# Kata and Forms...???



## Milt G. (Jul 26, 2009)

Hello,

Would like to get an idea of the importance that is placed on kata and forms by the various practitioners, and systems, represented here.

On another forum the subject was brought up.  Looking for more input.

Kata/Forms:

1) Necessary?
2) Very useful?
3) Somewhat useful?
4) Slightly useful?
5) Totally useless?

If so, or not, why???

Trying to find the "general" consensus.

Thanks, in advance for your assistance and input!

Milt G.


----------



## Danjo (Jul 27, 2009)

Necessary part of the total puzzle. What it develops, other things do not like shadow boxing. It's not the only thing one needs, but it is necessary to be well rounded ,IMO.


----------



## just2kicku (Jul 27, 2009)

I say they are very necessary. That's where you can check stances and form. To do a kata right, is to have the basics. All katas, like techniques, are basics strung together to make a form. I don't think you can have one without the other and be balanced.


----------



## Milt G. (Jul 27, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> I say they are very necessary. That's where you can check stances and form. To do a kata right, is to have the basics. All katas, like techniques, are basics strung together to make a form. I don't think you can have one without the other and be balanced.


 
Hello,

Thanks for your reply.
I pretty much feel the same.  Well put.

Milt G.


----------



## marlon (Jul 28, 2009)

Can this thread be merged?  it is in several places right now

Marlon


----------



## Milt G. (Jul 28, 2009)

marlon said:


> Can this thread be merged? it is in several places right now
> 
> Marlon


 
Hello,

That was my (the new guy's) fault...
Yes, a "merger" in this case, would be a good thing. 

Thanks,
Milt G.


----------



## marlon (Jul 28, 2009)

no worries. it is a good point to bring up.  It is justeasier for eveyone if the responses and discussion is in one place   BTW i have done the posting all over the place myself...everyone was nice about it

marlon


----------



## Manny (Jul 29, 2009)

Milt G. said:


> Hello,
> 
> Would like to get an idea of the importance that is placed on kata and forms by the various practitioners, and systems, represented here.
> 
> ...


 
1.-Necessary? Yes. They are necessary to comprehend the basics like stance,space,footwork,blocks,parries,punches,kicks etc.
2.-Very usseful? Not really, for me.

Kata or forms or poomsae are fundamental in the develop of the basics for the beginner and also a good aid to polish the techs of the advenced one.

Manny


----------



## sifubry (Jul 29, 2009)

I think kata/forms are necessary for effective learning. That's not saying kata is actually fighting but its principles can be used in a confrontation. The linking of techniques together into a cohesive whole is what makes kata so wonderful.

And as said before, it helps with balance, stances, punches and breathing.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jul 29, 2009)

Necessary.  A wise man once told me that the katas are the textbooks of the system.


----------



## Milt G. (Jul 29, 2009)

sifubry said:


> I think kata/forms are necessary for effective learning. That's not saying kata is actually fighting but its principles can be used in a confrontation. The linking of techniques together into a cohesive whole is what makes kata so wonderful.
> 
> And as said before, it helps with balance, stances, punches and breathing.


 
Hello,
I agree.  The kata contain invaluable training opportunities.  Not fighting, per se, but the keys to proper technique, movement and motion for martial training IMO.

Martial arts without kata, or forms is like having a car with little gasoline.  Sure, you will move...  But not as far, or as fast.

That is why I have the kata ranked as #1.  Of course, there are many different thoughts and methods related to this topic.  Can a short sequence of basics, or advanced movement be considered kata?  Perhaps. 

Thank you,
Milt G.


----------



## Danjo (Jul 30, 2009)

Milt G. said:


> Hello,
> I agree. The kata contain invaluable training opportunities. Not fighting, per se, but the keys to proper technique, movement and motion for martial training IMO.
> 
> Martial arts without kata, or forms is like having a car with little gasoline. Sure, you will move... But not as far, or as fast.
> ...


 
Kihon/basics, were not originally practiced apart from kata. It wasn't until Karate became part of the P.E. in public schools, that the kihon was broken out and drilled separately. Partly, I suspect, to facilitate the teaching of large groups in uniform fashion. It used to be considered pointlees to teach kihon without the kata because the kata is what taught you how to move. After all, what good are basics if you don't know how to intigrate them with each other?


----------



## MattJ (Jul 30, 2009)

Totally useless, and a waste of time, IMHO. Weight-training, bag-work, sparring......all _galactically_ more useful.


----------



## mwd0818 (Jul 30, 2009)

MattJ said:


> Totally useless, and a waste of time, IMHO. Weight-training, bag-work, sparring......all _galactically_ more useful.



As well as light saber training . . .


----------



## Danjo (Jul 30, 2009)

MattJ said:


> Totally useless, and a waste of time, IMHO. Weight-training, bag-work, sparring......all _galactically_ more useful.


 
Usfeul for what? Nothing wrong with them, but as one gets older, these things fade. One is more prone to injury from an exclusive diet of this type of training also. Sporting ability fades when one gets into one's 30's, however, perfection of form and technique can continue for decades longer. One may still need to be able to defend oneself long after one no longer competes. While bag-work, sparring and weight lifting can help, the way that one trains to fight using these training methods, keeps you in the mentality and habit of "squaring off" with someone and slugging it out. Bag-work and sparring alone can actually limit your abilities rather than enhance them.


----------



## Milt G. (Jul 30, 2009)

Danjo said:


> Kihon/basics, were not originally practiced apart from kata. It wasn't until Karate became part of the P.E. in public schools, that the kihon was broken out and drilled separately. Partly, I suspect, to facilitate the teaching of large groups in uniform fashion. It used to be considered pointlees to teach kihon without the kata because the kata is what taught you how to move. After all, what good are basics if you don't know how to intigrate them with each other?


 
Hello, Mr. Weston.

You may be right.  I would not know since I was not there.  You are talking earlier 1900's, right?

They were seperate when I started in the late 1960's.

Thank you,
Milt G.


----------



## Milt G. (Jul 30, 2009)

MattJ said:


> Totally useless, and a waste of time, IMHO. Weight-training, bag-work, sparring......all _galactically_ more useful.


 
Hello,
Forms/kata...  Useless...?  A waste of time...?
Weight training, more useful?

Are you serious?
I have never heard them referred to in such a negative light.

Your number, in the continuum, must be #5, then...

Thank you for your input!
Milt G.


----------



## Milt G. (Jul 30, 2009)

Mr. Weston,
Forgot to mention....

Congratulations on your promotion.
Well done!
Milt G.


----------



## Danjo (Jul 31, 2009)

Milt G. said:


> Hello, Mr. Weston.
> 
> You may be right. I would not know since I was not there. You are talking earlier 1900's, right?
> 
> ...


 
Yes, it was in the 1920's that they started being taught seperately according to Funakoshi.


----------



## Danjo (Jul 31, 2009)

Milt G. said:


> Mr. Weston,
> Forgot to mention....
> 
> Congratulations on your promotion.
> ...


 
Thank you sir.


----------



## marlon (Jul 31, 2009)

I didn't notice...Congratulations Danjo!

Marlon


----------



## MattJ (Jul 31, 2009)

Quote by Danjo:



> Usfeul for what?


 
For fight training. 



> Nothing wrong with them, but as one gets older, these things fade. One is more prone to injury from an exclusive diet of this type of training also.


 
Agreed. But not all sparring has to be full-range-ultra-full-contact, not all weight-lifting has to be 1-rep-max, etc.....



> Sporting ability fades when one gets into one's 30's, however, perfection of form and technique can continue for decades longer. One may still need to be able to defend oneself long after one no longer competes.


 
I do not refer to competition. Sparring is the best and quickest way to realistically aquire and retain timing and distancing sensitivities that occur in any type of fight.



> While bag-work, sparring and weight lifting can help, the way that one trains to fight using these training methods, keeps you in the mentality and habit of "squaring off" with someone and slugging it out. Bag-work and sparring alone can actually limit your abilities rather than enhance them.


 
I disagree - it depends on what type of sparring you do. That is unfortunately a very common attitude in kenpo. 



Milt G. said:


> Hello,
> Forms/kata... Useless...? A waste of time...?
> Weight training, more useful?
> 
> Are you serious?


 
Absolutely.



> I have never heard them referred to in such a negative light.
> 
> Your number, in the continuum, must be #5, then...
> 
> ...


 
I mean no offense, but my own experience has guided me to this conclusion. Not a popular opinion in kenpo circles, but I like to think that Mr Parker would have appreciated some critical thinking.


----------



## Danjo (Jul 31, 2009)

MattJ said:


> Quote by Danjo:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Critical thinking is more than just being critical of everything you don't understand. You must not think that the reason that what you say is not popular is due to your being a "heretic". The reason it's unpopular is because it's not true.

Sparring is not the best way to train for an actual fight. Not even close. Real fights do not occur like a sparring match. They are brutal nasty things that do not look pretty in the least. Sparring trains you for a contest against other individuals who have skill themselves and know that you have skill as well. Many of us have trained in the martial arts for many many years (31 for me). And many of us have been in a lot of fights (more than I can remember). We have our opinions based on our experience, not based on some orthodoxy.

Kata is not the only valuable training method. Pre-set techniques are also very usful for ingraining certain responses. Sparring has it's uses too. It can get you used to getting hit, for instance in order to reduce timidity and fear. But it's main function is for competition scenarios.

The old "Kumite" or Kakadamashi training was more of a limited scenario type of sparring where certain goals were set before a match began. Even in our school, our sparring has a goal. Sometimes Prof. Bishop will tell one to be the attacker and the other the defender. The attacker is using a tackle or grab, and the defender is to prevent or defend against it. etc.

When I spar with people, it's to teach them something. Where they need work, where their stances are sloppy and thus making them off balance, where their holes are in their defences etc.

Once in a while, we have good old fashioned sparring matches where it's like a contest of sorts and we just go at it, but sparring is not the main thing that we do.

You're hardly the first one on the block with your attitude, but we'll see how long you retain it if you keep on training over the years.


----------



## MattJ (Jul 31, 2009)

Danjo said:


> Critical thinking is more than just being critical of everything you don't understand.


 
What makes you think I don't understand forms?



> You must not think that the reason that what you say is not popular is due to your being a "heretic". The reason it's unpopular is because it's not true.


 
I'm only considered a heretic in kenpo circles. Your truth is not reflected in other styles, either. 



> Sparring is not the best way to train for an actual fight. Not even close. Real fights do not occur like a sparring match.


 
Nothing is like a real fight. But full-range, contact sparring is the closest thing by far.



> They are brutal nasty things that do not look pretty in the least. Sparring trains you for a contest against other individuals who have skill themselves and know that you have skill as well.


 
Again, it depends on what type of sparring you are referring to.



> Many of us have trained in the martial arts for many many years (31 for me). And many of us have been in a lot of fights (more than I can remember). We have our opinions based on our experience, not based on some orthodoxy.


 
That's wonderful..........????



> Kata is not the only valuable training method. Pre-set techniques are also very usful for ingraining certain responses. Sparring has it's uses too. It can get you used to getting hit, for instance in order to reduce timidity and fear. But it's main function is for competition scenarios.


 
I disagree. See my above comments about timing and distancing.



> The old "Kumite" or Kakadamashi training was more of a limited scenario type of sparring where certain goals were set before a match began. Even in our school, our sparring has a goal. Sometimes Prof. Bishop will tell one to be the attacker and the other the defender. The attacker is using a tackle or grab, and the defender is to prevent or defend against it. etc.


 
What makes you think that no one else is talking about 'goal oriented' sparring? That is part of what I'm talking about. 



> When I spar with people, it's to teach them something. Where they need work, where their stances are sloppy and thus making them off balance, where their holes are in their defences etc.


 
Pretty condescending - you have nothing to work on?



> Once in a while, we have good old fashioned sparring matches where it's like a contest of sorts and we just go at it, but sparring is not the main thing that we do.
> 
> You're hardly the first one on the block with your attitude, but we'll see how long you retain it if you keep on training over the years.


 
Oh, I get it. You think I'm some n00b, and can talk down to me, etc. Pretty poor attitude, and ignorant considering you obviously know nothing about my training - kenpo or otherwise. But thanks for the tip, and have a nice day. 

My opinion stands.


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (Jul 31, 2009)

Danjo said:


> Critical thinking is more than just being critical of everything you don't understand. You must not think that the reason that what you say is not popular is due to your being a "heretic". The reason it's unpopular is because it's not true.
> 
> Sparring is not the best way to train for an actual fight. Not even close. Real fights do not occur like a sparring match. They are brutal nasty things that do not look pretty in the least. Sparring trains you for a contest against other individuals who have skill themselves and know that you have skill as well. Many of us have trained in the martial arts for many many years (31 for me). And many of us have been in a lot of fights (more than I can remember). We have our opinions based on our experience, not based on some orthodoxy.
> 
> ...


 

My gathering is this is what makes a martial artist based off his skill level:

#1 Kempos/Combinations/Punch techniques/Dm's practiced both right sides step in punch/right sided hook punch/grabbed from right side of body, also practiced left sided left step in punch/left hoo punch/grabbed from left side.
#2 Forms, practiced both tai chi speed, free flow speed, and, full speed ahead-to understand what bunkai you can subconsciously perform.
#3 Point Sparring-to teach the martial artist how to take openings/counter right away
#4 Kumite/MMA environment sparring 
#5 Weapon defenses, knife/gun/club

(I agree Dan was on track, but Mr. M is also right, you have to "Marry" it all together)

All of these practiced properly will boost the martial artist's skill level far beyond that of a beginning martial artist without any training-hence, white belt/black belt/mastery level, etc...


----------



## Danjo (Jul 31, 2009)

MattJ said:


> What makes you think I don't understand forms?


 
Your response of them being _"Totally useless, and a waste of time"_





MattJ said:


> I'm only considered a heretic in kenpo circles. Your truth is not reflected in other styles, either.


 
??? Which truth? That forms have value in training and are not _"Totally useless, and a waste of time"?_





MattJ said:


> Nothing is like a real fight. But full-range, contact sparring is the closest thing by far.


 
No it isn't, but this will not be solved via argument.




MattJ said:


> Again, it depends on what type of sparring you are referring to.


 
Sure.




MattJ said:


> That's wonderful..........????


 
It's true. Whether it's wonderful or not is a matter of opinion.




MattJ said:


> I disagree. See my above comments about timing and distancing.


 
For a contest, yes. For real fighting, no.




MattJ said:


> What makes you think that no one else is talking about 'goal oriented' sparring? That is part of what I'm talking about.


 
Great. Then we agree on something.




MattJ said:


> Pretty condescending - you have nothing to work on?


 
I always have things to work on. I tend to spar those of lower rank in my training. Very few of them push me to any limits. Call it condescending if you like, but I'm just telling the truth.




MattJ said:


> Oh, I get it. You think I'm some n00b, and can talk down to me, etc. Pretty poor attitude, and ignorant considering you obviously know nothing about my training - kenpo or otherwise. But thanks for the tip, and have a nice day.


 
Well, when you come on a thread and tell everyone that they're full of it, you tend to get people that are going to disagree with you. If you consider that "talking down to you", then it might have something to do with the fact that you came on here doing the same thing to us. Where were you years ago so that you could tell me that bag-work, weight lifting and sparring had value?

As to your training: I take it that you 1) Spar 2) lift weights and 3) Do bag-work. Am I close?

As to your Kenpo training and BJJ training, I have no idea how much of either you've had. I only guess that it was not enough Kenpo to teach you the value of the forms you learned since you view them as _"Totally useless, and a waste of time"._



MattJ said:


> My opinion stands.


 
That's because you have come with an a priore bias that tells you that forms are _"Totally useless, and a waste of time". _Notice that none of us said that sparring, weight lifting and bag-work were totally useless, and a waste of time. They have value. You, on the other hand, only show that you have failed to see the value in forms. Sparring, bag-work and weight lifting and forms are not mutually exclusive as you seem to indicate. However, you need to be careful when making such broad statements. I personally don't meditate, but I don't doubt those that tell me that meditation helps them merely because I have failed to appreciate it personally.


----------



## marlon (Jul 31, 2009)

MattJ please define the type of sparring you are speaking of.
also can you explain what you find totally useless about forms

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## mwd0818 (Jul 31, 2009)

MattJ said:


> What makes you think I don't understand forms?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



:hb:


----------



## mwd0818 (Jul 31, 2009)

MattJ said:


> Totally useless, and a waste of time, IMHO. Weight-training, bag-work, sparring......all _galactically_ more useful.



:jedi:

For anything to be "totally useless" it must be devoid of all value.  If this is the case, then you find no use in the timing, exercise, flow and pattern of katas.  Nothing done in air has value, and practicing punches, kicks, stances and blocks without the threat of real combat is the equivalent of reading romance novels, which while perhaps entertaining to some, has no self-defense value either.

I'd at least understand someone who said kata is not *as* valuable as contact training.  I disagree, but based on your training and history, sure - maybe it's not been the most valuable training tool for you.  But to be devoid of all value?  Then you obviously need to change the way you do katas.


----------



## MattJ (Jul 31, 2009)

Danjo said:


> Your response of them being _"Totally useless, and a waste of time"_


 
So, you don't like my response, therefore I don't know what I'm talking about? I suppose I could take the same logic-less tack, but what the hell. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I would also note that your histrionics about the term 'useless' should be directed at the thread starter, not me - that was one of the options. I just happen to agree with it. I assume he put it there as a viable response. 



> ??? Which truth? That forms have value in training and are not _"Totally useless, and a waste of time"?_


 
Whatever truth *you* were referring to in *your* response to me. 




> No it isn't, but this will not be solved via argument.


 
Ok, but you are wrong.  J/K  



> It's true. Whether it's wonderful or not is a matter of opinion.


 
Awesome! I'm REALLY impressed!



> For a contest, yes. For real fighting, no.


 
I disagree. Those elements are very difficult to train otherwise. I have seen nothing else that does it better or faster.




> I always have things to work on. I tend to spar those of lower rank in my training. Very few of them push me to any limits. Call it condescending if you like, but I'm just telling the truth.


 
Well, I don't doubt you own lower ranks. I personally like to work with people my level or above as often as possible, as I feel that improves my own skill level (although the ego is indeed hard to swallow). 



> Well, when you come on a thread and tell everyone that they're full of it, you tend to get people that are going to disagree with you.


 
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I didn't tell anyone they are full of it, pal. Don't put words in my mouth. *I* wasn't the one making condescending inferences about anyone else's training. I was merely stating my opinion using a description offerred IN THE ORIGINAL POST. Please switch to decaf.



> If you consider that "talking down to you", then it might have something to do with the fact that you came on here doing the same thing to us. Where were you years ago so that you could tell me that bag-work, weight lifting and sparring had value?


 
What are you talking about? Do I know you? How am I talking down to anyone? I haven't insulted anyone by, say......inferring they were clueless n00bs, did I?



> As to your Kenpo training and BJJ training, I have no idea how much of either you've had. I only guess that it was not enough Kenpo to teach you the value of the forms you learned since you view them as _"Totally useless, and a waste of time"._


 
You are guessing wrong, again.



> That's because you have come with an a priore bias that tells you that forms are _"Totally useless, and a waste of time". _Notice that none of us said that sparring, weight lifting and bag-work were totally useless, and a waste of time.


 
I used a response provided in the original post. But if something is totally useless, we can a priori assume that it is, in fact, a waste of time, yes? Is there any other way to see it at that point?



> They have value. You, on the other hand, only show that you have failed to see the value in forms. Sparring, bag-work and weight lifting and forms are not mutually exclusive as you seem to indicate. However, you need to be careful when making such broad statements. I personally don't meditate, but I don't doubt those that tell me that meditation helps them merely because I have failed to appreciate it personally.


 
I haven't "failed" to see the value. I see it quite clearly.


----------



## Danjo (Jul 31, 2009)

MattJ said:


> So, you don't like my response, therefore I don't know what I'm talking about?


No, the fact that you see no value in forms is what tells me that you don't know what you are talking about. We could disagree about how valuable they are all day.



MattJ said:


> I would also note that your histrionics about the term 'useless' should be directed at the thread starter, not me - that was one of the options. I just happen to agree with it. I assume he put it there as a viable response.


 
Fair enough. Then I take back what I said about your talking down to us.







MattJ said:


> Whatever truth *you* were referring to in *your* response to me.


 
I'm saying that it's not true that forms have no value. It'd be like a caveman saying a computer has no value simply because he didn't understand the value. The only thing that he is really saying is that he fails to see the value.




MattJ said:


> Ok, but you are wrong. J/K


 
Natch.




MattJ said:


> Awesome! I'm REALLY impressed!


 
Good to be impressed.




MattJ said:


> I disagree. Those elements are very difficult to train otherwise. I have seen nothing else that does it better or faster.


 
 I'm sure that you haven't or you wouldn't hold your opinion.




MattJ said:


> Well, I don't doubt you own lower ranks. I personally like to work with people my level or above as often as possible, as I feel that improves my own skill level (although the ego is indeed hard to swallow).


 
I do not select lower ranks to protect my ego. I actually enjoy competative sparing and do so regularly with those that do best me in various tourneys etc. Win some, lose some. My point is that we use sparring to train specific things for the most part. We don't pretend that it mimicks a real fight.




MattJ said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa. I didn't tell anyone they are full of it, pal. Don't put words in my mouth. *I* wasn't the one making condescending inferences about anyone else's training. I was merely stating my opinion using a description offerred IN THE ORIGINAL POST. Please switch to decaf.


 
Okay. You didn't tell anyone that they are full of it. You just came on a thread where everyone said that they found forms valuable and said that they had none. But, what you point out is true. It was a viable response according to the original post.

So, it's Milt's fault. Bad Milt!





MattJ said:


> What are you talking about? Do I know you? How am I talking down to anyone? I haven't insulted anyone by, say......inferring they were clueless n00bs, did I?


 
See previous response.





MattJ said:


> You are guessing wrong, again.


 
 Then please expand your answer. Are you then saying that you did understand the forms and found them of no value?



MattJ said:


> I used a response provided in the original post. But if something is totally useless, we can a priori assume that it is, in fact, a waste of time, yes? Is there any other way to see it at that point?


 
Again, see question above.




MattJ said:


> I haven't "failed" to see the value. I see it quite clearly.


 
Sigh.


----------



## John Bishop (Aug 1, 2009)

Most people who know me know I'm not a big fan of forms.  But I do feel they have a value in teaching basic techniques, stances, and movement.  So I do teach them.  But we probably train 1 hour of kata for every 9 hours of techniques, sparring, and grappling we do.  

I look at it this way; how well could someone run if they have never walked? 
If you look at boxers, even though they have a rule set, they fight for real within those rules.  People get knocked out, bones are broken, blood is shed, and sometimes boxers die.  
Boxers spend quite a bit of time shadow boxing, punching speed bags, punching focus mitts, and jumping rope.  These things help develop technique , balance, conditioning, and speed.  Boxers don't rely on just sparring to develop their fighting ability.

Same applies to grappling.  You have to train your techniques with a compliant partner when your learning the movement.  You have to practice them at different angles, different sides, different applications, all with compliant partners.  You practice your break falls, shrimping, and other drills, without a partner.  Just like kata and shadow boxing.  Then you work with a live partner with moderate to full resistance.    

Good technique is developed thru repetitive practice.  Hundreds/thousands of kicks, punches, blocks, and strikes.  
Power is developed from executing these techniques on the heavy bag, along with body strengthening techniques.     
Timing, reactive speed, and body conditioning are developed thru free sparring with moderate to hard contact.  
But before you get to that point, you do kata or line work.  If you don't have good and strong techniques developed thru kata/line work and bag work, there's no way your going to develop them when a  sparring partner is doing everything he can to stop and evade your techniques.


----------



## Milt G. (Aug 1, 2009)

Danjo said:


> No, the fact that you see no value in forms is what tells me that you don't know what you are talking about. We could disagree about how valuable they are all day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Hello,

I take full responsibility for allowing practitioners to answer in any way to my "survey". 

MattJ is definitely a #5, in the "continuum".

MattJ...?  If I may ask, what system, or method do you study?  I apologize if I missed your mention of it previously.  I am, some days, getting up in years.  
Is it one that is traditionally without kata/forms, or have you just "dispensed" with them?  Or, do you continue to practice them because "you have to"?
Honest questions... 

Does your teacher feel the same way as you do about them?

Thanks, in advance, for your replies.
Milt G.


----------



## MattJ (Aug 3, 2009)

Sorry for my late response:



Danjo said:


> No, the fact that you see no value in forms is what tells me that you don't know what you are talking about. We could disagree about how valuable they are all day.


 
I don't understand your logic here. I suppose I could make a similar deduction about your martial arts knowledge because you *do* find value in them, but it seems pointless since I don't really know you.




> I'm saying that it's not true that forms have no value. It'd be like a caveman saying a computer has no value simply because he didn't understand the value. The only thing that he is really saying is that he fails to see the value.


 
Now, are you equating me with a caveman? Because that analogy is pretty far off. A caveman never saw a computer. I have seen forms. 




> I'm sure that you haven't or you wouldn't hold your opinion.


 
Again, do you know me? Have we trained together? How do you assume what I have seen or haven't seen? Frankly, this comes off as arrogant and insecure to me. However, I would be interested to hear what you think is a better or faster way to learn those elements.



> I do not select lower ranks to protect my ego. I actually enjoy competative sparing and do so regularly with those that do best me in various tourneys etc. Win some, lose some. My point is that we use sparring to train specific things for the most part. We don't pretend that it mimicks a real fight.


 
I don't recall saying that sparring mimiced a real fight (pretty sure I said that *nothing* is like a real fight, but sparring was the closest thing). But I will assume you were not _intentionally_ trying to use a strawman argument with me.  



> Okay. You didn't tell anyone that they are full of it. You just came on a thread where everyone said that they found forms valuable and said that they had none. But, what you point out is true. It was a viable response according to the original post.
> 
> So, it's Milt's fault. Bad Milt!


 
Milt seems OK to me.    I just felt like I was being unfairly maligned.



> Then please expand your answer. Are you then saying that you did understand the forms and found them of no value?


 
Yes. I thought that was implied, I apologize. 



> Sigh.


 
I know the feeling. 

Quote by Milt:



> MattJ is definitely a #5, in the "continuum".


 
Can someone explain what that means?



> MattJ...? If I may ask, what system, or method do you study? I apologize if I missed your mention of it previously. I am, some days, getting up in years.
> Is it one that is traditionally without kata/forms, or have you just "dispensed" with them? Or, do you continue to practice them because "you have to"?
> Honest questions...


 
I studied EPAK for about 15 years, currently doing BJJ. 



> Does your teacher feel the same way as you do about them?


 
My kenpo teachers were all kata practioners. My BJJ teacher is not. But my view on kata formed long before I got into BJJ. Hope this helps.


----------



## still learning (Aug 3, 2009)

Hello, Kata's ...its value...endless ...depends on how you were brought up to believe...

ONE must be able to define the exact meanings.....to know what KATA is...before grading it value!

IT seems only in the martial art world....kata is practice?  WHY?
Because many believe it has value!

NO other sports practice so call "KATA"S in its trueist sense.

Don't get mix up training and Kata's.....Please learn the difference here!

A boxer may practice ..jab..jab..hook...upper punch a hundred times....this is NOT consider or call a Kata!

Bruce Lee does NOT believe in Kata's...just his opinion....

We do it because our Professor train that way...and he passes on what he had learn...it is a part of systems training...NOT heavy promoted...just we need to learn them for testing...

Each person will experience his own take...on its value...

Can you imagine Golfer, tennis players going doing Katas for there sports?

Aloha,  gymist? ...do they have Kata?


----------



## Milt G. (Aug 3, 2009)

MattJ said:


> Sorry for my late response:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Hello, MattJ...

The "continuum" numbering system was related to my first post on the perceptions of kata/forms importance.
It was from 1 to 5 scale.  With #1. being that kata/forms are a very important and necessary aspect and #5. being that the kata/forms are useless and unnecessary.  With some positions in between.

Thus my comment that you score the subject a #5 on the continuum, based on your thoughts and answer.

As you spent 15 years in EPAK, you should have a pretty good idea what the kata are about.  I, personally, do not know how you can find them to have such little importance, but all are entitled to an opinion, and I do not wish to spin this issue in any specific direction.  Just wanted to give participants the opportunity to discuss the topic and follow up on any points of interest that may have come up.

One more question, if you do not mind???  Which kata did you learn and practice in EPAK, or how far did you get?

Thanks for answering my questions, and for your participation!
Milt G.


----------



## Danjo (Aug 3, 2009)

MattJ said:


> I don't understand your logic here. I suppose I could make a similar deduction about your martial arts knowledge because you *do* find value in them, but it seems pointless since I don't really know you.


 
If someone says that they have found value in something, then there is value in that thing. That another fails to see the same value, does not negate the value that the first person has found.



MattJ said:


> Now, are you equating me with a caveman? Because that analogy is pretty far off. A caveman never saw a computer. I have seen forms.


 
Perhaps I should have said "lump of coal" instead of computer. A cave man could well have seen one of those and saw no more than a rock. Whereas someone from the 18th century sees fuel. the fact that the caveman saw no more value in the coal than in any other rock, doesn't take away from the coal's value.




MattJ said:


> Again, do you know me? Have we trained together? How do you assume what I have seen or haven't seen? Frankly, this comes off as arrogant and insecure to me. However, I would be interested to hear what you think is a better or faster way to learn those elements.


 
You are the one that said that you had seen nothing better. I was agreeing with you: "You've seen nothing better" or else you wouldn't hold your opinon. That could be due to one of three things: 1) There is nothing better 2) There is something better, but you've never seen it or 3) There is something better, you've seen it, but failed to realize it.




MattJ said:


> I don't recall saying that sparring mimiced a real fight (pretty sure I said that *nothing* is like a real fight, but sparring was the closest thing). But I will assume you were not _intentionally_ trying to use a strawman argument with me.


 
I fully believe that you believe that sparring is the closest thing to a real fight. I disagree.




MattJ said:


> Milt seems OK to me.  I just felt like I was being unfairly maligned.


 
Don't be fooled by Milt. He's Darth Vader. 





MattJ said:


> Yes. I thought that was implied, I apologize.


 
Ok. You say that you understand forms, but see no value in them. I say that if you see no value, then axiomatically it means that you do NOT understand them. Stalemate.


----------



## seasoned (Aug 3, 2009)

I will vote for necessary, because some of the greatest Karate masters in the world thought so. Every technique has a common thread that runs through it, and that thread is principles of movement, and displacement of power. Sure, you can learn individual techniques, but the principles of movement, balance, and the proper use of power are inherent within the kata practice. If done right, over a long period of time, kata will produce a well rounded fighter. Learning moves are nothing more then individual techniques, but, the principles of proper movement, along with proper breathing, and the use of power done within the framework of kata, will produce the perfect fighting machine. I would love to say that this is my opinion, but it is not only mine, but the majority of some of the greatest karate masters that ever lived. "Read it and weep".


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (Aug 4, 2009)

there are alot of martial artists out there that feel forms are a waste of time, and believe techniques should be practiced in the air, and shadow spar/ actual spar.
I have a friend who practices his forms once a week, but kicks/shadow spars/spars every day.
To me, and based off of what i have seen growing up through the ranks, is , you gain more knowledge and techniques with forms married in as well.


----------



## MattJ (Aug 4, 2009)

Quote by Milt:



> Thus my comment that you score the subject a #5 on the continuum, based on your thoughts and answer.


 
Ah, Ok. I wasn't sure. Thanks for clarifying. I hear 'continuum', and I think "Q" from Star Trek, LOL.



> One more question, if you do not mind??? Which kata did you learn and practice in EPAK, or how far did you get?


 
I learned all of the forms and sets up to Long 6. GRITTING MY TEETH THE WHOLE WAY. j/k 




Danjo said:


> If someone says that they have found value in something, then there is value in that thing. That another fails to see the same value, does not negate the value that the first person has found.


 
But it does not mean that value is intrinsic or universal.




> Perhaps I should have said "lump of coal" instead of computer. A cave man could well have seen one of those and saw no more than a rock. Whereas someone from the 18th century sees fuel. the fact that the caveman saw no more value in the coal than in any other rock, doesn't take away from the coal's value.


 
People in the 70's kept pet rocks. You are assuming your values are everyone's - a bad assumption.



> You are the one that said that you had seen nothing better. I was agreeing with you: "You've seen nothing better" or else you wouldn't hold your opinon. That could be due to one of three things: 1) There is nothing better 2) There is something better, but you've never seen it or 3) There is something better, you've seen it, but failed to realize it.


 
HA! ZING! That was a good one. Now instead of deflecting my question for a _third_ time, how about answering it? If you can't, I understand, LOL.



> I fully believe that you believe that sparring is the closest thing to a real fight. I disagree.


 
See above.



> Don't be fooled by Milt. He's Darth Vader.


 
Milt does seem powerful, but I have to see him in the cloak to believe it. :mst:



> Ok. You say that you understand forms, but see no value in them. I say that if you see no value, then axiomatically it means that you do NOT understand them. Stalemate.


 
Not quite - I could bring up pet rocks again, or how the church thought the earth was the center of the universe, etc.......

Your value isn't intrinsic just because you say it is. I understand perfectly that forms have no value to me.


----------



## Danjo (Aug 4, 2009)

MattJ said:


> ....forms have no value to _*me*_.


 
Now, with that qualifier, I can agree with you.


----------



## still learning (Aug 5, 2009)

seasoned said:


> I will vote for necessary, because some of the greatest Karate masters in the world thought so. Every technique has a common thread that runs through it, and that thread is principles of movement, and displacement of power. Sure, you can learn individual techniques, but the principles of movement, balance, and the proper use of power are inherent within the kata practice. If done right, over a long period of time, kata will produce a well rounded fighter. Learning moves are nothing more then individual techniques, but, the principles of proper movement, along with proper breathing, and the use of power done within the framework of kata, will produce the perfect fighting machine. I would love to say that this is my opinion, but it is not only mine, but the majority of some of the greatest karate masters that ever lived. "Read it and weep".


 
Hello, If one trains "very hard" and daily..everyone would improve...
When I watch my daughter wrestle everyday...there bodies and muscles, endurence improves "Greatly" vs...those who don't push themselves..

True masters...practice harder then most students...'

What makes "Tiger Woods great?" ...NOT Katas...he practice and practice till the practice becomes perfect......Same for any martial artist...and one does NOT need KATA"S to practice...

Anyone can gain..skills if they practice correctly and with intensity everyday....and NEVER do Kata's and still be great....

See any other sports do Kata's?  ...please learn the defination of the what a TRUE Kata is consider here...

Aloha,  Man who climbs mountain...does NO kata's climbing techniques...to get there...HE just DOES IT!


----------



## AirborneE6 (Aug 5, 2009)

Kata - one technique; Waza - do it with somebody else. Form; string Kata together in a sequence in an imaginary fight; practicing basics, movement, maintaining or improving balance, coordination, flexibility - - - all good.

Necessary? It depends. It depends on the Art, System and Style - - - it depends. It depends on what you want or need. I'm 66, almost 67. I used to heavy lift, swim and train. I hike now and do my Tae Kwon Do forms for fitness and the other benefits. Why TKD? Because they're hard, linear and appropriate for someone my age. I don't do the Kenpo forms anymore. I guess Shorin Ryu or Shoto-Kan would be OK too, but I like the TKD best.

I think forms are good practice that will carry into advanced age with multiple benefits.


----------



## Danjo (Aug 6, 2009)

Each kata is a fighting system, or fighting philosophy. It doesn't mimick an entire fight per se, but rather gives a fighting theory, i.e., the way techniques blend together and how to maintain balance and grace when transitioning and generating power and developing rhythmic endurance. Mistakes are made when one tries to make a kata into something it is _not_, i.e. try to envision fighting one opponent etc., while practicing it. When you see a kata, you see the intent of the creator. You see how the creator of the form thought and fought. Each one has a flavor that gives the art a specific feel or "style". To see what the founder of an art intended, look at how they taught their forms (and tricks if your system has them). Look at Sorin Ryu's version of Nihanchi Shodan, versus Shotokan's Tekki Shodan for instance, and you will get a feel for the difference in the founder's philosophy. Forms and pre-set tricks will show you the style of an art and will distinguish it from other similar arts.


----------



## Danjo (Aug 7, 2009)

MattJ said:


> I understand perfectly that forms have no value to me.


 
James Wing Woo is a long time Kung Fu expert who had this to say about sparring:

_*&#8220;When it comes to sparring, my advice is don&#8217;t do it. You build up too much respect for the other person and you don&#8217;t really want to hurt him. Remember this: I want you to punch him all the way through up to your elbow. I don&#8217;t want you to just hit him with a fist! And someone&#8217;s going to get hurt. Chinese martial arts aren&#8217;t the same as Western boxing. The boxer goes for three-minute rounds, and then he rests. Boxers go for twelve rounds these days, not fifteen. But when you&#8217;re in a fight, you don&#8217;t get a rest! You don&#8217;t get any three-minute rounds. If you can&#8217;t do it for real, you&#8217;d better go ahead and get out of here! Also, a boxer doesn&#8217;t worry about anything from the waist down&#8230;.You don&#8217;t want to set your hands up and fight, or watch each other and dance around for ten minutes. They don&#8217;t happen that way. Not real fights, anyway. So why should you do it? It doesn&#8217;t make any sense!....This is not to say that you can&#8217;t do techniques back and forth. I do have students do things like Chi Sau, or arm blocking like the Three Stars Drill. The purpose is to get extension in the arm to get it pumped up and learn how to roll the arm when you touch. Touch and roll. When you roll the bones, it takes the shock out of the impact. The blow doesn&#8217;t hit as hard. If the arms clash, you&#8217;re not rolling. The arms need to deflect off each other, to get the extension and roll. So when you touch somebody, you should be able to deflect them away. The two-man drills still aren&#8217;t fighting---they&#8217;re training the arms, training the legs, training the body.&#8221; (James Wing Woo, Nei Jia Quan, 336-338)*_


Now, you may not agree with everything he says, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Sparring has a place IMO. And, if nothing else it's a lot of fun. But it's not the best way to train for fighting.


----------



## MattJ (Aug 7, 2009)

Danjo said:


> James Wing Woo is a long time Kung Fu expert who had this to say about sparring:
> 
> _*When it comes to sparring, my advice is dont do it. You build up too much respect for the other person and you dont really want to hurt him. Remember this: I want you to punch him all the way through up to your elbow. I dont want you to just hit him with a fist! And someones going to get hurt. Chinese martial arts arent the same as Western boxing. *_




Yes, this is unfortuantely the same tired "too-deadly" argument that existed before the UFC. Proven utterly incorrect. 

_*



			The boxer goes for three-minute rounds, and then he rests. Boxers go for twelve rounds these days, not fifteen. But when youre in a fight, you dont get a rest! You dont get any three-minute rounds. If you cant do it for real, youd better go ahead and get out of here! Also, a boxer doesnt worry about anything from the waist down.You dont want to set your hands up and fight, or watch each other and dance around for ten minutes. They dont happen that way. Not real fights, anyway. So why should you do it? It doesnt make any sense!....
		
Click to expand...

*_ 
He is clearly addressing boxing, and not MMA style full-range sparring here, which voids most of his argument.

_*



			This is not to say that you cant do techniques back and forth.
		
Click to expand...

*_ 
This voids his own argument. Sparring *is* doing techniques back and forth, in a free-form environment.




> Now, you may not agree with everything he says, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Sparring has a place IMO. And, if nothing else it's a lot of fun. But it's not the best way to train for fighting.


 
I would love to know what is better.


----------



## Danjo (Aug 7, 2009)

MattJ said:


> Yes, this is unfortuantely the same tired "too-deadly" argument that existed before the UFC. Proven utterly incorrect.


 
Nope. The UFC proved that in a sporting event, with rules, where two trained martial artists compete each knowing the other is also skilled is not the same as a real fight.






MattJ said:


> He is clearly addressing boxing, and not MMA style full-range sparring here, which voids most of his argument.


 
No it doesn't. He also went on about Kickboxing and other events. I simply didn't feel like typing out another two long paragraphs.






MattJ said:


> This voids his own argument. Sparring *is* doing techniques back and forth, in a free-form environment.


 
Ostensibly true about sparring, but it isn't typical. Two-man drills are not typically what is thought of as sparring these days. The free-form stuff you mention typically turns into a MMA style sporting match, rather than a real fight where the attacker is not likely to be a trained martial artist nor does he suspect his victim of being one. Even if both are, they are not likely to "square off" and feel each other out the way one does in a sparring match.

If your sparring matches consist of one person being blindsided by another person who is brutal and relentlessly pounding at the guy until he is overcome, forcing the attackee to either defend himself or get beat down, then you are training realistically. 

If you square off like Liddell and Coutre, then you are not preparing for a real fight.






MattJ said:


> I would love to know what is better.


 
Either the type of scenario drills that I mentioned above, or else development of techniques via tricks and forms.


----------



## MattJ (Aug 7, 2009)

Danjo said:


> Nope. The UFC proved that in a sporting event, with rules, where two trained martial artists compete each knowing the other is also skilled is not the same as a real fight.




Huh. The early UFC's? Rules? Trained fighters? Dunno, bro.....only two rules in the early ones (no eye gouging, no throat shots). Groin shots, elbows to the back of the head, hair pulling, kidney kicks, stomping downed opponents, all legal, and all done in the early ones. No gloves or pads, either. Sound very sporting to you? Me neither. 

And the training of some the early fighters, like Tank Abbot, is questionable at best. But even then, no one claimed that the UFC was equivalent to a real fight. Just he closest thing, which I agree with.




> No it doesn't. He also went on about Kickboxing and other events. I simply didn't feel like typing out another two long paragraphs.


 
Fair enough, but my response is accurate to what you posted. I am not a mind-reader.




> Ostensibly true about sparring, but it isn't typical. Two-man drills are not typically what is thought of as sparring these days. The free-form stuff you mention typically turns into a MMA style sporting match, rather than a real fight where the attacker is not likely to be a trained martial artist nor does he suspect his victim of being one. Even if both are, they are not likely to "square off" and feel each other out the way one does in a sparring match.





> If your sparring matches consist of one person being blindsided by another person who is brutal and relentlessly pounding at the guy until he is overcome, forcing the attackee to either defend himself or get beat down, then you are training realistically.




That is a fair point, and I classify fights and assaults as different things. Fights have warnings ie; "You looking at my girl, mfr?! Meet me outside, and I will stomp you!!" Etc. These are very common, and to ignore the social/psychological aspects of these encounters is to ignore a large part of self-defense. 

But I'm sure you knew that already. 

Assaults (to me) are like what you describe - no warning.




> If you square off like Liddell and Coutre, then you are not preparing for a real fight.


 
See my above response. You are using a very narrow definition of  'real fight.' But even assuming the original _assault_ had no warning, and you lived (LOL), the mechanics of the assault and response will not be any different than what you would encounter in a sparring match. A punch is a punch, etc.





> Either the type of scenario drills that I mentioned above, or else development of techniques via tricks and forms.


 
Yeah, we will have to disagree there.


----------



## seasoned (Aug 7, 2009)

still learning said:


> Hello, If one trains "very hard" and daily..everyone would improve...
> When I watch my daughter wrestle everyday...there bodies and muscles, endurence improves "Greatly" vs...those who don't push themselves..
> 
> True masters...practice harder then most students...'
> ...


You must remember, you are "still learning".


----------



## Xinglu (Aug 7, 2009)

While I understand that some people see no value in them, I cannot see how a person can assert with any soundness that they are unilaterally useless. I respect a persons right to train however they see fit, however IMHO, I believe that forms are necessary and essential to becoming a _*well rounded*_ martial artist. 

Here is why:  What are techniques but movements originating from a form and done with a partner?  To that end the reverse could be said, what is a form but a series of linked techniques.

Forms are a great conditioning tool as well.  Do your forms 10 times each right in a row everyday and watch as your stamina increases, your techniques improve, and your stances become stronger.  You see not everyone has a gym membership or decent training equipment at home.  Running is good, but it doesn't get you in "martial-shape."  Only the dynamic movement of martial training can do that.  I have seen many athletes and body builders who could not finish a well rounded martial conditioning work out (forms being the central pillar).

Speaking of stances - forms teach fluid movement between stances.  They condition the legs so they are stronger, they help teach you how to move in combat and still be grounded and centered.  They can also be applied to movement in multiple attacker situations.

Furthermore, each movement in a form has multiple uses.  One movement or "technique" could be applied as a throw, qinna, or strike, and depending on the manner of attacks one movement with minor adjustments can result in 10 + practical applications and thus be the basis 10 + techniques.

On another note, while SOME martial arts have been adapted into sports, not all are nor should they be labeled as such.  My Baguazhang instructor used to say, "I teach meditation, the fact that the meditation creates sound and able fighters is incidental."  While he intentionally overstated that, his point is sound.  Those who learn martial arts to sport fight, where not in his opinion martial artists, they were sport fighters.  I share this view.  For me the difference between a martial artist and a sport fighter is found in intention and priorities.  To each their own.

I do not believe that the martial artist need solely concern themselves with physical confrontation.  To me, a martial artist must transcend the thuggery of a street and sport fighter, and it is this transcendence and differing perspective that makes the martial arts more than just a fighting methodology.  The practitioner more than just a "boxer."  Boxers look for fights.  All sport fighters do.  That is the nature of it.  A martial artist looks to stop fighting.  A subtle yet very important distinction in my eyes.

Anyways, there is my .50¢ on the issue.


----------



## Kenpo17 (Aug 30, 2009)

Forms and Katas are useful because they take a group of techniques that flow together.  Also, you learn in the forms techniques that you may not learn in the actual curriculum.  For example I now know several techniques inwhich if they were not in a form I wouldn't  know them at all.  For competitions forms are very good because you can change them up to fit your style as well, and they look cool.


----------

