forms??? my kenpo rant!

[cfr]

People people people. So sorry to really stress out some of you by asking this question.
Apparently there are some really die hard forms fans out there. I thought I mentioned
I am open to learning something about them which I have never thought of. I really didnt
mean to show any disrespect or insult anybody. Just to find out if there is any value
to them which I am missing. Ive read lots of good ideas here and Im a little more open
minded now then before. One thing Im still kind of confused on though is this. How does
anyone explain all the styles which dont use forms. If you are saying something like "Im
a much better martial artist because of forms" , does that mean you would not be as good
of martial artist if Kenpo didnt use them??? Or if you were in another art which doesnt use
them??? Just a thought.

 

[Blindside]

Hi cfr,

I don't think you stressed all that many people out, it is that they have strong feelings on the subject.

I was thinking of the arts that do not have use forms/kata and many of them are martial sports (fencing, kendo, wrestling, BJJ, muay thai) but there are some martial arts (JKD, many FMA systems, that being said, some FMA instructors do place value in forms.)

Many of the systems that don't use forms use "live application" instead, such as doing their sport, or full contact sparring (JKD), use of sticks instead of blades for simulation (FMA.) Many modern systems use combinations of forms and live application (Judo, most Kenpo, Wing Chun). I think that if you are going to eliminate forms you must replace them with some other training methodology.

I honestly believe I could train a good Kenpoist without the use of forms, certainly nobody thinks Professor Chow's kenpo was poor because he didn't use forms. Who knows, this may be the arrogance of a mere 1st Black speaking.

Salute,

Lamont

 

[Rob_Broad]

I don't think anyone is stressed out because of the initial question, we are just passionate about the art we love. You are proabably looking at a century of training among the peple who posted in this thread, I know that between the Golden Dragon and myself there is over 50 yrs of training combined. Forms are an integral part of the art, and should never be overlooked.

As for styles that do not do any forms, that does make the practioners of that style any less effective or any less of a martial artist. It just means they are using different tools to accomplish the same job. But a style that originally has forms should not take them out, because that is where many of the lessons are hidden. Just imagine a boxer not learning to uppercut, would that person be lacking an important part of their training?

 

[kenpo3631]

No a bad question. It gets the brain working with an infinite hypothesis.

This is a forum for opinions and you said yours.

My feeling is this, regardless of the number of years one trains at Kenpo, if your instructor understands the Art...you will soon realize that the forms were Mr. Parkers "babies". They contain all of the opposites and reverses in the Art, plus numerous other concepts touched upon in other replies or that are forthcoming.

I personally have all the forms up to Long 6, and you know what, if I could just master one of them it would be Long Form 4....however I don't have several lifetimes so I guess I will keep on pluggin.:asian:

 

[RCastillo]

I came in too late to add my 2 cents. Thanks for waiting for me!

Ya bums!:soapbox:

 

[Nightingale]

well, Rich...

he who hesitates meditates...
in the horizontal position.

 

[RCastillo]

Originally posted by nightingale8472

well, Rich...

he who hesitates meditates...
in the horizontal position.

Sounds like a plan, I better hit the hay!

 

[Seig]

Originally posted by RCastillo

I came in too late to add my 2 cents. Thanks for waiting for me!

Ya bums!:soapbox:

That's what ya get for nappin old timer!:soapbox:

 

[RCastillo]

Originally posted by Seig


That's what ya get for nappin old timer!:soapbox:

Gee, Thanks for your support! I think I'll line up in back of the class.

 

[Goldendragon7]

but not the ONLY tool.......... sure you can be trained without forms.... it all depends upon what it is that you are after. Many of us want a Martial "ART" which includes, expands or explains the definition of Martial. If you just want to spar then sure shadow boxing has a minor role but you need to spar......

All is found in your specific goals desired....

:asian:

 

[jazkiljok]

Originally posted by cfr

. How does
anyone explain all the styles which dont use forms. If you are saying something like "Im
a much better martial artist because of forms" , does that mean you would not be as good
of martial artist if Kenpo didnt use them??? Or if you were in another art which doesnt use
them??? Just a thought.

the question really is why are forms not used in certain styles- as noted combat sports aren't form oriented since they rely on fewer techniques and are able to be executed with minimum injury risk to the practitoners. there simply isn't a need to have a form for boxing (beyond say shadow boxing), muay thai or gracie jiu jitsu.

in fact pure grappling styles have little use for forms- real resistance is the only way you can teach grappling skills.

some modern eclectic styles which are based on quick self defense skills are not looking to achieve anything more then drills to activate gross motors skills for common attacks.
the object here is to ingrain these skills in a short amount of time studying. there is no black belt or higher realm to obtain, no
need for internal strength training; the basics aren't overly scrutinized and general targets are emphasized (testicles, knees, eyes, throat) for effectiveness.

forms were developed as a method of training and study for both teacher and student alike dealing with the striking/kicking arts mainly. chi kung training also applies. essentially if stances, breathing, footwork, body alignment, are important to your art, the forms allow for correction by teacher and self correction by student as well.

there is something to note with kenpo forms- they were worked backwards- the original Chow Kenpo had no forms- the forms Parker developed with his chinese mentors in SF were made to absorbed the kenpo techniques. In chinese chaunfa and japanese karate- applications are pulled from forms. they don't have technique lists as you see in Kenpo- they have forms from whence technique application can be derived.

in some ways its understandable your position on forms- if you are doing the techniques in the air and on a body- what can stringing them together and doing them solo bring to the process. a fair question.

some have given you those answers already.

and there are more but it's a good start.

side note: arts that use forms/kata include

Indonesian Pentjak
Chinese Chaunfa
Indian Martial Arts
Polynesian Martial Arts (lua)
Japanese Karate

most of these arts were precursor systems that many modern masters used as the basis for their own newly created "no form" systems.


peace :asian:

 

[brianhunter]

Originally posted by jazkiljok



the question really is why are forms not used in certain styles- as noted combat sports aren't form oriented since they rely on fewer techniques and are able to be executed with minimum injury risk to the practitoners. there simply isn't a need to have a form for boxing (beyond say shadow boxing), muay thai or gracie jiu jitsu.

in fact pure grappling styles have little use for forms- real resistance is the only way you can teach grappling skills.

some modern eclectic styles which are based on quick self defense skills are not looking to achieve anything more then drills to activate gross motors skills for common attacks.
the object here is to ingrain these skills in a short amount of time studying. there is no black belt or higher realm to obtain, no
need for internal strength training; the basics aren't overly scrutinized and general targets are emphasized (testicles, knees, eyes, throat) for effectiveness.

forms were developed as a method of training and study for both teacher and student alike dealing with the striking/kicking arts mainly. chi kung training also applies. essentially if stances, breathing, footwork, body alignment, are important to your art, the forms allow for correction by teacher and self correction by student as well.

there is something to note with kenpo forms- they were worked backwards- the original Chow Kenpo had no forms- the forms Parker developed with his chinese mentors in SF were made to absorbed the kenpo techniques. In chinese chaunfa and japanese karate- applications are pulled from forms. they don't have technique lists as you see in Kenpo- they have forms from whence technique application can be derived.

in some ways its understandable your position on forms- if you are doing the techniques in the air and on a body- what can stringing them together and doing them solo bring to the process. a fair question.

some have given you those answers already.

and there are more but it's a good start.

side note: arts that use forms/kata include

Indonesian Pentjak
Chinese Chaunfa
Indian Martial Arts
Polynesian Martial Arts (lua)
Japanese Karate

most of these arts were precursor systems that many modern masters used as the basis for their own newly created "no form" systems.


peace :asian:

Learn something new every day! Well said man!

 

[Goldendragon7]

First off Chow did have forms..... I have seen a video clip of him competing with it.

In American Kenpo, Forms and Sets are expressions of Basic skills. As such they are divided into sections...... the first 4 forms are dictionaries....... short 3 and beyond are considered the encyclopedia and the sets are the appendices.

As to the "training" of these drills, remember we can practice either "SOLO" or with a "PARTNER OR PARTNERS". To just practice solo is to not achieve the full benefit of the drills. So it is obvious that you must expand your training to include partners to be able to add resistance and variation to the meanings thus more reality than just solo where you are in idealand and everything you do works.

:asian:

 

[Rainman]

Originally posted by jazkiljok



the question really is why are forms not used in certain styles- as noted combat sports aren't form oriented since they rely on fewer techniques and are able to be executed with minimum injury risk to the practitoners. there simply isn't a need to have a form for boxing (beyond say shadow boxing), muay thai or gracie jiu jitsu.

in fact pure grappling styles have little use for forms- real resistance is the only way you can teach grappling skills.



peace :asian:

two man set is a form- I believe I have seen a grappling equivilent from either gracie or machado or both. Chin na is grappling and it does have a form as well. So does eagle claw system- has a grapling form that is. As far as I understand, a form is just pre arranged movements and/or teks... meanings and so forth could fill a book.

:asian:

 

[jazkiljok]

Originally posted by Goldendragon7

First off Chow did have forms..... I have seen a video clip of him competing with it.


:asian:

just not at the time he taught Mr. Parker. it is my understanding that the original forms that Ed Parker introduced were chinese (hun gar? ) which he got from his visits to the SF chinese masters - they did not come from Chow (correct me here otherwise).

Chow added forms later as he both changed the name of his system and his partnerships- as to the creation of those forms- well bill Chun jr. has his story. Castro his story. Kuoha his. Cerio had one too...

i simply concluded that they were not apart of his original kenpo karate which Ed Parker came to the mainland with.

ps- a vid with Chow in some competition? well, did he win?

also for rainman- read my post again- i don't make a blanket statement, cause it's a wide world- but in general i'll stand by my comments- chin na is the grappling component of the chinese arts- taught in all styles by those knowledgeable- it is not a style onto itself. i did say pure grappling systems- i.e. not focused on kicking or striking arts/ most schools of grappling (judo, wrestling, shootfighting) do not teach a "grappling" kata. bbj? haven't heard of or seen it yet- (bbj's please correct othewise.) also only know of a sword kata in aikido.

peace.

:asian:

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by jazkiljok

it is my understanding that the original forms that Ed Parker introduced were chinese (hun gar? ) which he got from his visits to the SF chinese masters

I have seen kenpo forms demonstarted and they certainly looked Chinese to me--down to the one finger salute behind the elbow.

but in general i'll stand by my comments- chin na is the grappling component of the chinese arts- taught in all styles by those knowledgeable- it is not a style onto itself. i did say pure grappling systems- i.e. not focused on kicking or striking arts/ most schools of grappling (judo, wrestling, shootfighting) do not teach a "grappling" kata. bbj? haven't heard of or seen it yet- (bbj's please correct othewise.) also only know of a sword kata in aikido.

I would agree about Chin Na (maybe not taught in all styles). Judo does have kata, as do some Japanese jujitsu styles. Apart from sword arts (iaido, kenjutsu) it's rare to see Japanese swordsmanship outside of aikido and ninjutsu.

 

[jazkiljok]

What the judoka call kata are two men sets with one being uke the other tori- they are essentially what we call doing "techniques" in kenpo- one man dummies the other whups butt. The point is you really got to throw, lock, etc to do these exercises- he’s not going fly in the air and fall without you having to move him- i.e. resistance. --(no aikido cracks please)

There aren’t any one man forms/kata- though I was told that Jigaro had some for his advanced ranks- design to teach….. well... kicking and striking. :shrug:

Perhaps I should have said regardless of style- the chinese frequently bounced around to who ever had certain knowledge and would simply add to there base style these grappling skills-just as they would learn weapons. Chin Na is almost always an aspect taught of some chaunfa/kung fu style- i.e Taichi, Praying Mantis, Shaolin, Full Process Color Dragon, etc... but i've yet to see anyone offer it solo.

:asian:

 

[Rainman]

Originally posted by jazkiljok



also for rainman- read my post again- i don't make a blanket statement, cause it's a wide world- but in general i'll stand by my comments- chin na is the grappling component of the chinese arts- taught in all styles by those knowledgeable- it is not a style onto itself. i did say pure grappling systems- i.e. not focused on kicking or striking arts/ most schools of grappling (judo, wrestling, shootfighting) do not teach a "grappling" kata. bbj? haven't heard of or seen it yet- (bbj's please correct othewise.) also only know of a sword kata in aikido.

peace.

:asian:

Probably arts with a competitive nature. I've seen chin na presented on its own (very rare) but mainly as a sub system within arts as you have said. My main point was that I have seen grappling forms that do exist... although more than likely they are very rare. Shootfighting allows puches and kicks, elbows and knees has roots in sumo, wrestling, muy tai, and judo. I think no punches to the head.

Had some lessons with an olympic judo coach- no striking- no kata but it never occured to me to ask about his thoughts on such. He was very knowledgable and someone I wish I would have stayed in contact with. Wrestling doesn't have submissions as far as I understand so while it is grappling it is (stand up as well) limited in scope. That may or may not detract from purity depending on what you are using as a point of reference.

Forms as a point- they exist where they do for a myriad of reasons- Pure is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. Grappling and striking can be one in the samething depending on how you interpret movement.



:asian: