Forms: A total fighting system?

[exile]

When I worked with the TKD group, the teacher walked me thru his blackbelt form, just so I could see what it was like.

At any rate, as he would demonstrate the next portion of the kata, which often included various obscure movements culminating in a punch, I would ask, "how is this used?" His response was: "well, this is a punch, this is a backfist, this is a knifehand, they can be used many ways..." and that was really all he could give me. He couldn't explain how the other movements might set up that punch to be effective, in a combat scenario. I think the forms were done just as an add-on to sparring, or something. It seemed like something maybe they didn't like much, just did it as a requirement or something, didn't really think about them much, only enough to remember the basic movements.

He clearly did not know the bunkai for the form. And that isn't surprising. The Kwan founders themselves, the guys who brought karate to Korea in the 1930s and made their living teaching it after the war, didn't know the deep bunkai for those kata. They had studied with Funakoshi or his senior students, or Toyama Kanken and maybe one or two others, but as Bill Burgar points out in his book, the way karate itself was taught in prewar Japan represented a severe dilution of the martial content of kata, and bunkai analysis was considerably downplayed (though not totally neglected) in the mass karate classes that Funakoshi sold to the Japanese Defense and Education ministries. And in the 50s and 60s the trend conditinued, so that very few contemporary masters have received anything like a deep education in the combat application of forms and their subcomponents. What you were seeing was the final phase a dilution process in which, at last, there's pretty much nothing left to be diluted further. There are plenty of karate dojos where you'd see the same thing, alas.

I think that is the approach that must be ditched, if kata is to be meaningful....distance yourself from the line drills and group drills, and center the training session around the kata and exploring its applications and meanings. Don't do any sparring for a while, until you have done this and begun to internalize the lessons, then see what you can do with it.

This the whole idea of the kata-centric syllabus with severe destructive testing of proposed analyses, to ensure that they're road-worth; if not, chuck 'em and go back to the drawing board till you have a few that are fail-safe.

...

I think learning kata properly requires one-on-one instruction, or at least small groups. It is sort of an intimate thing that perhaps cannot be effectively shared and communicated with a large group at one time.

So maybe large dojos with many students who fill up a gymnasium are part of the problem. This was perhaps never the way traditional arts were meant to be passed on...

Burgar observes that the first of your scenarios was how karate was taught in later 19th c. Okinawa, and the large mass classes, which introduced the whole line-drill method of teaching, originated with Funakoshi's University classes in the 20s and 30s. The relegation of kata to a grading criterion comes from that period as well.

I have emphasised the statement that I think is key to really learning forms and katas. In a large group it just becomes a case of rote learning of the fascade. This is not necessarily done intentionally, but there is just not the time or room to work more closely with students. Teachers in this situation may have every intention of examining the esssence of the forms but simply are unable to do so.

True, but it's also probably true that there isn't that much real knowledge of kata interpretation, and still less of combat training based on kata interpretations, out there any more. That will change, I believe. But not quickly.

I honestly think that once someone discovers that there is something going on in a form beyond the gross, obvious movements, they will be intrigued enough to try to discover what's going on. You know what they say, a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Which is why we badly need a body of real expertise in this area, and training for instructors, which includes this central component of MA knowledge.

But let's face it, lads: it won't get anywhere if it can't make money for the school owners. Karate, Tang Soo Do, TKD, or any of the CMAs... that's their livelihood. So we have three questions now on our plate, eh?

I How to access the complete martial content of MA forms by interpreting them in terms of their combat applications​

II How to build a curriculum centered around forms and their combat applications, teaching individual techniques as part of the larger context of combat-effective bunkai.​

III How to do it so the poor sod trying to make a living teaching MAs can do so, even though this approach to MA instruction is—as FC and ST have both pointed out—not very compatible with large classes, of the kind that typically pay the freight at most MA schools.​

There are other issues. What about children in these schools? They represent a substantial chunk of the school owner's income. How do they fit into the curriculum? Do you have two tracks? How do you fit kids into a lower-volume, CQ combat oriented approach to the MAs?

My head is starting to hurt...

 

[kidswarrior]

So we have three questions now on our plate, eh?

I How to access the complete martial content of MA forms by interpreting them in terms of their combat applications​

II How to build a curriculum centered around forms and their combat applications, teaching individual techniques as part of the larger context of combat-effective bunkai.​

III How to do it so the poor sod trying to make a living teaching MAs can do so, even though this approach to MA instruction is—as FC and ST have both pointed out—not very compatible with large classes, of the kind that typically pay the freight at most MA schools.​

There are other issues. What about children in these schools?

My head is starting to hurt...

Well, my head is just beginning not to hurt, so I'm just checking in. Man, I hate being sidelined during this discussion, but maybe it's for the best since it forces me to reflect before posting. Just wanted to say, I have some ideas on how to achieve all three of exile's questions. But may be another day or so before my faculties are back to normal (viz., half-***ed).

 

[Flying Crane]

Burgar observes that the first of your scenarios was how karate was taught in later 19th c. Okinawa, and the large mass classes, which introduced the whole line-drill method of teaching, originated with Funakoshi's University classes in the 20s and 30s. The relegation of kata to a grading criterion comes from that period as well.

I think the arts must be taught in small groups, teacher to student, directly. The whole empire building, federations, governing bodies, chain schools, it needs to end. There needs to be a real relationship between the teacher and the student, and this dictates that class size must be small.

True, but it's also probably true that there isn't that much real knowledge of kata interpretation, and still less of combat training based on kata interpretations, out there any more. That will change, I believe. But not quickly.

Which is why we badly need a body of real expertise in this area, and training for instructors, which includes this central component of MA knowledge.

Maybe one way to rectify this is to train in an art that does focus more on understanding the use of kata. Some arts still do this more than others. The way Tracy kenpo is structured, the Self Defense techniques themselves are often used to build the kata. The use is taught right along with the kata and the tech itself. Once you have experienced this kind of thing, it becomes easier to see and interpret useful movement in other kata, even if the teacher doesn't know it.

When I was training Wing Chun, the sifu demonstrated the ending movement for one of the forms. He confessed that he did not know what the use was for that particular movement, and he was a 35 year veteran of the art. But I took one look at the movement and suggested two or three useful interpretations almost immediately. He was very open to my suggestions. I believe that it was my experience in Tracy Kenpo that enabled me to do that.

I'm not trying to push kenpo as better. In fact, I believe that as an art it definitely has its problems like any art does. But I think experience in this type of thing can open your eyes and you can apply it elsewhere.

Of course the problem with this suggestion is that you might end up abandoning the original art, in favor of the different art where you intended to get the experience...

But let's face it, lads: it won't get anywhere if it can't make money for the school owners. Karate, Tang Soo Do, TKD, or any of the CMAs... that's their livelihood. So we have three questions now on our plate, eh?

...

III How to do it so the poor sod trying to make a living teaching MAs can do so, even though this approach to MA instruction is—as FC and ST have both pointed out—not very compatible with large classes, of the kind that typically pay the freight at most MA schools.​

...
My head is starting to hurt...

I think the answer to this is simple: you don't.

I hate to say it, but I really believe the arts are being taught in a way that makes it very difficult to pass on deep and quality knowledge. As I stated earlier in this post, I believe there MUST be a relationship between student and teacher, and there MUST be face-to-face training in order for this kind of knowledge to be passed on. I think all too often the business of martial arts really really kills the arts themselves because it creates a situation where it is virtually impossible to pass on the information effectively and deeply. The school owner may be tremendously talented and have the best of intentions, and it's not his fault, but the circumstances act to sabotage his efforts. I think the arts should be passed down to small groups, but this means that karate as daycare, karate as social group, karate as exercise, karate as hobby, karate as distraction from life, would end. Or else it would exist separately, and that's fine as long as everyone understands that.

 

[Steel Tiger]

But let's face it, lads: it won't get anywhere if it can't make money for the school owners. Karate, Tang Soo Do, TKD, or any of the CMAs... that's their livelihood. So we have three questions now on our plate, eh?

I How to access the complete martial content of MA forms by interpreting them in terms of their combat applications

This, I think, is the easiest of the problems. The information is there in the forms and kata and there are many commentaries on how to extract that information. Its not easy but it can be done.​

II How to build a curriculum centered around forms and their combat applications, teaching individual techniques as part of the larger context of combat-effective bunkai.

This requires a change of mindset, really. Especially in Karate and TKD. Kata needs to be seen as an essential element. Difficult to do with so many arts focussing so heavily on sport competition. I suppose the creation of the curriculum is not that hard it getting people to accept the relevance of forms and kata.​

III How to do it so the poor sod trying to make a living teaching MAs can do so, even though this approach to MA instruction is—as FC and ST have both pointed out—not very compatible with large classes, of the kind that typically pay the freight at most MA schools.

Well formerly students would have entered into a master/disciple relationship with their teacher which involved him teaching and them looking after his well-being. There were responsibilities for both parties. Can't really do that these days.​

One of the problems I keep running into when I consider this is that the old masters did not teach all their students the 'secrets' of the art. Some were seen as not suitable for the knowledge, some were.​

You could run a school this way but you would run into the problem of people expecting access to the whole curriculum if they pay the money, even if they cannot comprehend it. Students don't seem to have any responsibilities to their teach any more.​

There are other issues. What about children in these schools? They represent a substantial chunk of the school owner's income. How do they fit into the curriculum? Do you have two tracks? How do you fit kids into a lower-volume, CQ combat oriented approach to the MAs?

My head is starting to hurt...

Now you want to talk about kids? Isn't it difficult enough?
But actually children may be the answer. If you can set kids on the right path from an early age you might be go a long way toward bringing those 'lost' elements back to the MAs.

 

[exile]

Well, my head is just beginning not to hurt, so I'm just checking in. Man, I hate being sidelined during this discussion, but maybe it's for the best since it forces me to reflect before posting. Just wanted to say, I have some ideas on how to achieve all three of exile's questions. But may be another day or so before my faculties are back to normal (viz., half-***ed).

Glad to hear you're on the mend, Mark. And your faculties are posteriorly complete, so far as I can tell, so I'm hoping for some seriousl light to be shed on these questions and how to answer them (if they can be—FC is skeptical about the last one; see below... it should be a very good discussion!)

I think the arts must be taught in small groups, teacher to student, directly. The whole empire building, federations, governing bodies, chain schools, it needs to end. There needs to be a real relationship between the teacher and the student, and this dictates that class size must be small.

Absolutely, absolutely. As a KMA person I'm always running into massive governing organizations and sport/regulating federations and all that sort of top-down imposed `unity'. Here is a terrifically well-thought out essay on this issue by Rob Redmond, whose iconoclastic karate web site is one of the best MA resources out there:

http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2006/02/05/the-totalitarian-politics-of-karate/

You can get the idea from the URL itself just what he's going on about... Note the very final paragraph of the essay:

In fact, I would argue that we should all be saying “Thank goodness!” anytime one of these Karate organizations experiences a hemorrhage that causes them to bleed members and spawn the birth of three new organizations. This is because from the ashes of the old organization and its old thinking comes the ability to choose from various options. These splinters are not a negative thing. They are a positive thing. Hopefully, Karate will continue to move away from a governing body model and toward a laissez faire model in which the club level is where control lies.

One of my friends once asked me if I thought this problem of splintering amongst Karate associations would ever be fixed. My answer was “Are you joking? The splintering is the fix!”​

Maybe one way to rectify this is to train in an art that does focus more on understanding the use of kata. Some arts still do this more than others. The way Tracy kenpo is structured, the Self Defense techniques themselves are often used to build the kata. The use is taught right along with the kata and the tech itself. Once you have experienced this kind of thing, it becomes easier to see and interpret useful movement in other kata, even if the teacher doesn't know it.

When I was training Wing Chun, the sifu demonstrated the ending movement for one of the forms. He confessed that he did not know what the use was for that particular movement, and he was a 35 year veteran of the art. But I took one look at the movement and suggested two or three useful interpretations almost immediately. He was very open to my suggestions. I believe that it was my experience in Tracy Kenpo that enabled me to do that.

I'm not trying to push kenpo as better. In fact, I believe that as an art it definitely has its problems like any art does. But I think experience in this type of thing can open your eyes and you can apply it elsewhere.

Of course the problem with this suggestion is that you might end up abandoning the original art, in favor of the different art where you intended to get the experience...

That's a very interesting idea, cross training in MA not to expand technique but to expand your analytic abilities. I think it could be a very valuable complement to the `rule-based' method where you take a set of translation principles, look at the movement sequence in the form, and deduce a set of combat move sequences which embody the same movements in different ways. (In my own field, theoretical syntax, I've often thought that students would do well to take a course in electromagnetism, with vectors, partial differential equations, the whole shebang, just so they would understand what a real scientific theory looks like, what standards it has to meet, and the level of predictive precision possible when those standards are indeed met. They wouldn't babble so much about nomological/deductive paradigms and other stuff that they have no clue about because they've never studied a real science... same principle: you want to do X? Then let's look at someone who is REALLY doing X!!).

I think the answer to this is simple: you don't.

I hate to say it, but I really believe the arts are being taught in a way that makes it very difficult to pass on deep and quality knowledge. As I stated earlier in this post, I believe there MUST be a relationship between student and teacher, and there MUST be face-to-face training in order for this kind of knowledge to be passed on. I think all too often the business of martial arts really really kills the arts themselves because it creates a situation where it is virtually impossible to pass on the information effectively and deeply. The school owner may be tremendously talented and have the best of intentions, and it's not his fault, but the circumstances act to sabotage his efforts. I think the arts should be passed down to small groups, but this means that karate as daycare, karate as social group, karate as exercise, karate as hobby, karate as distraction from life, would end. Or else it would exist separately, and that's fine as long as everyone understands that.

OK, now we are talking some serious stuff!!! I hope kidswarrior recovers soon, because I am chafing at the bit to hear you guys' respective takes on this particular question... I myself am currently clueness as to the hows and ifs of the teaching-business side of it....

Added in edit: I see S_T and I cross-posted... would have wanted to include his comments here too, which are very much to the point... will do next round!

 

[MJS]

In the karate-based arts, each kata usually gives you at least four or five separate techs, each of which has multiple interpretations. So you have something like a grand total of fifteen to twenty different combat scenarios tied up in a single twenty-five move kata made up of four to six subsequences (Bill Burgar's book, Five Years, One Kata shows how this decomposition works for a single kata, Gojushiho). The fact that the Okinawan masters, as Motobu noted, usually knew in detail only a few kata at most means sort entails the consequence that pretty much everything they needed for real combat was in them. The sparring isn't so much a different kind of training than the kata, in my view; rather, kata and sparring (close range, noncompliant, not `set' in advance) are part of a single training regime. They don't compete, because they do two different, necessary, complementary things. The kata really are telling you what to do to realize the art's particular strategic ideas tactically. CQ combat sparring is giving you the training to implement that realization of strategy as particular tactics in real time. Kata are telling you what kind of sequence of individual techs will lead inevitably to a `forced checkmate' of the assailant; but you have to live the biomechanics out and adapt them to your own capabilities. So to my way of thinking, kata and training are really the two necessary sides which jointly compose the single SD coin...

Interesting analogy. I guess it comes down to having a real solid understanding of the moves. I was at a Dillman seminar a while ago. Now, I know Dillman is the subject of much controversy, but I wanted to form my own opinion of him, but thats a different story. Anyway, he was going thru some various application, etc., and I was really amazed at what he was showing. Some big differences between what I was shown, my interpretations and what he was showing.

I guess I'm just looking at it like this...if you want to get good at something, you need to do that task, over and over. I'll refer back to my flight simulator example.

 

[jks9199]

Interesting analogy. I guess it comes down to having a real solid understanding of the moves. I was at a Dillman seminar a while ago. Now, I know Dillman is the subject of much controversy, but I wanted to form my own opinion of him, but thats a different story. Anyway, he was going thru some various application, etc., and I was really amazed at what he was showing. Some big differences between what I was shown, my interpretations and what he was showing.

I guess I'm just looking at it like this...if you want to get good at something, you need to do that task, over and over. I'll refer back to my flight simulator example.

Without sidetracking into the whole Dillman question -- did his interpretations seem like reasonable, alternate interpretations and approaches?

That's one thing about many kata; there is room for multiple interpretations once you start delving into them. Again, let's look at the simple step/block/punch combo found in the earliest-learned forms in most systems. I can look at it, and say it's just what it appears -- step, upward block, punch. Someone else might point to a cover done before the block, and say that it's a parry, a forearm strike, and a punch. A third person might say it's a parry/trap, using the upward armbar to unbalance the opponent for a throw... And someone else might find pressure point keys in the same sequence.

But they're all valid interpretations of the pieces. None is "better" than the other; they're just other ways to look at it.

So... is what you saw just another way of looking at it -- or something new, different, and maybe odd?

 

[MJS]

Without sidetracking into the whole Dillman question -- did his interpretations seem like reasonable, alternate interpretations and approaches?

Yes.

That's one thing about many kata; there is room for multiple interpretations once you start delving into them. Again, let's look at the simple step/block/punch combo found in the earliest-learned forms in most systems. I can look at it, and say it's just what it appears -- step, upward block, punch. Someone else might point to a cover done before the block, and say that it's a parry, a forearm strike, and a punch. A third person might say it's a parry/trap, using the upward armbar to unbalance the opponent for a throw... And someone else might find pressure point keys in the same sequence.

But they're all valid interpretations of the pieces. None is "better" than the other; they're just other ways to look at it.

True. This is the key to forms IMO...being able to have multiple applications/translations for the moves.

So... is what you saw just another way of looking at it -- or something new, different, and maybe odd?

I'd say for myself, alot of what I saw was new. Unfortunately, one of my early instructors never really gave application to the moves. This was most likely because he could not provide me with any. Fortunately as time went on, that changed.

I recognized the katas he was using from my Villari days. Things such as a downward X block, where I was told was blocking a kick, he translated into locks from a wrist grab.

Like I said, he was in the area, and I wanted to form my own opinion of him. I got to actually work with him while he was demonstrating a few things. Overall, I'd say I saw a new way of looking at things.

Mike

 

[Steel Tiger]

That's one thing about many kata; there is room for multiple interpretations once you start delving into them. Again, let's look at the simple step/block/punch combo found in the earliest-learned forms in most systems. I can look at it, and say it's just what it appears -- step, upward block, punch. Someone else might point to a cover done before the block, and say that it's a parry, a forearm strike, and a punch. A third person might say it's a parry/trap, using the upward armbar to unbalance the opponent for a throw... And someone else might find pressure point keys in the same sequence.

But they're all valid interpretations of the pieces. None is "better" than the other; they're just other ways to look at it.

This falls neatly into a Daoist concept that we apply to our forms. That of the uncarved block. When an sculptor looks at a block of stone he sees many possibilities for what it might become. But once he begins to carve the stone its form is set and cannot change. So we view forms in the manner of the uncarved block, allowing for many variations and interpretations.

 

[kidswarrior]

OK, it took me too long to get back to the thread to try to pick up all the pieces. That is, I'm not going to try to address all the concerns raised, or even acknowledge all the good points made. And there are many. (I have notes everywhere, and fear it would be too cumbersome to foist whatever wannabe treatise which might emerge on everyone).

Instead, am just going to go on from here, using as a starting point exile's three concerns posted not too far back. Again, this is not me ignoring others' great points of concern or terrific proposals, just a way to re-enter the stream of this thread, and hopefully move the discussion forward at the same time.

So we have three questions now on our plate, eh?

I How to access the complete martial content of MA forms by interpreting them in terms of their combat applications​

II How to build a curriculum centered around forms and their combat applications, teaching individual techniques as part of the larger context of combat-effective bunkai.​

III How to do it so the poor sod trying to make a living teaching MAs can do so, even though this approach to MA instruction is—as FC and ST have both pointed out—not very compatible with large classes, of the kind that typically pay the freight at most MA schools.​

There are other issues. What about children in these schools?

Now, what I am thinking and about to share will not live up to the ideal which some have called for: the perfect forms-based system. I don't know of a way to start most Westerners off with just forms and retain them as students for the long haul. That requires complete intrinsic motivation on their part, and we're too extrinsic, reward-based (or at least, benchmark-oriented) not to get some attaboy's/girl's along the way. Enter the color belt system. Which leads me to exile's Question III.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to make a living. Don't even charge for my classes. Why should I, when I get a teacher's pay and live like a king. Actually, the teaching and salary part are true; and so that's what we live on. It's enough--if you drive 11 year old cars But just want to make clear, that while I'm on the 'commercial' model, I'm not commercial. That might have implications for someone reading this who does need to make a living at it.

Here's what I am doing/am planning to further refine and do better (hopefully with your input).

9th kyu-- Introduction to first form (solo and synchronized line performance); learning basics (blocks, strikes, begins to learn how we move, balance, stances, etc.); learns a few preset combination techniques.

8th-- Student works on perfecting initial solo form (Still in Iain Abernethy's Stage I of forms: solo practice), while improving in basics, adding techniques.

7th-- While continuously improving in prior material, more techniques are added, but student now moves to IA's Stage II of forms practice: studying the bunkai. Much will necessarily require instructor's input, but student can work on this on own time, too.

6th-- Repeat 7th kyu but with new techniques (some may see a cross-purpose between techniques and forms, but techniques are taught to (1) Protect the student in case a real self-defense need arises before they can learn combat applications of forms, which is the ultimate goal; and (2) give that extrinsic benchmark which westerners need, at least in the early years of practice. Teacher continues to show alternative applications and modifications for form(s), now preparing student for actual adaptation and application.

5th-- Student is now responsible for adapting and applying forms in new ways, in response to a slightly resisting partner (too much resistance at this point may get the partner injured). New techs still added.

4th-- This is the swing point, and the beginning of the answer to exile's Question II. Training is now 'advanced' and student focuses equally on forms, and techniques. I would think a commercial school would at this time (if not sooner) separate these students into a separate 'advanced' class, for smaller class size, more one-on-one with instructor and other knowledgeable students. Students move to IA's Stage III of forms practice.

3rd-- Student now learns only forms, continuing to practice previously learned techniques and basics in order to embed the art's style of movement into muscle memory, thus bolstering forms practice and self-defense/combat capabilities. Any techniques taught by the teacher, or designed by the student (maybe a 50/50 split?) must be identifiable from forms movement or principles (adaptation and application). That is, the practice is now forms-centric and forms partner practice 'goes live' per IA's Stage IV, and attempts to satisfy exile's Question I.

2nd-- Continue as 3rd kyu, but with higher expectations of student.

1st-- Student prepares for Dan test through mastery and extension of knowledge of all material.

OK, I know I should read and reread this some more, but before the whole mess gets lost in the system, am going to post it. Please go easy on me, but don't hesitate to point out flaws. I'm experimenting here, and most such enterprises take several tries to get right.

 

[Flying Crane]

Now, what I am thinking and about to share will not live up to the ideal which some have called for: the perfect forms-based system. I don't know of a way to start most Westerners off with just forms and retain them as students for the long haul. That requires complete intrinsic motivation on their part, and we're too extrinsic, reward-based (or at least, benchmark-oriented) not to get some attaboy's/girl's along the way. Enter the color belt system. Which leads me to exile's Question III.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to make a living. Don't even charge for my classes. Why should I, when I get a teacher's pay and live like a king. Actually, the teaching and salary part are true; and so that's what we live on. It's enough--if you drive 11 year old cars But just want to make clear, that while I'm on the 'commercial' model, I'm not commercial. That might have implications for someone reading this who does need to make a living at it.

Here's what I am doing/am planning to further refine and do better (hopefully with your input).

9th kyu-- Introduction to first form (solo and synchronized line performance); learning basics (blocks, strikes, begins to learn how we move, balance, stances, etc.); learns a few preset combination techniques.

8th-- Student works on perfecting initial solo form (Still in Iain Abernethy's Stage I of forms: solo practice), while improving in basics, adding techniques.

7th-- While continuously improving in prior material, more techniques are added, but student now moves to IA's Stage II of forms practice: studying the bunkai. Much will necessarily require instructor's input, but student can work on this on own time, too.

6th-- Repeat 7th kyu but with new techniques (some may see a cross-purpose between techniques and forms, but techniques are taught to (1) Protect the student in case a real self-defense need arises before they can learn combat applications of forms, which is the ultimate goal; and (2) give that extrinsic benchmark which westerners need, at least in the early years of practice. Teacher continues to show alternative applications and modifications for form(s), now preparing student for actual adaptation and application.

5th-- Student is now responsible for adapting and applying forms in new ways, in response to a slightly resisting partner (too much resistance at this point may get the partner injured). New techs still added.

4th-- This is the swing point, and the beginning of the answer to exile's Question II. Training is now 'advanced' and student focuses equally on forms, and techniques. I would think a commercial school would at this time (if not sooner) separate these students into a separate 'advanced' class, for smaller class size, more one-on-one with instructor and other knowledgeable students. Students move to IA's Stage III of forms practice.

3rd-- Student now learns only forms, continuing to practice previously learned techniques and basics in order to embed the art's style of movement into muscle memory, thus bolstering forms practice and self-defense/combat capabilities. Any techniques taught by the teacher, or designed by the student (maybe a 50/50 split?) must be identifiable from forms movement or principles (adaptation and application). That is, the practice is now forms-centric and forms partner practice 'goes live' per IA's Stage IV, and attempts to satisfy exile's Question I.

2nd-- Continue as 3rd kyu, but with higher expectations of student.

1st-- Student prepares for Dan test through mastery and extension of knowledge of all material.

OK, I know I should read and reread this some more, but before the whole mess gets lost in the system, am going to post it. Please go easy on me, but don't hesitate to point out flaws. I'm experimenting here, and most such enterprises take several tries to get right.

What I am seeing here I think can be summed up quite simply: switching the focus away from "more material for more rank" to "deeper understanding of material for more rank". I think maybe I've oversimplified it, but to some degree, I think that is it.

Really, this is probably on the mark. Of course more material IS taught, but the real focus is on that deeper understanding, and when a student can show that understanding and ability, rank is based on that skill, rather than simply being able to recite and give a superficial performance of a whole bunch of things that will probably be forgotten soon after the ranking test is over, only to be relearned in a series of late-night cramming sessions just before the NEXT ranking test.

My kung fu sifu does use a ranking system, but it is virtually forgotten about and little emphasis is placed on it. In fact, for most students, especially the adults, it is really optional. I have been with him for close to 9, maybe 10 years now. The first and only time I tested with him was after I had been with him for maybe 6 or more years. He ranked me at green belt, which is somewhere in the middle of the sequence to black. Never tested again, don't know when/if I will. It never really mattered, and it took the pressure off the notion that "another test is coming, so I need to cram this material into my head to make sure I pass". Rather, I just keep practicing all that he teaches me and I don't worry about performing for a test.

The other interesting thing is that he doesn't really have a set curriculum for each belt level. He knows TONS and TONS of stuff from several Chinese systems, and he teaches what he feels is appropriate to each student. So rather than looking at a fixed curriculum that a student must learn for each level, he gauges based on how much material has one learned at a beginner's level, how much is at an intermediate level, how much is advanced material, etc. And that is how he decides what belt a student might merit. But none of the students knows EVERYTHING that is beginner's material, or intermediate, or advanced, because his material is from these several different arts. After the years I've been with him, I've learned stuff that is intermediate and advanced, but I just recently began learning Tam Tui, which is a gruelling beginners set used to develop basic technique. I wanted to learn it in case I begin teaching someday I felt it would be a good set to know, and also simply to help my own technique. He didn't feel I needed the set, but agreed to teach it to me. So there isn't a clear progression that one is always learning More Advanced material as you progress. Sometimes you learn something more advanced, sometimes something less advanced, it just depends on what he feels is appropriate for you to know.

But at any rate, after teaching the basic techniques, my learning with him has been very much focused on forms. He teaches me the forms, and I just keep on working on them. We will discuss applications of the movement so that I have a clear idea of what I am accomplishing in the forms, and I just keep working on them, and I have actually learned quite a lot of forms from him.

I believe this approach works very well, but perhaps can be frustrating for students with a Western mindset, who expect all the answers up front, handed out on a silver platter. In order to thrive with this approach, you need to be highly self-motivated, because sifu has NEVER stood there over me and said "do it again. and again. and again." Rather, he shows it to me, then walks away to work with other students who need more guidance. I practice on my own, but I can always ask questions and get clarification about things.

PART TWO
I wanted to contrast this approach with my training in Tracy Kenpo.

We have a very large curriculum of self defense techniques, along with a long list of kata. Some of our kata were developed using our self defense techniques, some kata were developed using basics, and some of our kata were adopted from outside sources.

We have a very clearly mapped out curriculum, all the way to 5th dan. You can see the list of everything that you need to know for the next rank advancement, most belts having 30 SD techs plus a kata or three. It works quite well, because everything is so clear, and the application of our material is clearly taught as you learn it. The SD techs are very clear on application, and the forms that are built around the SD techs are by extension, also very clear.

I think perhaps the other material that was brought in from other sources is meant to get the student to think more creatively. This material is obviously not built upon our SD techs, so the application is more vague, on the lines of some of my earlier postings in this thread. I suppose This is where the student has the opportunity to get creative and look for their own answers. There is a danger here, I believe, in failing to get creative. It's possible that a student gets so comfortable with the standard curriculum, that they fail to explore more deeply, and perhaps the imported material is in danger of becoming "just a dance".

But overall, the curriculum is huge, and well mapped out, and this differs very much from my experience in the Chinese arts.

I guess I'm not sure exactly what message I'm trying to convey here, but perhaps my own examples and experiences will give food for thought in this discussion.

 

[kidswarrior]

Don't know if I could articulate your whole message either, Flying Crane, but do know I pretty much agree with everything you've said--and left unsaid. Think my effort is an attempt to follow the very structured pattern to intermediate level (since I teach teens, they need more immediate feedback), then ease over to the CMA approach used by your sifu in kung fu classes. In light of my conviction that forms are at the heart of what I believe combat MAs to be, this switch in focus must occur at some point, and to me that point is far before black belt. This is not to say it's either/or, forms/or techs, but rather a question of which takes primacy. Growth in forms requires that creativity you're talking about, and which IA says comes about through adaptation, application, and then 'going live'. Imho, this can't really be optional if someone wants to become a proficient MAist.

 

[Sukerkin]

Splendid stuff gentlemen (darned Rep Gnomes strike again preventing me from adding to the stockpile of commendation for the above posts).

I'm impressed by the thinking that's gone into this thread and I'm regretful that these days, because I do a solely weapon based art, I can't really contribute from a current, involved, perspective. The fact that iaido is almost all forms doesn't exactly give me an unbiased view either .

One thing I would like to add my paltry emphasis to tho' is a point that's been hit on a couple of times now. That is that it is depth of understanding rather than breadth of knowing about a lot of style attributes that is key.

I know from my own experiences that now when I go into seiza to perform mai (probably the simplest of the 'seated' kata) I am approaching it from a much better comprehension of what it embodies than I did five years ago.

That comprehension, along with the ever so slowly developing ability to project seme (dominant prescence/pressure) and use zanshin (situational awareness), is what marks the major leap that shodan is over kyu grade. Being able to perform the body motions required for a kata is a given at this point, from this point on it's going to be decades of honing those motions for precsion and duplicability. The mental/internal side of the equation is the one that starts to really matter once you've crossed the rubicon to Dan grade territory.

 

[Flying Crane]

Don't know if I could articulate your whole message either, Flying Crane, but do know I pretty much agree with everything you've said--and left unsaid. Think my effort is an attempt to follow the very structured pattern to intermediate level (since I teach teens, they need more immediate feedback), then ease over to the CMA approach used by your sifu in kung fu classes. In light of my conviction that forms are at the heart of what I believe combat MAs to be, this switch in focus must occur at some point, and to me that point is far before black belt. This is not to say it's either/or, forms/or techs, but rather a question of which takes primacy. Growth in forms requires that creativity you're talking about, and which IA says comes about through adaptation, application, and then 'going live'. Imho, this can't really be optional if someone wants to become a proficient MAist.

I think you are correct here. For the beginners, it is important to have more of the material mapped out clearly, perhaps a progression thru the syllabus, as well as clear applications for the material. But gradually a student must be lead away from that approach, as I think it is possible to become too dependent on that kind of material, and that kind of thinking. Eventually, the student must own the material for himself, and be able to look more deeply into it to make it useful. Exactly when and how that transition is done is something I am not sure about. I think you are right tho, it should at least be started prior to dan grades.

 

[kidswarrior]

the stockpile of commendation for the above posts....

I musta missed even more than I thought. Anybody know about a stockpile....? Hello, anyone...?

I'm impressed by the thinking that's gone into this thread and I'm regretful that these days, because I do a solely weapon based art, I can't really contribute from a current, involved, perspective. The fact that iaido is almost all forms doesn't exactly give me an unbiased view either .

But that's not a bad thing. And you do have the earlier experience to call on.

One thing I would like to add my paltry emphasis to tho' is a point that's been hit on a couple of times now. That is that it is depth of understanding rather than breadth of knowing about a lot of style attributes that is key.

The mental/internal side of the equation is the one that starts to really matter once you've crossed the rubicon to Dan grade territory.

Yeah, just when I think I may be getting good, something shows me how shallow my understanding really is. But maybe that's just life, eh? Too soon old, too late wise? Ah, but you're all young yet. Where're Drac, and exile, and morph4me? OR Tez3, even? Oh, sorry guys, didn't mean to out you. Now, back to the thread.

Great stuff, hope you all keep posting as I'm learning a lot.

 

[kidswarrior]

I think you are correct here. For the beginners, it is important to have more of the material mapped out clearly, perhaps a progression thru the syllabus, as well as clear applications for the material. But gradually a student must be lead away from that approach, as I think it is possible to become too dependent on that kind of material, and that kind of thinking. Eventually, the student must own the material for himself, and be able to look more deeply into it to make it useful. Exactly when and how that transition is done is something I am not sure about. I think you are right tho, it should at least be started prior to dan grades.

Michael, that means a lot to me. Thanks for sharing your experience and opinion.

~Mark

 

[exile]

Guys, I live yet! Was involved for a while in a very bizarre wrangle over on the `limited poomse' thread about the value of using head-high kicks in a real streetfight on broken surfaces in street shoes and jeans with all kinds of crap in the environment that keeps you from moving freely (you can figure what my positiion on the matter was... :wink1 and only recently have disentangled myself from it. There is so much outstanding content here that I'm kind of blown away by it and need to reread S_T's, Kidswarrior's and FC's posts before I come up with a halway intelligent response to it... will do later on this evening.

You know what, though? I think we, collectively, need to get together, sit down and write a book about this stuff. If we're worrying about it and thinking about it, there are probably a lot of folk out there who are thinking and worrying about the same thing. I'm not kidding!!!

IN Edit Like Mark, I have several pages of notes that I've generated in fretting over how to move forms back into a central position in guiding MA instruction. I am gonna try to write up something coherent and post it shortly... I also owe Iceman some notes on that very odd WTF apologia-as-history of TKD... am trying to get a textbook written and a long paper... I really do mean well, I'm just not very efficient...

 

[Xue Sheng]

Just to chime in here

Taiji and Xingyi are big on form and structure in the beginning, not so much rank however.

It is not likely that you will get into actual fighting with either in the first couple of years. As for curriculum the only thing my Taiji sifu teaches to every single person that he requires them to learn is the long form and which is the very first thing you learn. And he rarely teaches any applications during the time he is teaching the first form. The proper posture is much more important, without it you have no application and you have no health benefit and no qi benefit. It is later after he has taught students the moving sets of push hands that he starts to emphasize application. But there is no written progression as to what forms you need to learn first and there is no guarantee he will teach you any applications at all. That is based on when he thinks you are ready to learn not when you think you are ready to learn. If he feels your form is bad he will not show any applications because without the proper form you will not understand the application or be able to apply it properly. This generally translates to the application will look very awkward and/or use too much force.

Taiji is a lot of forms work in the beginning, Long form, fast forms, weapons forms qigong forms, etc and all are important to train to understand the real martial application of it. So it could be argued that it is a total fighting system based on form, I feel there is more to it, but not so much in the beginning.

My Xingyi sifu focused on Wuji, Santi (Standing postures) and Wu Xing (5 elements) at the beginning and taught applications for each of the 5 element forms as we went along. However he was still not teaching fighting. Again structure is VERY important to Xingyi and without proper structure applications just do not work well. With structure Xingyi hits like a truck but without it you are not so powerful and if you are you are using too much muscle and will not last long.

EDIT:
Just read exiles response, we must have been posting at the same time. It made me want to add this. Forms are central to the majority of CMA styles in existence. And to the internal styles they are, I believe, even more important.

 

[Flying Crane]

You know what, though? I think we, collectively, need to get together, sit down and write a book about this stuff. If we're worrying about it and thinking about it, there are probably a lot of folk out there who are thinking and worrying about the same thing. I'm not kidding!!!

IN Edit Like Mark, I have several pages of notes that I've generated in fretting over how to move forms back into a central position in guiding MA instruction. I am gonna try to write up something coherent and post it shortly... I also owe Iceman some notes on that very odd WTF apologia-as-history of TKD... am trying to get a textbook written and a long paper... I really do mean well, I'm just not very efficient...

A few years ago I made a couple of attempts to modify my kenpo curriculum. At times, I find the vast number of SD techs to be cumbersome in training, and I felt that perhaps they could be reduced in number, eliminating some that seemed repetitive, and some that seemed to me somewhat less well-thought-out.

I also felt that all the SD techs in the curriculum should be contained in a kata somewhere. Currently, in our system, many are contained in kata, but many also are not. My rationale for this is pretty simple. I was looking at kata as primarily a catalog of effective techniques, and a way to practice when you don't have partners to train with, which is frequently my situation. With this in mind, I felt it made sense to make sure all the SD techs are contained somewhere in the forms, and not existing as a freefloating piece out in the nebula. My needs were very simple: I am able to remember more material when it is contained within a form, then when they are otherwise unconnected, individual ideas. So if the entire syllabus of techs were contained in kata, I could practice the entire system without having to keep a technique list with me to make sure I haven't forgotten anything. And believe me, our syllabus is that long, you can't remember everything without a list. Now don't get me wrong, I know the techs, the name is enough to spark my memory to execute it. It's just that there are so many, it's easy to forget what is on the list. So with the shorter list that I would end up with, I would attempt to create catalog kata to sweep up any techs that were not otherwise in our kata.

I am suspending all my prior judgements about my kenpo, and I am retraining everything with a new teacher who is among the most senior and most experienced in our lineage. I felt that I should give the complete system another go-around, make sure I understand it as well as I can from a very knowledgeable source, before I even start to consider such an endeavor. But at least this gives you an idea of how I have been thinking about things.

As far as writing a book goes, it's an interesting idea, but a difficult one as well. I really believe that kata and forms from different systems were not created in the same manner, or with the same elements always in mind. This is why I found Abernathy's book not so useful, because I don't know the kata he was basing his information on, and from what he wrote, I don't believe my kata from kenpo, or forms from my Chinese arts follow the rules he outlines. I don't believe there are broad rules from one Chinese system to another, either. So any book or other writings may need to be focused on a very specific kata or series of kata, and would not apply across the board. Interesting idea, however.

So have at it, friends...

 

[kidswarrior]

You know what, though? I think we, collectively, need to get together, sit down and write a book about this stuff. If we're worrying about it and thinking about it, there are probably a lot of folk out there who are thinking and worrying about the same thing. I'm not kidding!!!

Have had this same thought, all except for the 'get together' part which is tough for me, and perhaps others. But if we could do it via electronics and snail mail (and I believe we could), then why not? I know several of us have been published already, so the experience is no secret. Writing a best-seller, now that's a secret--at least, it's above my security clearance.