Do Kata/Forms Define the Style?

[Kung Fu Wang]

Why would I want to do this? I can practice these basics outside a form and do.

If you create that form and add into your style, nobody will ever say that form is not designed for sparring.

Instead of saying that form is not designed for fighting, you can change that.

 

[isshinryuronin]

If you create that form and add into your style, nobody will ever say that form is not designed for sparring.

Instead of saying that form is not designed for fighting, you can change that.

Frankly, I don't give a damn.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Frankly, I don't give a damn.

I thought you care and that's why you start this thread. ???

You point out the problem - sparring does not look like the form. I suggest a solution.

 

[isshinryuronin]

You point out the problem - sparring does not look like the form.

It's not a problem for me. Forms are the essence of TMA, designed for self-defense and sparring is designed for sport. Sparring is a result of the divergent evolution of karate's original purpose into its own new identity and not dependent on forms. There was no such thing as sparring for karate's first 150 years. There are schools that do not train sport sparring but rely on strict and intense training along with partner drills to develop effective combat skills.

I thought you care and that's why you start this thread. ???

The part I care about is that people think sparring is karate, and the art's true essence is being forgotten by many.

nobody will ever say that form is not designed for sparring.

It's not. That's why I don't care if they say it.

 

[Fungus]

It's not a problem for me. Forms are the essence of TMA, designed for self-defense and sparring is designed for sport. Sparring is a result of the divergent evolution of karate's original purpose into its own new identity and not dependent on forms. There was no such thing as sparring for karate's first 150 years. There are schools that do not train sport sparring but rely on strict and intense training along with partner drills to develop effective combat skills.

You know history of Karate much better than I do, so I can't argue on hitsory, I also doubt there where competitions in old days, neither in fighting nor in KATA. But I don't share the idea today that the essence lies only in forms.

For me the essence is that MA is a "combat/selfdefence/fighting system", with different constructing principles. About selfdefense vs combat; usually the idealized view of "selfdefense" is that you defend against ONE attack at a time, say one strike, one kick. But if you get attacked, and ONLY focus on defensive techniques, you probably fail to evade at some point, so effective defense must contains some offensive strategies as well. Or at least, I think so. Sure, if you best friend attacks you when drunk, you probably want to focus ONLY on evading, and hope that he stops or passs out himeself at some point. But in other situations, this probably does not work. The attacker needs to be floored.

Kihon and kata are, as we are taught also in our kyokushing curriculum, are the alphabet and sequences; which I agree encodes ALOT of good stuff! BUT but make this FLUENT, one needs to do put all these thinks, taught from kihon and kata, into free kumite/fighting.

And free is a key here, not the pretedermined say sanbon kumite, where you know more or less which of a few options that is going to happen. The free fighting trains timing and realtime application of reflexes and improvisations and feints, where it's not a 3-step sequence, but a continous unknown sequences ot attack and defense for a few minutes.
Dojo kumite is not a sport per see, only a few compete (sports), but those that don't aren't less serious. Also with KATA, some compete (sports), some do not.

So for me sparring does not equal sports! I do not like MA as a "sport" myself. But only doing kata without ever getting to feel full contact fighting, is like cooking without getting to taste the food!

 

[Fungus]

About the fighting STYLE I think it is often coming BOTH from the
- main styles "philosophy", like that they emphasize, circular, linear, punching, kicking, high vs low etc.
AND
- constraints of competition(sports rules)

So indeed the competition fighting STYLE of say kyokushin is indeed slightly silly, as head punches aren't allowed. But this I see as an artifact of competition rules, i do not see this as beeing at the heart of the style persee. I am sure that if it wasn't for that bloody mess or bare knuckle head strikes, it would be part of our style. Many in our club trained for 30-50 years and then with weekly headstrikes would all our shihans would be like muhammed Ali

 

[isshinryuronin]

You know history of Karate much better than I do, so I can't argue on hitsory, I also doubt there where competitions in old days, neither in fighting nor in KATA. But I don't share the idea today that the essence lies only in forms.

For me the essence is that MA is a "combat/selfdefence/fighting system", with different constructing principles. About selfdefense vs combat; usually the idealized view of "selfdefense" is that you defend against ONE attack at a time, say one strike, one kick. But if you get attacked, and ONLY focus on defensive techniques, you probably fail to evade at some point, so effective defense must contains some offensive strategies as well. Or at least, I think so. Sure, if you best friend attacks you when drunk, you probably want to focus ONLY on evading, and hope that he stops or passs out himeself at some point. But in other situations, this probably does not work. The attacker needs to be floored.

Kihon and kata are, as we are taught also in our kyokushing curriculum, are the alphabet and sequences; which I agree encodes ALOT of good stuff! BUT but make this FLUENT, one needs to do put all these thinks, taught from kihon and kata, into free kumite/fighting.

And free is a key here, not the pretedermined say sanbon kumite, where you know more or less which of a few options that is going to happen. The free fighting trains timing and realtime application of reflexes and improvisations and feints, where it's not a 3-step sequence, but a continous unknown sequences ot attack and defense for a few minutes.
Dojo kumite is not a sport per see, only a few compete (sports), but those that don't aren't less serious. Also with KATA, some compete (sports), some do not.

So for me sparring does not equal sports! I do not like MA as a "sport" myself. But only doing kata without ever getting to feel full contact fighting, is like cooking without getting to taste the food!

I liked your post even though there are a couple of key points that from my viewpoint express some popular misunderstandings of karate and kata in particular.

the essence is that MA is a "combat/selfdefence/fighting system"

This is true of TMA, but regarding self-defense versus sport MA, while there is overlap, they are incompatible in certain respects. So, I think your quote regarding MA is not entirely correct if speaking of sport-based MA, but accurate regarding self-defense-based TMA/original style karate.

But if you get attacked, and ONLY focus on defensive techniques, you probably fail to evade at some point, so effective defense must contains some offensive strategies as well..... The attacker needs to be floored.

In the sentence just before this quote you hint at an idealized view of self-defense is that you defend just one attack at a time, and in the quote, that it focuses on defense. This idea is completely false, at least as far as Okinawan karate is concerned. In fact, there are very few purely defensive moves to be found in karate's kata. There may appear to be many blocks and it is often taught this way to beginners (and these moves can be used this way), but on a more advanced level, many times "a block is not a block."

Karate, as originally designed, is extremely offensive in nature, utilizing compound attacks aimed at crushing the opponent. Any "block" only serves to further your own attack (often proceeded with a grab to establish control). Karate's most feared fighter, Motobu Choki, wrote that the nature of one's attack should render the opponent unable to counterattack. In other words, the offense provides the defense. That "the attacker needs to be floored" is shown multiple times in kata.

The free fighting trains timing and realtime application of reflexes and improvisations and feints,

I agree. There is value in dojo or sport sparring. But I would add it's important to realize this does not encompass the full range of technique or purpose of what karate was designed to do. Consider that original karate was NOT designed to fight other karate guys - sport sparring was. This necessitated major changes in technique and doctrine/tactics. It is this new incarnation that has molded most people's conception of what karate is.

for me sparring does not equal sports! I do not like MA as a "sport" myself.

This is a viewpoint that can lead you in the right direction.

 

[HighKick]

I would definitely go that far. TKD forms evolved in the age of sport and so reflect this with more long ranged kicks and punches. But earlier forms as found in Okinawan karate styles and to a lesser extent, Japanese, developed as close quarters self-defense grab counters when sport sparring wasn't even imagined.

Seiuchin - 1 straight punch, 2 uppercuts, 0 kicks
Naihanchi (tekki) - 0-2 punches, a few sweeps, 0 kicks
Chinto - 5 punches, 5 kicks (all front kicks)

(There may be some slight variation between styles)

These show just 10% or less of sparring allowed moves (there may be a few more allowed, but seldom if ever, scored) found in the kata. Other katas may have up to 25%. In any event, it's clear that most offensive moves in traditional kata are not the kind that would be awarded points in a tournament as they are concerned mainly with grappling related moves.

Presumably, you are talking about the Taeguek and Yudanja Poomsae. Yes, they have a strong competition connection, and I seldom see the Taegueks taught with application in mind. But I put this more on WHO is teaching them and not the form itself. Let's be honest, we are talking about many of the same base movements, regardless of style or form. As for the Yudanja Poomsae, they have more built-in application than any form set I have learned (and that is several), but again, too few instructors know How to teach it.

There are Way too many TKD black belts that have zero clue about application in forms. And I agree it is an infestation that has grown out of control. KKW is working to resolve this with their Master Class training and instructor requirements, but it may be too little too late. Time will tell.

The number one thing TKD needs right now is consistency so breadth can be developed in the training, forms, sparring, and curriculum IMHO.
Even though we are talking almost 1/2-decade with WT/KKW by now, things have always been in flux so (in typical Korean fashion) there has been little base established. This is a Big gap where Japanese and Okinawan styles have a huge(effective) time advantage.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Do your forms record the principle/strategy?

They don't record the principles, though the classical (short) forms do teach many of them, if used properly. They definitely don't record strategy.

If principles are recorded in the form, does it mean the form define the style?

Possibly. I think part of the problem is we don't yet know what we mean by "define the style". If we use that to say the style wouldn't be functionally the same style without them, I have a hard time accepting that for any style, as I believe those principles could be taught other ways than with exact forms. At the same time, it would be hard to argue that removing the forms from, say TKD, wouldn't render a new style, since the training methods would be so different.

For example, if your form contains a kick-punch combo. It contains the principle/strategy that use kick to set up punch. The form may record only front kick, straight punch. But students can train:

- side kick, back fist.
- roundhouse kick, hammer fist.
- ...

My longer forms do contain combinations (blocks to strikes, strking combinations, etc.), but do not contain any strategy for setting it up. They are intended to work transitions, not teach strategy. The classical forms can be used to discuss strategy, but do not contain strategy within them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So, a MA system cannot be recorded in computer. It's art and not science. You cannot learn MA from computer. You can only learn from a life person.

There must be a way to solve this problem.

A: I want to learn MA system X.
B: Here is a DVD that contain all the information that you will need.

May be one day one can learn MA from AI instead of life person.

I don't think it's at all possible to learn some principles without live instruction. There are aiki principles I cannot explain, but can be felt. This is also true of some grappling fundamentals. Working live builds a link between vocabulary and experienced sensations, so words can then convey that information. If I tell you "extend more", that won't mean the same thing it would mean to someone I'd been teaching, because I've taught that information physically, so they know what those words mean in that context. The same for "the void" - a term that explains a basic grappling fundamental the way I teach it, but doesn't make much sense unless you have the proper experience with the sensation, and know how to find it (for your opponent/partner) during training.

In many cases, there's the problem that the student will think they've gotten something right, but they haven't. The instructor can tell that by feel (and sometimes just by sight, but it would have to be real-time, or it can't help the student). I can teach a couple of very simple aiki principles quite quickly, but I've seen people (including those studying them for years) think they had them correct, because they didn't actually know what to feel for. When I taught them how to do it a different way, and they were able to feel how it should work, they then knew when they were (and were not) using that principle in the future.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

An AI controlled robot with humanlike muscle may be able to do the job. If AI can defeat the best chess player, AI should be able to defeat the best fighter.

I definitely think a robotic training partner could work. There's much to be learned simply from working properly with a partner. And you wouldn't worry about injuring them (other than the cost of repair).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Are you saying that you learned the application from the kata? That’s much different than how I teach. The forms(kata) are for review and polishing. The basic techniques need to be in place and understood before I teach any form.

This seems like a better approach. Students would enter the form with specific intent, knowing how the techniques/movements work and what to focus on, rather than rote movement.

 

[Fungus]

There is value in dojo or sport sparring. But I would add it's important to realize this does not encompass the full range of technique or purpose of what karate was designed to do.

I fully agree, this is true and you have a good point, it's narrow range of techniques that are mostly used in free kumite because they are either less effective in the context, or too dangerous. This is why some competitions can be boring to watch unless someone dares to use more odd techniques. Some techinques from KATA are also could also be used to, kick something out the hands of attacker, but this is rarely using in unarmed fihtging except as a distratction to setup another kick.

But I see fighting class also as a experimental playground, I try to evaluate off techniques just to see if they work. For example most people tend to focus on seiken strikes in fighting, but I regularly strike alot with the shuto and haito as well even in fighting class, because it makes the opponents blocking alot more complicate, they need to beware not only of punches, but strikes coming from different angles. I think I am the only one in class doing that occasionally.

Also shuto is a very strong technique and should not be underestimated, especiallte if you fight bare knuckle. Obviously with boxing gloves these strikes are not even possible. I also train strong shuto and hatio strikes on the heavy bag, so I have good power technique in these. Whether all my fingers are all "correctly" shaped as per the kihon standard is a completely different aesthetic matter (I'm sure they are not!). Shuto also has I found some interested advantages in fighting as when you use seiken you need to make the impact a the right angle, so depending on torso orientation the shuto or haito is often a good option instead of a hook or uraken. I asked my partner to also strike me in the ribs with haito just to see if it gives an effect, and it does, and it does work in fighting as well, but not sure why it's rarely used. I haven't figure out why yet.

Some techniques are not useful, or too risky. We train throat strikes occastionally as well, but just as simple pre-arranged non-contact kumite of maxium 3 steps, not in free fighting with contact, it would be too dangerous. But they are still in kihon or kata.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

This seems like a better approach. Students would enter the form with specific intent, knowing how the techniques/movements work and what to focus on, rather than rote movement.

There is no point to teaching a complicated form to someone who can’t find their feet or keep their focus. Most people don’t even know how to make a fist or stand on one leg when they start. In most cases it’s almost 2 years before I teach them a form, but there are exceptions. Since forms practice class is invite only, the beginning students rarely even catch a glimpse of the forms. It’s not secret, but I want them to focus on the basics and grind that until it’s in the body automatically. Then they can come to forms class and just jump in the middle of the group and start following. Some people don’t train enough to get there, some people don’t care about the forms, they just want the hard exercise of the basic workout. A very few follow all the advice and train hard in both gung fu and Tai Chi Chuan, those few excel at a much faster rate and develop the skills on a higher level. I did not create this system or training method so I cannot take credit for any of it beyond holding the standard that was set for me. I do take pride in the standard and the results it provides for those that do the consistent hard work it requires.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

This seems like a better approach. Students would enter the form with specific intent, knowing how the techniques/movements work and what to focus on, rather than rote movement.

I teach the partner drills. I then tell my students that when they train partner drill without partner, they will get the form. This way, the form is exactly the same as the application.

Since students will learn form by default, I don't see any reason to teach it.

Application:



Form:

 

[JowGaWolf]

I teach the partner drills. I then tell my students that when they train partner drill without partner, they will get the form. This way, the form is exactly the same as the application.

Since students will learn form by default, I don't see any reason to teach it.

Application:



Form:

I'm still waiting to try this one out. But I'll have to lean from the form until I get a partner to try it on.

This would be a valid reason of why to learn the form before the applicstion.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Dr Yang is teaching my training brother and I applications first for Shaolin White crane. He says we are the first ones he has taught this way. Some of the YMAA disciples who teach were visiting from Europe and were surprised at this. Im having a great time with it. Although it has many things in common with my system, it is a very different approach overall. Wing Woo Gar is an aggressive striking system, whereas Shaolin White Crane is more defensive and relies on more following and interception. The teaching methodology is much different but complimentary. I don’t feel the two things are at odds. My training brother is training only White crane and Chin na because he feels he is not able to integrate well. I am training White crane three times a week, Wing Woo Gar three times a week, TaiChi Chuan whenever I can fit it, and Chin na once per week. I’m having no trouble integrating these. I find I can only train Chin na once a week because I can’t find enough training partners, but honestly I don’t know if my joints can handle more than twice a week of Chin na practice. I don’t know any of the Shaolin white crane forms yet but I have quite a few 2 man application sets now, and we are working through the Whole of the Chin na applications.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

This would be a valid reason of why to learn the form before the applicstion.

The issue is this form does not exist. It was created from application.

If one doesn't want to be the 1st person to create it and expect others to create it, it may never be created.

So, form has value (as you have mentioned). But someone has to create it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The issue is this form does not exist. It was created from application.

If one doesn't want to be the 1st person to create it and expect others to create it, it may never be created.

So, form has value (as you have mentioned). But someone has to create it.

Correct. Your example is the best way because you don't have do pressure testing. It comes from a technique that was used.

 

[Flying Crane]

Some forms may not contain any techniques (words) and principles (grammar). What's the purpose of such form?

What techniques and principles can you find in this form?

Are you unable to find principles and techniques in this form? I suspect that anyone who has dedicated some time in serious study of Wing Chun could easily answer this question. Even with the few short years that I spent studying wing Chun, I can think of useful and directly applicable things from that form, even though I have forgotten most of the terminology.

If you cannot identify the principles and techniques encapsulated by that form, that is not the fault of the form nor of the Wing Chun community. You are not a wing Chun guy. It does not matter.