Do Kata/Forms Define the Style?

[Flying Crane]

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.

I find that if you have a solid understanding of the principles, and how those principles drive the techniques, then the application of movement within the forms sort of just falls into place. It becomes obvious, even without a lot of explanation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I like that approach.

The "long" forms I added (quite short, by the standards of most styles that use forms) all follow the same pattern. The first is based on the first 10 "classical" forms (similar in length to "one steps" in some styles, but regimented like a form), and students would learn the long form in chunks after learning the classical forms (3 classicals, first part of the long form, 3 classicals, next part, etc.). They'd usually be training 3-4 months before getting the first part of the form, and wouldn't get another form until they test to the first student rank (never had anyone do that in less than a year). This kept the emphasis off the form, which was the intention. The forms were an outgrowth of my own need for solo training when I was traveling a lot, and were designed to give students a way to practice movement and balance without a partner, and to give something they could focus on the precision and variations, without worrying about needing to actually throw someone.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

For someone experienced with the principles involved, this could work. For someone new to those principles, it could be disastrous. Even with partner work, I've seen folks develop entirely incorrect (not functional) movement, because their partner fell when they were "supposed to", or just had really bad balance/coordination.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I think one issue we run into in these discussions is how different people define "form". I wouldn't use the term "form" for something unless I've formalized it, but there's no reason that's a "correct" definition.

So when you talk about "creating a form" like, I just think of practicing something without a partner, and don't think of it as a "form". But, again, there's no reason it shouldn't be considered a "form", if it's being used like you'd use a form.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So when you talk about "creating a form" like, I just think of practicing something without a partner, and don't think of it as a "form". But, again, there's no reason it shouldn't be considered a "form", if it's being used like you'd use a form.

Will you call this a form? It starts with 13 postures training followed with a set of combos (move 1 set up move 2, move 2 set up ...).

Of course, you can teach 13 postures one by one without linking into a sequence. But that sequence may help students to remember easily.

 

[Flying Crane]

Will you call this a form? It starts with 13 postures training followed with a set of combos (move 1 set up move 2, move 2 set up ...).

Of course, you can teach 13 postures one by one without linking into a sequence. But that sequence may help students to remember easily.

View attachment 31171

Sure, why not?

 

[EJC]

Note: In the case of sparing, not to far back in Chinese history (People still alive today that did this), meant going out and getting into fights. Not a whole lot of organization, governing bodies, or rules there.

The idea of formalized "styles", organizations, etc. is less than 100 years old. Heck, the idea of Dan (black belt) ranks is also less than 100 years old. Motobu Choki sensei was "famous" (notorious?) for getting into fights — often in various "red light" districts.

 

[EJC]

If form doesn't define a style, what define a style?

Motobu Choki sensei put it best about 100 years ago in one of his books when he referred to "the styles of Passai and Rohai".

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

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.

My definition of a form (book) should contain principle/strategy (grammar). Otherwise, a form (book) is only a collection of techniques (dictionary).

May be that form does not meet my form definition. I only see "training method" in that form. Should I record my hand up and down movement in a form (nothing to do with fighting)? Again, what should be the definition of a form?

If your form contains a "front kick, straight punch" combo, you can use the same grammar (use kick to set up punch) to create your own sentences such as:

- front kick, uppercut.
- side kick, spin back fist.
- roundhouse kick, hook punch.
- crescent kick, hammer fist.
- ...

What grammar can you find in that form? What sentence can you create from that grammar?

 

[isshinryuronin]

Again, what should be the definition of a form?

see below:

My definition:

A drill is the repetition of a single move or combination against a single attack situation, such as a kick, punch or grab.

A form/kata is a series of drills/combinations against multiple (unrelated) single attacks. They are linked together for ease of practice or transmission, usually in a manner that also teaches stance/turn transitions and emphasizes tactical themes such as evasion, redirection, leg checks or pulling on the opponent.

I think this is a very accurate definition of kata/forms in the historical TMA sense.

Modern forms have been devised to teach basics and sparring, but for the most part are restricted to individual practitioners, schools or styles. Rarely (if ever) will they be spread to other styles or be considered impactful enough to warrant their being passed on to posterity.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

A form/kata is a series of drills/combinations against multiple (unrelated) single attacks.

I agree with your definition. This is why I asked, "What drills (words) and combinations (grammars) can you find in this form (book)?"

 

[isshinryuronin]

Motobu Choki sensei put it best about 100 years ago in one of his books when he referred to "the styles of Passai and Rohai".

This is an excellent point. Early on, before karate evolved into the various styles we're familiar with today, the kata reflected the "style" and illustrated a distinct fighting system. Naihanchi is such a kata as well. Many of these early kata were so effective that many 1900's masters adopted them to be included in their own curriculum, modifying them to conform to their own concepts. Naihanchi is unique in that it is found in most all Shuri-based Okinawan and some Japanese styles as well, virtually unmodified. This must be a testament on its value as originally conceived.

This is a far cry from the self-invented forms kung fu wang suggests. Not that there is no value in doing such, just that they can't be compared to the classical forms. Disco, grunge, rockabilly, and punk rock have all come and gone. Bach, Wagner and Beethoven live on.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I agree with your definition. This is why I asked, "What drills (words) and combinations (grammars) can you find in this form (book)?"

1. The moves seem to be executed with tension, similar to sanchin kata, so this may be a strength building form.
2. There are a lot of extreme wrist rotations, so counter-grabbing development may be one of the goals.
3. All the moves are open hand with wrist and palms striking/blocking, showing a non-punching theme.
4. No kicks, illustrating a hand-oriented system.

The most revealing feature is that there is no footwork or even body movement. IMO, this makes it of limited value as a fighting/self-defense system, making its being a "form" debatable. Due to these deficiencies, I would simply call it an exercise.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

IMO, this makes it of limited value as a fighting/self-defense system, making its being a "form" debatable. Due to these deficiencies, I would simply call it an exercise.

If a form contains many individual moves. There exists no logic connection between moves (no grammar), I won't call that form.

No grammar -> no form

 

[JowGaWolf]

If a form contains many individual moves. There exists no logic connection between moves (no grammar), I won't call that form.

No grammar -> no form

This sounds more like functional forms.

Fore me there are 3 types of forms. Structural Forms, Functional Forms, and Hybrid Forms (contains both)

Structural forms have no purpose other than to build good structure. We can look at some of the stances in these videos and see why it's important to have good structure.

To me Tai Chi forms are Structural Forms. When I do Tai Chi Fast it feels that my structure is good. When I do Tai Chi slowly, I can feel exactly where it's weak. Structural Forms position our body in the shape of the application.

When training a form or creating a form, I think it's important to set the focus of the form in one of these 3 groups.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Will you call this a form? It starts with 13 postures training followed with a set of combos (move 1 set up move 2, move 2 set up ...).

Of course, you can teach 13 postures one by one without linking into a sequence. But that sequence may help students to remember easily.

View attachment 31171

Yes, I would.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

This sounds more like functional forms.

Fore me there are 3 types of forms. Structural Forms, Functional Forms, and Hybrid Forms (contains both)

Structural forms have no purpose other than to build good structure. We can look at some of the stances in these videos and see why it's important to have good structure.

To me Tai Chi forms are Structural Forms. When I do Tai Chi Fast it feels that my structure is good. When I do Tai Chi slowly, I can feel exactly where it's weak. Structural Forms position our body in the shape of the application.

When training a form or creating a form, I think it's important to set the focus of the form in one of these 3 groups.

You have just given examples why people don't fight as they train. Because the form may not contain the principles/strategies/techniques that people need to use in fighting.

If a form has no footwork training, how do you expect people to fight?

 

[JowGaWolf]

You have just given examples why people don't fight as they train. Because the form may not contain the principles/strategies/techniques that people need to use in fighting.

If a form has no footwork training, how do you expect people to fight?

If the form has no footwork then they for will need to add it or the form should be changed to a functional form. I use functional footwork in the stepping form. So my shuffles are the same as I would use in a fight. For me the functional version of the stepping form is more difficult because it moves with "explosive power."

The structural form is important for beginners. It develops correct structure and it develops heaviness. The functional version develops lightness. Both are need. Heaviness is needed for rooting and sinking power. Lightness is need for speed.

My belief is after students learn structure they should advance to function. Then structural forms should be done as a review or warm up for functional forms.

Training should be
1. Structural Form - Beginner
2. Functional Form - Intermediate
3. Sparring Application - Advance

My sparring partner is using light footwork from Muay Thai to power his Jow Ga Techniques and as a result his Jow Ga striking is light when it should be heavy. Even when we light spar, I should feel the weight of the strike. I should be like getting hit with a swinging heavy bag. You feel the weight even though the bag swings lightly into you. I think he has this problem because he has not trained Jow Ga Structure.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Training should be
1. Structural Form - Beginner
2. Functional Form - Intermediate
3. Sparring Application - Advance

Do you want

- A structure and C function/sparring, or
- C structure and A function/sparring?

It's a trade off. One of my guys has 21-2 under his belt. When he enters form competition, he could only get C score.

I have seen too many people who has good foundation but has no fighting experience at all. To solve this problem, I use sparring as warm up, and I combine both basic training (structural) and combat training (functional) into one.

You can ask your students to stand in horse stance for 20 minutes.

I prefer to ask my students to do 20 minutes solo drill instead - kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

If the form has no footwork then they for will need to add it or the form should be changed to a functional form. I use functional footwork in the stepping form. So my shuffles are the same as I would use in a fight. For me the functional version of the stepping form is more difficult because it moves with "explosive power."

The structural form is important for beginners. It develops correct structure and it develops heaviness. The functional version develops lightness. Both are need. Heaviness is needed for rooting and sinking power. Lightness is need for speed.

My belief is after students learn structure they should advance to function. Then structural forms should be done as a review or warm up for functional forms.

Training should be
1. Structural Form - Beginner
2. Functional Form - Intermediate
3. Sparring Application - Advance

My sparring partner is using light footwork from Muay Thai to power his Jow Ga Techniques and as a result his Jow Ga striking is light when it should be heavy. Even when we light spar, I should feel the weight of the strike. I should be like getting hit with a swinging heavy bag. You feel the weight even though the bag swings lightly into you. I think he has this problem because he has not trained Jow Ga Structure.

Part of that has to do with lifting his heel and pivoting. I’ve seen it before. They can kick with explosive power as a result but it limits the use of sinking, rooting techniques.