# Wide stances and ending your forms on the same spot



## skribs (Mar 8, 2019)

One common thing I hear is that your forms should end on the same spot you started, assuming you had consistent stances throughout the forms.  However, with *both *the Palgwe-style and Taegeuk forms I've learned, you usually end up either a few steps forward or backward of your starting point.

The reason for this seems to be that your proper stances are not in a straight line, and that anchor points shift as you perform the form.  For example, if you take the Kibon Il Jang or Palgwe Il Jang, which both follow the same basic I pattern (assuming your font has the right type of I).  Theoretically if you do 2 steps left and 2 steps right, that should balance out, and if you do 4 steps forward and 4 steps back, then that should balance as well.

However, the nature of the stances is that they are wide.  The first move is a step to the left, but you have a wide stance, so your left foot is placed behind your starting position.  Where the right leg goes in the second step is largely irrelevant, because the left foot is your anchor point for the turn into the third move.  You have now effectively shifted the line back a half step.

This gets corrected at Moves #9-12, where you do a mirror of Steps #1-4 and essentially shift the line back.  If the form ended at Step #16, you'd be on the same spot as before.  But when you add in Steps #17-20, you again shift the line back a half step.  *Your ending position in this case is always the width of your stance behind your starting position.
*
I've just recently started on the Taegeuks.  I learned them before as an elective to our curriculum, and am going through them again.  With Taegeuk Il Jang, I see a similar thing as in the Kibon and Palgwe forms.  In theory, you have 2 full steps forward and 2 full steps back, and should end up on the same spot as before.  But when I start practicing on the edge of the mat, I find I have to do a stutter step for the last step to stay on the mat, because the Taegeuk form ends up behind my starting point as well!

The reason for this, as best I can tell, is the way in which you turn.  Once again, because your stances are not in a straight line, but rather shoulder width apart, and because of how you shift in each set in the form.

Steps 1-4 have you move back a half step compared with your starting position, just like the Kibon/Palgwe form
Step 5 has you move a whole stop forward.  However, your transition into Step 6 has you anchor on your front leg and slide your back leg into the stance, which means that you don't move a whole step forward.  Steps 6-9 will be anchored on your starting line.
The anchor point for the turn forward into Step 10 is actually behind your starting line.  It may be even with or slightly in front, depending on the difference between your walking stance width and front stance length.  You would think since you're halfway through the form you would be well forward, but you're in virtually the same spot.
The turn from Step 10-11 is the same as from Step 5-6.  However, this time you are moving forwards for Steps 11-14.  The other two horizontal lines shift backwards with their turns, this makes up for one of them.
The turn from Step 14-15 is a step across your rearward foot towards the rear of the room.  This means your anchor point is at the rear, and you make a full step towards the rear.  There are no turns like in Step 6 or Step 11 that negate some of the length of your step.  So Steps 15 & 16 are truly a full step back.
The end result is that just like the Palgwe and Kibon forms, Taegeuk Il Jang ends up behind where it started.  I've watched videos of people perform Taegeuk Il Jang with very narrow walking stance and very long front stance, which offsets the difference a little bit, but even then they end up behind where they started.

Has anyone else noticed this?  I often hear "you should end your form in the same spot as you started", but I feel if people do that, it usually means that their stances are too narrow, or they're moving forward with longer steps than they go back with.  For most forms "you should end a step behind where you started" seems more accurate to me.


----------



## jobo (Mar 8, 2019)

I think your short of something to worry about, who actually cares where forms finish,


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 8, 2019)

It depends on the style. All the forms are done slightly different in different styles/schools, so for one school you may end up slightly behind where you started, and in another you may end up exactly where you started.

Either way, I dont like the idea of having a spot to end. That requires too much perfection, or not enough, depending. I've seen people mess up once, realize, and step longer or shorter to try and "correct" it, so they end in the right spot. I'd rather end in the wrong spot and only mess up once, then either spend 5 minutes making sure each step is the same distance as the last, or mess up multiple times on purpose to make it appear right.


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 8, 2019)

jobo said:


> I think your short of something to worry about, who actually cares where forms finish,


Judges in competition do. And I guess some people who grade students do too. 

I think it’s a bit stupid, but who am I?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 8, 2019)

I've heard this before and personally I think people who worry about this are focused on the wrong thing.  I would be more concerned about the techniques that to worry about finishing in the same starting point.   The most one should worry is facing the same way you started.  If you don't then you know you messed up with direction or missed a technique.  It helps you to self check where you messed up on a technique.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 8, 2019)

Starting and finishing in the same spot has little importance as adjustments can be made to accomplish this.  Just like someone adjusts a form when that person runs out of space.


----------



## skribs (Mar 8, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I've heard this before and personally I think people who worry about this are focused on the wrong thing.  I would be more concerned about the techniques that to worry about finishing in the same starting point.   The most one should worry is facing the same way you started.  If you don't then you know you messed up with direction or missed a technique.  It helps you to self check where you messed up on a technique.



I think the main thing is the focus on consistency in your stances.


----------



## wab25 (Mar 8, 2019)

In Shotokan, they like to see the kata end where it started. The idea is that if all your steps are done the same, and correct, you will naturally end up where you started. You shouldn't be trying to drive back to that spot, but do the kata correctly. When you end up off, you look back and find the reason why. For me, every time I find the why, its because my stance was not correct for one (or more) of the steps in the kata. This means that whatever I was supposed to be doing for that step, I am compromised. Whether a block or punch, because my stance is not correct, the power will be lacking and possibly my balance will be effected.

In my opinion, if you mess up once, finish out correctly and end up in the different spot. This is preferred, because I know where I messed up. The harder ones are where you think you did it right, but ended up wrong. These require you to go through your kata, to find the mistake. (or, if you don't care, live with the unknown mistake)

Skribs, is this the form you are referring to?





He ends up fairly close to where he starts... Anyway, the beginning of that is similar to taikyoku shodan. (your description and problem sound like one I encoutered... or I should say, encounter) Your description:


skribs said:


> The first move is a step to the left, but you have a wide stance, so your left foot is placed behind your starting position. Where the right leg goes in the second step is largely irrelevant, because the left foot is your anchor point for the turn into the third move. You have now effectively shifted the line back a half step.


For me the key was the turn. Your first left step should go diagonally back, just as you said. Where I go wrong, is making the turn on the anchor foot, to face the other direction. That turn, should take you another half step back, as your right foot, should now take the opposite, back diagonal line... you should now be 1 full step back from where you started. I keep ending up going straight back, which means my stance, after the turn is way too narrow, compromising my balance. (When I do the kata slow, its very apparent the my balance is compromised, when I turn straight back, instead of extending my right foot back along the diagonal.) From this point on, if you didn't take that second diagonal back step, doing the kata perfectly, will put you that half step behind where you started. Anyway, I hope this helps.


----------



## Danny T (Mar 8, 2019)

Some train for aesthetics some for practicality. 
Some judge for aesthetics some judge for practicality.
It is all subjective.


----------



## jobo (Mar 8, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Judges in competition do. And I guess some people who grade students do too.
> 
> I think it’s a bit stupid, but who am I?


so nobody of any importance then ?


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 8, 2019)

jobo said:


> so nobody of any importance then ?


Yup. I don’t make the rules. Nor do I want to. I just want to shut up and train. Funny thing is I haven’t figured out the shut up part of that one yet. And I doubt I will for any length of time


----------



## skribs (Mar 8, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Yup. I don’t make the rules. Nor do I want to. I just want to shut up and train. Funny thing is I haven’t figured out the shut up part of that one yet. And I doubt I will for any length of time



We've noticed.

I'd tell you to stop talking about it, but...well...


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> We've noticed.
> 
> I'd tell you to stop talking about it, but...well...


I wasn’t sure if funny or agree was most appropriate here, so I decided on funny.

Edit: See, I couldn’t just shut up, could I?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> One common thing I hear is that your forms should end on the same spot you started, ...


If you know how to change your "step forward and punch" into "step backward and punch", you can finish your form any spot that you may like.


----------



## skribs (Mar 8, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you know how to change your "step forward and punch" into "step backward and punch", you can finish your form any spot that you may like.



Can't do that in Taekwondo forms.

I mean, you could when practicing at home.  But TKD forms are primarily about recreating the technique exactly as done by your master.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> Can't do that in Taekwondo forms.
> 
> I mean, you could when practicing at home.  But TKD forms are primarily about recreating the technique exactly as done by your master.


One day my teacher asked me to do a form in a small space. I said that I didn't have enough room. He then said, "Do you know how to step back instead of stepping forward?"

When I have left leg forward and I have to step in my right leg to throw a right punch, if my left foot is almost touching the wall, I will step back my left leg and still punch my right hand out. This way I'll still end with right leg forward and right punch.


----------



## skribs (Mar 8, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One day my teacher asked me to do a form in a small space. I said that I didn't have enough room. He then said, "Do you know how to step back instead of stepping forward?"
> 
> When I have left leg forward and I have to step in my right leg to throw a right punch, if my left foot is almost touching the wall, I will step back my left leg and still punch my right hand out. This way I'll still end with right leg forward and right punch.



I know I can do that.  And I often do when I'm practicing at home, or when I'm on the edge of the mat.  I'm just saying that for the most correct version of the forms, especially what you do in testing or at a tournament, that is NOT what you do.

Kind of like how you drive a little different if you see a cop car.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 8, 2019)

Some MA teachers like to test the ability of "copy". Other teachers may prefer to test the ability of "change".


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> Kind of like how you drive a little different if you see a cop car.


I usually floor it. By the time I see them, they’ve seen me and already clocked me. I’ve got to get every bit of a head start I can get


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 8, 2019)

The best way to start and end in the same spot is to not move your feet and just move your arms around.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 8, 2019)

hoshin1600 said:


> The best way to start and end in the same spot is to not move your feet and just move your arms around.


Some MA system doesn't move around much.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 8, 2019)

If it was military drill they have a measured pace and end up where they are supposed to rather than wherever they end up. 

I assume if you have a room full of guys all doing kata you would want their starts and finishes to be predictable.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 8, 2019)

I'm anti-tradition. Why should I do my form the same way as the ancient form creator did? The best that I can do is just another good copy machine, no more and no less.

Do you want be just another copy machine for the rest of your life?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 9, 2019)

Danny T said:


> Some train for aesthetics some for practicality.
> Some judge for aesthetics some judge for practicality.
> It is all subjective.



To an extant - Subjective.   However in some systems like Chang Hon the technical parameters are very specific so certain competitions in specific orgs like the ITF go to great lengths to make it objective.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 9, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm anti-tradition. Why should I do my form the same way as the ancient form creator did?



Maybe there are reasons for why they did what they did.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> I think the main thing is the focus on consistency in your stances.


I know I think of this because of how I train forms and nothing in my forms are consistent with stanches, in kung fu stances often change in size and width.  A stance to the left side is rarely mirrored to the right side (same as right and left) and we always tend to land almost in the same space provided that a technique wasn't missed or a angle was wrong.

To me doing forms is more like defending or fighting within a specific area.  The person "goes out to battle and returns home"  Returning home doesn't mean returning to a chair in the house, it means I'm returning to the house.  The area that I'm trying to defend is my yard (the area of where my form exists).  When I do my forms, I'm fighting and moving people out of the yard.  As long as I know where my house is I can always return to it regardless of how far I extend on one side.

In Korean and Japanese martial arts there tends to be more of a sense of uniformity.  If you go 5 steps to right side then you must go back 5 steps and then go 5 steps to the left side.

If I had to guess, I would say that forms probably originally had some mystical influence behind them where things must be done a certain way in order to create balance.  This concept exists in both Chinese and Japanese martial arts. Japanese and Korean martial arts tend to do the mirroring.  In Kung Fu the only way to mirror the form is to do the form on the original side and then flip the form and do it on the opposite side (Do the form left handed and right handed)


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> Can't do that in Taekwondo forms.
> 
> I mean, you could when practicing at home.  But TKD forms are primarily about recreating the technique exactly as done by your master.


Forgive Kung Fu wang.  That's his CMA talking plus he doesn't like forms so he would do something like that lol.


----------



## jobo (Mar 9, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> Maybe there are reasons for why they did wht they did.


if the reasons are not reasonably obvious, then theres a fair chance the reasons are not logical and just a made up rule for the only purpose of having a rule ?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 9, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm anti-tradition. Why should I do my form the same way as the ancient form creator did? The best that I can do is just another good copy machine, no more and no less.
> 
> Do you want be just another copy machine for the rest of your life?


Yes...  Because the copy helps build the foundation and understanding.  Once you have that then you'll have enough information to change and advance the form.  Every brilliant scientist had to be a copy machine learning the same basic math skills.  Those basic math skills helped to form their foundation. Once they learned Basic Math, then they may have learned Basic Physics.  But even Basics Physics grows from the root of Basic Math.   You can't learn Basic Physics if you do not now Basic Math.

So for me Yes I want to be another copy machine.  But unlike other copy machines in the past.  I can also scan, print from a computer and copy to a computer, be put on a network, and send a fax and email. From a practical fighting perspective forms were never meant to be the "Beginning and End of everything."  They are just the foundation that other stuff and new stuff are build off of.


----------



## skribs (Mar 9, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> In Korean and Japanese martial arts there tends to be more of a sense of uniformity. If you go 5 steps to right side then you must go back 5 steps and then go 5 steps to the left side.



Most of the forms are designed to try and end on the same spot.  But I think a lot of it also has to do with practicing both sides of a technique.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> Most of the forms are designed to try and end on the same spot.  But I think a lot of it also has to do with practicing both sides of a technique.


The form designer doesn't have to consider that. Anybody can change the right move into the left move (or the other way around) and have a mirror image of the form.


----------



## skribs (Mar 9, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The form designer doesn't have to consider that. Anybody can change the right move into the left move (or the other way around) and have a mirror image of the form.



There are many reasons why this approach does not match with the Taekwondo I have trained.  I think in this case it comes down to a difference in style.  I'm not saying your style is wrong, I'm merely saying it doesn't fit the way TKD forms are taught.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 9, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes...  Because the copy helps build the foundation and understanding.


I'm not talking about the beginner level training. I'm talking about the advance level training. No matter how many research papers that you have read, you still have to write your own Phd thesis to obtain your Phd degree.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> There are many reasons why this approach does not match with the Taekwondo I have trained.  I think in this case it comes down to a difference in style.  I'm not saying your style is wrong, I'm merely saying it doesn't fit the way TKD forms are taught.


This has nothing to do with style. Anybody can train a "mirror form" if they want to.

For example, if your form has:

1. left leg forward left downward block.
2. step in right leg right punch.
3. skip in left leg right side kick.

You can also train

1. right leg forward right downward block.
2. step in left leg left punch.
3. skip in right leg left side kick.

You can take any form from any MA system and train the "mirror form".


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 9, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This has nothing to do with style. Anybody can train a "mirror form" if they want to.



Sure, but what he's saying (and it is correct) is that the forms were designed from the start to train both sides.
There are a very few exceptions. For example, in the Palgwae forms, there is a downward palm heel block and vertical spearhand combination that is ONLY done with the left hand blocking and the right hand thrusting.
Personally, I make it a point to mention things that are only done one-sided and encourage practicing those combinations with the other side as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 9, 2019)

Whether you end up in the same spot or not largely depends on the design of the forms. None of the forms I designed work that way - I just couldn't be bothered to get them tuned to that extent. I adjusted the movement to tighten the pattern (one of them originally took the entire training space to do, so only one person could do it at a time...maybe two at best), but that's as far as I went.

I'm going to guess some form designers will have bothered to tune the movements to end (if done exactly with the step proportions they used) at the original spot. That's tidy and useful for groups doing kata together. But I don't think it's an important point (obviously, or I'd have done it).

And even for those forms designed that way, I don't think it's a sign of bad execution if you end up in a different spot. Different people have different advantages, and should play those in forms, as in sparring. So, if you have great side movement, cover distance to the side. If you have a bad ankle on the left foot, maybe take a smaller step when shifting to that foot than when shifting to the right. Either of those can cause the end position to change.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 9, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Yup. I don’t make the rules. Nor do I want to. I just want to shut up and train. Funny thing is I haven’t figured out the shut up part of that one yet. And I doubt I will for any length of time


Just shut up about shutting up, would ya?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 9, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> I wasn’t sure if funny or agree was most appropriate here, so I decided on funny.
> 
> Edit: See, I couldn’t just shut up, could I?


This is how I got started. Careful, or you'll turn into a postwhore.


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 9, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> This is how I got started. Careful, or you'll turn into a postwhore.


I think I’ll slow down before I get to that point and just settle at postslut.


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 9, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Just shut up about shutting up, would ya?


Ok. 

Damn it, I did it again. Ok starting right now...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 9, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Ok.
> 
> Damn it, I did it again. Ok starting right now...


Keep it up, postitute.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 9, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm not talking about the beginner level training. I'm talking about the advance level training. No matter how many research papers that you have read, you still have to write your own Phd thesis to obtain your Phd degree.


But first you have to read a bunch of research papers. And even after you write your own thesis, you should still be reading research papers. That's the part that he's talking about here, which is just as important as writing your own thesis (imagine writing one with having no idea what the foundational research was, or the appropriate language)


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> One common thing I hear is that your forms should end on the same spot you started, assuming you had consistent stances throughout the forms.  However, with *both *the Palgwe-style and Taegeuk forms I've learned, you usually end up either a few steps forward or backward of your starting point.
> 
> The reason for this seems to be that your proper stances are not in a straight line, and that anchor points shift as you perform the form.  For example, if you take the Kibon Il Jang or Palgwe Il Jang, which both follow the same basic I pattern (assuming your font has the right type of I).  Theoretically if you do 2 steps left and 2 steps right, that should balance out, and if you do 4 steps forward and 4 steps back, then that should balance as well.
> 
> ...



It is really not that big a deal if you finish a half-step forward or back. What is important is that all the lines are straight and perpendicular to each other. This is how you know your stances, step to step, and your turns are correct. If a person really, really wants to end on the starting point it can be done with subtle adjustments to some steps (in I/H pattern forms). It goes out the window in some of the Yudanja and MDK Poomsae. 
We teach TKD front stances as shoulder-width wide and 1-1/2 to 2 shoulder-widths deep. It is slightly different for everyone, someone with short legs may not be quite that deep but should be close; someone with long legs should be closer to 2 shoulder-widths deep. Why? Conditioning. No mystics or magic. You do 3 Kibon, 8 Palgwe, & 8 Taeguek poomsae in deep stances and at power and you will be gassed. If you do the 8 Taegueks 3 times in a row using the Kukki-style front stance and you will not get nearly the conditioning. Another argument for deep stances; watch a bunch of elite level Olympic style matches. Over 1/2 the time they are in a wide stance, (usually a back stance). 
Okinawan styles use a wide, shorter stance to generate power. A valid argument for a partial reason for the narrower but deeper traditional Korean stance is to diverge from their Japanese counterparts. Both, wide or deep stances are allow for full use of the body and generate more power. Something modern Kukki-style seems to be forgetting.


----------



## skribs (Mar 9, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This has nothing to do with style. Anybody can train a "mirror form" if they want to.
> 
> For example, if your form has:
> 
> ...



It has everything to do with style.  Because the Taekwondo forms were designed this way.  The TKD training style is "you mirror it exactly as it was taught to you."  During forms testing, the instructors will look at how close you followed the source material.  During forms competitions, the judges will see how correct your form is, based on their learning of the form.

I'm not saying you can't use the forms in other ways in your own practice.  But if you go to test Taegeuk #3 and your stances are wrong, or you change the form from what it originally was, you will fail your test.


----------



## Clyde Cash (Mar 9, 2019)

Everyone reading this thread has to let go of their "forms." They are obsolete compared to sparring. Why do you waste your training time on workouts scientifically proven to be pointless?


----------



## Danny T (Mar 9, 2019)

Clyde Cash said:


> Everyone reading this thread has to let go of their "forms." They are obsolete compared to sparring. Why do you waste your training time on workouts scientifically proven to be pointless?


Though I'm not one, there are many who compete in form presentation competition. For them such training time isn't wasted nor pointless.


----------



## Clyde Cash (Mar 9, 2019)

Danny T said:


> Though I'm not one, there are many who compete in form presentation competition. For them such training time isn't wasted nor pointless.


They can do their little dances for medals, I was talking about forms in relation to fights.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 9, 2019)

Clyde Cash said:


> They can do their little dances for medals, I was talking about forms in relation to fights.


I do forms and there's nothing wrong with my sparring. I haven't had a chance to use it in a real fight but judging by the outcome of some of my sparring, I think I'll be ok in a real fight.  Actually I know I'll be more than ok in real fight doing the same techniques. I did in sparring.  I wouldn't have to hold back like I do in sparring.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 10, 2019)

jobo said:


> if the reasons are not reasonably obvious, then theres a fair chance the reasons are not logical and just a made up rule for the only purpose of having a rule ?


"Reasonably Obvious " is in.  in the eye of the beholder.   The Chang Hon system had the advantage of the founder very often stating his reasons. (Some may disagree with reasons but that is a different topic)   I am not sure many could find those reasons "Obvious"  if not stated.   For other systems the founders are long gone and there is little if any documentation as to why they did what they did and modern conveniences like ease of printing were not available to them.


----------



## jobo (Mar 10, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> "Reasonably Obvious " is in.  in the eye of the beholder.   The Chang Hon system had the advantage of the founder very often stating his reasons. (Some may disagree with reasons but that is a different topic)   I am not sure many could find those reasons "Obvious"  if not stated.   For other systems the founders are long gone and there is little if any documentation as to why they did what they did and modern conveniences like ease of printing were not available to them.


yes so ? if the reason isn't obvious and I mean obvious to some one who studies ma, then theres a fair assumption that theres no good reason at all.  beyond maintaining tradition.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 10, 2019)

Clyde Cash said:


> They can do their little dances for medals, I was talking about forms in relation to fights.


By "Fight" do you refer to only to Sparring, or Combat, or Self Defense, or all of those?   If those are your only goals why waste a lot of  time learning a martial art.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 10, 2019)

jobo said:


> yes so ? if the reason isn't obvious and I mean obvious to some one who studies ma, then theres a fair assumption that theres no good reason at all.  beyond maintaining tradition.



I studied a system for 18 years before spent time with the founder.   Only then did I understand some of the reasons he specified doing things a certain way.   Either I was to dense, or it wasn't obvious.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 10, 2019)

Clyde Cash said:


> Everyone reading this thread has to let go of their "forms." They are obsolete compared to sparring. Why do you waste your training time on workouts scientifically proven to be pointless?



Because some of us care to learn an art, as well as a sport.


----------



## jobo (Mar 10, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> I studied a system for 18 years before spent time with the founder.   Only then did I understand some of the reasons he specified doing things a certain way.   Either I was to dense, or it wasn't obvious.


maybe a bit of both ?.


----------



## Gnarlie (Mar 10, 2019)

Hey Skribs.

Using the modern Korean approach and stances, all of the Taegeuk forms except 1. JANG land on the spot mathematically. 1. Jang lands slightly back, but this can be corrected for competition purposes with a bit of adjustment throughout the form. To bear in mind is that the general rule for Taegeuk is turn on the ball of the foot. There are very few exceptions to this rule where one turns on the heel or middle of the foot.

With wider and deeper stances, landing on the spot without cheating goes out the window.



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs (Mar 10, 2019)

Gnarlie said:


> To bear in mind is that the general rule for Taegeuk is turn on the ball of the foot. There are very few exceptions to this rule where one turns on the heel or middle of the foot.



This does make a difference.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 10, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm anti-tradition. Why should I do my form the same way as the ancient form creator did? The best that I can do is just another good copy machine, no more and no less.
> 
> Do you want be just another copy machine for the rest of your life?


Why do you think that including the forms from the system you have learned as part of your training makes you a “copy machine”?

I’m ambivalent towards tradition.  I’m interested in learning a method that works.  Systems that have been around for a long time continue to exist because they work.  They have a history of success.  I train in such a system.  I’m not interested in tradition for tradition’s sake.  But if I decide to train in the method, the I LEARN THE METHOD because through history people have found it useful.  But to understand it and make it useful for yourself, you need to train the system, the methodology.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 10, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Why do you think that including the forms from the system you have learned as part of your training makes you a “copy machine”?
> 
> I’m ambivalent towards tradition.  I’m interested in learning a method that works.  Systems that have been around for a long time continue to exist because they work.  They have a history of success.  I train in such a system.  I’m not interested in tradition for tradition’s sake.  But if I decide to train in the method, the I LEARN THE METHOD because through history people have found it useful.  But to understand it and make it useful for yourself, you need to train the system, the methodology.


This is the same thing boxers do before they become great boxers.  They learn how things are done and how to do it.  Then once they hit a certain level of expertise, they begin to develop their own style and add to system of boxing.  But they have to get those foundation in first.  The thing that we must understand about Kung Fu wang is that even though he doesn't like forms and he thinks that they are a waste of time.  The one truth is that he studied Forms and everything that he knows now is built from his exposure to forms.   He may not think that forms have had a positive influence on his ability to use technique but it's clear that it has.  What he has learned was not independent of forms.

I doubt that he would know what he knows now without exposure to forms.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 11, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I doubt that he would know what he knows now without exposure to forms.


We all need to contribute something to the MA that we love. Just to be a copy machine is not good enough.

I have developed several new training methods that my teacher didn't teach me before such as:

- Shin bite -> scoop -> sticky lift -> 45 degree sticky lift -> foot sweep
- Heel up to heel down spring -> heel down to heel up spring -> whole leg spring
- Use hook punch to set up ...
- Use uppercut to set up ...
- Rhino guard
- Double spears
- Chinese zombie guard
- Octopus strategy
- Running punch
- ...

I'm not satisfied to stay in just a good copy machine level.


----------



## Orion Nebula (Mar 11, 2019)

It's kind of funny that you brought this up. One of my classmates is moving, so last week was his last week with us. So we did a bunch of stuff he wanted to work on. This included the kata Gojushiho Sho. The kata ends kind of abruptly in the middle of a repeated sequence. A student asked why the sequence wasn't completed before ending the kata, and our instructor jokingly said that they needed it to end in the same place it began.

Personally I like the idea of ending where you start. It helps to let me know that my stances and steps are consistent. Perhaps this is less important as you advance.



kempodisciple said:


> But first you have to read a bunch of research papers. And even after you write your own thesis, you should still be reading research papers. That's the part that he's talking about here, which is just as important as writing your own thesis (imagine writing one with having no idea what the foundational research was, or the appropriate language)



This guy understands academic research 



skribs said:


> It has everything to do with style.  Because the Taekwondo forms were designed this way.  The TKD training style is "you mirror it exactly as it was taught to you."  During forms testing, the instructors will look at how close you followed the source material.  During forms competitions, the judges will see how correct your form is, based on their learning of the form.
> 
> I'm not saying you can't use the forms in other ways in your own practice.  But if you go to test Taegeuk #3 and your stances are wrong, or you change the form from what it originally was, you will fail your test.



Just a thought here about the competition comment. Forms seem to have some variation  between schools, even within the same style. For example, I had trouble recalling part of Heian Nidan (the second Shotokan kata) after being taught it in class, so I looked it up on YouTube. There is a particular move in it that is done differently by different people. We also discussed the one fingered strikes in the beginning of Unsu. A lot of people strike downwards towards their knees, which makes no sense because what the heck are you striking at on your opponent? Apparently someone testing for their 3rd or 4th dan did it that way and got chewed out by the test people (I'm sure there's a proper term for them) and was told the correct way to strike was forwards. Yet in just about all competition videos I've seen, they strike down. So I feel like competition must be a little bit biased when it comes to judges using their own knowledge of the form, because they could potentially dock you for a variation they aren't familiar with. I also wonder if there is any bias in competition where many styles are present. If the form isn't done in your style, how do you know they didn't forget a move or substitute a technique?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 11, 2019)

I studied a system for 18 years before spent time with the founder. Only then did I understand some of the reasons he specified doing things a certain way. Either I was to dense, or it wasn't obvious.


jobo said:


> maybe a bit of both ?.


Perhaps, but in school I developed a method to test this and used the same method at the founder's classes.   In school we could be afraid to ask a question out of fear people might think we were stupid. So I quietly asked the people on either side of me if they understood what was being presented.  If they both said no (If one said yes I would ask them to explain it to me) I would then ask the question taking comfort in knowing at least 2 other people (Likely more if both on either side of me did not get it)  were as stupid as I was.


----------



## jobo (Mar 11, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> I studied a system for 18 years before spent time with the founder. Only then did I understand some of the reasons he specified doing things a certain way. Either I was to dense, or it wasn't obvious.
> 
> Perhaps, but in school I developed a method to test this and used the same method at the founder's classes.   In school we could be afraid to ask a question out of fear people might think we were stupid. So I quietly asked the people on either side of me if they understood what was being presented.  If they both said no (If one said yes I would ask them to explain it to me) I would then ask the question taking comfort in knowing at least 2 other people (Likely more if both on either side of me did not get it)  were as stupid as I was.


you said you spent 18 years doing a ma you didn't understand , that's really odd to invest a quarter of a life time learning something with iut either asking for or receiving a satisfactory explanation. at the very least we can surmise  that your instructor didn't understand it either !


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 11, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We all need to contribute something to the MA that we love. Just to be a copy machine is not good enough.
> 
> I have developed several new training methods that my teacher didn't teach me before such as:
> 
> ...



With respect, I question if you truly learned everything your forms have to offer. I do not feel forms are intended to be a copy machine. Everyone does them differently. They can be thought of as long chains of individual techniques like the ones you mention. Akin to how they are used in fighting or SD. People often get frustrated with forms and tend to gloss over the parts that are difficult for them.


----------



## jobo (Mar 11, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> With respect, I question if you truly learned everything your forms have to offer. I do not feel forms are intended to be a copy machine. Everyone does them differently. They can be thought of as long chains of individual techniques like the ones you mention. Akin to how they are used in fighting or SD. People often get frustrated with forms and tend to gloss over the parts that are difficult for them.


well maybe, maybe not, as soon as your required to end up on the same spot , they can't be different otherwise you would end at a different spot, if accurately reproducing them is a requirement of a grading then they can't be different as otherwise you wont pass, and if they need to be done in time with others, they can't be different or you wont be in time with others. 

they dont need to be copies to be an effective learning medium, but in a lot of cases copies are what they must be


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> well maybe, maybe not, as soon as your required to end up on the same spot , they can't be different otherwise you would end at a different spot, if accurately reproducing them is a requirement of a grading then they can't be different as otherwise you wont pass, and if they need to be done in time with others, they can't be different or you wont be in time with others.
> 
> they dont need to be copies to be an effective learning medium, but in a lot of cases copies are what they must be


I think I get what you are saying. In a large class where space is a premium and several people are doing the same form together, yes, it is necessary for everyone to stay on the same pace. BUT, within the form each person is going to do the moves differently. When room is available I encourage people to do their own form and not worry about "staying on time" with the others. We should encourage individuality within the confines of each movement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> well maybe, maybe not, as soon as your required to end up on the same spot , they can't be different otherwise you would end at a different spot, if accurately reproducing them is a requirement of a grading then they can't be different as otherwise you wont pass, and if they need to be done in time with others, they can't be different or you wont be in time with others.
> 
> they dont need to be copies to be an effective learning medium, but in a lot of cases copies are what they must be


At the Karate school where I teach now, I've seen the black belts practicing kata. They specifically talk about some of the variations, and the ranking BB often just waves them off as "whichever works for you". And they do get tested on them for grading. I'm not sure how the testing works, and how much variation is accepted at what level, but it does happen.


----------



## skribs (Mar 11, 2019)

Orion Nebula said:


> It's kind of funny that you brought this up. One of my classmates is moving, so last week was his last week with us. So we did a bunch of stuff he wanted to work on. This included the kata Gojushiho Sho. The kata ends kind of abruptly in the middle of a repeated sequence. A student asked why the sequence wasn't completed before ending the kata, and our instructor jokingly said that they needed it to end in the same place it began.
> 
> Personally I like the idea of ending where you start. It helps to let me know that my stances and steps are consistent. Perhaps this is less important as you advance.
> 
> ...



The KKW forms are much more rigidly controlled.


----------



## jobo (Mar 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> At the Karate school where I teach now, I've seen the black belts practicing kata. They specifically talk about some of the variations, and the ranking BB often just waves them off as "whichever works for you". And they do get tested on them for grading. I'm not sure how the testing works, and how much variation is accepted at what level, but it does happen.


yes I know it does, it happens where I study,  but if any of the examples I gave above apply, then it can't happen, if you even slightly varry your stride pattern during the sequence, your going to be out of time and not finishing on the same spot, if either of those a requirement of the test, then you have failed


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> yes I know it does, but happens where I study,  but if any of the examples I gave above apply, then it can't happen


Ending on the same spot would restrict some changes, but not all. If my stances and steps are all 25% bigger than yours, in many cases we can both start and end on the same spot. With a little work, that can even be true even if only some of my stances and steps are 25% bigger than yours. The kinds of variations they discussed in the BB class had to do with everything beyond the steps - some variations in stance, some in arm/weapon movement, some even in which technique was performed with the movement (with staff, a block vs. a thrust). They were all performing in sync, including these variations. Timing was the only thing they couldn't vary, and that appears to be part of the actual kata; they are trained specific phrasing to use when performing the kata.


----------



## jobo (Mar 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Ending on the same spot would restrict some changes, but not all. If my stances and steps are all 25% bigger than yours, in many cases we can both start and end on the same spot. With a little work, that can even be true even if only some of my stances and steps are 25% bigger than yours. The kinds of variations they discussed in the BB class had to do with everything beyond the steps - some variations in stance, some in arm/weapon movement, some even in which technique was performed with the movement (with staff, a block vs. a thrust). They were all performing in sync, including these variations. Timing was the only thing they couldn't vary, and that appears to be part of the actual kata; they are trained specific phrasing to use when performing the kata.


well you going to be 25% out if line and 25% further down the dojo, which may have an obstacle  like a wall or another person in the way in your way( I constantly run out of dojo when doing kata), plus that still requires absolutely no variation in stride pattern over the whole course of the sequence, do a half 23% and half 25% bigger steps and your going to be miles off the point you started. its uniformity for no valid practicle reason


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> well you going to be 25% out if line and 25% further down the dojo, which may have an obstacle  like a wall or another person in the way in your way( I constantly run out of dojo when doing kata), plus that still requires absolutely no variation in stride pattern over the whole course of the sequence, do a half 23% and half 25% bigger steps and your going to be miles off the point you started. its uniformity for no valid practicle reason


Not necessarily. If the form is designed to return to the same spot, then if I move 25% further forward AND 25% further back, I end up where I started, same as you. If we're working in sync, it may or may not be an issue, depending upon the space. With the first set of kata I created, it would easily become an issue if you've started anywhere but the middle or somewhat forward in the space  (the kata moves more back than forward from the starting point), but in some kata, it may mean nothing more than a foot or two of difference, if the kata changes directions often enough.

As for the no variation in stride pattern, that just as true (and untrue) whether you increase the size of the step or not. It's easy enough in some forms (from what I've seen and been told) to make adjustments along the way if you know the waypoints (if step 5 is back on the North-South center line, you get a quick check there of your movement in that direction, for instance).

But I think your point is that working in sync and/or returning to center is more difficult if there's any variation. That would be correct. I was just objecting to the idea that variations can't exist under those conditions.


----------



## skribs (Mar 11, 2019)

I think the reason for having the same stride through the form (at least for the same stance) is to ensure you are properly controlling your body.  That you're aware of where your feet are and are being able to consistently apply that stance.

Just like when I'm playing guitar and I have to land on the right fret.  It's the practice and the muscle memory put into achieving the same distance each time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 11, 2019)

skribs said:


> I think the reason for having the same stride through the form (at least for the same stance) is to ensure you are properly controlling your body.  That you're aware of where your feet are and are being able to consistently apply that stance.
> 
> Just like when I'm playing guitar and I have to land on the right fret.  It's the practice and the muscle memory put into achieving the same distance each time.


Jeez, I hope my guitar playing isn't an indication of my limits at kata...


----------



## skribs (Mar 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Jeez, I hope my guitar playing isn't an indication of my limits at kata...



Sounds like you and I need to have a shred war.

Based on what I infer from your post, we'd be good competition for each other.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 11, 2019)

skribs said:


> Sounds like you and I need to have a shred war.
> 
> Based on what I infer from your post, we'd be good competition for each other.


I'm competition for absolutely nobody in that context. You'd be like Kramer at the kids' Karate class.


----------



## skribs (Mar 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'm competition for absolutely nobody in that context. You'd be like Kramer at the kids' Karate class.



I think it would be more like toddlers sparring each other.


----------



## jobo (Mar 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Not necessarily. If the form is designed to return to the same spot, then if I move 25% further forward AND 25% further back, I end up where I started, same as you. If we're working in sync, it may or may not be an issue, depending upon the space. With the first set of kata I created, it would easily become an issue if you've started anywhere but the middle or somewhat forward in the space  (the kata moves more back than forward from the starting point), but in some kata, it may mean nothing more than a foot or two of difference, if the kata changes directions often enough.
> 
> As for the no variation in stride pattern, that just as true (and untrue) whether you increase the size of the step or not. It's easy enough in some forms (from what I've seen and been told) to make adjustments along the way if you know the waypoints (if step 5 is back on the North-South center line, you get a quick check there of your movement in that direction, for instance).
> 
> But I think your point is that working in sync and/or returning to center is more difficult if there's any variation. That would be correct. I was just objecting to the idea that variations can't exist under those conditions.


this 25% is a red herring thrown in by you, I said you can't vary your stride length during the sequence and end up back at the same spot, which is quite obviously true.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 11, 2019)

skribs said:


> I think it would be more like toddlers sparring each other.


You give my guitar playing WAAAAAY too much credit, my friend. If you can play one actual song, you'd win. Seriously.


----------



## skribs (Mar 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You give my guitar playing WAAAAAY too much credit, my friend. If you can play one actual song, you'd win. Seriously.



Actual songs?  No.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 11, 2019)

jobo said:


> this 25% is a red herring thrown in by you, I said you can't vary your stride length during the sequence and end up back at the same spot, which is quite obviously true.


No, it's not a red herring (maybe look up that term - I don't think it means what you think it means). It's just a random number used to simplify the discussion. Choose literally any number you like in its place, and my statements don't change. You can vary your stride and end up in the same spot, under certain circumstances. A very simple example (since you've decided to die on this hill) would be a form that, within its movements, has 3 steps in each direction. If you change all 12 steps (3 x 4) by the same amount, the net result is 0.

Tell me again why that's impossible, because all you've done so far is say over and over, "Nuh-uh, can't do that!"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 11, 2019)

skribs said:


> Actual songs?  No.


Hmm...seems we may be well matched, after all. Let's hope Kramer doesn't show up for sparring.


----------



## jobo (Mar 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> No, it's not a red herring (maybe look up that term - I don't think it means what you think it means). It's just a random number used to simplify the discussion. Choose literally any number you like in its place, and my statements don't change. You can vary your stride and end up in the same spot, under certain circumstances. A very simple example (since you've decided to die on this hill) would be a form that, within its movements, has 3 steps in each direction. If you change all 12 steps (3 x 4) by the same amount, the net result is 0.
> 
> Tell me again why that's impossible, because all you've done so far is say over and over, "Nuh-uh, can't do that!"


no yourstride variation is from one stride to the next,  not a constant stride pattern, that 10,20, 50% bigger than every one else. as soon as you decided to do a 25 inch stride instead of your normal 23 inch, then you wont make it back to the same spot y two inches,do  12 of those and you two foot away


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> At the Karate school where I teach now, I've seen the black belts practicing kata. They specifically talk about some of the variations, and the ranking BB often just waves them off as "whichever works for you". And they do get tested on them for grading. I'm not sure how the testing works, and how much variation is accepted at what level, but it does happen.


Don't let you imagination run too far. I am not encouraging "do it your way". I am saying slight variations are ok to help someone learn the gist of a movement. Then you have to start polishing it. Will/should everyone look exactly the same? I still say it is a fools errand to think so. My GM and I were talking after class tonight(about an hour ago)and he was stressing how we must teach the elements within each movement. A down block is not one move but many. How you make power is predicated on many things. How you transition from move to move is complex. If we try to load a new student with all of it the first night/week/month, it is unlikely they will get any of it right.
So I hope the BB's you mentioned recognized this and were not missing some key teaching moments.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> you said you spent 18 years doing a ma you didn't understand , that's really odd to invest a quarter of a life time learning something with iut either asking for or receiving a satisfactory explanation. at the very least we can surmise  that your instructor didn't understand it either !


What I sad was "Only then did I understand *some* of the reasons "   Therein lies the caveat . 
As concerns my instructor(s)   not knowing and not understanding *some* things of that there is no doubt.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> no yourstride variation is from one stride to the next,  not a constant stride pattern, that 10,20, 50% bigger than every one else. as soon as you decided to do a 25 inch stride instead of your normal 23 inch, then you wont make it back to the same spot y two inches,do  12 of those and you two foot away


Again, if you change from 23 inches to 25 inches, but make the same adjustment (+2") to the same number of steps in each direction, then the net is 0. It depends upon the form.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 12, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Don't let you imagination run too far. I am not encouraging "do it your way". I am saying slight variations are ok to help someone learn the gist of a movement. Then you have to start polishing it. Will/should everyone look exactly the same? I still say it is a fools errand to think so. My GM and I were talking after class tonight(about an hour ago)and he was stressing how we must teach the elements within each movement. A down block is not one move but many. How you make power is predicated on many things. How you transition from move to move is complex. If we try to load a new student with all of it the first night/week/month, it is unlikely they will get any of it right.
> So I hope the BB's you mentioned recognized this and were not missing some key teaching moments.


No, the lead belt was actually talking about _why_ the variations were acceptable. It wasn't just a matter of doing whatever they wanted, but that there were a number of options that fit the basic movement, and all of them were useful.

It may well be in their case that they start with a single "right" movement (with appropriate variations for body differences) at lower levels, and allow more variation at higher levels. That has been my approach, though I tend to allow more variation, earlier than is probably ideal.


----------



## jobo (Mar 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Again, if you change from 23 inches to 25 inches, but make the same adjustment (+2") to the same number of steps in each direction, then the net is 0. It depends upon the form.


to do that you would have to know that it had been carried in the first place and by exactly how much


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> to do that you would have to know that it had been carried in the first place and by exactly how much


Or, you'd just have to be consistent in your movement.

But, yeah, it's pretty easily possible to know when you're off in a form, especially if it has points where it re-crosses one of the axes of the starting point. Mind you, if you're off by 3", neither you (if it's midway) nor the judge (if it's at the end) is likely to notice that. If you're off by the 12" you mentioned earlier, that'd be easy to notice (again, at specific points in a form) for both of you.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> No, the lead belt was actually talking about _why_ the variations were acceptable. It wasn't just a matter of doing whatever they wanted, but that there were a number of options that fit the basic movement, and all of them were useful.
> 
> It may well be in their case that they start with a single "right" movement (with appropriate variations for body differences) at lower levels, and allow more variation at higher levels. That has been my approach, though I tend to allow more variation, earlier than is probably ideal.


Agree. That should be a natural part of the maturation process. My GM and I were talking last night about how it is normal for a new student to have "blinders" on from the information overload. As time go by they process the information better and should see more of what a move is or can be.


----------



## jobo (Mar 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Or, you'd just have to be consistent in your movement.
> 
> But, yeah, it's pretty easily possible to know when you're off in a form, especially if it has points where it re-crosses one of the axes of the starting point. Mind you, if you're off by 3", neither you (if it's midway) nor the judge (if it's at the end) is likely to notice that. If you're off by the 12" you mentioned earlier, that'd be easy to notice (again, at specific points in a form) for both of you.


but then we have gone full circle, theres no practicle benfit from uniform stepping,  unless it's for Kata as a performance art, infact it is quite possibly a backward step( pun intended) if Kata is to help cement movement patterns for " combat" . then you want a stride pattern that is big step, big step,  to close or open distances and small step to fine tune the distance for you kick or punch.

teaching someone to move in uniform steps means it's highly unlikely them will end up at optimum range for a strike, if they compensate that by doing all small steps, it makes them slower across the ground


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 12, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Agree. That should be a natural part of the maturation process. My GM and I were talking last night about how it is normal for a new student to have "blinders" on from the information overload. As time go by they process the information better and should see more of what a move is or can be.


In fact, it's not uncommon for a newer student to "hear" things a certain way. Years later, they'll see someone do a variation and ask why. Overhearing, the instructor replies, "Why not?" And the student responds, "You told me it had to be X way."

"No, that's what you heard."

Often, it's a matter of a student mistaking a correction for a restriction or requirement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> but then we have gone full circle, theres no practicle benfit from uniform stepping,  unless it's for Kata as a performance art, infact it is quite possibly a backward step( pun intended) if Kata is to help cement movement patterns for " combat" . then you want a stride pattern that is big step, big step,  to close or open distances and small step to fine tune the distance for you kick or punch.
> 
> teaching someone to move in uniform steps means it's highly unlikely them will end up at optimum range for a strike, if they compensate that by doing all small steps, it makes them slower across the ground


Actually, there's some reasonable argument to be made for having a consistent base to work from. So, you learn a "standard" step and depth for each stance. Variations are made from that point, with an understanding of the purpose of the variation, rather than simply stepping a random distance each time.


----------



## jobo (Mar 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, there's some reasonable argument to be made for having a consistent base to work from. So, you learn a "standard" step and depth for each stance. Variations are made from that point, with an understanding of the purpose of the variation, rather than simply stepping a random distance each time.


that installing a movement pattern that you then have to install another one over the top off, which wastes development time, and theres a fair chance they will revert to the inial less efficient one under stress. 

and it's not " random steps " people have an optimum stride length for quick movement,  and it's at that pitch they need to practise, eastern ma seemingly having been design ed for people who are 5.6 with short legs. the regulation step may not be best for a 6,2 guy or girl with long legs. then a shorter step to fine tune distance.

I've had this discussion in class, in not doing 6 steps to close distance when I can do it far quicker with 4


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> that installing a movement pattern that you then have to install another one over the top off, which wastes development time, and theres a fair chance they will revert to the inial less efficient one under stress.
> 
> and it's not " random steps " people have an optimum stride length for quick movement,  and it's at that pitch they need to practise, eastern ma seemingly having been design ed for people who are 5.6 with short legs. the regulation step may not be best for a 6,2 guy or girl with long legs. then a shorter step to fine tune distance.
> 
> I've had this discussion in class, in not doing 6 steps to close distance when I can do it far quicker with 4


It sounds like what you’re saying is each person needs to develop...(wait for it)...a consistent base to work from. I’ve never seen that taught as a single stride length for everyone, which seems to be what you’re arguing against.


----------



## jobo (Mar 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It sounds like what you’re saying is each person needs to develop...(wait for it)...a consistent base to work from. I’ve never seen that taught as a single stride length for everyone, which seems to be what you’re arguing against.


 o not at all I'm saying they need to establish a variable base to work from, that a variation from the mean to suit there body type and variable stride length to suit the actual circumstance they are in. it's clear a one size fits all doesn't work for all people or all( most situation. theres for any attempt at standardization  is counter productive.

and back to the main issue any attempt to regulate cata as sequence with others which then demands a standard stride length or to return to the same spot is teaching habits that goes against combat efficiency,  that will ha e to be unlearn, at some point or have a life time of sub optimal performance, unless you happen to be 5.6 with short legs, then your not to bad


----------



## skribs (Mar 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It sounds like what you’re saying is each person needs to develop...(wait for it)...a consistent base to work from. I’ve never seen that taught as a single stride length for everyone, which seems to be what you’re arguing against.



It depends on the context.  In our demonstration team, we expect that all members maintain a consistent spot in the grid.  So that way you don't start off with the group looking like a Notepad file and halfway through the form it looks like a 5-year-old's handwriting.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> but then we have gone full circle, theres no practicle benfit from uniform stepping,  unless it's for Kata as a performance art, infact it is quite possibly a backward step( pun intended) if Kata is to help cement movement patterns for " combat" . then you want a stride pattern that is big step, big step,  to close or open distances and small step to fine tune the distance for you kick or punch.
> 
> teaching someone to move in uniform steps means it's highly unlikely them will end up at optimum range for a strike, if they compensate that by doing all small steps, it makes them slower across the ground


It is important to teach your students to perform each move of a form correctly and with power. Does it matter if they are off a few inches at the end of the form?  No. Should they be aware of maintaining the "performance" side of the form? Yes. It is teaching someone to pay attention to details and make them better overall.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 13, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> . If we try to load a new student with all of it the first night/week/month, it is unlikely they will get any of it right.
> .


Even a thirsty man cannot drink from a fire hose.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> , theres no practicle benfit from uniform stepping,


I disagree. The practical benefit is to instill good habits.  This assumes of course there is a good reason to perform the "Uniform"  step and stance.   Possible reasons would be to maintain a stable base, maintian good balance, or be in a position that facilitates a certain technique.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> o not at all I'm saying they need to establish a variable base to work from, that a variation from the mean to suit there body type and variable stride length to suit the actual circumstance they are in. it's clear a one size fits all doesn't work for all people or all( most situation. theres for any attempt at standardization  is counter productive.


OK - Got it now. I can't speak for all systems. The Chang Hon system defines stances in relation to ones body size. Typically the length of one's feet or the width of ones shoulders.  Still this is considered to be flexible due to human variations.   
FWIW I consider  pattern specifications to be  a Variable Base   from which to morph any and all elements as needed for any situation. . This morphing is donethru vrious aspects of the system including Sparring in various formats and Ho Sin Sul.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 13, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> It is important to teach your students to perform each move of a form correctly and with power. Does it matter if they are off a few inches at the end of the form?  .


Depends. It's like the old telephone "game"  Line up 10 people and whisper a short story to the first who then whispers to the second and so on. The story probably changes little each time it's told. But a lot by the time #10 tell it.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 13, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> Depends. It's like the old telephone "game"  Line up 10 people and whisper a short story to the first who then whispers to the second and so on. The story probably changes little each time it's told. But a lot by the time #10 tell it.


I guess it is hard to put into words. I am not saying it is ok the CHANGE a movement. I am talking about the innate differences in peoples bodies for the most part. Secondly, the differences in how people process information. Over time it should all diverge into the complete, correct, move with speed and power. 
I subscribe more to the idea that the differences over time (the story) is more attributed to people who never quite mastered the technique in the first place, and people who did master it but chose to change it on purpose, like most of the known style originators.


----------



## jobo (Mar 13, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> I disagree. The practical benefit is to instill good habits.  This assumes of course there is a good reason to perform the "Uniform"  step and stance.   Possible reasons would be to maintain a stable base, maintian good balance, or be in a position that facilitates a certain technique.


well it doesn't allow you to reach position to perform a technique,  apart from kata, where there no actual target, and bag kicking where you have exactly control of your starting position and can adjust it after a few trays to get the correct distance. in all other instances, 9 out of ten times your going to end up to close or to far away, on the first attempt and you may not get a second attempt, your certainly never going to get the luxury  of moving your starting position 6 "" to get the correct range as your opponent will keep moving


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 14, 2019)

jobo said:


> well it doesn't allow you to reach position to perform a technique,  apart from kata, where there no actual target, and bag kicking where you have exactly control of your starting position and can adjust it after a few trays to get the correct distance. in all other instances, 9 out of ten times your going to end up to close or to far away, on the first attempt and you may not get a second attempt, your certainly never going to get the luxury  of moving your starting position 6 "" to get the correct range as your opponent will keep moving


Therein lies the crux of the criticism.  If the only thing you did was Kata you would likely find yourself in a rut only having the habit of specific stance length.   I would guess that few only practice Kata. It is but one element of most modern day systems along with sparring as well as perhaps other elements.


----------



## jobo (Mar 14, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> Therein lies the crux of the criticism.  If the only thing you did was Kata you would likely find yourself in a rut only having the habit of specific stance length.   I would guess that few only practice Kata. It is but one element of most modern day systems along with sparring as well as perhaps other elements.


well theres a lot of clubs where Kata t and Kata in sequence is paramoun and 5hat clearly requires you to practise and practise uniform stride, but in that case particularly but in any where this is a requirement,  theres then a requirement to learn a different stride pattern for combat  as best that's a waste  of time, more likely is contrary to combat efficiency.

soccer players dont practise one stride pattern in training and then have another for matches, most people would see that as silly, but ma are exempt from such logic, apparently,  as its tradition


----------



## skribs (Mar 14, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I guess it is hard to put into words. I am not saying it is ok the CHANGE a movement. I am talking about the innate differences in peoples bodies for the most part. Secondly, the differences in how people process information. Over time it should all diverge into the complete, correct, move with speed and power.
> I subscribe more to the idea that the differences over time (the story) is more attributed to people who never quite mastered the technique in the first place, and people who did master it but chose to change it on purpose, like most of the known style originators.



So you're not talking about changes to the form, but rather a person's journey to mastering the form?

If that's the case, then your movements should at least be consistent (or you should be trying to get them that way).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 14, 2019)

skribs said:


> your movements should at least be consistent (or you should be trying to get them that way).


You

- 1nd punch may want to punch your opponent's groin. So you punch 30 degree downward.
- 2nd punch may want to punch your opponent's chest. So you punch parallel to the ground.
- 3rd punch may want to punch your opponent's head. So you punch 30 degree upward.

Since a teacher doesn't know whether his student tries to punch the groin, chest, or head, how will he be able to ask his students to punch the same height?


----------



## skribs (Mar 14, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You
> 
> - 1nd punch may want to punch your opponent's groin. So you punch 30 degree downward.
> - 2nd punch may want to punch your opponent's chest. So you punch parallel to the ground.
> ...



In the form it's stated "low punch" "middle punch" or "high punch" and you use the student as a reference.  A low punch should be their groin level, a middle punch their chest level, and a high punch their face level.

The student doesn't do what they want in the form.  The form tells the student what they are supposed to do.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 14, 2019)

skribs said:


> So you're not talking about changes to the form, but rather a person's journey to mastering the form?
> 
> If that's the case, then your movements should at least be consistent (or you should be trying to get them that way).


Not necessarily. Most people change and adapt through the color belts. Many beyond that.


----------



## andyjeffries (Mar 15, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm anti-tradition. Why should I do my form the same way as the ancient form creator did? The best that I can do is just another good copy machine, no more and no less.
> 
> Do you want be just another copy machine for the rest of your life?



Yes! I want to preserve our art the best I can, learning from as accurate sources I can. Otherwise I'm not teaching Taekwondo but Andykwondo!

I also think that it's fairly big headed that I should assume I could do the form better than a group of founders who created the forms (unless I get to the amount of experience that they had).


----------



## andyjeffries (Mar 15, 2019)

Clyde Cash said:


> Everyone reading this thread has to let go of their "forms." They are obsolete compared to sparring. Why do you waste your training time on workouts scientifically proven to be pointless?



Please can you provide evidence of these peer-reviewed scientific studies that prove forms to have no point?

No, wait, that was just hyperbole?! Seriously, you come across as a very junior martial artist with comments like this - they aren't obsolete, they are just different. There also comes a time in everyone's life when sparring like a 20 year old isn't an option any more. At that point, poomsae may be the best way of them maintaining muscle tone, "muscle memory" (specific muscle fitness and co-ordination in certain movements), etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> o not at all I'm saying they need to establish a variable base to work from, that a variation from the mean to suit there body type and variable stride length to suit the actual circumstance they are in. it's clear a one size fits all doesn't work for all people or all( most situation. theres for any attempt at standardization  is counter productive.
> 
> and back to the main issue any attempt to regulate cata as sequence with others which then demands a standard stride length or to return to the same spot is teaching habits that goes against combat efficiency,  that will ha e to be unlearn, at some point or have a life time of sub optimal performance, unless you happen to be 5.6 with short legs, then your not to bad



Your first paragraph just sounds like you're saying "No, but let me say what you just said."

That last point we do agree on - assuming there's a space constraint (if it's just 2-3 people, cadence need not even be the same, much less the distancing). But there's value in spending some time controlling that. It's probably not anything near optimal to control it arbitrarily (as is the case with synchronized group movement) most of the time, but spending some time controlling it is useful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2019)

skribs said:


> It depends on the context.  In our demonstration team, we expect that all members maintain a consistent spot in the grid.  So that way you don't start off with the group looking like a Notepad file and halfway through the form it looks like a 5-year-old's handwriting.


And that's a different context. Demo teams are usually very much a performance, rather than martial practice. It's a different skill set, and keeping things in sync is much more impressive - armies, dancers, and marching bands all seem to agree.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> I disagree. The practical benefit is to instill good habits.  This assumes of course there is a good reason to perform the "Uniform"  step and stance.   Possible reasons would be to maintain a stable base, maintian good balance, or be in a position that facilitates a certain technique.


I also think it can (if the teaching is done this way) give each person a slightly different lesson. If the Hobbit (5'0") and I (5'10") practice a kata with the same step length, likely she's taking a very long step and I"m taking a slightly short one. If the instructor explains what that does to our techniques, we can actually practice that adjustment on purpose, rather than simply as a step distance we need to keep in sync. It's a small thing, but it's where we can find small lessons inside some of the training we already do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I guess it is hard to put into words. I am not saying it is ok the CHANGE a movement. I am talking about the innate differences in peoples bodies for the most part. Secondly, the differences in how people process information. Over time it should all diverge into the complete, correct, move with speed and power.
> I subscribe more to the idea that the differences over time (the story) is more attributed to people who never quite mastered the technique in the first place, and people who did master it but chose to change it on purpose, like most of the known style originators.


Maybe I misread his post, but I thought he was talking about the issue of differences among the group. If a bunch of people are off by various small distances, it gets the group out of sync and can make it hard to do the kata together. Or maybe I read it that way because that's my experience with kata. I don't teach it to precision, so two students doing a kata together are almost certainly going to end up in different relative spots. This limits how many students I can have practicing the kata at the same time. Maybe this matters less where precision is part of the kata training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> well it doesn't allow you to reach position to perform a technique,  apart from kata, where there no actual target, and bag kicking where you have exactly control of your starting position and can adjust it after a few trays to get the correct distance. in all other instances, 9 out of ten times your going to end up to close or to far away, on the first attempt and you may not get a second attempt, your certainly never going to get the luxury  of moving your starting position 6 "" to get the correct range as your opponent will keep moving


This is what I was getting at earlier. If people have to sometimes adjust to an arbitrary step size (because of the group), they should be learning to produce their techniques with various step sizes. That should help with that adjustment on the fly.

(On a side note, you make a great point about something that happens a lot at the heavy bag. IMO, it's okay for a beginner to change their distance to match the technique. After a point, though, if you line up too close or too far away, you should adjust the technique to make that distance work, and work on finding the right distance when you reset.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> well theres a lot of clubs where Kata t and Kata in sequence is paramoun and 5hat clearly requires you to practise and practise uniform stride, but in that case particularly but in any where this is a requirement,  theres then a requirement to learn a different stride pattern for combat  as best that's a waste  of time, more likely is contrary to combat efficiency.
> 
> soccer players dont practise one stride pattern in training and then have another for matches, most people would see that as silly, but ma are exempt from such logic, apparently,  as its tradition


I don't see it as a "different stride pattern", even when they are using a consistent step when in a group. They're just using one selection in that case, from a range of selections they'd use for combat. And that consistent step in groups is possibly not even consistent. I often see Karate students making adjustments (one bigger step or shorter step) to get back in sync with the group. So even there, they're practicing distance adjustments - just not based on a target.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You
> 
> - 1nd punch may want to punch your opponent's groin. So you punch 30 degree downward.
> - 2nd punch may want to punch your opponent's chest. So you punch parallel to the ground.
> ...


You start with a starting point, then teach the variations. Some teachers choose the starting point (the more common practice in JMA dojos, I think), which is usually their own mid-chest. Other teachers let that starting point occur naturally, unless it causes problems (students punching too high, causing their shoulders to rise, for instance). It's easier to teach variation from a starting point than to teach students to do many variations from the beginning, because the corrections are more consistent.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> ........,  theres then a requirement to learn a different stride pattern for combat  as best that's a waste  of time, more likely is contrary to combat efficiency.
> 
> soccer players dont practise one stride pattern in training and then have another for matches, most people would see that as silly, but ma are exempt from such logic, apparently,  as its tradition



I think thee are a couple of factors here. 1. Soccer is purely a sport.  There is no art or aesthetic component.   2. For soccer the terrain and surroundings is uniform so there is little need for variations due to those factors. 3. I differentiate "Combat" from sparring.   Sparring often requires a more mobile stance.   Combat my require a more stable stance.  4. The lack of variables in soccer   makes a limited tool set  more applicable.    Combat tool set is sort of like a mechanic or tradesman;s tools  set.  The job is a lot easier if you have the best tool for the job even if  you my only need it in 1% of the job.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 15, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You
> 
> - 1nd punch may want to punch your opponent's groin. So you punch 30 degree downward.
> - 2nd punch may want to punch your opponent's chest. So you punch parallel to the ground.
> ...


I think that is the wrong question.    Both student and teacher need to know the stipulated level. This gives the student  specific level to try and emulate and allows the teacher to observe whether the student: A. Knows where it is supposed to be; and B.  Whether the performance is accurate.   Otherwise, even with specific standards how would the teacher know? I would guess most teachers have had the experience where you correct a student saying "When you perform this technique you are doing "A" and should be doing "B"  to have the student reply "I didn't realize I was doing that."


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 15, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Not necessarily. Most people change and adapt through the color belts. Many beyond that.


Even if a student changes over time , they should not be changing during a single performance of the form.   There are other exercises for adaptation.


----------



## jobo (Mar 15, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> I think thee are a couple of factors here. 1. Soccer is purely a sport.  There is no art or aesthetic component.   2. For soccer the terrain and surroundings is uniform so there is little need for variations due to those factors. 3. I differentiate "Combat" from sparring.   Sparring often requires a more mobile stance.   Combat my require a more stable stance.  4. The lack of variables in soccer   makes a limited tool set  more applicable.    Combat tool set is sort of like a mechanic or tradesman;s tools  set.  The job is a lot easier if you have the best tool for the job even if  you my only need it in 1% of the job.


that's just wrong soccer is or at least can be if your watching top players an aesthetic " art"  much more so it seems than kata as much more people watch and pay a great deal of money to do so.

it extremely variable, you need to move your self through time and space to get to a predetermined and completly variable target . the ball and avoid people trying to kick you, whilst others are moving them selves to intercept you. . if you just have a constant movement pattern you wont do either.

it also has the addition component of having to coordinate with the movement if others team members

there are certainly as many varriables in soccer as in ma, quite possible more and hence as many variations on technique.

if your seperating combat and sparring m ,which is reasonable. then the vast % of ma never engage in combat or at best a few times in a life time.

that then t is ,like trying to be good at soccer, with out ever playing a competitive game, so it's impossible to know if it works. if your only going to have five fights in a life time, it's highly unlikely , your technique that is only useful 1% of the time will ever be useful, as clearly you would need a 100 fights to guarantee  is use, pragmatically  , then it's a poor use of time to spend many hours perfecting it


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 15, 2019)

andyjeffries said:


> I also think that it's fairly big headed that I should assume I could do the form better than a group of founders who created the forms (unless I get to the amount of experience that they had).



Realistically, you may very well have more experience than the founders did.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 15, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Realistically, you may very well have more experience than the founders did.


If Karate is your primary art, but you also cross trained boxing, MT, wrestling, Judo, BJJ, ..., you may have much wider view point that the style founder had. You can look at a technique from many different angles instead of just from one angle.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 15, 2019)

andyjeffries said:


> I also think that it's fairly big headed that I should assume I could do the form better than a group of founders who created the forms (unless I get to the amount of experience that they had).


Bruce Lee died at age 32. If he started to train at age of 10, he would have 22 years of training. If you start to train at age of 10, when you are 70, you have trained for 60 years. Do you think that you will be able to do form better than Bruce could when you are 70?

It's not "big headed". It's to have faith in yourself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Realistically, you may very well have more experience than the founders did.


Especially if you look at the point in their lives when they created a given part of the curriculum. Many bits (certainly not all) were created when the founders were in their 20's to 40's. Add to that all of the information we - as a civilization - possess now that they didn't have access to, and there's good reason to think there's room for improvement in some areas.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 15, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If Karate is your primary art, but you also cross trained boxing, MT, wrestling, Judo, BJJ, ..., you may have much wider view point that the style founder had. You can look at a technique from many different angles instead of just from one angle.



Most of the TKD founders had a decade or two of experience when they founded their Kwan. Maybe 30 years when the taegeuk forms were designed. I've got about 50 years of experience, and I know there are plenty of others with as much or more.
The point being that the founders were far from perfect.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 15, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Most of the TKD founders had a decade or two of experience when they founded their Kwan. Maybe 30 years when the taegeuk forms were designed. I've got about 50 years of experience, and I know there are plenty of others with as much or more.
> The point being that the founders were far from perfect.


Agree with you 100% there.

If you look at the following form, between 0.02 and 0.03 there should be a right punch there. It's missing in that form. When you palm strike on your opponent's waist, 99% of the time that your opponent will drop his leading arm to block it. This will let his face open. There should be a right punch to the face at that moment.

Sometime I think I can design the form better than the form creator did. The form creator may had 30 years training when he designed this form. But I have more than 60 years training. If I can't design better form than this form creator, I should get a rope, find a quite place, and hang myself.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 15, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Most of the TKD founders had a decade or two of experience when they founded their Kwan. Maybe 30 years when the taegeuk forms were designed. I've got about 50 years of experience, and I know there are plenty of others with as much or more.
> The point being that the founders were far from perfect.


Bingo.  All of this was created by people, all of whom had shortcomings.

None of this was handed down by the gods, as a perfect thing.


----------



## skribs (Mar 15, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> The point being that the founders were far from perfect.



No founder of any art will be perfect.
Until Skribs-Jutsu or Skribs-Kido is founded.  (I'm still iffy on the name).


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> t........................... your technique that is only useful 1% of the time will ever be useful, as clearly you would need a 100 fights to guarantee  is use, pragmatically  , then it's a poor use of time to spend many hours perfecting it


If you are only training for combat then most anytime spent in a martial art is a poor use of your time.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> that's just wrong soccer is or at least can be if your watching top players an aesthetic " art"  much more so it seems than kata as much more people watch and pay a great deal of money to do so.


You have chosen to consider an athletic sport performance an "Art"   which of course is your right and highlights the issue since there is no agreement as to how the term is defined . "Though *the definition of what constitutes art is disputed*[5][6][7] and has changed over time, general descriptions mention an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency[8] and creation.[9] The nature of art and related concepts, such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics" From Wikepedia. (Emphasis supplied)
It is impossible to have an effective discussion if people do not agree how terms are defined.   I understand but reject your contention that a good athletic performance is although a thing of beauty is considered "Art"  for purposes of these discussions.   Within the sport there is no winning advantage to considering how aesthetically pleasing someone considers your performance.  Within a martial art there are parameters where the aesthetics are judge.   Again, therein lies the crux of the issue. Is everyone who is kicking and punching or grappling involved in a "Martial Art" ?   Tae Bo? Cardio Kickboxing?    Perhaps the terminology needs refinement although I have no hope this will happen or there will be universal acceptance of narrower terms like.   "Martial Sport" Martial Exercise" etc.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 16, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> Even if a student changes over time , they should not be changing during a single performance of the form.   There are other exercises for adaptation.


Yes, of course. I do not consider a single performance of a form "over time". I agree with the other drills you mention and, to my point, they would be incorporated into the single performance, over time, as the person perfects their technique. That is of course assuming the other drills are taught correctly.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> This is what I was getting at earlier. If people have to sometimes adjust to an arbitrary step size (because of the group), they should be learning to produce their techniques with various step sizes. That should help with that adjustment on the fly.
> 
> (On a side note, you make a great point about something that happens a lot at the heavy bag. IMO, it's okay for a beginner to change their distance to match the technique. After a point, though, if you line up too close or too far away, you should adjust the technique to make that distance work, and work on finding the right distance when you reset.)


We practice this especially for kicking. Most of the kicks are practiced from different stances and for different ranges (target distance).


----------



## jobo (Mar 16, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> You have chosen to consider an athletic sport performance an "Art"   which of course is your right and highlights the issue since there is no agreement as to how the term is defined . "Though *the definition of what constitutes art is disputed*[5][6][7] and has changed over time, general descriptions mention an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency[8] and creation.[9] The nature of art and related concepts, such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics" From Wikepedia. (Emphasis supplied)
> It is impossible to have an effective discussion if people do not agree how terms are defined.   I understand but reject your contention that a good athletic performance is although a thing of beauty is considered "Art"  for purposes of these discussions.   Within the sport there is no winning advantage to considering how aesthetically pleasing someone considers your performance.  Within a martial art there are parameters where the aesthetics are judge.   Again, therein lies the crux of the issue. Is everyone who is kicking and punching or grappling involved in a "Martial Art" ?   Tae Bo? Cardio Kickboxing?    Perhaps the terminology needs refinement although I have no hope this will happen or there will be universal acceptance of narrower terms like.   "Martial Sport" Martial Exercise" etc.


I didn't say athletic  performance was art , I said soccer was was, pure athletic performance like say sprinting or weight lifting  isn't art, but team games that in evolved tactics are not  out and out measures of athletic performance and can also have a high aesthetic  appeal.

somebody being highbrow , would restrict the term art to things like Ballet or sculpture and certainly wouldn't include ma in that classification.

if your extending that definition to include kata,then theres no element of the definition that doesn't equally apply to soccer. both have an element of athletic performance in them m both can be aesthetically pleasing. both have interpretation and creativity.
both are judged, in the case of soccer , by 50,000 people and millions at home, who vote with their wallet
perhaps you could identify the precise qualities that you feel make kata an art but not soccer ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> if your extending that definition to include kata,then theres no element of the definition that doesn't equally apply to soccer.


The only thing I can think of that's specifically different is that I know of no situation where soccer is formally judged on aesthetics - no place where people are judging soccer drills and saying, "That's a good drill - I like the flash and snap of it, so here's a medal." That does happen with kata competition.


----------



## jobo (Mar 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The only thing I can think of that's specifically different is that I know of no situation where soccer is formally judged on aesthetics - no place where people are judging soccer drills and saying, "That's a good drill - I like the flash and snap of it, so here's a medal." That does happen with kata competition.


arts like ballet isn't formally judged either, its judge d by " professional critics" who write reviews , as is soccer and its judged by the crowd who are prepared to part with a significant amount of money to watch as is soccer.

I've seen many a poor, but winning soccer performance booed , you can't get much more of a firmal feed back than that


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> arts like ballet isn't formally judged either, its judge d by " professional critics" who write reviews , as is soccer and its judged by the crowd who are prepared to part with a significant amount of money to watch as is soccer


I don't think the term "art" is the same for fine arts, performing arts, and martial arts. I was looking at one factor folks have used to point out what they see as the "art" in MA.

I don't personally see that as the usage of "art" that MA is meant to have.


----------



## jobo (Mar 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think the term "art" is the same for fine arts, performing arts, and martial arts. I was looking at one factor folks have used to point out what they see as the "art" in MA.
> 
> I don't personally see that as the usage of "art" that MA is meant to have.


well it certainly is,  fine art is just the term refined and only applied to thing they consider art, whilst excluding things THEY dont approve of.

which is exactly the same process as he is doing, if ballet doesn't work for you, let's take a musical performance show on Broadway, the high brow wont consider that fine art. but its certainly art, which is judged in the same way as soccer


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think the term "art" is the same for fine arts, performing arts, and martial arts. I was looking at one factor folks have used to point out what they see as the "art" in MA.
> 
> I don't personally see that as the usage of "art" that MA is meant to have.


You are correct.  The term “art” in martial arts means skill and method.  It is not meant as aesthetically pleasing artistic endeavor.


----------



## jobo (Mar 16, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> You are correct.  The term “art” in martial arts means skill and method.  It is not meant as aesthetically pleasing artistic endeavor.


well then all art is skill and method at its core,  it's safe to say an unskilled ballet dancer with no method isn't an artist by that definition.  its aesthetic qualities come from skill and method and the level of aesthetic appeal can only be measured by how many people find it aesthetically  pleasing


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 16, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> If you are only training for combat then most anytime spent in a martial art is a poor use of your time.


Don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that martial art training cannot improve combat skill?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> well it certainly is,  fine art is just the term refined and only applied to thing they consider art, whilst excluding things THEY dont approve of.
> 
> which is exactly the same process as he is doing, if ballet doesn't work for you, let's take a musical performance show on Broadway, the high brow wont consider that fine art. but its certainly art, which is judged in the same way as soccer


No "certainly" about it. The word has different connotations. If you attempt to make them all the same, you lose much of the meaning in some of the phrases. And changing which performance art you look at doesn't change that that's a different type of "art" than the "art" in "martial arts".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> well then all art is skill and method at its core,  it's safe to say an unskilled ballet dancer with no method isn't an artist by that definition.  its aesthetic qualities come from skill and method and the level of aesthetic appeal can only be measured by how many people find it aesthetically  pleasing


That's reasonable. The base of the word (without some of the deeper connotations used in "fine art" and "performance art") is the same across those activities.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 16, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that martial art training cannot improve combat skill?


I think he's saying there are faster ways to train for fighting than a traditional art. I'd agree.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> if your extending that definition to include kata,then theres no element of the definition that doesn't equally apply to soccer. both have an element of athletic performance in them m both can be aesthetically pleasing. both have interpretation and creativity.



Depends. If you are using a system that defines technical parameters for technique  (Length of stances, level of techniques, how various techniques are performed, usually as solo practice - no opponent) No similar elements are present or help you "Win" in soccer.    The sole parameters are  scoring points against an opponent within the rule set.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> arts like ballet isn't formally judged either, its judge d by " professional critics" who write reviews , as is soccer and its judged by the crowd who are prepared to part with a significant amount of money to watch as is soccer.
> 
> I've seen many a poor, but winning soccer performance booed , you can't get much more of a firmal feed back than that


1. I submit that the "Crowd" is far different than professional critics.  Professional critics often pan movies that are hugely successful. 
2.  Your experience is far different. Unless you refer to the non home team crowd booing winning visitors I don't see many winning performances boo'd


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 17, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think he's saying there are faster ways to train for fighting than a traditional art. I'd agree.



Yes Sir.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 17, 2019)

Doesn't seem to be much point in debating what I posted at #132 concerning no agreement on how terms re defined:

"You have chosen to consider an athletic sport performance an "Art" which of course is your right and highlights the issue since there is no agreement as to how the term is defined . "Though *the definition of what constitutes art is disputed*[5][6][7] and has changed over time, general descriptions mention an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency[8] and creation.[9] The nature of art and related concepts, such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics" From Wikepedia. (Emphasis supplied)
It is impossible to have an effective discussion if people do not agree how terms are defined"


----------



## jobo (Mar 17, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> 1. I submit that the "Crowd" is far different than professional critics.  Professional critics often pan movies that are hugely successful.
> 2.  Your experience is far different. Unless you refer to the non home team crowd booing winning visitors I don't see many winning performances boo'd


you've clearly never been to old Trafford's,  in the last couple of years. the teams been booed win draw or lose because of the lack of aesthetic, and that was as nothing to the booing that went on at everton last season.
and indeed they are different but soccer has professional critics, called pundits,  generally explayers being paid to critique performances on the TV or the press. and as soon as your being paid to critique something, your a professional critic


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 17, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think he's saying there are faster ways to train for fighting than a traditional art. I'd agree.





Earl Weiss said:


> Yes Sir.


I have to disagree with both of you here. All my life, I have tried to find the "faster ways". If there is a faster way, I would like to learn it myself.

If you train this traditional art partner drill over 10,000 times, you will develop this skill. How and where can you find a "faster way" than this?






If you twist this sand container 10,000 times, you will develop strong twisting power used in wrestling. How and where can you find a "faster way" than this?

Please tell me if you can find any modern gym equipment that can help you to achieve this goal.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 17, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have to disagree with both of you here. All my life, I have tried to find the "faster ways". If there is a faster way, I would like to learn it myself.
> 
> If you train this traditional art partner drill over 10,000 times, you will develop this skill. How and where can you find a "faster way" than this?
> 
> ...


If I don't worry about the classical curriculum, I can develop fighting skill (in most people) more quickly to a higher competence. This is what we see in many MMA gyms and boxing gyms. How big that difference is will depend upon the person (where they start, how well they respond, and how much they enjoy the training). But overall, in my opinion and experience, TMA training is not usually the fastest method to fight competency. I don't think it's an order of magnitude difference. I've heard descriptions of training (not experienced it myself) that would be an order of magnitude slower (spending 6 months just learning a stance, focusing entirely on a single form or set of forms for a year or more before sparring, etc.).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 17, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> If I don't worry about the classical curriculum, I can develop fighting skill (in most people) more quickly to a higher competence.


The issue is not the "traditional art" but the "traditional striking art".

Old Chinese saying said, "3 years of striking art training cannot match with 1 year of wrestling art training".

When A still trains the solo form, B has already wrestled on the mat. When A still punches into the thin air, B has already used his opponent's body weight to develop strength.

The day when the striking art takes the wrestling art approach (try to master 1 technique at a time), the day that this issue will no longer exist. If you spend 6 months just in "kick and 3 punches", you should be able to develop excellent fighting ability later on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 17, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue is not the "traditional art" but the "traditional striking art".
> 
> Old Chinese saying said, "3 years of striking art training cannot match with 1 year of wrestling art training".
> 
> ...


That's an over-generalization, on both sides. There are Japanese arts that have a grappling focus, but do not typically move quickly to that "wrestling on the mat" phase.

My point is that if we average things (and that's all we can really do, if we talk about "traditional" training, since there's such a huge range of things that fall into that term), then traditional Eastern training (I'm not much familiar with traditional Western methods) isn't going to be as fast to combat effectiveness as the modern methods seen around boxing, MMA, etc.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 17, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have to disagree with both of you here. All my life, I have tried to find the "faster ways". If there is a faster way, I would like to learn it myself.
> 
> If you train this traditional art partner drill over 10,000 times, you will develop this skill. How and where can you find a "faster way" than this?
> 
> ...


I have no doubt what you say is true. However, what I hear you saying is that there is only one way to learn and that no one can learn any quicker, or better than you. There are exceptions in every aspect of life. I try to teach to the highest level of the exceptional I have had the privilege to work with. Not everyone can reach that level but we should all swing for the fences. There will always be some who learn your 10,000 movement practice even better in just 1,000 movements. It is an incredible thing to see.


----------



## jobo (Mar 17, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That's an over-generalization, on both sides. There are Japanese arts that have a grappling focus, but do not typically move quickly to that "wrestling on the mat" phase.
> 
> My point is that if we average things (and that's all we can really do, if we talk about "traditional" training, since there's such a huge range of things that fall into that term), then traditional Eastern training (I'm not much familiar with traditional Western methods) isn't going to be as fast to combat effectiveness as the modern methods seen around boxing, MMA, etc.


I'm not sure that's true, or has to be true 3ven if that is a common experience and clearly depend on what units of time your using and what constitutes  combat effectiveness.

enough  technique s required to say reach yellow belt, generally no more than 12 months should be sufficient to call yourself combat ready. or if your not the fault lies with you and not the lack of technique. 

I'd suggest 5he learning curve for basic boxing proficiency would be much the same, with the same caviete on personal issues.

if boxing has an advantage its it tends to have combat as part of the learning  where many trad ma do not. that may be the real difference. 

of course if you project forward, someone could be 7 years into a trad art and still not experienced combat, so in that case its isn't so a much " longer in the learning" so much as will never happen at all


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> I'm not sure that's true, or has to be true 3ven if that is a common experience and clearly depend on what units of time your using and what constitutes  combat effectiveness.
> 
> enough  technique s required to say reach yellow belt, generally no more than 12 months should be sufficient to call yourself combat ready. or if your not the fault lies with you and not the lack of technique.


I said nothing about lack of techniques. In fact, I suggested quite the opposite: that limiting the number of techniques gets to fight effectiveness more quickly. So either I'm misreading your point, or you misread mine. I'm really not sure which.



> I'd suggest 5he learning curve for basic boxing proficiency would be much the same, with the same caviete on personal issues.


I agree there's a similar learning curve...with the same approach to training. But if a style focuses significantly on forms (which can happen in TMA, since there are more purposes in play than just fighting skill), that will delay the learning of application.



> if boxing has an advantage its it tends to have combat as part of the learning  where many trad ma do not. that may be the real difference.


That's actually my original point. My point here about boxing was that I could get someone to fight effectiveness faster in a broader area of combat with hand/arm strikes than with grappling. This is a natural advantage for boxing.



> of course if you project forward, someone could be 7 years into a trad art and still not experienced combat, so in that case its isn't so a much " longer in the learning" so much as will never happen at all


Agreed.


----------



## jobo (Mar 17, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I said nothing about lack of techniques. In fact, I suggested quite the opposite: that limiting the number of techniques gets to fight effectiveness more quickly. So either I'm misreading your point, or you misread mine. I'm really not sure which.
> 
> 
> I agree there's a similar learning curve...with the same approach to training. But if a style focuses significantly on forms (which can happen in TMA, since there are more purposes in play than just fighting skill), that will delay the learning of application.
> ...


just limits technique s doesn5 get you their faster, if you limit them to one, they will learn it quickly, buts its combat efficiency will be somewhat limit. you clearly have to have sufficient technique to fight and that's going to be in the order of 10 to 20 no matter what you learn


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 17, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I have no doubt what you say is true. However, what I hear you saying is that there is only one way to learn and that no one can learn any quicker, or better than you. There are exceptions in every aspect of life. I try to teach to the highest level of the exceptional I have had the privilege to work with. Not everyone can reach that level but we should all swing for the fences. There will always be some who learn your 10,000 movement practice even better in just 1,000 movements. It is an incredible thing to see.


I'm talking about training method. I'm not talking about individual difference.

If you want to learn

- throwing skill, you will need to throw your opponent over and over.
- punching skill, you will need to punch on your opponent over and over. The issue is this is difficult to do.

The throwing art training has natural advantage over the striking art training.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> just limits technique s doesn5 get you their faster, if you limit them to one, they will learn it quickly, buts its combat efficiency will be somewhat limit. you clearly have to have sufficient technique to fight and that's going to be in the order of 10 to 20 no matter what you learn


I know a guy who trained hip throw only for 2 years. He won the champion in the national tournament.

I had forced myself to use just "single leg" for 6 months. In one Chicago tournament, I used that technique to win 7 rounds in a role.

When you force yourself to use just 1 technique, you have to force yourself to set up your technique from all different situations.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 17, 2019)

jobo said:


> just limits technique s doesn5 get you their faster, if you limit them to one, they will learn it quickly, buts its combat efficiency will be somewhat limit. you clearly have to have sufficient technique to fight and that's going to be in the order of 10 to 20 no matter what you learn


I don't think 10-20 is necessary. As far as offensive techinques, you can be competent with a jab, cross, and uppercut. There's nothing in the grappling realm that is as versatile as those three punches, and little that is as easy to become competent with as the first two (the uppercut takes a bit more). Add a hook, and you're still only up to 4 techniques. Learn to cover (let's count that as a technique) and one basic approach to footwork (let's call that one) and now you're up to 8, counting generously. And you can do a lot with just that. Will it cover everything? No. But it can get the job done.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 17, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I know a guy who trained hip throw only for 2 years. He won the champion in the national tournament.
> 
> I had forced myself to use just "single leg" for 6 months. In one Chicago tournament, I used that technique to win 7 rounds in a role.
> 
> When you force yourself to use just 1 technique, you have to force yourself to set up your technique from all different situations.


If he truly trained ONLY that throw, he'd have lost the second match (assuming he got lucky and the first guy offered that immediately). As you've said before, when you say "train only X", what you mean is "train around X". Assuming you mean the same thing here, you're talking about training that hip throw, the entries to it, how to use other techniques to set it up, how to transition into and out of it with other techniques, and how to defend against the counters...plus how to defend against myriad other techniques to buy time to get to that throw (assuming he's not going to take the other openings that present).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 17, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm talking about training method. I'm not talking about individual difference.
> 
> If you want to learn
> 
> ...


It does have that advantage. It also has the disadvantage of being a more complex skill set. Basic competence in a throw is harder to acquire than basic competence in a punch, on average (hook is harder than the simplest single-leg, maybe, but that's an outlier).


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 17, 2019)

Hurting someone is not difficult.  Any untrained person who is athletically inclined and has an aggressive attitude can be an effective fighter, without a sophisticated martial method.

If that same person has some rudimentary, but quality training, he can be downright fearsome.  It does not take years of training and mastery of a sophisticated martial system to be a good fighter.


----------



## jobo (Mar 18, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think 10-20 is necessary. As far as offensive techinques, you can be competent with a jab, cross, and uppercut. There's nothing in the grappling realm that is as versatile as those three punches, and little that is as easy to become competent with as the first two (the uppercut takes a bit more). Add a hook, and you're still only up to 4 techniques. Learn to cover (let's count that as a technique) and one basic approach to footwork (let's call that one) and now you're up to 8, counting generously. And you can do a lot with just that. Will it cover everything? No. But it can get the job done.


you've obviously not done boxing, but ok let's make it really simplistic, . so that's 4 punches with each hand that's 8, forward footwork, backward foot work and two lots of side wards foot work, that's 12 plus cover that's 13, then of course you need to combine those punches, and footwork. which is where you start to become competent


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 18, 2019)

jobo said:


> you've obviously not done boxing, but ok let's make it really simplistic, . so that's 4 punches with each hand that's 8, forward footwork, backward foot work and two lots of side wards foot work, that's 12 plus cover that's 13, then of course you need to combine those punches, and footwork. which is where you start to become competent


You're inflating your numbers (which I already did by including the hook, which I wouldn't, as it's harder to use well). No, combinations aren't techniques (that's why they're called combinations). And forward/backward footwork isn't separate techniques, that's the movement with the technique (the punch, alone, isn't the full technique). Will that win boxing matches? No. But it will produce useful fighting skill, which was the point. You're arguing really hard about the number of things, which is well beside the point. Complexity is more the point.

But let's play the numbers, and account for complexity with it. Single-leg, same side. Single-leg, opposite side. Single-leg, same side, front. Single-leg, same side, back. We're at 6, just accounting for the obvious variations in a single technique for grappling. And every one of those is a more complex movement than the jab.


----------



## jobo (Mar 18, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You're inflating your numbers (which I already did by including the hook, which I wouldn't, as it's harder to use well). No, combinations aren't techniques (that's why they're called combinations). And forward/backward footwork isn't separate techniques, that's the movement with the technique (the punch, alone, isn't the full technique). Will that win boxing matches? No. But it will produce useful fighting skill, which was the point. You're arguing really hard about the number of things, which is well beside the point. Complexity is more the point.
> 
> But let's play the numbers, and account for complexity with it. Single-leg, same side. Single-leg, opposite side. Single-leg, same side, front. Single-leg, same side, back. We're at 6, just accounting for the obvious variations in a single technique for grappling. And every one of those is a more complex movement than the jab.


of course forward and backwards are different techniques,  most people can run forwards, very few can run backwards you would have to learn that, therefor it's a different technique

and most people circle to their dominant side, right usually you would then have to learn the technique  of circling to your left

and combinations are the technique  of using your movements in combination, which needs to be learnt


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 18, 2019)

jobo said:


> of course forward and backwards are different techniques,  most people can run forwards, very few can run backwards you would have to learn that, therefor it's a different technique
> 
> and most people circle to their dominant side, right usually you would then have to learn the technique  of circling to your left


You're trying to make a boxer. That's not the point. To be able to use the punching skills against most folks doesn't require circling. And I'd still argue the basic footwork is part of the punch (just as I would argue stances in TMA are not separate techniques - they are part of the techniques).


----------



## jobo (Mar 18, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You're trying to make a boxer. That's not the point. To be able to use the punching skills against most folks doesn't require circling. And I'd still argue the basic footwork is part of the punch (just as I would argue stances in TMA are not separate techniques - they are part of the techniques).


hang on, at some point you said " competent " your can 9nly be  be judged competent at boxing if your up against another boxer or skilled fighter.any one  vaguely able can throw a landing punch against against " most people" that takes no training at all


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 18, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have to disagree with both of you here. All my life, I have tried to find the "faster ways". If there is a faster way, I would like to learn it myself.
> 
> If you train this traditional art partner drill over 10,000 times, you will develop this skill. How and where can you find a "faster way" than this?
> 
> ...



I think the issue is somewhat confused.  The idea that you waste a lot of time learning a traditional MA if all you want to do is fight does not imply that every drill or exercise in a traditional MA is inefficient.   Simply that there is a lot of stuff in many systems that  are not  structured solely for sparring or combat training.


----------



## skribs (Mar 18, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> I think the issue is somewhat confused.  The idea that you waste a lot of time learning a traditional MA if all you want to do is fight does not imply that every drill or exercise in a traditional MA is inefficient.   Simply that there is a lot of stuff in many systems that  are not  structured solely for sparring or combat training.


So what are they for?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 18, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> The idea that you waste a lot of time learning a traditional MA if all you want to do is fight does not imply that every drill or exercise in a traditional MA is inefficient.   Simply that there is a lot of stuff in many systems that  are not  structured solely for sparring or combat training.


In MA, not only you need to have a good technique, you also need to develop

- strength,
- speed,
- endurance,
- flexibility,
- balance,
- ...

For example, the following training may look like not related to fight. It develops balance, flexibility, leg strength, ...







If you don't train "leg lift" throw, that training may look like wasting your time.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 18, 2019)

EARL WEISS SAID: ↑
I think the issue is somewhat confused. The idea that you waste a lot of time learning a traditional MA if all you want to do is fight does not imply that every drill or exercise in a traditional MA is inefficient. Simply that there is a lot of stuff in many systems that are not structured solely for sparring or combat training.



skribs said:


> So what are they for?


Depending on the system non combat objectives can include. Power breaking, specialty breaking, aesthetics. athletic achievement levels such as jumping for height or distance.


----------



## skribs (Mar 18, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> EARL WEISS SAID: ↑
> I think the issue is somewhat confused. The idea that you waste a lot of time learning a traditional MA if all you want to do is fight does not imply that every drill or exercise in a traditional MA is inefficient. Simply that there is a lot of stuff in many systems that are not structured solely for sparring or combat training.
> 
> 
> Depending on the system non combat objectives can include. Power breaking, specialty breaking, aesthetics. athletic achievement levels such as jumping for height or distance.



To be clear, I wasn't trying to argue with you.  I just wanted to see the rest of your point!


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 18, 2019)

jobo said:


> you've clearly never been to old Trafford's,  in the last couple of years. the teams been booed win draw or lose because of the lack of aesthetic, and that was as nothing to the booing that went on at everton last season.


Correct. Never been there.   I expect this would be a newsworthy event..   The home crowd booing it's teams winning performance because it was not aesthetically pleasing.   Are their links to any stories about this?


----------



## jobo (Mar 18, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> Correct. Never been there.   I expect this would be a newsworthy event..   The home crowd booing it's teams winning performance because it was not aesthetically pleasing.   Are their links to any stories about this?


try Google, , why would it be news worthy when 8t happens every other week .


----------



## jobo (Mar 18, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> EARL WEISS SAID: ↑
> I think the issue is somewhat confused. The idea that you waste a lot of time learning a traditional MA if all you want to do is fight does not imply that every drill or exercise in a traditional MA is inefficient. Simply that there is a lot of stuff in many systems that are not structured solely for sparring or combat training.
> 
> 
> Depending on the system non combat objectives can include. Power breaking, specialty breaking, aesthetics. athletic achievement levels such as jumping for height or distance.


really people practise long jump at the ma class, ? suppose ithe useful if your late for the ferry


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> hang on, at some point you said " competent " your can 9nly be  be judged competent at boxing if your up against another boxer or skilled fighter.any one  vaguely able can throw a landing punch against against " most people" that takes no training at all


I didn't say "competitive". If we go to that measure, we'd have to judge competitive at what level (against another rank beginner or an experienced amateur). And then the level of competence needed is determined almost entirely by that of the opponent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> really people practise long jump at the ma class, ? suppose ithe useful if your late for the ferry


In fact, some folks do. Because it's fun, mostly.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> really people practise long jump at the ma class, ? suppose ithe useful if your late for the ferry


It seems you finally understand. Exactly as I was saying.   Many Martial Art systems today encompass stuff that would not be considered an efficient way to train if all you want to do is fight.    Of course we still have the difficulty of defining  exactly what system is or is not  "Martial Art"  and also what is a :"Fight"  i.e. competition or combat etc.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> really people practise long jump at the ma class, ? suppose ithe useful if your late for the ferry


Just to be clear the jumping for height and distance competitions I referred to also required kicking and breaking a target.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Mar 19, 2019)

jobo said:


> try Google, , why would it be news worthy when 8t happens every other week .


All I got was a bunch of stuff like this involving a player formerly of the home tam now playing for the visitors. Watch: Eden Hazard joins in with Everton fans booing Ross Barkley - Planet Football


----------



## punisher73 (Apr 16, 2019)

Ok, back to the original topic.  The Japanese have a concept called "embusen".  It kind of loosely translates to "line of path of travel" as it applies to kata.  The Japaense were very much into aesthetics and modified the kata to start and end on the same point to achieve that.  Originally, the kata did not do this and was not emphasized as much in earlier Okinawan karate.  The one traditional kata that breaks this rule and could not be altered is Naihanchi do to its lateral movement.  An extreme example of trying to achieve this is the Shotokan kata Chinte, there are 3 hops added to the end of the kata so it ends on the same spot that it started on.  There are MANY explanations for the purpose(s) of these hops, but they were not there originally and were added in for performance.

If you are talking about funcionality, then "embusen" as the path of travel is importnant.  Think of driving down the highway, your lane is your "embusen" and straying outside of that line/path of travel can be deadly.  Same with the kata, those lines and angles are there for a reason to give you the best entry and angle with your attacker to perform your technique while keeping you safe.  Focus on those lines in your study.

If you style emphasizes it for performance, then understand how to adapt your stances and movement to achieve this.  If your style does not emphasize this, then don't worry about your kata starting and stopping on the same spot.


----------

