Different 'focus' in forms training

[isshinryuronin]

At the same time, I feel that a lot of modern kata/forms are garbage, poorly designed and not worth practicing.

That's why any Joe Shmoe shouldn't be creating their own katas and incorporating them into the system. Those who have studied extensively from recognized masters and have trained daily for 30 years, understanding the essence of their art, and have earned the respect of their peers may be exempted from the previous sentence.

 

[Flying Crane]

That's why any Joe Shmoe shouldn't be creating their own katas and incorporating them into the system. Those who have studied extensively from recognized masters and have trained daily for 30 years, understanding the essence of their art, and have earned the respect of their peers may be exempted from the previous sentence.

Just on a hunch, I’m not convinced that all of the creators of kata from the past fit your description.

Most Joe Schmoes will have little or zero success in creating a kata that is worthy of keeping. That doesnt mean they are forbidden from trying. Who could possibly enforce such a restriction?

I don’t feel that exploration needs to be the exclusive realm of those with impeccable pedigree and X number of years of training.

Quality tends to rise to the top and stick around, IF it is being shared with others. Garbage tends to fade away.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

That's why any Joe Shmoe shouldn't be creating their own katas and incorporating them into the system. Those who have studied extensively from recognized masters and have trained daily for 30 years, understanding the essence of their art, and have earned the respect of their peers may be exempted from the previous sentence.

Agree that a new created form may have poor quality issue. But a collection of techniques is just like a Google search engine. It collects all the best techniques created by the best MA masters. It should not have any quality issue.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Quality tends to rise to the top and stick around, IF it is being shared with others. Garbage tends to fade away.

Agree! Nobody can stop anybody not to publish a book. Whether that published book will have any buyers that's the main issue.

Any form that someone creates today, 1000 years later whether people will still train it or not that's the main concern.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I have always found it intriguing how many styles use the Naihanchi form set, as well as other forms. I always took things like that to mean there are more similarities than differences in most styles.

That just goes to show that the form was valued by multiple masters (who, back then, were often renown fighters) from different systems. Maybe the old, traditional, forms were worthwhile and worthy of being passed down and respected (and not just the result of notes taken by a random student).

 

[isshinryuronin]

I don’t feel that exploration needs to be the exclusive realm of those with impeccable pedigree and X number of years of training.

Not talking about experimenting with and exploring techniques. This is a good thing. What is not a good thing IMO is someone less than impeccable tossing something into a long established and accepted system to be codified and passed on to future generations. People can teach whatever they want in their own school (though should make it clear it's something they made up) but shouldn't inflict it upon the system.

 

[_Simon_]

I wonder if the Masters who created the kata/forms were Masters when they did so.

I wonder what they would think of those kata/forms, if they could look back after 50 more years of experience, or if they might have designed the same kata/forms differently if they had not created them until they had 50 more years of experience.

Even the Masters were human, and subject to the same failings as we all are. I don’t feel that the creation of forms is automatically out of bounds for anyone. If the form proves to be useful and is taught to one’s students and is kept, then it can become part of that particular lineage.

At the same time, I feel that a lot of modern kata/forms are garbage, poorly designed and not worth practicing.

Very interesting thoughts!

 

[_Simon_]

I sometimes wonder how much of what has become formalized curriculum was never intended to be that. It was just what the teacher was working on at that moment, meant to be explored and then moved on from, not formalized. But some student was taking notes and kept doing it exactly the same forever after.

Also a VERY interesting thought!

 

[dvcochran]

How is 50 forms being “forms poor”?

Being "poor" of something is an old saying meaning you have too many. Like being car poor.

 

[dvcochran]

I wonder if the Masters who created the kata/forms were Masters when they did so.

I wonder what they would think of those kata/forms, if they could look back after 50 more years of experience, or if they might have designed the same kata/forms differently if they had not created them until they had 50 more years of experience.

Even the Masters were human, and subject to the same failings as we all are. I don’t feel that the creation of forms is automatically out of bounds for anyone. If the form proves to be useful and is taught to one’s students and is kept, then it can become part of that particular lineage.

At the same time, I feel that a lot of modern kata/forms are garbage, poorly designed and not worth practicing.

I cannot disagree. Remember, a Big reason forms were created in the first place was to teach the techniques to large groups of people. There had to be a method to teach the same material at the same time.

I do feel forms/kata/poomsae get off track when used in competition AND the differences in intent is not explained or understood.

There are parts in every form that are akin to drills and one steps; certain ones simply work better for some people than others. That does not make them crap.

Should a technique that I cannot perform 'perfectly' be excluded from my teaching. What if I can teach it to others who can do it very well? I think the idea of exclusion is how some things have been lost over time. No, that is not always a bad thing.
Yes, there are things in forms that are a creative stretch. But that is the whole point. To be stretched and find new limits.

 

[Flying Crane]

Not talking about experimenting with and exploring techniques. This is a good thing. What is not a good thing IMO is someone less than impeccable tossing something into a long established and accepted system to be codified and passed on to future generations. People can teach whatever they want in their own school (though should make it clear it's something they made up) but shouldn't inflict it upon the system.

How could they “inflict it upon the system”? It would either take root and become part of his own downstream, or not.

 

[isshinryuronin]

reason forms were created in the first place was to teach the techniques to large groups

Respect your opinions, but please allow a historical clarification:

It is true that revised (simplified and safer) versions of Okinawan katas, as well as the creation of the Pinan/Heian katas 1-5 were developed to facilitate teaching large groups of students around 1920, due to the efforts of Anko and Funakoshi. Shotokan, and to some extent TKD, embodies this concept.

But the original Okinawan katas (adapted from Chinese techniques) were developed "in the first place" to provide small groups or individual disciples a vehicle to help remember and practice combat scenarios using techniques that reflected the particular style. Most of these were developed roughly mid 1700's thru 1900, when karate was still taught in secret to select individuals.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I sometimes wonder how much of what has become formalized curriculum was never intended to be that. It was just what the teacher was working on at that moment, meant to be explored and then moved on from, not formalized. But some student was taking notes and kept doing it exactly the same forever after.

And how much was because of what a particular student or group of students already knew, had trouble with, were really advanced at, etc.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Today I was thinking about how to teach "under hook" in my tomorrow class. What can you do after you have obtained "under hook" from your opponent?

You can apply

- hip throw,
- leg break,
- leg lift,
- leg twist,
- shin bite,
- knee seize,
- knee down inner hook,
- downward shoulder pull,
- outer twist,
- leg spring,
- leg spring, shin bite,
- leg spring, tie,
- leg spring, double legs,
- leg spring, foot sweep,
- leg spring, outer hook,
- ...

Should I create a form to "group" all those application that can be started from "under hook"? How about over hook, head lock, bear hug, waist wrap, single leg, ...? Nobody has ever done this before in the past. If you go online, you may find one technique in one clip, another technique in another clip. You just don't see all possible techniques that can be applied from a certain clinch in one clip.

Someone told me that there is a book of "81 different ways to set up single leg". Today, I still have not be able to find that book yet.

Why create another form for it? To me, it's like teaching students to read shorthand so they can get to the knowledge - it's just a step in the way. Forms as a storage medium made more sense when writing was less used and video didn't exist.

If students practice using overhook and underhook a number of different ways - including some classes that just explore what's available - they should be able to find their own applications from it. Your students can never learn everything inside your head - you'll never have enough time, and their brains don't work quite like yours. Your job is to equip them with the principles so they can figure out what you don't manage to pass along, and hopefully make some discoveries you didn't.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's why any Joe Shmoe shouldn't be creating their own katas and incorporating them into the system. Those who have studied extensively from recognized masters and have trained daily for 30 years, understanding the essence of their art, and have earned the respect of their peers may be exempted from the previous sentence.

I'm not at all convinced it takes 30 years of daily training to be able to build a highly functional form. At the same time, I think many forms may be best used by those who created them and actually know what they put in there (and what they didn't).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agree that a new created form may have poor quality issue. But a collection of techniques is just like a Google search engine. It collects all the best techniques created by the best MA masters. It should not have any quality issue.

A form can definitely have quality issues - both in creation and in transmission. I think a better analogy is a handwritten memo that is being copied. The handwriting, use of language, and quality of the copy process all become factors.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Any form that someone creates today, 1000 years later whether people will still train it or not that's the main concern.

I don't think that's the main concern. The main concern is whether it helps with learning the right things today. I have no concern about my forms being around in 1,000 years. I rather doubt they'll be the best option in 30 years, if any of my students go on to teach.

 

[dvcochran]

Respect your opinions, but please allow a historical clarification:

It is true that revised (simplified and safer) versions of Okinawan katas, as well as the creation of the Pinan/Heian katas 1-5 were developed to facilitate teaching large groups of students around 1920, due to the efforts of Anko and Funakoshi. Shotokan, and to some extent TKD, embodies this concept.

But the original Okinawan katas (adapted from Chinese techniques) were developed "in the first place" to provide small groups or individual disciples a vehicle to help remember and practice combat scenarios using techniques that reflected the particular style. Most of these were developed roughly mid 1700's thru 1900, when karate was still taught in secret to select individuals.

Agree. I was not inferring large groups were one of the "original" reasons, only that it was one of the reasons for the creation of forms/kata/poomsae. I imagine they became more mainstream as military became more organized and the respective system was integrated into government and became required learning.

 

[Yokozuna514]

This discussion has evolved in quite an interesting thought provoking way. I wonder if the first forms were created to deal with the practical aspect of teaching larger groups of people of varying experience and ability at the same time. When you go beyond a certain number of students in a class, I would think most instructors would want to have a method to:

1) Have a time efficient way to warm up their students using methods that they are learning in class.
2) Have an efficient way to see the progression of their students by the way they are performing the forms.
3) Allow peer to peer assistance by giving advanced students a method for them to help beginner students using a set form for guidance.

Free time to practice as well as competition was probably as much an issue back then as it is today and as an instructor trying to teach "their" brand of martial art would look for methods to that would allow them to spread their 'gospel' as quickly and efficiently as possible.

 

[dvcochran]

A form can definitely have quality issues - both in creation and in transmission. I think a better analogy is a handwritten memo that is being copied. The handwriting, use of language, and quality of the copy process all become factors.

Dissemination and interpretation/understanding.
The source of the quality issues can usually be identified. I could be caused by the person teaching the form, the person learning the form, or the form itself.
I feel a handwritten memo can have the same results due to the first two reasons I mentioned. Sometimes, even in written form, the person writing the memo and the person reading the memo are just not on the same page.