karate but a range of controlling, grappling and throwing moves. It's clear that classical karate kumite was designed to train, refine and make automatic the combat techs implicit in the kata, which the practitioner was expected to be able to extract for practical use. Why did Chotoku Kyan and Choki Motobu deliberately seek out out street fights? It's pretty clear from their personal histories that both of them were obsessed with effectiveness, and sought out the most realistic of `live' training&#8212;actual violent conflicts. Their attitude was that only by subjecting their techniques&#8212;which,  for both of these great martial artists, were founded in the kata of their system&#8212;to the test of real combat could they know what worked and what didn't. Nowadays, we're a bit more rational (most of us) about our MA training, but in the end, we still need to acknowledge that the `final exam' of our MA training is Abernethy's stage (4) training:  maximally realistic, minimally compliant and, crucially, _minimally predictable_ partner training with no techs ruled out (though some of them, like groin and eye strikes, have to be replaced by detuned versions, or you're going to be replacing training partners with liability lawyers on your list of acquaintances...) The keys to (4) are (i) there is no prearrangement as to what uke is going to throw at tori, (ii) uke can do anything s/he likes by way of attack, and (iii) it's not assumed that tori's tech is going to put even a tiny dent in uke's attack; tori has to _make_ the tech work. 

I've trained a little bit this way (most people don't want to do it, and it takes two to tango, so it's a bit difficult to keep going), and it's extremely unpleasant. But so are interval sprints and high-intensity weight training, both of which I've done, hating them, for the past ten years. As a friend of mine likes to say, it doesn't matter whether you want to do it, or enjoy doing it, as long as you do it anyway. Smug preachy bastard!


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 29, 2007)

See Exile, this is why I didn't bother to really post. I know you're going to say everything I have to say, only better then I could/would


----------



## exile (Jun 29, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> See Exile, this is why I didn't bother to really post. I know you're going to say everything I have to say, only better then I could/would



No, CN, not true!! 

This whole issuethe `analytic' approach to forms, and how people train in order to bring that approach to living reality in their own trainingis so new and personal, within the recent history of the MAs, that _everyone's_ story and perspective is valuable and crucial. What I wanted to emphasize in my last post was just that the approach that Kidswarrior was citing from Abernethy seems to be exactly the same one that many martial arts pioneers took, way back in the early daysIA has really done the legwork hereand that that approach makes sense to me in terms of my own training. But the success of this approach depends on the experience of individuals who've tried out and experimented with the methods involved, or worked out new ones. So really, everything I've said (apart from the parts which I've lifted outright from the great MA innovators) is just my own angle, based on my own _limited_ experienceI've only been doing this stuff for a few years. I'm a 2nd gup, you're a 3rd kyu, so our experience in the arts is probably roughly comparable. This whole line of inquiry is a group expedition without an actual leader (I take advice from a gang of mostly UK MAists whom I'm always referring to, but other people have their own oracles). Your own experience is essential input, eh?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 29, 2007)

Yah but still, we tend to end up with the same oppion. And you express it better, because you have done more reading. Sadly I'm limited by my current unemployment, and lack of a car. Otherwise I would have lots more books, and a better way of expressing our oppion.
You have to admit (if nothing else) we do tend to end up with ruffly compareable oppions. I get the feeling you have have somthing like the dimension theory I explained earlier?


----------



## Kosho Gakkusei (Jun 30, 2007)

Great thread.  I've agreed with most of the pro-kata posts.  Those who post from a 'Kata is useless' mindset are putting their ignorance on display.

The 1 to 4 sequence drawn from Ian Abernathy is absolutely the progression needed if you are going to get anything out of Kata besides a tool to compete in forms for a tournament.  I'd like to add my 2 cents regarding step one building off what exile had to say here:



exile said:


> So (1) involves solo practice. But it's not just rote performance you're working on, with the goal of executing a choreography routine with martial movements prettily enough to wow some judges; what you're doing is fixing in your mind just what the instructions were for the various combat scenarios that the kata creators were trying to give you.


 
Don't miss out on the benefit of solo practice!!  You can get so much more out of it than merely learning a sequence or building muscle memory.

There are many ways to practice Kata as a solo excercise.

1. Deep Wide Stances with Isometric movements. - great excercise - go ahead and try taking a mile long run then see how many Kata you get thru this way.

2. Shallow Stances with focus on speed, fluidity, &/or targeting - this is closer to how you may actualy apply the movements.  Yagyu Minanori (a Samurai who makes Musashi look like an idiot) spoke of attacking with the natural mind.  I envision an attack and respond.  Attacks will vary, distances will vary, angles will vary.  I will also practice breaking from the pattern as in still performing the form but adding rotations.  Say the attacker is to my left - I'll turn to the left even though the original version may go straight.  Sometimes I will use rotation to change the application.  For example: In Pinan or Heian Shodan the opening sequence is turn left with a down block step forward into a right forward stance with the Oi Zuki. Let's say I envision the attack on my left as a left handed jab to right cross combination. I turn to my left and my downblock becomes an inward chest level block followed by directing the jab downward & to my left, putting my opponent to the outside.  As he throws the jab, rather then stepping with the right into an Oi Zuki I step back with the left and rotate 180 degrees utilizing my right hand to grab his right hand and execute a hand throw.  Now this Okinawan Kata has produced a technique that looks more like Aikido.

3.  Real slow with an emphasis on the rotation to perform the prescribed movements.  The idea is to be real anylitical of your movements even emphasizing them to discover weight shifts and angles required.  For example steping foreward from a natural stance into a right forward stance requires you to shift your weight onto your left leg as you bring your right foot out you're actually moving at 45 degrees to your right.  The C step or Z step required to now move into left forward requires you continue with your left leg at 45 degrees to the right then 45 degrees to the left.  Adding hand movements creates additional rotations and angles.  This is can really be aided by a mirror so you can see it or by having a partner perform the Kata this way so you can observe it.  You can also experiment with changing the Kata by continuing on angles that are opened up or discovering similar movements - rather than step forward into left front stance - left roundhouse kick into left front stance.

4.  This is the opposite of #3, now you will try to cloak your movements you've become aware of.  This would involve shifting the hips or feet or other muscle groups that are not visible to the opponent.  A mirror helps but a partner is better so you can experiment with different ranges.

5.  Open hands or closed hands.  Take the above options and see how changing hands on the Kata changes it.  If it's a closed hand Kata perform it with all open or vice versa.


Thanks.

_Don Flatt


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 30, 2007)

A variation on the last one is to do it as a soft style kata, if it's hard. If it's a soft style, do it hard. If fact that is the way O'Sensei used to teach Nhu 1 (first soft style kata in Cuong Nhu) to people who had a hard time figuring out how to do a kata "soft". It's also a good way to mess with your mind. 
And I got about a 30 other ways to alter a kata... maybe I should post a thread...


----------



## qi-tah (Jun 30, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Thanks to all who have responded or voted in the poll. :asian:
> I'm still hanging on a couple of things, though, so wanted to probe the subject just a little further.
> 
> Many people have responded that forms are important, but that they lack two-person training, which is also needed (examples: in performing techniques and sparring). But I'm wondering if forms can't be--and shouldn't be--done as two-person exercises after a point. In fact, looking back at Abernethy's sequencing which I first outlined in an earlier post, it seems he believes exactly that: forms practice includes techniques practice, just as forms practice includes sparring. Looking again at his progressive levels of forms practice brings up some questions for me I still don't believe I have answers for.
> ...


 
Well, we sometimes pratice a two-man set in my ba gua class of something i call "shoving legs" (don't know what it's called, sorry) that resembles yr step 3. It's not  an app or couple of apps in isolation, but it's the entire form with variations. Each person takes turns initating attacks and then defending/counterattacking. If you both call/respond well, you can repeat the form ad nauseam. (or until one of you gets dumped on yr ****! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) The thing i find it great for is playing with the rythem of the form (there is an solo version of the form too), modulating force and timing to gain maximum effect. It's also useful as a tool to sense when yr opponent is preparing to change weight... b'cause the order of the attacks constantly change, you have to main yr receptivness to yr opponent. I guess it's a bit like push hands in Taiji (which i love too!), except you are very fluid on yr feet and are constantly trying to take yr opponent's legs. 

Actually, timing and rythem is one thing i'm really trying to work on with my forms at the moment... trying not to break them up in disjointed movements or applications, but see the whole form as a flowing entity. Sometimes that's the only way an app (contained within the form) will work too... the Ba gua swimming dragon form i am learning at the moment is a case in point. There is a sequence of movements that progressively twists the lumbar spine in opposite directions (L5 to right, L4 to left, L3 to right, L2 to left, L1 to right) and then releases them all explosively... you just can't get it unless you get the flow right. I was thinking the other day that i knew i'd seen a movement like it demonstrated outside of training, finally it came to me: when i played state rubgy, a Qld. player shrugged off a solid ball and all tackle i laid on her with a very similar "shimmey" like motion... I went flying! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was amazed at the time, considering that she didn't step off line or lift her knees or anything like that!

My take on the whole forms containing whole fighting system thing? In my opinion, nothing can contain everything, and forms don't begin and end as discretely as is often thought.

Cool thread btw! :asian:


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Jun 30, 2007)

Hmmm. Best way I can think of describing it is that forms themselves are not a fighting system, they just contain the techniques you use within that system.
A system would I think be composed like this, from the bottom up:

1. Single Techniques- >- Solo/Static Practice
2. Combination Techniques/Applications- >- Solo/Static Practice
-----------------------------------
3. Combination Techniques/Applications- >- Partner/Static Practice
-----------------------------------
4. Combination Techniques/Applications- >- Partner/Drills/Dynamic Practice
-----------------------------------
5. Combination Techniques/Applications- >- Sparring/Dynamic Practice
-----------------------------------
6. Combination Techniques/Applications- >- Freefight/Fighting


Forms and Kata are just another way of doing the first two, a reference guide for single techniques and applications. They're still just step one though, after that it still has to go through all the other stages.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 30, 2007)

Kosho Gakkusei said:


> Great thread.  I've agreed with most of the pro-kata posts.  Those who post from a 'Kata is useless' mindset are putting their ignorance on display.
> 
> The 1 to 4 sequence drawn from Ian Abernathy is absolutely the progression needed if you are going to get anything out of Kata besides a tool to compete in forms for a tournament.  I'd like to add my 2 cents regarding step one building off what exile had to say here:
> 
> ...


Good stuff.



> 2. Shallow Stances with focus on speed, fluidity, &/or targeting - this is closer to how you may actualy apply the movements.  Yagyu Minanori (a Samurai who makes Musashi look like an idiot) spoke of attacking with the natural mind.  I envision an attack and respond.  Attacks will vary, distances will vary, angles will vary.  I will also practice breaking from the pattern as in still performing the form but adding rotations.  Say the attacker is to my left - I'll turn to the left even though the original version may go straight.  Sometimes I will use rotation to change the application.  For example: In Pinan or Heian Shodan the opening sequence is turn left with a down block step forward into a right forward stance with the Oi Zuki. Let's say I envision the attack on my left as a left handed jab to right cross combination. I turn to my left and my downblock becomes an inward chest level block followed by directing the jab downward & to my left, putting my opponent to the outside.  As he throws the jab, rather then stepping with the right into an Oi Zuki I step back with the left and rotate 180 degrees utilizing my right hand to grab his right hand and execute a hand throw.  Now this Okinawan Kata has produced a technique that looks more like Aikido.


I've seen photos that look very close to this. I think you've really hit on something here. And couldn't this be true not just of IA's first step (solo), but really all four? I'm thinking maybe it could. And in fact, seems in your next point you make the bridge to partner work:



> 3.  Real slow with an emphasis on the rotation to perform the prescribed movements.  The idea is to be real anylitical of your movements even emphasizing them to discover weight shifts and angles required.  For example steping foreward from a natural stance into a right forward stance requires you to shift your weight onto your left leg as you bring your right foot out you're actually moving at 45 degrees to your right.  The C step or Z step required to now move into left forward requires you continue with your left leg at 45 degrees to the right then 45 degrees to the left.  Adding hand movements creates additional rotations and angles.  This is can really be aided by a mirror so you can see it or by having a partner perform the Kata this way so you can observe it.  You can also experiment with changing the Kata by continuing on angles that are opened up or discovering similar movements - rather than step forward into left front stance - left roundhouse kick into left front stance.


It occurs to me your fourth point and IA's No. 4 could be related, i.e., 'sparring': 


> 4.  This is the opposite of #3, now you will try to cloak your movements you've become aware of.  This would involve shifting the hips or feet or other muscle groups that are not visible to the opponent.  A mirror helps but a partner is better so you can experiment with different ranges.


And the final, 'simple' point can be very profound:





> 5.  Open hands or closed hands.  Take the above options and see how changing hands on the Kata changes it.  If it's a closed hand Kata perform it with all open or vice versa.


 IA does this quite a lot with partner applications, sometimes calling them the 'hidden' moves, or just further applications. And I agree with you, this is very helpful for opening up whole new avenues of applications (blows become throws, throws become blows, or locks)


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 30, 2007)

I just wanna say of course its a total LIFE PROTECTION system, and it also depends on the Kata, if its one of the classical 12 Ryukyu Katas they were all developed for LIFE protection, not for winning tournaments...

So if your idea of forms is flashy moves with a whole lot of screaming...then no...it is not a TOTAL life protection system...fighting for sport, maybe but not a total LIFE PROTECTION system.

karate no Michi


----------



## Kosho Gakkusei (Jun 30, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Good stuff.
> 
> I've seen photos that look very close to this. I think you've really hit on something here. And couldn't this be true not just of IA's first step (solo), but really all four? I'm thinking maybe it could. And in fact, seems in your next point you make the bridge to partner work:
> 
> ...


 
Absolutely!  Partner work is essential at all phases even when doing Kata 'solo'.  We can learn so much by observing another and by recieving the input of another's observations.  The mirror can also be a great silent partner.

I forgot to mention another way I practice Kata:
6.  In place using hip shifts as opposed to foot movement.

_Don Flatt


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 1, 2007)

MJS said:


> I've done this in the past during group classes.  We'd pick a form and have one person perform the kata, while the others attack.  Doing this, certainly gave a different feel for things.  I'd have to say that #3 would have to be done, so as to give the variation, otherwise, we're confined just to the attacks in the kata.
> 
> I dont know, but for me, I still feel that without the other aspects of the arts, I'd still be missing out on something.


I think we're on the same page here, Mike. I guess the way I see the question is, do those other things that you feel are important spring naturally from the kata (as some have said, the textbook), or do we have several disparate pieces that are sort of glued together to make an art. Or maybe better, even if they don't grow out of the kata, is there a set of strategic principles in place that every part of the art has to justify/fit in with. Kane and Wilder claim that 'Effective applications must be grounded in a system's Strategy' (Chapter Two of _Way of Kata_).

For me, much of my training was in 'arts' where several groups of tactics were thrown together to make up the art as a whole. They might have little to do with each other and there was no clear overall strategy. For example, in one art, we'd practice potentially lethal moves against a compliant partner, then go strap on kick boxing gear and spar in  a totally different manner from the way we'd trained. It was really two different arts. There was no strategic plan that encompassed both, just two or three or four bodies of tactics that would be practiced separately from each other (point sparring; forms--always in the air, with less than realistic applications/explanations; and techniques, which were not necessarily at odds with the forms, but I could never find  them in the forms--until I began reading people like Kane and Wilder, Abernethy, Burgar, and Gennosuke Higaki). 

So in the words of Kane and Wilder, an art must spell out its strategy, which then governs all other principles and applications, including tactics. _Strategy _is what is planned before the action/need arises, _tactics _are used in the heat of battle. My experience with a couple of arts is there was no comprehensive strategy, just a bunch of tactics that middle-class students seemed to expect all thrown together. In other words, there was no pre-designed plan, or system, just several elements put together to make an 'art'. This didn't work for me. Example: I once took a six hour belt test. Five hours and 50 minutes were street/combat applications; what most of us call techniques and forms. The last 10 minutes was kick boxing (with very little power[point sparring], no face shots, no trapping or sweeping or locks, and obviously no knife hands to the neck, eye rakes, etc.) So everything we'd demonstrated all day--essentially the whole art--was off limits. To me, this is teaching/testing for two different arts. Nothing wrong with either one, but they were not one art, following one set of strategic principles; they were two sets of tactics, thrown together presumably because that's what the 'masters' thought people expected, or was the way they had been taught.

And by the way, lest I come off as pontificating here, am just giving the background for why it's been essential to me to come up with the twelve most critical strategic principles for my art before I started teaching--and to continuously keep checking everything we do to see if it comes under this strategy. Keeps me honest, and the art integrated. And yes, for my strategic grid, forms are an essential piece, almost a root piece. :asian:


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 1, 2007)

Martial Arts are (mostly) principals, concepts, and doctrines put together(it's just a matter of whether or not they flow). And Kata (being the textbook) is a way of ingraning these principles into your head. 
Which means that Exile and I don't always think alike! HA! OK, enough of me being dumb, LOL.


----------



## exile (Jul 1, 2007)

So it seems reasonable to assume that for a lot of people, a `deep' interpretation of the forms of their art can be assumed to hold the technical content of that art, even though the realization of that content can only be internalized and turned into an available tool through devoted practice under realistic conditions. I've come, over the past couple of years, to think this position is the best way of vewing the relationship between a given MA and its forms, and that conclusion then seems to raise two futher questions. 

One of these, the `parsing problem', is just that of deciding how to go about breaking up the long sequence of moves that make up the whole form into the subsequences that correspond to `complete' responses to a given attack&#8212;that take the defender from some initial attack to the disabling of the attacker. There are various sets of decoding rules out there&#8212;Abernethy gives one set, Kane and Wilder give another, Simon O'Neil gives a third&#8212;all of them corresponding to what in Japanese is called _kaisai no genri_, the systematic method of interpreting kata _movements_ as martial _moves_; but what all of these approaches leave out is a discussion of how to recognize the endpoint of one complet kata subsequence and the begining of another one. This is a question of trial-and-error, of course, and there may be alternative divisions of a single kata into these stand-alone combat units. For _taikyoku shodan_, aka in TKD as _kicho il jang_, I can think of at least three alternative parsings which yield different respective sets of complete combat subsequences. The situation is in many ways reminiscent of the way in which ribosomes, the body's genetic `interpreters', translate messenger RNA into protein-complexes (and ultimately, tissues); each mRNA strand contains certain subsequences of a small number of large molecules, where each subsequence translates into a specific protein. What's interesting is that a ribosome may read the same string of these large molecules in two or more ways, depending on factors still not completely understood: a given sequence that can be schematized as 1-2-1-3-2-2-1 might be `parsed' by the ribosome into 1-2-1 and 3-2-2-1 on one pass, but on second pass into 1-2, 1-3-2 and 2-1&#8212;that sort of thing. The problems of parsing natural language sentences into structural groups, of parsing mRNA sequences into protein-coding subsequences, and of parsing MA forms into sequences of complete combat units, have a number of important parallels, and in each case, the question of how to know when you've reached the `edges' of each of the subunits is of absolutely crucial important to the success of the enterprise in question. But that involves issues that probably ought to be discussed in a separate thread. 

There's another question, though, that seems to flow together more naturally than the parsing problem with the content of _this_ thread, and that is: if we assume the majority position that seems to have emerged from Kidswarrior's poll, then what are the consequences for teaching? If, as at least a goodly number of us believe, the forms of some MA contain the whole technical repertoire of that MA, and training that MA for practical SD use requires us to decipher the forms to yield combat applications, then how are we to structure our teaching around this world-view? People have certainly talked about this question in general terms. So Burgar observes that 

_It is interesting to track the development of karate with respect to how the central theme of practice has changed. Originally, the heart of karate was individual kata training with one-on-one instruction being a central feature. However, when karate was introduced into the school system on Okinawa (in the early 1900s), the emphasis started to change. Instruction become one to many and classes took the form of performing kata synchronized by count. The use of training kihon (basic techniques) in lines advancing up and down the dojo then became widespread. By the time karate was introduced into Japan from Okinawa, this practice was already well-established and was then built upon... the contemporary karate experience is generally that of kihon centered long-range [i.e., tournament competition range&#8212;Exile] training. This means that the basic techniques of karate form the central core of practice from which the rest of the art is practised. The basic punches, kicks and blocks practised, making long steps up and down the dojo floor, set the scene and form the thought boundaries for the way we define our karate._​_

Karate has not always been taught in this way. Travelling back in time we can see that originally kata was taught in a kata-centric manner. The kata was taught and from that the basic techniques and concepts were practised, and also the short-range self-defense techniques which are the building blocks of the kata sequence.​_
(_Five Years, One Kata_, pp.32&#8211;33). So a return to what Burgar calls a kata-centric teaching approach would almost certainly be a more efficient way to train a MA for SD purposes, because the curriculum would be build around the fundamental skill-sets involved in actually conducting a successful defense agains an untrained but dangerous and violent assailant. I've been trying to work out a sketch of just what such a curriculum would look like, and it's pretty clear that it would look _a lot_ different from what we now have and how we now teach. 

But what would such a teaching approach actually look like in detail? And do we have enough mental flexibility to break with our MA educational assumptions (at least for most of us) and drastically rethink a curriculum along these lines?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 1, 2007)

Two questions exile. One, what style do you train in? You already admitted to training in a traditional one, so I gotta ask. Two, why does it seem you have a saved "Reply-To-Topic" for every situation?


----------



## exile (Jul 2, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> Two questions exile. One, what style do you train in? You already admitted to training in a traditional one, so I gotta ask.



Taekwondo is my art, of a lineage that has maintained a tight connection to the Shotokan karate origins of TKD. My view of TKD has been largely formed by the work of people like Abernethy and his group in karate (virtually everything can be carried over from their work to TKD) and TKDists like Simon O'Neil and Stuart Anslow who have applied the work of Abernethy, Rick Clark and others of what I think of as the `progressive' approach to form analysis, interpretation and training. 




CuongNhuka said:


> Two, why does it seem you have a saved "Reply-To-Topic" for every situation?



I wish I _did_it would've saved me about two hours of typing, editing and pawing around in my sources if I could have just pasted in something. I'm trying to convince myself that it's time to get some sleep... and I only intended to sit down at my computer for a few minutes when I started earlier this evening... or maybe, `yesterday' is more like it!

But it's something I _have_ been thinking about for a while... one of these fantasy scenarios: you own your own school and get to design your own curriculum in line with your own view of your art and its technical resources... now go ahead and do it!...so _then_ what?


----------



## Kosho Gakkusei (Jul 2, 2007)

exile said:


> One of these, the `parsing problem', is just that of deciding how to go about breaking up the long sequence of moves that make up the whole form into the subsequences that correspond to `complete' responses to a given attackthat take the defender from some initial attack to the disabling of the attacker. There are various sets of decoding rules out there...


 
I beleive that the methods of parsing a form are limitless and make for the potential of lifelong study of any particular form.  Forms are based on laws of motion and ultimately even their creator only had a limited understanding of what they had created.  In order to fully understand all motion you would have to be the one who created the laws of motion. Does this mean that forms can teach us more than intended? Yes.  Some forms (many modern ones) will teach us that the creator of that form did not really understand the laws motion because they inherently break those very laws.  Yet, even these forms can be helpful in your study because you learn just as much by understanding what is incorrect motion.

_Don Flatt


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 2, 2007)

exile said:
			
		

> There's another question, though, that seems to flow together more naturally than the parsing problem with the content of _this_ thread, and that is: if we assume the majority position that seems to have emerged from Kidswarrior's poll, then what are the consequences for teaching?


This is absolutely the central issue to 'part two' of this thread. That is, if the first part is to ask and answer, Are forms central/complete (or however we wish to express it)?, then the second prong must be, How to we teach them as such?

Have to admit, while I've been chewing on this for awhile, still don't know my answer. But wanted to say, I'm working on it and hope to have a reply soon (the blinding headache of the past 36 hours is not helping, but usually they run their course after about this long :uhyeah. Anyway, wanted to acknowledge exile's post and say it very much deserves to be addressed.


----------



## exile (Jul 2, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> This is absolutely the central issue to 'part two' of this thread. That is, if the first part is to ask and answer, Are forms central/complete (or however we wish to express it)?, then the second prong must be, How to we teach them as such?
> 
> Have to admit, while I've been chewing on this for awhile, still don't know my answer. But wanted to say, I'm working on it and hope to have a reply soon *(the blinding headache of the past 36 hours is not helping, but usually they run their course after about this long :uhyeah*. Anyway, wanted to acknowledge exile's post and say it very much deserves to be addressed.



Ouch, sorry to hear about that, Mark! Best to recover completely first; curriculum issues can definitely wait! In a way, the whole issue of rethinking the curriculum in tune with a more principled, SD-based view of MA practice is enought to induce serious headache even if you didn't have one in the first place...

The problem is that most people are much more comfortable teaching along the lines that they themselves have experienced as students. Unless you're able to radically rethink your field, whatever it is, from the ground up, and picture that new world to yourself with complete conviction, it feels much safer to repeat the learning sequence that you yourself originally experienced. Most of us experienced forms as something like add-ons, just another component to the usual training menu: warmup exercises; basic technique drill; line performance of blocks, kicks, strikes; sparring practice and... forms. In a way, a lot of us may not be ready to reject, at last, the message of years or decades of this kind of training and adopt something which, venerable and authentic as it might have been in the hands of Bushi Matsumura, Anko Itosu and Chotoku Kyan, is something we have no firsthand experience of as learners. 

Whatever our rational analytic abilities tell us, dropping what we ourselves know firsthand and going into unknown turf involves both considerable imagination and a major act of faith in our own reasoning...

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, you understand! But there's an emotional barrier there to really radical change in the curriculum, I'm sure of it.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jul 2, 2007)

exile said:


> One of these, the `parsing problem', is just that of deciding how to go about breaking up the long sequence of moves that make up the whole form into the subsequences that correspond to `complete' responses to a given attackthat take the defender from some initial attack to the disabling of the attacker.


 
This is something I have never really thought about much.  Now being from a CMA background the forms I know are somewhat different to those of Karate and TKD.  Generally you find that 'parsing' is built into the form.  There are inbuilt breaks resulting from significant changes of direction or the inclusion of a thing called a mai, a sort of dramatic pause.

I have always found it helpful to visualise a host of attackers coming in from the eight cardinal directions.  That way you can 'see' the obvious breaking up of the form more clearly.




exile said:


> But what would such a teaching approach actually look like in detail? And do we have enough mental flexibility to break with our MA educational assumptions (at least for most of us) and drastically rethink a curriculum along these lines?


 
The idea of practicing a form by count is completely foreign to me.  I have never found it necessary to have students begin and end a form at the same time.  If someone is particularly slow, it may indicate they are having some problems and attention is needed.

I have always taught forms in the same way: learn the form then break it down and study the 'sections'.  We might spend a whole class on one section of a form, looking at not only the basic interpretation of the techniques but also the numerous variations that can be developed.

Then there is teaching forms one-on-one.  This is very rewarding as the student is focused on the form, not how their form compares to that of others around them.  This is something of a legacy of the early way CMA were taught - small family groups, individual teacher and student and similar situations.


----------



## MJS (Jul 3, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> I think we're on the same page here, Mike. I guess the way I see the question is, do those other things that you feel are important spring naturally from the kata (as some have said, the textbook), or do we have several disparate pieces that are sort of glued together to make an art. Or maybe better, even if they don't grow out of the kata, is there a set of strategic principles in place that every part of the art has to justify/fit in with. Kane and Wilder claim that 'Effective applications must be grounded in a system's Strategy' (Chapter Two of _Way of Kata_).


 
Do they spring naturally?  I'd have to say some of the things do, but just to a point.  Taking the katas that I do, both from Kenpo and Arnis, I have defense against kicks, punches, pushes, club, knife, wrist grabs, chokes, grabs and multiple attacks.  So, looking at that, that pretty much sums up a good portion of the regular self defense material.  Trained with a partner, it works pretty good.   But, another question is: Do we just adhere to the way its done in the kata?  In other words, if the only club defense that we defend against in the kata is an over head attack, what about the round house club?  What about a back hand club attack?  

The movement, if we're sticking with the pattern in the kata, is pretty much set in stone.  So, this brings up the sparring aspect.  Do we do the kata as written or take a move from the beginning and then jump to something in the end, then back to the middle?  Sparring really isnt a set pattern of movement, so IMO, its training us differently than a kata would.  Dont really know how this example applies, but here goes:  Take a flight simulator game on the computer.  Sure, we have a plane to fly and if we make a mistake, sure the plane crashes, but we technically dont die.  We can afford to make a mistake.  Now, if we just jumped into a real 2 seater plane and tried to fly, just going off of what we did on the simulator, well, we better hope that we dont make a mistake then.   My point being, that we should do the other parts of the puzzle as well. 

Mike


----------



## exile (Jul 3, 2007)

MJS said:


> The movement, if we're sticking with the pattern in the kata, is pretty much set in stone.  So, this brings up the sparring aspect.  Do we do the kata as written or take a move from the beginning and then jump to something in the end, then back to the middle?  Sparring really isnt a set pattern of movement, so IMO, its training us differently than a kata would.  Mike



In the karate-based arts, each kata usually gives you at least four or five separate techs, each of which has multiple interpretations. So you have something like a grand total of fifteen to twenty different combat scenarios tied up in a single twenty-five move kata made up of four to six subsequences (Bill Burgar's book, _Five Years, One Kata_ shows how this decomposition works for a single kata, Gojushiho). The fact that the Okinawan masters, as Motobu noted, usually knew in detail only a few kata _at most_ means sort entails the consequence that pretty much everything they needed for real combat was in them. The sparring isn't so much a different kind of training than the kata, in my view; rather, kata and sparring (close range, noncompliant, not `set' in advance) are part of a _single_ training regime. They don't compete, because they do two different, necessary, complementary things. The kata really are telling you what to do to realize the art's particular strategic ideas tactically. CQ combat sparring is giving you the training to implement that realization of strategy as particular tactics in _real time_. Kata are telling you what kind of sequence of individual techs will lead inevitably to a `forced checkmate' of the assailant; but you have to live the biomechanics out and adapt them to your own capabilities. So to my way of thinking, kata and training are really the two necessary sides which jointly compose the single SD coin...


----------



## Kosho Gakkusei (Jul 3, 2007)

A Kata is a Textbook of motion not The Textbook of All Motion.  Rather, each Kata is a textbook of a particlular type of motions devised to solve a particular set of problems.  (This is not to say that the textbook can't help to lead to answers for other problems.) Some textbooks are primary school level textbooks, some are secondary school level textbooks, and some are just trashy novels depending on the depth of understanding of the laws of natural motion the writer had.

The philosophies and concepts of the School or Ryu 'reading' the book determine the interpretations of the book.

The teacher conveys the contents of the book as well as the principles of his Ryu.  Then has the student solve 'problems' and answer 'questions' in line with and according to his level of understanding and skill.

_Don Flatt


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Jul 3, 2007)

I've revised my opinion.  Kata can be a total fighting system but I beleive it will be an inferior one without the supplementals.  We just live in a different age.  I say if you take advantage of every method of training available you'll be more well-rounded.  It's a better idea to be universal if possible, IMO.


----------



## exile (Jul 3, 2007)

Kosho Gakkusei said:


> A Kata is a Textbook of motion not The Textbook of All Motion.  Rather, each Kata is a textbook of a particlular type of motions devised to solve a particular set of problems.  (This is not to say that the textbook can't help to lead to answers for other problems.) Some textbooks are primary school level textbooks, some are secondary school level textbooks, and some are just trashy novels depending on the depth of understanding of the laws of natural motion the writer had.
> 
> The philosophies and concepts of the School or Ryu 'reading' the book determine the interpretations of the book.
> 
> ...



I think that's a good way to put it. I also think that to get the full benefit of kata, you have to see them through the mindset of the masters who devised them and in particular, get a feel for their view of fighting&#8212;because the kata are not going to reflect a perspective which only evolved a hundred or more years after they were created, eh?! History in this case isn't just window dressing; it's absolutely essential for knowing just how far to take your bunkai.

For example, we have a very specialized view of the MAs these days. We have largely grappling arts, largely striking arts, circular-motion arts, linear arts, arts allegedly focusing primarily on kicks, arts focusing on rapid flurries of upper-body strikes... you name it. But if you read the work of the early karate pioneers and what they had to say about their own predecessors, and _if you look at photos of what they were doing_, you see that for them, their arts were much more encompassing. There are photos in Mark Bishop's book on Okinawan karate showing Funakoshi using a pin-and-strike combination, of him throwing an opponent, and in one source I've seen, of applying a suplex to his opponent. Okinawan _te_ involved all kinds of pins, locks, sweeps and controlling moves, and when Matsumura broke with the overall chuan fa strategy, he didn't just drop those moves; instead, he recruited them for use in his novel, linear, one-strike-one-`kill' MA. Te had grappling techs, and those are still there in the kata; Iain Abernethy has a whole book on the grappling moves in kata that can be applied to get yourself off the ground asap so you can get back into a safter, stand-up fighting configuration before your assailant can. A lot of those moves, he shows, are no different in structure from their stand-up analogues, but you apply them differently. People went to the ground in 19th c. Okinawa, after all, and it would have been a pretty poor MA that didn't have resources to deal with it, or with other combat aspects that people sometimes sound as though they believe were only discovered in the very late twentieth century. Knowing that the karate pioneers viewed their toolkit much more broadly than many contemporary karateka do makes a difference in the kind of bunkai we look for.

So part of the problem is that kata represent a problem which needs to be solved and like all puzzles, the answer isn't dead obvious if the puzzle is worth anything. People like Azato, Matsumura, Itosu and Co. weren't interested in making the full range of bunkai obvious outside their circle of students, and even there they were pretty cagey&#8212;Motobu intimated in at least a couple of places in his writing, as I recall from what I've read of him, that Itosu never taught Funakoshi the deepest bunkai (he may have just been pissed off because he got bounced from Itosu's school for overly aggressive `testing' of new techs under very live conditions, so to speak). But although they're well concealed, the really good stuff for all fighting ranges is there. Before you jump to any conclusions about the limits of kata, get hold of Abernethy's e-book on the detailed bunkai for the Pinan/Heian kata and consider his analysis, showing that the first three kata in the series represent basic combat scenarios at three increasingly close fighting ranges resepctively, and that the last two consist of advanced techniques, backup techs and variations for those three ranges&#8212;the `advanced' manual, in effect. Before we conclude that there's something missing from the kata (I'm thinking of Em's reservations here), we should make sure that the problem isn't just that we prematurely stopped delving into their resources, no?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 3, 2007)

MJS said:


> ...The movement, if we're sticking with the pattern in the kata, is pretty much set in stone. So, this brings up the sparring aspect. Do we do the kata as written or take a move from the beginning and then jump to something in the end, then back to the middle? Sparring really isnt a set pattern of movement, so IMO, its training us differently than a kata would...
> 
> Mike


 
I think one thing to consider is that perhaps the movement in the kata can be deliberately vague.  This can serve a couple of purposes.  One, it "suggests" techniques, and if it is not too precise, then it can suggest several ways to use the movement as a useful technique.  If the movement in the kata is very precise, it can get pigeon-holed into one interpretation.  If it is somewhat vague, many interpretations can be derived.  But if it is too vague, maybe it suggests nothing useful, other than "this is a punch, use it however you feel like".

The other thing is that if the movement is somewhat vague, it could protect your material from being stolen by someone who is spying on you while you practice.  If you teach a student, you teach the kata, and the keys to understanding how certain movement needs a slight "tweak" to become actually useable.  But without those hints, the movement doesn't quite make sense.  But since you know how to interpret it, those useages and interpretations are there in your head as you practice, even if the movement is slightly vague on it.

Of course this vagueness can cause confusion and frustration among modern students who expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter, and leads many to decide kata is worthless...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 3, 2007)

Years ago, while in college, I trained for a couple of months with a campus Tae Kwon Do group.  I already had trained in Tracy kenpo, so my experience with TKD was flavored by my previous training.

In our kenpo kata, the movement is pretty precise about what it is used for.  That is made quite clear when learning the material.  I expected this to be true in other arts as well.

When I worked with the TKD group, the teacher walked me thru his blackbelt form, just so I could see what it was like.  I don't know if they were practicing the older Shotokan forms, or if this was the newer series of forms created in Korea more recently.  My experience took place in about 1991 or so.

At any rate, as he would demonstrate the next portion of the kata, which often included various obscure movements culminating in a punch, I would ask, "how is this used?"  His response was: "well, this is a punch, this is a backfist, this is a knifehand, they can be used many ways..." and that was really all he could give me.  He couldn't explain how the other movements might set up that punch to be effective, in a combat scenario.  I think the forms were done just as an add-on to sparring, or something.  It seemed like something maybe they didn't like much, just did it as a requirement or something, didn't really think about them much, only enough to remember the basic movements.

I think that is the approach that must be ditched, if kata is to be meaningful.  First, you need to have confidence that you are practicing quality kata, and that your understanding of the kata is quality.  Not all kata are created equal.  Then, maybe distance yourself from the line drills and group drills, and center the training session around the kata and exploring its applications and meanings.  Don't do any sparring for a while, until you have done this and begun to internalize the lessons, then see what you can do with it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 3, 2007)

Had another thought here, sorry, just can't help myself...

I think learning kata properly requires one-on-one instruction, or at least small groups.  It is sort of an intimate thing that perhaps cannot be effectively shared and communicated with a large group at one time.  

So maybe large dojos with many students who fill up a gymnasium are part of the problem.  This was perhaps never the way traditional arts were meant to be passed on...


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jul 3, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Had another thought here, sorry, just can't help myself...
> 
> *I think learning kata properly requires one-on-one instruction, or at least small groups*. It is sort of an intimate thing that perhaps cannot be effectively shared and communicated with a large group at one time.
> 
> So maybe large dojos with many students who fill up a gymnasium are part of the problem. This was perhaps never the way traditional arts were meant to be passed on...


 
I have emphasised the statement that I think is key to really learning forms and katas.  In a large group it just becomes a case of rote learning of the fascade.  This is not necessarily done intentionally, but there is just not the time or room to work more closely with students.  Teachers in this situation may have every intention of examining the esssence of the forms but simply are unable to do so.

I honestly think that once someone discovers that there is something going on in a form beyond the gross, obvious movements, they will be intrigued enough to try to discover what's going on.  You know what they say, a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.


----------



## exile (Jul 3, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> When I worked with the TKD group, the teacher walked me thru his blackbelt form, just so I could see what it was like.
> 
> At any rate, as he would demonstrate the next portion of the kata, which often included various obscure movements culminating in a punch, I would ask, "how is this used?"  His response was: "well, this is a punch, this is a backfist, this is a knifehand, they can be used many ways..." and that was really all he could give me.  He couldn't explain how the other movements might set up that punch to be effective, in a combat scenario.  I think the forms were done just as an add-on to sparring, or something.  It seemed like something maybe they didn't like much, just did it as a requirement or something, didn't really think about them much, only enough to remember the basic movements.



He clearly did not know the bunkai for the form. And that isn't surprising. The Kwan founders themselves, the guys who brought karate to Korea in the 1930s and made their living teaching it after the war, didn't know the deep bunkai for those kata. They had studied with Funakoshi or his senior students, or Toyama Kanken and maybe one or two others, but as Bill Burgar points out in his book, the way karate itself was taught in prewar Japan represented a severe dilution of the martial content of kata, and bunkai analysis was considerably downplayed (though not totally neglected) in the mass karate classes that Funakoshi sold to the Japanese Defense and Education ministries. And in the 50s and 60s the trend conditinued, so that very few contemporary masters have received anything like a deep education in the combat application of forms and their subcomponents. What you were seeing was the final phase a dilution process in which, at last, there's pretty much nothing left to be diluted further. There are plenty of karate dojos where you'd see the same thing, alas.



Flying Crane said:


> I think that is the approach that must be ditched, if kata is to be meaningful....distance yourself from the line drills and group drills, and center the training session around the kata and exploring its applications and meanings.  Don't do any sparring for a while, until you have done this and begun to internalize the lessons, then see what you can do with it.



This the whole idea of the kata-centric syllabus with severe destructive testing of proposed analyses, to ensure that they're road-worth; if not, chuck 'em and go back to the drawing board till you have a few that are fail-safe. 

...



Flying Crane said:


> I think learning kata properly requires one-on-one instruction, or at least small groups.  It is sort of an intimate thing that perhaps cannot be effectively shared and communicated with a large group at one time.
> 
> So maybe large dojos with many students who fill up a gymnasium are part of the problem.  This was perhaps never the way traditional arts were meant to be passed on...



Burgar observes that the first of your scenarios was how karate was taught in later 19th c. Okinawa, and the large mass classes, which introduced the whole line-drill method of teaching, originated with Funakoshi's University classes in the 20s and 30s.  The relegation of kata to a grading criterion comes from that period as well.



Steel Tiger said:


> I have emphasised the statement that I think is key to really learning forms and katas.  In a large group it just becomes a case of rote learning of the fascade.  This is not necessarily done intentionally, but there is just not the time or room to work more closely with students.  Teachers in this situation may have every intention of examining the esssence of the forms but simply are unable to do so.



True, but it's also probably true that there isn't that much real knowledge of kata interpretation, and still less of combat training based on kata interpretations, out there any more. That will change, I believe. But not quickly.



Flying Crane said:


> I honestly think that once someone discovers that there is something going on in a form beyond the gross, obvious movements, they will be intrigued enough to try to discover what's going on.  You know what they say, a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.



Which is why we badly need a body of real expertise in this area, and training for instructors, which includes this central component of MA knowledge.

But let's face it, lads: it won't get anywhere if it can't make money for the school owners. Karate, Tang Soo Do, TKD, or any of the CMAs... that's their livelihood. So we have three questions now on our plate, eh?

*I*   How to access the complete martial content of MA forms by interpreting them in terms of their combat applications​
*II*  How to build a curriculum centered around forms and their combat applications, teaching individual techniques as part of the larger context of combat-effective bunkai.​
*III* How to do it so the poor sod trying to make a living teaching MAs can do so, even though this approach to MA instruction isas FC and ST have both pointed outnot very compatible with large classes, of the kind that typically pay the freight at most MA schools.​
There are other issues. What about children in these schools? They represent a substantial chunk of the school owner's income. How do they fit into the curriculum? Do you have two tracks? How do you fit kids into a lower-volume, CQ combat oriented approach to the MAs? 

My head is starting to hurt...


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 3, 2007)

exile said:


> So we have three questions now on our plate, eh?*I*   How to access the complete martial content of MA forms by interpreting them in terms of their combat applications​*II*  How to build a curriculum centered around forms and their combat applications, teaching individual techniques as part of the larger context of combat-effective bunkai.​*III* How to do it so the poor sod trying to make a living teaching MAs can do so, even though this approach to MA instruction isas FC and ST have both pointed outnot very compatible with large classes, of the kind that typically pay the freight at most MA schools.​There are other issues. What about children in these schools?
> 
> My head is starting to hurt...



Well, my head is just beginning _not _to hurt, so I'm just checking in. Man, I hate being sidelined during this discussion, but maybe it's for the best since it forces me to reflect before posting. Just wanted to say, I have some ideas on how to achieve all three of *exile*'s questions. But may be another day or so before my faculties are back to normal (viz., half-***ed).


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 3, 2007)

exile said:


> Burgar observes that the first of your scenarios was how karate was taught in later 19th c. Okinawa, and the large mass classes, which introduced the whole line-drill method of teaching, originated with Funakoshi's University classes in the 20s and 30s. The relegation of kata to a grading criterion comes from that period as well.


 
I think the arts must be taught in small groups, teacher to student, directly.  The whole empire building, federations, governing bodies, chain schools, it needs to end.  There needs to be a real relationship between the teacher and the student, and this dictates that class size must be small.



> True, but it's also probably true that there isn't that much real knowledge of kata interpretation, and still less of combat training based on kata interpretations, out there any more. That will change, I believe. But not quickly.
> 
> Which is why we badly need a body of real expertise in this area, and training for instructors, which includes this central component of MA knowledge.


 
Maybe one way to rectify this is to train in an art that does focus more on understanding the use of kata.  Some arts still do this more than others.  The way Tracy kenpo is structured, the Self Defense techniques themselves are often used to build the kata.  The use is taught right along with the kata and the tech itself.  Once you have experienced this kind of thing, it becomes easier to see and interpret useful movement in other kata, even if the teacher doesn't know it.

When I was training Wing Chun, the sifu demonstrated the ending movement for one of the forms.  He confessed that he did not know what the use was for that particular movement, and he was a 35 year veteran of the art.  But I took one look at the movement and suggested two or three useful interpretations almost immediately.  He was very open to my suggestions.  I believe that it was my experience in Tracy Kenpo that enabled me to do that.  

I'm not trying to push kenpo as better.  In fact, I believe that as an art it definitely has its problems like any art does.  But I think experience in this type of thing can open your eyes and you can apply it elsewhere.

Of course the problem with this suggestion is that you might end up abandoning the original art, in favor of the different art where you intended to get the experience...



> But let's face it, lads: it won't get anywhere if it can't make money for the school owners. Karate, Tang Soo Do, TKD, or any of the CMAs... that's their livelihood. So we have three questions now on our plate, eh?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 
I think the answer to this is simple: you don't.

I hate to say it, but I really believe the arts are being taught in a way that makes it very difficult to pass on deep and quality knowledge.  As I stated earlier in this post, I believe there MUST be a relationship between student and teacher, and there MUST be face-to-face training in order for this kind of knowledge to be passed on.  I think all too often the business of martial arts really really kills the arts themselves because it creates a situation where it is virtually impossible to pass on the information effectively and deeply.  The school owner may be tremendously talented and have the best of intentions, and it's not his fault, but the circumstances act to sabotage his efforts.  I think the arts should be passed down to small groups, but this means that karate as daycare, karate as social group, karate as exercise, karate as hobby, karate as distraction from life, would end.  Or else it would exist separately, and that's fine as long as everyone understands that.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jul 3, 2007)

exile said:


> But let's face it, lads: it won't get anywhere if it can't make money for the school owners. Karate, Tang Soo Do, TKD, or any of the CMAs... that's their livelihood. So we have three questions now on our plate, eh?





exile said:


> *I* How to access the complete martial content of MA forms by interpreting them in terms of their combat applications


 

This, I think, is the easiest of the problems. The information is there in the forms and kata and there are many commentaries on how to extract that information. Its not easy but it can be done.​


exile said:


> *II* How to build a curriculum centered around forms and their combat applications, teaching individual techniques as part of the larger context of combat-effective bunkai.


 

This requires a change of mindset, really. Especially in Karate and TKD. Kata needs to be seen as an essential element. Difficult to do with so many arts focussing so heavily on sport competition. I suppose the creation of the curriculum is not that hard it getting people to accept the relevance of forms and kata.​


exile said:


> *III* How to do it so the poor sod trying to make a living teaching MAs can do so, even though this approach to MA instruction isas FC and ST have both pointed outnot very compatible with large classes, of the kind that typically pay the freight at most MA schools.


 

Well formerly students would have entered into a master/disciple relationship with their teacher which involved him teaching and them looking after his well-being. There were responsibilities for both parties. Can't really do that these days.​ 

One of the problems I keep running into when I consider this is that the old masters did not teach all their students the 'secrets' of the art. Some were seen as not suitable for the knowledge, some were.​ 

You could run a school this way but you would run into the problem of people expecting access to the whole curriculum if they pay the money, even if they cannot comprehend it. Students don't seem to have any responsibilities to their teach any more.​


exile said:


> There are other issues. What about children in these schools? They represent a substantial chunk of the school owner's income. How do they fit into the curriculum? Do you have two tracks? How do you fit kids into a lower-volume, CQ combat oriented approach to the MAs?
> 
> My head is starting to hurt...


 
Now you want to talk about kids? Isn't it difficult enough? 
But actually children may be the answer. If you can set kids on the right path from an early age you might be go a long way toward bringing those 'lost' elements back to the MAs.


----------



## exile (Jul 3, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Well, my head is just beginning _not _to hurt, so I'm just checking in. Man, I hate being sidelined during this discussion, but maybe it's for the best since it forces me to reflect before posting. Just wanted to say, I have some ideas on how to achieve all three of *exile*'s questions. But may be another day or so before my faculties are back to normal (viz., half-***ed).



Glad to hear you're on the mend, Mark. And your faculties are posteriorly complete, so far as I can tell, so I'm hoping for some seriousl light to be shed on these questions and how to answer them (if they _can_ be&#8212;FC is skeptical about the last one; see below... it should be a very good discussion!)



Flying Crane said:


> I think the arts must be taught in small groups, teacher to student, directly.  The whole empire building, federations, governing bodies, chain schools, it needs to end.  There needs to be a real relationship between the teacher and the student, and this dictates that class size must be small.



Absolutely, absolutely. As a KMA person I'm always running into massive governing organizations and sport/regulating federations and all that sort of top-down imposed `unity'. Here is a terrifically well-thought out essay on this issue by Rob Redmond, whose iconoclastic karate web site is one of the best MA resources out there:

http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2006/02/05/the-totalitarian-politics-of-karate/

You can get the idea from the URL itself just what he's going on about... Note the very final paragraph of the essay:

_In fact, I would argue that we should all be saying &#8220;Thank goodness!&#8221; anytime one of these Karate organizations experiences a hemorrhage that causes them to bleed members and spawn the birth of three new organizations. This is because from the ashes of the old organization and its old thinking comes the ability to choose from various options. These splinters are not a negative thing. They are a positive thing. Hopefully, Karate will continue to move away from a governing body model and toward a laissez faire model in which the club level is where control lies.

One of my friends once asked me if I thought this problem of splintering amongst Karate associations would ever be fixed. My answer was &#8220;Are you joking? The splintering is the fix!&#8221;_​



Flying Crane said:


> Maybe one way to rectify this is to train in an art that does focus more on understanding the use of kata.  Some arts still do this more than others.  The way Tracy kenpo is structured, the Self Defense techniques themselves are often used to build the kata.  The use is taught right along with the kata and the tech itself.  Once you have experienced this kind of thing, it becomes easier to see and interpret useful movement in other kata, even if the teacher doesn't know it.
> 
> When I was training Wing Chun, the sifu demonstrated the ending movement for one of the forms.  He confessed that he did not know what the use was for that particular movement, and he was a 35 year veteran of the art.  But I took one look at the movement and suggested two or three useful interpretations almost immediately.  He was very open to my suggestions.  I believe that it was my experience in Tracy Kenpo that enabled me to do that.
> 
> ...



That's a very interesting idea, cross training in MA not to expand technique but to expand your analytic abilities. I think it could be a very valuable complement to the `rule-based' method where you take a set of translation principles, look at the movement sequence in the form, and deduce a set of combat move sequences which embody the same movements in different ways. (In my own field, theoretical syntax, I've often thought that students would do well to take a course in electromagnetism, with vectors, partial differential equations, the whole shebang, just so they would understand what a real scientific theory looks like, what standards it has to meet, and the level of predictive precision possible when those standards are indeed met. They wouldn't babble so much about nomological/deductive paradigms and other stuff that they have no clue about because they've never studied a real science... same principle: you want to do X? Then let's look at someone who is _REALLY_ doing X!!).





Flying Crane said:


> I think the answer to this is simple: you don't.
> 
> I hate to say it, but I really believe the arts are being taught in a way that makes it very difficult to pass on deep and quality knowledge.  As I stated earlier in this post, I believe there MUST be a relationship between student and teacher, and there MUST be face-to-face training in order for this kind of knowledge to be passed on.  I think all too often the business of martial arts really really kills the arts themselves because it creates a situation where it is virtually impossible to pass on the information effectively and deeply.  The school owner may be tremendously talented and have the best of intentions, and it's not his fault, but the circumstances act to sabotage his efforts.  I think the arts should be passed down to small groups, but this means that karate as daycare, karate as social group, karate as exercise, karate as hobby, karate as distraction from life, would end.  Or else it would exist separately, and that's fine as long as everyone understands that.



OK, now we are talking some serious stuff!!! I hope kidswarrior recovers soon, because I am chafing at the bit to hear you guys' respective takes on this particular question... I myself am currently clueness as to the hows and ifs of the teaching-business side of it....

Added in edit: I see S_T and I cross-posted... would have wanted to include his comments here too, which are very much to the point... will do next round!


----------



## MJS (Jul 3, 2007)

exile said:


> In the karate-based arts, each kata usually gives you at least four or five separate techs, each of which has multiple interpretations. So you have something like a grand total of fifteen to twenty different combat scenarios tied up in a single twenty-five move kata made up of four to six subsequences (Bill Burgar's book, _Five Years, One Kata_ shows how this decomposition works for a single kata, Gojushiho). The fact that the Okinawan masters, as Motobu noted, usually knew in detail only a few kata _at most_ means sort entails the consequence that pretty much everything they needed for real combat was in them. The sparring isn't so much a different kind of training than the kata, in my view; rather, kata and sparring (close range, noncompliant, not `set' in advance) are part of a _single_ training regime. They don't compete, because they do two different, necessary, complementary things. The kata really are telling you what to do to realize the art's particular strategic ideas tactically. CQ combat sparring is giving you the training to implement that realization of strategy as particular tactics in _real time_. Kata are telling you what kind of sequence of individual techs will lead inevitably to a `forced checkmate' of the assailant; but you have to live the biomechanics out and adapt them to your own capabilities. So to my way of thinking, kata and training are really the two necessary sides which jointly compose the single SD coin...


 
Interesting analogy.   I guess it comes down to having a real solid understanding of the moves.  I was at a Dillman seminar a while ago.  Now, I know Dillman is the subject of much controversy, but I wanted to form my own opinion of him, but thats a different story.  Anyway, he was going thru some various application, etc., and I was really amazed at what he was showing.  Some big differences between what I was shown, my interpretations and what he was showing.

I guess I'm just looking at it like this...if you want to get good at something, you need to do that task, over and over.  I'll refer back to my flight simulator example.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 3, 2007)

MJS said:


> Interesting analogy.   I guess it comes down to having a real solid understanding of the moves.  I was at a Dillman seminar a while ago.  Now, I know Dillman is the subject of much controversy, but I wanted to form my own opinion of him, but thats a different story.  Anyway, he was going thru some various application, etc., and I was really amazed at what he was showing.  Some big differences between what I was shown, my interpretations and what he was showing.
> 
> I guess I'm just looking at it like this...if you want to get good at something, you need to do that task, over and over.  I'll refer back to my flight simulator example.


Without sidetracking into the whole Dillman question -- did his interpretations seem like reasonable, alternate interpretations and approaches?

That's one thing about many kata; there is room for multiple interpretations once you start delving into them.  Again, let's look at the simple step/block/punch combo found in the earliest-learned forms in most systems.  I can look at it, and say it's just what it appears -- step, upward block, punch.  Someone else might point to a cover done before the block, and say that it's a parry, a forearm strike, and a punch.  A third person might say it's a parry/trap, using the upward armbar to unbalance the opponent for a throw...  And someone else might find pressure point keys in the same sequence.

But they're all valid interpretations of the pieces.  None is "better" than the other; they're just other ways to look at it.

So... is what you saw just another way of looking at it -- or something new, different, and maybe odd?


----------



## MJS (Jul 3, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Without sidetracking into the whole Dillman question -- did his interpretations seem like reasonable, alternate interpretations and approaches?


 
Yes.  



> That's one thing about many kata; there is room for multiple interpretations once you start delving into them. Again, let's look at the simple step/block/punch combo found in the earliest-learned forms in most systems. I can look at it, and say it's just what it appears -- step, upward block, punch. Someone else might point to a cover done before the block, and say that it's a parry, a forearm strike, and a punch. A third person might say it's a parry/trap, using the upward armbar to unbalance the opponent for a throw... And someone else might find pressure point keys in the same sequence.
> 
> But they're all valid interpretations of the pieces. None is "better" than the other; they're just other ways to look at it.


 
True.  This is the key to forms IMO...being able to have multiple applications/translations for the moves.



> So... is what you saw just another way of looking at it -- or something new, different, and maybe odd?


 
I'd say for myself, alot of what I saw was new.  Unfortunately, one of my early instructors never really gave application to the moves.  This was most likely because he could not provide me with any.  Fortunately as time went on, that changed. 

I recognized the katas he was using from my Villari days.  Things such as a downward X block, where I was told was blocking a kick, he translated into locks from a wrist grab.  

Like I said, he was in the area, and I wanted to form my own opinion of him.  I got to actually work with him while he was demonstrating a few things.  Overall, I'd say I saw a new way of looking at things. 

Mike


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jul 3, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> That's one thing about many kata; there is room for multiple interpretations once you start delving into them. Again, let's look at the simple step/block/punch combo found in the earliest-learned forms in most systems. I can look at it, and say it's just what it appears -- step, upward block, punch. Someone else might point to a cover done before the block, and say that it's a parry, a forearm strike, and a punch. A third person might say it's a parry/trap, using the upward armbar to unbalance the opponent for a throw... And someone else might find pressure point keys in the same sequence.
> 
> But they're all valid interpretations of the pieces. None is "better" than the other; they're just other ways to look at it.


 
This falls neatly into a Daoist concept that we apply to our forms.  That of the uncarved block.  When an sculptor looks at a block of stone he sees many possibilities for what it might become.  But once he begins to carve the stone its form is set and cannot change.  So we view forms in the manner of the uncarved block, allowing for many variations and interpretations.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 5, 2007)

OK, it took me too long to get back to the thread to try to pick up all the pieces. That is, I'm not going to try to address all the concerns raised, or even acknowledge all the good points made. And there are many. (I have notes everywhere, and fear it would be too cumbersome to foist whatever wannabe treatise which might emerge on everyone).

Instead, am just going to go on from here, using as a starting point exile's three concerns posted not too far back. Again, this is not me ignoring others' great points of concern or terrific proposals, just a way to re-enter the stream of this thread, and hopefully move the discussion forward at the same time.



			
				exile said:
			
		

> _ So we have three questions now on our plate, eh?*I*   How to access the complete martial content of MA forms by interpreting them in terms of their combat applications​*II* How to build a curriculum centered around forms and their combat applications, teaching individual techniques as part of the larger context of combat-effective bunkai.​*III* How to do it so the poor sod trying to make a living teaching MAs can do so, even though this approach to MA instruction isas FC and ST have both pointed outnot very compatible with large classes, of the kind that typically pay the freight at most MA schools.​There are other issues. What about children in these schools? _



Now, what I am thinking and about to share will not live up to the ideal which some have called for: the perfect forms-based system. I don't know of a way to start most Westerners off with just forms and retain them as students for the long haul. That requires complete intrinsic motivation on their part, and we're too extrinsic, reward-based (or at least, benchmark-oriented) not to get some attaboy's/girl's along the way. Enter the color belt system. Which leads me to *exile's **Question III*. 

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to make a living. Don't even charge for my classes. Why should I, when I get a teacher's pay and live like a king.  Actually, the teaching and salary part are true; and so that's what we live on. It's enough--if you drive 11 year old cars  But just want to make clear, that while I'm on the 'commercial' model, I'm not commercial. That might have implications for someone reading this who does need to make a living at it.

Here's what I am doing/am planning to further refine and do better (hopefully with your input).

* 9th kyu*-- Introduction to first form (solo and synchronized line performance); learning basics (blocks, strikes, begins to learn how we move, balance, stances, etc.); learns a few preset combination techniques.

* 8th*-- Student works on perfecting initial solo form (Still in *Iain Abernethy's Stage I* of forms: solo practice), while improving in basics, adding techniques.

* 7th*-- While continuously improving in prior material, more techniques are added, but student now moves to *IA's Stage II* of forms practice: studying the bunkai. Much will necessarily require instructor's input, but student can work on this on own time, too.

* 6th*-- Repeat 7th kyu but with new techniques (some may see a cross-purpose between techniques and forms, but techniques are taught to (1) Protect the student in case a real self-defense need arises before they can learn combat applications of forms, which is the ultimate goal; and (2) give that extrinsic benchmark which westerners need, at least in the early years of practice. Teacher continues to show alternative applications and modifications for form(s), now preparing student for actual adaptation and application.

* 5th*-- Student is now responsible for adapting and applying forms in new ways, in response to a slightly resisting partner (too much resistance at this point may get the partner injured). New techs still added.

* 4th*-- This is the swing point, and the beginning of the answer to *exile's Question II*. Training is now 'advanced' and student focuses equally on forms, and techniques. I would think a commercial school would at this time (if not sooner) separate these students into a separate 'advanced' class, for smaller class size, more one-on-one with instructor and other knowledgeable students. Students move to *IA's Stage III* of forms practice.

* 3rd*-- _Student now learns only forms_, continuing to practice previously learned techniques and basics in order to embed the art's style of movement into muscle memory, thus bolstering forms practice and self-defense/combat capabilities. Any techniques taught by the teacher, or designed by the student (maybe a 50/50 split?) must be identifiable from forms movement or principles (adaptation and application). That is, the practice is now forms-centric and forms partner practice 'goes live' per *IA's Stage IV*, and attempts to satisfy *exile's Question I*.

* 2nd*-- Continue as 3rd kyu, but with higher expectations of student.

* 1st*-- Student prepares for Dan test through mastery and extension of knowledge of all material.

OK, I know I should read and reread this some more, but before the whole mess gets lost in the system, am going to post it. Please go easy on me, but don't hesitate to point out flaws. I'm experimenting here, and most such enterprises take several tries to get right.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 5, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Now, what I am thinking and about to share will not live up to the ideal which some have called for: the perfect forms-based system. I don't know of a way to start most Westerners off with just forms and retain them as students for the long haul. That requires complete intrinsic motivation on their part, and we're too extrinsic, reward-based (or at least, benchmark-oriented) not to get some attaboy's/girl's along the way. Enter the color belt system. Which leads me to *exile's **Question III*.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not trying to make a living. Don't even charge for my classes. Why should I, when I get a teacher's pay and live like a king.  Actually, the teaching and salary part are true; and so that's what we live on. It's enough--if you drive 11 year old cars  But just want to make clear, that while I'm on the 'commercial' model, I'm not commercial. That might have implications for someone reading this who does need to make a living at it.
> 
> ...


 

What I am seeing here I think can be summed up quite simply: switching the focus away from "more material for more rank" to "deeper understanding of material for more rank".  I think maybe I've oversimplified it, but to some degree, I think that is it.

Really, this is probably on the mark.  Of course more material IS taught, but the real focus is on that deeper understanding, and when a student can show that understanding and ability, rank is based on that skill, rather than simply being able to recite and give a superficial performance of a whole bunch of things that will probably be forgotten soon after the ranking test is over, only to be relearned in a series of late-night cramming sessions just before the NEXT ranking test.

My kung fu sifu does use a ranking system, but it is virtually forgotten about and little emphasis is placed on it.  In fact, for most students, especially the adults, it is really optional.  I have been with him for close to 9, maybe 10 years now.  The first and only time I tested with him was after I had been with him for maybe 6 or more years.  He ranked me at green belt, which is somewhere in the middle of the sequence to black.  Never tested again, don't know when/if I will.  It never really mattered, and it took the pressure off the notion that "another test is coming, so I need to cram this material into my head to make sure I pass".  Rather, I just keep practicing all that he teaches me and I don't worry about performing for a test.  

The other interesting thing is that he doesn't really have a set curriculum for each belt level.  He knows TONS and TONS of stuff from several Chinese systems, and he teaches what he feels is appropriate to each student.  So rather than looking at a fixed curriculum that a student must learn for each level, he gauges based on how much material has one learned at a beginner's level, how much is at an intermediate level, how much is advanced material, etc.  And that is how he decides what belt a student might merit.  But none of the students knows EVERYTHING that is beginner's material, or intermediate, or advanced, because his material is from these several different arts.  After the years I've been with him, I've learned stuff that is intermediate and advanced, but I just recently began learning Tam Tui, which is a gruelling beginners set used to develop basic technique.  I wanted to learn it in case I begin teaching someday I felt it would be a good set to know, and also simply to help my own technique.  He didn't feel I needed the set, but agreed to teach it to me.  So there isn't a clear progression that one is always learning More Advanced material as you progress.  Sometimes you learn something more advanced, sometimes something less advanced, it just depends on what he feels is appropriate for you to know.

But at any rate, after teaching the basic techniques, my learning with him has been very much focused on forms.  He teaches me the forms, and I just keep on working on them.  We will discuss applications of the movement so that I have a clear idea of what I am accomplishing in the forms, and I just keep working on them, and I have actually learned quite a lot of forms from him.  

I believe this approach works very well, but perhaps can be frustrating for students with a Western mindset, who expect all the answers up front, handed out on a silver platter.  In order to thrive with this approach, you need to be highly self-motivated, because sifu has NEVER stood there over me and said "do it again.  and again.  and again."  Rather, he shows it to me, then walks away to work with other students who need more guidance.  I practice on my own, but I can always ask questions and get clarification about things.

PART TWO
I wanted to contrast this approach with my training in Tracy Kenpo.

We have a very large curriculum of self defense techniques, along with a long list of kata.  Some of our kata were developed using our self defense techniques, some kata were developed using basics, and some of our kata were adopted from outside sources.  

We have a very clearly mapped out curriculum, all the way to 5th dan.  You can see the list of everything that you need to know for the next rank advancement, most belts having 30 SD techs plus a kata or three.  It works quite well, because everything is so clear, and the application of our material is clearly taught as you learn it.  The SD techs are very clear on application, and the forms that are built around the SD techs are by extension, also very clear.

I think perhaps the other material that was brought in from other sources is meant to get the student to think more creatively.  This material is obviously not built upon our SD techs, so the application is more vague, on the lines of some of my earlier postings in this thread.  I suppose This is where the student has the opportunity to get creative and look for their own answers. There is a danger here, I believe, in failing to get creative.  It's possible that a student gets so comfortable with the standard curriculum, that they fail to explore more deeply, and perhaps the imported material is in danger of becoming "just a dance".

But overall, the curriculum is huge, and well mapped out, and this differs very much from my experience in the Chinese arts.

I guess I'm not sure exactly what message I'm trying to convey here, but perhaps my own examples and experiences will give food for thought in this discussion.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 5, 2007)

Don't know if I could articulate your whole message either, *Flying Crane*, but do know I pretty much agree with everything you've said--and left unsaid. Think my effort is an attempt to follow the very structured pattern to intermediate level (since I teach teens, they need more immediate feedback), then ease over to the CMA approach used by your sifu in kung fu classes. In light of my conviction that forms are at the heart of what I believe combat MAs to be, this switch in focus must occur at some point, and to me that point is far before black belt. This is not to say it's either/or, forms/or techs, but rather a question of which takes primacy. Growth in forms requires that creativity you're talking about, and which IA says comes about through adaptation, application, and then 'going live'. Imho, this can't really be optional if someone wants to become a proficient MAist.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 5, 2007)

Splendid stuff gentlemen (darned Rep Gnomes strike again preventing me from adding to the stockpile of commendation for the above posts).

I'm impressed by the thinking that's gone into this thread and I'm regretful that these days, because I do a solely weapon based art, I can't really contribute from a current, involved, perspective.  The fact that iaido is almost *all* forms doesn't exactly give me an unbiased view either .

One thing I would like to add my paltry emphasis to tho' is a point that's been hit on a couple of times now.  That is that it is _depth_ of understanding rather than _breadth_ of knowing about a lot of style attributes that is key.

I know from my own experiences that now when I go into seiza to perform mai (probably the simplest of the 'seated' kata) I am approaching it from a much better comprehension of what it embodies than I did five years ago.  

That comprehension, along with the ever so slowly developing ability to project seme (dominant prescence/pressure) and use zanshin (situational awareness), is what marks the major leap that shodan is over kyu grade.  Being able to perform the body motions required for a kata is a given at this point, from this point on it's going to be decades of honing those motions for precsion and duplicability.  The mental/internal side of the equation is the one that starts to really matter once you've crossed the rubicon to Dan grade territory.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 5, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Don't know if I could articulate your whole message either, *Flying Crane*, but do know I pretty much agree with everything you've said--and left unsaid. Think my effort is an attempt to follow the very structured pattern to intermediate level (since I teach teens, they need more immediate feedback), then ease over to the CMA approach used by your sifu in kung fu classes. In light of my conviction that forms are at the heart of what I believe combat MAs to be, this switch in focus must occur at some point, and to me that point is far before black belt. This is not to say it's either/or, forms/or techs, but rather a question of which takes primacy. Growth in forms requires that creativity you're talking about, and which IA says comes about through adaptation, application, and then 'going live'. Imho, this can't really be optional if someone wants to become a proficient MAist.


 

I think you are correct here.  For the beginners, it is important to have more of the material mapped out clearly, perhaps a progression thru the syllabus, as well as clear applications for the material.  But gradually a student must be lead away from that approach, as I think it is possible to become too dependent on that kind of material, and that kind of thinking.  Eventually, the student must own the material for himself, and be able to look more deeply into it to make it useful.  Exactly when and how that transition is done is something I am not sure about.  I think you are right tho, it should at least be started prior to dan grades.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 5, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> the stockpile of commendation for the above posts....


I musta missed even more than I thought. Anybody know about a stockpile....? Hello, anyone...? 



> I'm impressed by the thinking that's gone into this thread and I'm regretful that these days, because I do a solely weapon based art, I can't really contribute from a current, involved, perspective.  The fact that iaido is almost *all* forms doesn't exactly give me an unbiased view either .


But that's not a bad thing. And you do have the earlier experience to call on.



> One thing I would like to add my paltry emphasis to tho' is a point that's been hit on a couple of times now.  That is that it is _depth_ of understanding rather than _breadth_ of knowing about a lot of style attributes that is key.
> 
> The mental/internal side of the equation is the one that starts to really matter once you've crossed the rubicon to Dan grade territory.


Yeah, just when I think I may be getting good, something shows me how shallow my understanding really is. But maybe that's just life, eh? Too soon old, too late wise? Ah, but you're all young yet. Where're *Drac*, and *exile*, and *morph4me*? OR *Tez3*, even? Oh, sorry guys, didn't mean to out you. Now, back to the thread.

Great stuff, hope you all keep posting as I'm learning a lot.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 5, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I think you are correct here.  For the beginners, it is important to have more of the material mapped out clearly, perhaps a progression thru the syllabus, as well as clear applications for the material.  But gradually a student must be lead away from that approach, as I think it is possible to become too dependent on that kind of material, and that kind of thinking.  Eventually, the student must own the material for himself, and be able to look more deeply into it to make it useful.  Exactly when and how that transition is done is something I am not sure about.  I think you are right tho, it should at least be started prior to dan grades.


Michael, that means a lot to me. Thanks for sharing your experience and opinion.

~Mark


----------



## exile (Jul 5, 2007)

Guys, I live yet! Was involved for a while in a very bizarre wrangle over on the `limited poomse' thread about the value of using head-high kicks in a real streetfight on broken surfaces in street shoes and jeans with all kinds of crap in the environment that keeps you from moving freely (you can figure what _my_ positiion on the matter was... :wink1 and only recently have disentangled myself from it. There is so much outstanding content here that I'm kind of blown away by it and need to reread S_T's, Kidswarrior's and FC's posts before I come up with a halway intelligent response to it... will do later on this evening. 

You know what, though? I think we, collectively, need to get together, sit down and write a book about this stuff. If we're worrying about it and thinking about it, there are probably a lot of folk out there who are thinking and worrying about the same thing. _I'm not kidding!!!_

*IN Edit* Like Mark, I have several pages of notes that I've generated in fretting over how to move forms back into a central position in guiding MA instruction. I am gonna try to write up something coherent and post it shortly... I also owe Iceman some notes on that very odd WTF apologia-as-history of TKD... am trying to get a textbook written and a long paper... I really do mean well, I'm just not very efficient...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 5, 2007)

Just to chime in here

Taiji and Xingyi are big on form and structure in the beginning, not so much rank however.

It is not likely that you will get into actual fighting with either in the first couple of years. As for curriculum the only thing my Taiji sifu teaches to every single person that he requires them to learn is the long form and which is the very first thing you learn. And he rarely teaches any applications during the time he is teaching the first form. The proper posture is much more important, without it you have no application and you have no health benefit and no qi benefit. It is later after he has taught students the moving sets of push hands that he starts to emphasize application. But there is no written progression as to what forms you need to learn first and there is no guarantee he will teach you any applications at all. That is based on when he thinks you are ready to learn not when you think you are ready to learn. If he feels your form is bad he will not show any applications because without the proper form you will not understand the application or be able to apply it properly. This generally translates to the application will look very awkward and/or use too much force. 

Taiji is a lot of forms work in the beginning, Long form, fast forms, weapons forms qigong forms, etc and all are important to train to understand the real martial application of it. So it could be argued that it is a total fighting system based on form, I feel there is more to it, but not so much in the beginning.  

My Xingyi sifu focused on Wuji, Santi (Standing postures) and Wu Xing (5 elements) at the beginning and taught applications for each of the 5 element forms as we went along. However he was still not teaching fighting. Again structure is VERY important to Xingyi and without proper structure applications just do not work well. With structure Xingyi hits like a truck but without it you are not so powerful and if you are you are using too much muscle and will not last long.

EDIT:
Just read exiles response, we must have been posting at the same time. It made me want to add this. Forms are central to the majority of CMA styles in existence. And to the internal styles they are, I believe, even more important.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 5, 2007)

exile said:


> You know what, though? I think we, collectively, need to get together, sit down and write a book about this stuff. If we're worrying about it and thinking about it, there are probably a lot of folk out there who are thinking and worrying about the same thing. _I'm not kidding!!!_
> 
> *IN Edit* Like Mark, I have several pages of notes that I've generated in fretting over how to move forms back into a central position in guiding MA instruction. I am gonna try to write up something coherent and post it shortly... I also owe Iceman some notes on that very odd WTF apologia-as-history of TKD... am trying to get a textbook written and a long paper... I really do mean well, I'm just not very efficient...


 
A few years ago I made a couple of attempts to modify my kenpo curriculum.  At times, I find the vast number of SD techs to be cumbersome in training, and I felt that perhaps they could be reduced in number, eliminating some that seemed repetitive, and some that seemed to me somewhat less well-thought-out.  

I also felt that all the SD techs in the curriculum should be contained in a kata somewhere.  Currently, in our system, many are contained in kata, but many also are not.  My rationale for this is pretty simple.  I was looking at kata as primarily a catalog of effective techniques, and a way to practice when you don't have partners to train with, which is frequently my situation.  With this in mind, I felt it made sense to make sure all the SD techs are contained somewhere in the forms, and not existing as a freefloating piece out in the nebula.  My needs were very simple:  I am able to remember more material when it is contained within a form, then when they are otherwise unconnected, individual ideas.  So if the entire syllabus of techs were contained in kata, I could practice the entire system without having to keep a technique list with me to make sure I haven't forgotten anything.  And believe me, our syllabus is that long, you can't remember everything without a list.  Now don't get me wrong, I know the techs, the name is enough to spark my memory to execute it.  It's just that there are so many, it's easy to forget what is on the list.  So with the shorter list that I would end up with, I would attempt to create catalog kata to sweep up any techs that were not otherwise in our kata.

I am suspending all my prior judgements about my kenpo, and I am retraining everything with a new teacher who is among the most senior and most experienced in our lineage.  I felt that I should give the complete system another go-around, make sure I understand it as well as I can from a very knowledgeable source, before I even start to consider such an endeavor.  But at least this gives you an idea of how I have been thinking about things.

As far as writing a book goes, it's an interesting idea, but a difficult one as well.  I really believe that kata and forms from different systems were not created in the same manner, or with the same elements always in mind.  This is why I found Abernathy's book not so useful, because I don't know the kata he was basing his information on, and from what he wrote, I don't believe my kata from kenpo, or forms from my Chinese arts follow the rules he outlines.  I don't believe there are broad rules from one Chinese system to another, either.  So any book or other writings may need to be focused on a very specific kata or series of kata, and would not apply across the board.  Interesting idea, however.

So have at it, friends...


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 5, 2007)

exile said:


> You know what, though? I think we, collectively, need to get together, sit down and write a book about this stuff. If we're worrying about it and thinking about it, there are probably a lot of folk out there who are thinking and worrying about the same thing. _I'm not kidding!!!_


Have had this same thought, all except for the 'get together' part which is tough for me, and perhaps others. But if we could do it via electronics and snail mail (and I believe we could), then why not? I know several of us have been published already, so the experience is no secret. Writing a best-seller, now that's a secret--at least, it's above my security clearance.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 5, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Just to chime in here
> 
> Taiji and Xingyi are big on form and structure in the beginning, not so much rank however.
> 
> ...


 
Just wanted to comment that I think your entire post here is a very good example of what I have been trying to express in my last few posts here.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 5, 2007)

OK. Three things.
1. Cuong Nhu has an overall assocation with a governing body. The purpose of the assocition is to do three things. 1) Limit Cuong Nhu McDojo's (I'll let you decide how well we did with that). 2) Make sure every one in the style understands the depth of the technique. 3) Make sure everyone who says they are doing Cuong Nhu, is doing Cuong Nhu. 
So, can we reconginse that not ALL associations are evil?
2. Kidswarrior, are you trying to create your own style? Cause it seems like you are form the post were you outlined the teaching order.
3. Cuong Nhu is a form based system. If you could find a school in your area, they might be able to help figure out how to go about doing that. If not, send me a PM and I will give you the ruff out line of our requirements, to help you along.

Also, Exile I'll help you right that book. Sounds like fun!


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 5, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> 2. Kidswarrior, are you trying to create your own style? Cause it seems like you are form the post were you outlined the teaching order.


My own style? Everything I know I owe to those who came before me; there is nothing new. So here's my answer:


			
				exile said:
			
		

> http://www.24fightingchickens.com/20...ics-of-karate/
> 
> You can get the idea from the URL itself just what he's going on about... Note the very final paragraph of the essay:_In fact, I would argue that we should all be saying Thank goodness! anytime one of these Karate organizations experiences a hemorrhage that causes them to bleed members and spawn the birth of three new organizations. This is because from the ashes of the old organization and its old thinking comes the ability to choose from various options. These splinters are not a negative thing. They are a positive thing. Hopefully, Karate will continue to move away from a governing body model and toward a laissez faire model in which the club level is where control lies.
> 
> One of my friends once asked me if I thought this problem of splintering amongst Karate associations would ever be fixed. My answer was Are you joking? The splintering is the fix!_​




I'm one of those splinters that arose from the ashes of the demise of some other things.​


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jul 5, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> My own style? Everything I know I owe to those who came before me; there is nothing new. So here's my answer:
> 
> 
> I'm one of those splinters that arose from the ashes of the demise of some other things.​


 
The quote you have conveniently reminded me of (thanks) has made me think.  While I can see the point being made and agree, I can also see that splintering can lead to a loss of application and interpretation in forms.

I can easily envision a scenario in which a large organisation breaks up into, say a dozen smaller ones.  It is possible that one or two or more of these small groups then procede along a training path that is so focused on forms that they forget about application.  Two or three generations later you have students who know the forms but not the apllication of same.  I think that some weapon arts suffer from this for the simple reason that they cannot effectively practice the applications and so they have dropped them.

So my conclusion is that one can stray from the proper emphasis with regard to forms in two ways.  You can throw forms away altogether as useless and containing no information, or you can go the other way and practice forms to the exclusion of all else and make them useless and lacking information.  Interesting that both paths end up in the same place huh?


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 5, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> The quote you have conveniently reminded me of (thanks) has made me think.  While I can see the point being made and agree, I can also see that splintering can lead to a loss of application and interpretation in forms.


No doubt, splintering has _many _potential pitfalls (to borrow *Sukerkin*'s penchant for mixed metaphors --Gotcha', Suke :lfao.



> I can easily envision a scenario in which a large organisation breaks up into, say a dozen smaller ones.  It is possible that one or two or more of these small groups then procede along a training path that is so focused on forms that they forget about application. Two or three generations later you have students who know the forms but not the apllication of same.


Hey, I studied under those guys. Beautiful solo forms, with ridiculous explanations of application. :bs1:



> So my conclusion is that one can stray from the proper emphasis with regard to forms in two ways.  You can throw forms away altogether as useless and containing no information, or you can go the other way and practice forms to the exclusion of all else and make them useless and lacking information.  Interesting that both paths end up in the same place huh?


Yes, an interesting point, *Steel Tiger*. I'd just also make the point that it sounds like when you say forms, it seems you're implying 'solo' forms, and never partner practiced forms. And in fairness to this assumption, I've never seen a partner form even _attempted _in any class I've attended in almost 15 years in multiple arts. So I'd say you're right on in my experience. :ultracool


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 5, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> My own style? Everything I know I owe to those who came before me; there is nothing new. So here's my answer:
> 
> I'm one of those splinters that arose from the ashes of the demise of some other things.


 
While your not _techniquely_ creating a differnit style, in many ways I would say you are. You are talking about, what seems like, radical changes in the circulum of your style. And I checked your user cp, it seems like you have studied a variety of arts, I imagine you would be including material from those styles. So, while it would be simply a splinter of anouther association, in many ways you would creating a new style. Just saying.
Next, have you considered what I said in part three? It may help you with the problems you seem to have with the circulum.
Lastly, in my oppion, when someone breaks off from an assocaition, they create a new sub-style. Even if every thing remains the same, they have created a new version of the original system, and thus a new style of martial arts. In my oppion.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 5, 2007)

CuongNhuka said:


> While your not _techniquely_ creating a differnit style, in many ways I would say you are. You are talking about, what seems like, radical changes in the circulum of your style. And I checked your user cp, it seems like you have studied a variety of arts, I imagine you would be including material from those styles. So, while it would be simply a splinter of anouther association, in many ways you would creating a new style. Just saying.
> Next, have you considered what I said in part three? It may help you with the problems you seem to have with the circulum.
> Lastly, in my oppion, when someone breaks off from an assocaition, they create a new sub-style. Even if every thing remains the same, they have created a new version of the original system, and thus a new style of martial arts. In my oppion.


Thanks for your carefully reasoned response, *CN*. Let me chew on it for awhile.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 5, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> As far as writing a book goes, it's an interesting idea, but a difficult one as well.  I really believe that kata and forms from different systems were not created in the same manner, or with the same elements always in mind.  *This is why I found Abernathy's book not so useful, because I don't know the kata he was basing his information on*, and from what he wrote, I don't believe my kata from kenpo, or forms from my Chinese arts follow the rules he outlines.  I don't believe there are broad rules from one Chinese system to another, either.  So any book or other writings may need to be focused on a very specific kata or series of kata, and would not apply across the board.  Interesting idea, however.
> 
> So have at it, friends...



I hear ya, Michael. I've passed on _many _writing projects because unless it reaches out and grabs me, who needs it? :ultracool 

Know what you're saying about IA, too. Once in awhile, his stuff will suddenly turn cold on me. And I usually then realize I just don't have enough experience with the specific form(s) he may be discussing. Fortunately, in SKK, I was exposed to (I think) three of the forms he often uses (tho they've been adapted heavily, but still...). So, I lucked out in that way.

Thanks for being honest.
~Mark


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 6, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Thanks for your carefully reasoned response, *CN*. Let me chew on it for awhile.


 
Can Do!


----------



## marlon (Jul 8, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Do you believe a form or group of forms can contain a complete fighting system?


 
i believe a properly trained martial artist is a complete fighting system in and of themselves and can use a form or forms to demonstrate this.

respectfully,
marlon


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 11, 2007)

exile said:


> There are other issues. What about children in these schools? They represent a substantial chunk of the school owner's income. How do they fit into the curriculum? Do you have two tracks? How do you fit kids into a lower-volume, CQ combat oriented approach to the MAs?
> 
> My head is starting to hurt...


I never got back to answering exile's last question, a critical one at that for anyone who is going to accept children as students. For example, I am not going to teach throat attacks, eye gouges, or joint breaks to 6-10 year olds. I believe there could be psychological damage just in visualizing such physically brutal attacks, let alone actually performing them. And while I never intended to take students that young, life happens, and then the reality of exile's question sets in.

So, the short answer is, yes, I have two tracks. Actually, the track for someone who starts out at, say, the age of 8 will eventually include all the curriculum for a student who starts at 12/13 or older (I don't take adult students--too much aggravation ), but for the younger beginners, I've created new, additional forms that allow them to learn self defense without robbing them of their childhoods. I guess there is precedent for this, in that it seems much along the lines of the theory that the widespread use of forms with schoolchildren in Japan in the early 1900s forced the bunkai to be changed to something tamer than the brutal versions originally intended.

Of course, I want to avoid the juvenile version becoming the final version, and so neutralizing the effectiveness of the art, as seems to have happened with some of the forms as Asian arts made their way west. I should also clarify that I don't use a junior black belt model, so someone who starts at 8 is looking at 8-9/10 years to make black belt--but if they and their parents want to study with me, that's an up-front understanding.

Anyway, enough rambling for one morning, and I hope this makes some sense. Just felt in not answering Ex's last question, a piece was left out.


----------



## exile (Jul 11, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> I never got back to answering exile's last question, a critical one at that for anyone who is going to accept children as students. For example, I am not going to teach throat attacks, eye gouges, or joint breaks to 6-10 year olds. I believe there could be psychological damage just in visualizing such physically brutal attacks, let alone actually performing them.



I think that is a sound, completely appropriate way to approach the issue of self-defense for young children. For all kinds of reasons, it makes sense not to show potentially crippling or permanently damaging attacks to children who have only the haziest understanding of the potential dangers of the world, on the one hand, and of the vulnerability of the human body on the other. We have to assume that primary protection for children that age will be provided by responsible adults; that's why it's so important for parents to be aware of their young children's whereabouts and companions at all times. As children get older periods of independent, only very lightly monitored activities become more important, but at the younger end of that age range you mentioned, full time oversight by a parent, trusted acquaintance or teacher is essential. And if that rule is followed, there is no need whatever for child to have to contemplate major (or even minor) violence in self-defense against an age-mate. The problem from the point of view of MA instruction is that if the child is going to stick with the art, then at some point his or her understanding of the art is going to have to encompass the unfortunate truth that its primary original purpose was defense against an dangerous attacker. By the time comes when we can no longer protect them ourselves every minute of the day, they should be at least starting to learn the grimmest aspect of the MAs. So setting up a transition down the line is really what's at issue, eh?




kidswarrior said:


> IAnd while I never intended to take students that young, life happens, and then the reality of exile's question sets in.
> 
> So, the short answer is, yes, I have two tracks. Actually, the track for someone who starts out at, say, the age of 8 will eventually include all the curriculum for a student who starts at 12/13 or older (I don't take adult students--too much aggravation ), but for the younger beginners, I've created new, additional forms that allow them to learn self defense without robbing them of their childhoods.



Excellent, Mark, I'd love to see these forms in actionhave you ever made a video of a child performing them? 




kidswarrior said:


> II guess there is precedent for this, in that it seems much along the lines of the theory that the widespread use of forms with schoolchildren in Japan in the early 1900s forced the bunkai to be changed to something tamer than the brutal versions originally intended.



Itosu knew what he was doing. He wasn't really dumbing down karate, though he was accused of it in his own later lifetime. His karate, Matsumura's, Azato's and some of the others was damaging in the extreme; he knew that he couldn't possibly have young children doing anything remotely like that.



kidswarrior said:


> IOf course, I want to avoid the juvenile version becoming the final version, and so neutralizing the effectiveness of the art, as seems to have happened with some of the forms as Asian arts made their way west. I should also clarify that I don't use a junior black belt model, so someone who starts at 8 is looking at 8-9/10 years to make black belt--but if they and their parents want to study with me, that's an up-front understanding.
> 
> Anyway, enough rambling for one morning, and I hope this makes some sense. Just felt in not answering Ex's last question, a piece was left out.



Sounds pretty coherent to me, Mark! I think the use of novel forms is terrific. You can sort of design them for pedagogical purposes and eventual ramping-up to something a lot more street-realistic, when they're developmentally ready for it. As I say, I'd love to see one of your youngsters performing one of them.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 11, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Do you believe a form or group of forms can contain a complete fighting system?


Let me pose this question in light of your post above. Can the written word or typed as in a computer program contain your true feelings about anything? I would venture to say no. Yes you can put down information, categorize it, but it will lack your true feeling. The intangible part of this type of communication. The feeling part if you will. When we write down a statement or even post on this web site unless we communicate it very well there will be variables that dont come across. I believe that Kata is like the computer or the written word in that it shows you a glimpse but we need to put the feeling part into it. You can work on one part of the Kata but like a written sentence there is much more that is not said or felt. There is a saying I read somewhere that went like this, dont show me a1000 techniques but show me a few principles that I can use within a 1000 techniques. I feel that yes there is a complete system within the Kata and that is the system of principles that are contained within our art. Once we have drilled the principles into our being with repetition of movement within the Kata and practice the Kata moves verbatim then a whole new world of technique will open up to us, and it will be poetry in motion.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 11, 2007)

exile said:


> Sounds pretty coherent to me, Mark! I think the use of novel forms is terrific. You can sort of design them for pedagogical purposes and eventual ramping-up to something a lot more street-realistic, when they're developmentally ready for it. As I say, I'd love to see one of your youngsters performing one of them.


And I'd love to show it. The legal and ethical issues are just more than I want to tackle right now, though. Just to give an idea, though, I've merely taken the essential techniques at the beginning levels, and put them together into 26-move formalized practice sets....so, forms. . Young children can practice these at home alone, with friends from class, or we can do them in class. Any and all embed in muscle memory the basics of the art, as well as self-defense techniques, such as a hard shin kick, in the case of a horrific event (e.g., attempted abduction). And all burn off excess energy which the very young are so blessed with, as well as keep away boredom, which they are so cursed with. 

But yeah, some time I'll get the kids in action and post some stuff.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 11, 2007)

Great thread.  Interesting read so far.  I think that Exile nailed the salient questions that need to be asked AFTER someone realizes that kata were meant to be complete combat systems.  These are questions that I've thought of alot and I've come up with some answers in other threads.




exile said:


> *I* How to access the complete martial content of MA forms by interpreting them in terms of their combat applications


 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31800



exile said:


> *II* How to build a curriculum centered around forms and their combat applications, teaching individual techniques as part of the larger context of combat-effective bunkai.


 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31764

Here is a thread that describes my adult curriculum.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34158



exile said:


> *III* How to do it so the poor sod trying to make a living teaching MAs can do so, even though this approach to MA instruction isas FC and ST have both pointed outnot very compatible with large classes, of the kind that typically pay the freight at most MA schools.


 
I think that it is a mistake to assume that one cannot teach this stuff in large groups.  Once you have the correct information, all you need is the correct classroom management strategy and you can convey this information.

My dojang is small because I choose to keep it that way.  If I were to go about getting more students and teaching them, this is what I would do.

1.  Make sure that you have a curriculum that is philosophically sound so that it is easy for students to understand.

2.  Break up that curriculum into easily digestible peices that a student can easily put back together.

3.  Develop a set of rules for ettiquette and protocal for each component of your training.  This will help you manage a larger group.

4.  Separate students based on the stage of learning they have attained.




exile said:


> There are other issues. What about children in these schools? They represent a substantial chunk of the school owner's income. How do they fit into the curriculum? Do you have two tracks? How do you fit kids into a lower-volume, CQ combat oriented approach to the MAs?


 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48896


----------



## exile (Jul 11, 2007)

Great work assembling these links, UpNorth!



upnorthkyosa said:


> I think that it is a mistake to assume that one cannot teach this stuff in large groups.  Once you have the correct information, all you need is the correct classroom management strategy and you can convey this information.
> 
> My dojang is small because I choose to keep it that way.  If I were to go about getting more students and teaching them, this is what I would do.
> 
> ...



Good ideas, and the last one especially seems to be crucial. But you would probably need to expand your staff a bit to implement it  so you don't go crazy. I imagine that the best way of simulating a small class in the face of large enrollments is to treat that enrollment as the combination of a number of small programs, each with its own instructor. ...



kidswarrior said:


> And I'd love to show it. The legal and ethical issues are just more than I want to tackle right now, though. Just to give an idea, though, I've merely taken the essential techniques at the beginning levels, and put them together into 26-move formalized practice sets....so, forms. . Young children can practice these at home alone, with friends from class, or we can do them in class. Any and all embed in muscle memory the basics of the art, as well as self-defense techniques, such as a hard shin kick, in the case of a horrific event (e.g., attempted abduction). And all burn off excess energy which the very young are so blessed with, as well as keep away boredom, which they are so cursed with.
> 
> But yeah, some time I'll get the kids in action and post some stuff.



I can sort of picture what you're doing, Kdswrr. It's kind of like the TKD kichos or the taikyoku pre-katas in Shotokan... basic kihon techs linked so they can be performed as a unitary movement sequences, with basic SD apps built in for later reference when they reach the point where they're ready for that sort of thing...


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jul 11, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> 4. Separate students based on the stage of learning they have attained.


 


exile said:


> Good ideas, and the last one especially seems to be crucial. But you would probably need to expand your staff a bit to implement it so you don't go crazy. I imagine that the best way of simulating a small class in the face of large enrollments is to treat that enrollment as the combination of a number of small programs, each with its own instructor. ...


 
This something I have contemplated for a long time and I think Exile has pointed out the biggest problem with implementation.  It very difficult to imagine effective instruction coming from a guy who has to move from group to group or room to room and devote very little time to each.

You could also limit each enrolment and then treat each one as a separate class.  The problem you then run into is the different learning rates of the students.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 12, 2007)

exile said:


> I can sort of picture what you're doing, Kdswrr. It's kind of like the TKD kichos or the taikyoku pre-katas in Shotokan... basic kihon techs linked so they can be performed as a unitary movement sequences, with basic SD apps built in for later reference when they reach the point where they're ready for that sort of thing...


Yep!


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 12, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> This something I have contemplated for a long time and I think Exile has pointed out the biggest problem with implementation. It very difficult to imagine effective instruction coming from a guy who has to move from group to group or room to room and devote very little time to each.
> 
> You could also limit each enrolment and then treat each one as a separate class. The problem you then run into is the different learning rates of the students.


 
Or he could divide up classes based on the same idea, but make it(like) Monday and Thursday for the littlens, Teusday and Friday for the mid-teenagers, Wednesday and Saturday for the older kids. Or divide it up by when class takes place. 4 -5 for the littlens, 5 -6 for the mid-teenagers, 6-7 for the older kids. Or however he wants to do it.


----------



## LawDog (Feb 10, 2008)

Depends on if the forms cover all of the areas within any given system. If they do then possibly, if they do not then no.


----------



## kidswarrior (Feb 10, 2008)

After some more reading, trial & error with partners, and refinement of both forms and their applications (bunkai, oyo, henka to use Japanese terminology), I think I would make a further distinction if posing this question today. Some of the key figures of the 'bunkai revolution' posit that they are following the founders in making the point that any kata/pattern/form should be a complete fighting system. While I find this a useful litmus test for choosing whether to keep a form in the arsenal, said 'complete' form may not include all there is to an art. So in my own use, have come to phrase the original question more in terms of: Could a small grouping of forms (I'm thinking 3-6), well-understood and realistically practiced with a partner, amount to a complete fighting system? And I think the answer is Yes.

Anyone else have further thoughts along these lines?


----------



## exile (Feb 10, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> After some more reading, trial & error with partners, and refinement of both forms and their applications (bunkai, oyo, henka to use Japanese terminology), I think I would make a further distinction if posing this question today. Some of the key figures of the 'bunkai revolution' posit that they are following the founders in making the point that any kata/pattern/form should be a complete fighting system. While I find this a useful litmus test for choosing whether to keep a form in the arsenal, said 'complete' form may not include all there is to an art. So in my own use, have come to phrase the original question more in terms of: Could a small grouping of forms (I'm thinking 3-6), well-understood and realistically practiced with a partner, amount to a complete fighting system? And I think the answer is Yes.
> 
> Anyone else have further thoughts along these lines?



I think that's realistic. Abernethy analyzes the Pinan set as a complete fighting system: the each of the first three katas contain techs which correspond  to progressively closer fighting ranges; the last two contain advanced/backup techs for those ranges. No one normal-length kata is going to contain techs for every fighting range, comprehensively. But 3-6, as with the Pinan set, might very well, and similarly with Naihanchi.

A lot of times, it seems, the single kata name actually covers several different forms that belong in that set. So this is actually consistent with your idea here.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2008)

exile said:


> No one normal-length kata is going to contain techs for every fighting range, comprehensively.


 
I would disagree with you here.  Pinan and Naihanchi are relatively short forms and the amount of application for each move explodes exponentially.

Now imagine what a longer kata like the full version of Bassai (dai and sho), Kusanku (dai and sho), or Gojushiho is like when they are fully examined?  You could practice the applications to any of those three for the rest of your life and never have to practice another kata.


----------



## exile (Feb 10, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I would disagree with you here.  Pinan and Naihanchi are relatively short forms and the amount of application for each move explodes exponentially.



But there are _five_ Pinan kata, and at least three in the full Naihanchi set. There are many applications for each move, but if Abernethy is right, each of the first three Pinan kata are aimed at a particular fighting range. Gojushio and the others are substantially longer... I guess it comes down to what you consider normal length. I've always regarded the ones you've mentioned as a bit on the long side... is that not correct? [/QUOTE]


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 10, 2008)

Yes, they are longer, but if you removed the redundancy in the pinan and naihanchi sets, they'd probably be of equal length.

Of course, the redundancy has a lesson to teach.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Feb 11, 2008)

I have a question about this idea. Do I think it's great, yes. Has it been done before? Yes, sort of. Wing Chun has a total of 6 forms (three disarmed, one dummy, two weapon). But they 'mix things up' by doing drills (San Sik), using a wooden man (and various bags for wacking), and using two weapons (Double Butterfly Knives, and the 6 1/2 point pole). They also spend about 4-6 months doing 1/3 of one form, and one drill.
So, If Kid were to break off and create his own style (I think he has already though, but bear with me), would he do something like this? Ie, drag out the length of teaching forms, include drills/routines not part of forms, add weapons, or the like?


----------



## kidswarrior (Feb 11, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I have a question about this idea. Do I think it's great, yes. Has it been done before? Yes, sort of. Wing Chun has a total of 6 forms (three disarmed, one dummy, two weapon). But they 'mix things up' by doing drills (San Sik), using a wooden man (and various bags for wacking), and using two weapons (Double Butterfly Knives, and the 6 1/2 point pole). They also spend about 4-6 months doing 1/3 of one form, and one drill.
> So, If Kid were to break off and create his own style (I think he has already though, but bear with me), would he do something like this? Ie, drag out the length of teaching forms, include drills/routines not part of forms, add weapons, or the like?


I've taken the approach of spending more time on the application of the forms. That is, we'll take a section which has a fairly obvious start and end point (maybe 3-5 moves total), first review the applications we've already come up with, then in partners maybe just free flow/experiment. If one set of partners comes up with a particularly good new app, I'll stop the class and we'll observe and dissect, and someone may even then have an idea for extending it. Then switching partners and/or pieces of the form, we'll continue on. Anyway, just my direction--not the total of what we do, but the current direction of forms instruction.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Feb 12, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Ie, drag out the length of teaching forms, include drills/routines not part of forms, add weapons, or the like?


 
Well?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 12, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> After some more reading, trial & error with partners, and refinement of both forms and their applications (bunkai, oyo, henka to use Japanese terminology), I think I would make a further distinction if posing this question today. Some of the key figures of the 'bunkai revolution' posit that they are following the founders in making the point that any kata/pattern/form should be a complete fighting system. While I find this a useful litmus test for choosing whether to keep a form in the arsenal, said 'complete' form may not include all there is to an art. So in my own use, have come to phrase the original question more in terms of: Could a small grouping of forms (I'm thinking 3-6), well-understood and realistically practiced with a partner, amount to a complete fighting system? And I think the answer is Yes.
> 
> Anyone else have further thoughts along these lines?


 
Yang taiji has a whole lot of forms made up of even more postures but if you understand the 13 postures you can defend yourself. That by the way sounds a whole lot easier than it is.


----------



## kidswarrior (Feb 12, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yang taiji has a whole lot of forms made up of even more postures but if you understand the 13 postures you can defend yourself.


Kung fu san soo has a similar foundational concept: the eight basic foot movements, or stances. Add stops ('blocks') and strikes in random patterns and as you say, understanding it will pretty much guarantee good self defense. But also as you say: 





> That by the way sounds a whole lot easier than it is.


----------



## Sanchin-J (Feb 13, 2008)

I believe that Forms "could" encompass a total fighting system but there are limitations to this. There was a time when the martial arts were banned by certain governments or dynasties, and the people whom had developed the specific styles did find a way around this by developing "form" based exercises that encompassed their actual training in the martial art, however the form itself cannot truly complete the training due to the way it had to be taught.


----------



## JWLuiza (Feb 13, 2008)

I feel like kata are a package.  You can look at how pretty the wrapping is or you can "open up the box" and pull out different parts and work on applications, perfecting technique, extracting principles, etc.

And just like Christmas, some kids will open up their gifts and think the boxes are the most wonderful things in the world and forget about the toys that were inside the box.


----------



## SageGhost83 (Feb 14, 2008)

JWLuiza said:


> I feel like kata are a package. You can look at how pretty the wrapping is or you can "open up the box" and pull out different parts and work on applications, perfecting technique, extracting principles, etc.
> 
> And just like Christmas, some kids will open up their gifts and think the boxes are the most wonderful things in the world and forget about the toys that were inside the box.


 
Bingo!


----------



## seasoned (Jul 15, 2009)

exile said:


> Historically, that's exactly what the forms were. Both Iain Abernethy and Bill Burgar point out that in Okinawa at the turn of the century, individual kata were not considered to be `part' of the fighting system but the actual `style'. I'm not fond of quoting myself, seems a bit arrogant, but since I wrote something a while back that expresses exactly what I want to say on this topic, I hope the following passage isn't taken that way. In the original Okinawan setting where Matsumura, Itosu, Azato and other karate pioneers got their skills, the only way any techniques were transmitted was by the kata themselves. The kihon line drills through which virtually everyone in the West who learned MAs in the current era was taughtthe bread and butter of dojo/dojang/studio teaching methods everywherewere unknown. From all available accounts, including his own autobiography, Funakoshi's training for the first decade with Itosu consisted solely of practicing the Naihanchi kata set and working out their bunkai (even though Motobu didn't think much of Funakoshi's analysis and suspected that Itosu had withheld the most effective applications from him; but then again, Motobu seems to have loathed GF personally); where else would he have learned his techs from except Naihanchi?that's all he had to work with! And as Abernethy notes, Motobu wrote in Okinawa Kenpo Karate-jutsu that `the Naihanchi, Passai, Chinto and Rohai styles are not left in China today and only remain in Okinawa as active martial arts'. That comment makes it pretty clear that these kata were not regarded as `parts' of a martial art, add-ons so to speak, but were thought of as complete stand-alone fighting systems on their own. In a way, `karate' originally corresonded to a general description (in much the same way that the generic term kung fu covers an enormous variety of specific CMAs regarded by their practitioners as quite different from each other) comprising the various kata, each of which was a style unto itself. And as Burgar points out in his book,
> 
> 
> _the fact is that before circa 1880 it was the norm for karateka to know a small number of kata. We also know that each master of karate was capable of defending himself. Therefore his one, two or three kata contained all of the knowledge that he would have needed to achieve that goal. This means that each kata (or small group of kata) was a `style' in its own right.' _
> ...


 


exile said:


> This is exactly right and the textbook/practice dichotomy contains the secret of the answer to those people who insist that kata has nothing to do with the `martial' content of the MA. I think of it along the lines of learning a branch of physics: you can read the `text' part of any given chapter without doing the many exercises at the end of the chapter. But you aren't going to be able to answer a simple question about what is the value of what, given some description of a physical situation, unless you do those problems. Knowing _about_ physics, or math, or geology, or whatever, which just reading the text can lead to, isn't the same as actually _knowing_ physics, math, etc. The latter is a lot harder and takes a lot more work. And that's true for every branch of knowledge under the sun. Learning the kata is like learning the basic mathematical relationships in some branch of science; _training_ the kataapplying the bunkai that you've worked out for the forms to the problems posed a noncompliant training partner simulating a realistic physical attack on youis like doing the often hellishly difficult problem-solving that leaves you, in the end, really understanding just how those mathematical relationships play out in real physical situations.
> 
> No one ever got an engineering job just because they knew how to take a first derivative. And no one ever really learned a TMA just because they learned how to perform a number of kata. There's a dry-cleaning place near our house that has one of those marquees on which they post wise/witty saying, you know the kind I mean; but whoever owns that place has better taste in wise/witty sayings than most such businesses. The one he currently has up is, `Nothing works unless you DO it.' And really that says pretty much everything about the role of forms: you have to take the techs they embody and DO thempractice them under unpleasantly realistic circumstances, hundreds or thousands of times. Combat Hapkido doesn't have forms, but they do have drills, and it's the same story: you have to drill, drill, drill, no matter how well you understand just how the biomechanics of the moves work. If people thought of a form as just a set of _drills_, drills which have been `chunked' into a single long sequence as a mnemonic convenience, then their view of how such forms could themselves amount to a MA on their own, and what you have to do with the form in order to get martial benefit from it, would probably be a lot more practicaland a lot more in line with the intent of the original masters of the art who constructed the forms....
> 
> ...


These are the kinds of posts I have missed from exile (Bob). Hoping to see him back very soon.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 15, 2009)

This thread hits on the subject of the book I wrote.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/usercp.php

I also miss Exile.  Hope he returns soon...


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 2, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> This thread hits on the subject of the book I wrote.
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/usercp.php
> 
> I also miss Exile.  Hope he returns soon...


Wrong link


----------



## seasoned (Mar 2, 2010)

exile said:


> Historically, that's exactly what the forms were. Both Iain Abernethy and Bill Burgar point out that in Okinawa at the turn of the century, individual kata were not considered to be `part' of the fighting system but the actual `style'. I'm not fond of quoting myself, seems a bit arrogant, but since I wrote something a while back that expresses exactly what I want to say on this topic, I hope the following passage isn't taken that way. In the original Okinawan setting where Matsumura, Itosu, Azato and other karate pioneers got their skills, the only way any techniques were transmitted was by the kata themselves. The kihon line drills through which virtually everyone in the West who learned MAs in the current era was taughtthe bread and butter of dojo/dojang/studio teaching methods everywherewere unknown. From all available accounts, including his own autobiography, Funakoshi's training for the first decade with Itosu consisted solely of practicing the Naihanchi kata set and working out their bunkai (even though Motobu didn't think much of Funakoshi's analysis and suspected that Itosu had withheld the most effective applications from him; but then again, Motobu seems to have loathed GF personally); where else would he have learned his techs from except Naihanchi?that's all he had to work with! And as Abernethy notes, Motobu wrote in Okinawa Kenpo Karate-jutsu that `the Naihanchi, Passai, Chinto and Rohai styles are not left in China today and only remain in Okinawa as active martial arts'. That comment makes it pretty clear that these kata were not regarded as `parts' of a martial art, add-ons so to speak, but were thought of as complete stand-alone fighting systems on their own. In a way, `karate' originally corresonded to a general description (in much the same way that the generic term kung fu covers an enormous variety of specific CMAs regarded by their practitioners as quite different from each other) comprising the various kata, each of which was a style unto itself. And as Burgar points out in his book,
> 
> 
> _the fact is that before circa 1880 it was the norm for karateka to know a small number of kata. We also know that each master of karate was capable of defending himself. Therefore his one, two or three kata contained all of the knowledge that he would have needed to achieve that goal. This means that each kata (or small group of kata) was a `style' in its own right.' _
> ...


*I miss this man's input big time.*


----------



## K-man (Mar 2, 2010)

An excellent post, worth reading more than once.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 3, 2010)

seasoned said:


> *I miss this man's input big time.*


I as well.  Hope he is doing well.

Daniel


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 3, 2010)

I miss Bob too.

But back to the topic... Let me asked a somewhat related question.  What is the optimal number of forms for you personally?  I 'know' dozens from goju-ryu, shorin-ryu, taekwondo.  I even know a few Korean variations of the same karate forms.

The average TKD or karate system has at least 6-8 forms to reach black belt.  Too much food to absorb?  Have any of you instructors decreased the number of sets learned in an effort to make your students learn the ones they know better?


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 3, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I miss Bob too.
> 
> But back to the topic... Let me asked a somewhat related question. What is the optimal number of forms for you personally? I 'know' dozens from goju-ryu, shorin-ryu, taekwondo. I even know a few Korean variations of the same karate forms.
> 
> The average TKD or karate system has at least 6-8 forms to reach black belt. Too much food to absorb? Have any of you instructors decreased the number of sets learned in an effort to make your students learn the ones they know better?


Interesting question. I have 11 by black belt, with more in depth understanding required in four of those. One of the four can be their choice. The breadth is to expose students to different ways of moving and fighting, not just letting them settle early on for what they like or don't. But then as time passes and they become more serious, I want them to become expert in the final four.

I revise often, but this structure seems to work well.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 3, 2010)

kidswarrior said:


> Interesting question. I have 11 by black belt, with more in depth understanding required in four of those. One of the four can be their choice. The breadth is to expose students to different ways of moving and fighting, not just letting them settle early on for what they like or don't. But then as time passes and they become more serious, I want them to become expert in the final four.



"The breadth is to expose students to different ways of moving and fighting"

That's a good thought.  I guess I just don't see that happening in the average school due to the lack of diversity in the forms.  Consider the typical tang soo do school that uses 3 Kicho forms and then the 5 Pyung Ahn forms plus Balsek.  Not too much variation there between the Kichos and then Pyung Ahn 1 + 2.

You could make much the same criticism about the Shotokan syllabus or even the Choi forms in TKD... Goju-ryu karate kata have more variation in the early forms:  sanchin, geki sai ichi and ni, and then saifa.


----------



## K-man (Mar 3, 2010)

I can now understand why the masters only studied two or three at most. I can see where you can spend years exploring just one kata. What we learn for grading or competition is totally superficial.


----------



## geezer (Mar 3, 2010)

K-man said:


> I can now understand why the masters only studied two or three at most. I can see where you can spend years exploring just one kata. What we learn for grading or competition is totally superficial.


 
This is so true...even across the MA. As stated earlier, Chinese Wing Chun, Yip Man lineage, has only three empty handed sets, plus the wooden dummy form and two weapons sets. In the branch I study, a very long time is spent on the first three sets. The first two are all you study until beyond 1st degree rank, and the dummy set isn't studied until 3rd degree. The weapons sets are taught even later... sometimes after 5th degree Master ranking, if you ever get there. The old time belief was that with deep understanding of just the first two forms you should become very good before taking on any  more. Sometimes less is more.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 3, 2010)

geezer said:


> This is so true...even across the MA. As stated earlier, Chinese Wing Chun, Yip Man lineage, has only three empty handed sets, plus the wooden dummy form and two weapons sets. In the branch I study, a very long time is spent on the first three sets. The first two are all you study until beyond 1st degree rank, and the dummy set isn't studied until 3rd degree. The weapons sets are taught even later... sometimes after 5th degree Master ranking, if you ever get there. The old time belief was that with deep understanding of just the first two forms you should become very good before taking on any more. *Sometimes less is more.*


----------



## marlon (Mar 4, 2010)

This is an extremely valueable thread.  I hope there  is a way to indicate it as such for others.  Thanks KW


----------



## marlon (Mar 4, 2010)

I just could not leave such a brilliant post on page 4 when the thread is at page ten



exile said:


> Hi all, I had to get to bed earlyish last night to get going very early this morning on a daytrip around various parts of central Ohio that we'd had in the works for a while, so I couldn't participate further in this thread till now (we got back just a little while ago). I'd like to take up Kidswarrior's summary of the Abernethy kata training progression (clearly, it holds for hyungs, tsings and any other MA's pattern set) and speculate a bit on what's behind it and how it has to work.
> 
> So (1) involves solo practice. But it's not just rote performance you're working on, with the goal of executing a choreography routine with martial movements prettily enough to wow some judges; what you're doing is fixing in your mind just what the instructions were for the various combat scenarios that the kata creators were trying to give you. The fact that in a certain subpart of a kata you use a reverse punch rather than a forward lunge punch is probably important, so listen up!the kata may well be telling you that in the situation that part of the kata depicts, you're keeping your assailant controlled or anchored by your forward-projected weight, and the simplest thing to do at that point is to keep him under control and strike him with the rear fist, rather than changing your weight distribution and maybe letting him have a chance to escape. So in the combat scenario in question, it's really important that you understand not to change your weight at that point, but to dig in and use the reverse punch the the optimal target. Training the form so you have a clear understanding of the _logic_ of the scenario the kata is presenting to you is therefore the crucial necessary first step. But it's understood that at the same time you're learning the form, you're working out the bunkaithe _meaning_ of those movement sequencesanalyzing them as you learn the form. This is part and parcel of learning the form: learning how the movement sequence could be applied. And that involves, very importantly, determining what kind of attack the various subsequences of the kata are supposed to apply _to_. Something that looks absurd as a response to a roundhouse or a double grab may make perfect sense if you think about it as a way to respond to a bearhug, just as a sequence that looks loony if you assume you're going to be going to the outside may suddently look totally natural in a scenario where you're going to the outside. This is why kata are actually rather demanding: you have to combine your knowledge of how the body moves and where the weak points are with a certain analytic skill in figuring how to get maximum firepower from actually converting a sequence of movements into linked _moves_; something that looks like a punch, and may very well be interpreted as a punch in one context, might be much more effectively (and dangerously) applied as a head twist if it comes at the end of a different sequence. You have to do stuff like think, what the hell good is this middle-level spearhand strike going to be?the masters of old are telling me to slam my unconditioned fingers into this guy's abdomen or solar plexus?and then go on to think, hmmm, maybe the previous moves were designed to force this guy's head way down, and the striking surface of the `spearhand' isn't the fingers at all, but the palm heelit's really a palm-heel strike rotated 90º! And when you look at the preceding moves, they fall into place from this new point of view... because most definitely the masters of old are not going to tell you to do anything that wasn't practical, effective and straightforward. That's how they themselves fought, and the kata are in the end the record of their own fighting methods, their `notes' on effective combat.
> 
> ...


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 5, 2010)

marlon said:


> This is an extremely valueable thread.  I hope there  is a way to indicate it as such for others.  Thanks KW


There is; at the top of the thread, you can find a message bar including things like "View First Unread" and "Search This Thread"...  And "*Rate This Thread*".

The thread rating allows you to do just that... and it shows up in the thread lists.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 5, 2010)

I was watching this thread and thinking it and my thought about kata (aka forms) was that forms are not a total fighting system but there is a total fighting system in forms You just have to train them correctly. 

But then I saw Marlons post which made me re-read exiles post and he is saying that same thing just in much greater detail. So I will not go into further explanation

My CMA background tends to explain things in MUCH less detail We like to make you think and keep you guessing  

That and apparently also like to sound like a fortune cookie


----------



## K-man (Mar 5, 2010)

I can't remember where I read this. It was possibly in one of the posts on this forum, but it is good enough to warrant repeating.  "An acorn is tiny when compared with the Oak tree but contained in the acorn is all the information necessary to produce the Oak.  So it is with kata."


----------

