If your art has tests, are they cumulative or do your students brain dump?

[skribs]

The issue with brain dumping for me is that higher grades need to be able to help lower grades. They can't do that in the brain dump scenario. Which I guess is OK if the green belts and white belts are never in the same class, and the syllabus is structured in such a way that it isn't a problem.

But still, IMO there isn't that much new material at each belt level that the whole time in class needs to be dedicated to it.

That time is better spent re-practicing something known (basic foundations) than practicing only new, more advanced skills and dropping the underlying basics.

There are some things that hold true right through the journey, and those tend to be the things in the early forms.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Higher grades have no problem helping lower grades when they are in class together. They might not be able to teach the patterns, but they can help with their fundamentals and individual techniques.

 

[Flying Crane]

There are two differences I see. The first is that kata are a part of the system, and as such should be learned/practiced, as each kata is used to train something different. That's not true of drills that an instructor makes.

The second difference is that, from what @Flying Crane stated, I am assuming that he's referring to the short drills you practice in order to learn creativity/spontaneity while training. In that case, you actively don't want to be memorizing and working on all of them. Instead you want to be able to be given a drill, and do it on the spot, so that you learn how to adapt. I actually have had those as parts of tests before; either no-minds where someone punches/grabs however they choose and I have to react, or being told do "X then Y then Z" and expected to do it well, with no advanced warning. There are different expectations because the purpose is different.

Yes.

From my point of view, it depends on what material has been formally codified as part of the curriculum. Kata is. Some kinds of drills are, like chi sau in wing chun or push hands in taiji. Other drills are not. Some combinations may be considered as standard go-to and are akin to codified but it might be a bit more flexible and loose. Others are just spontaneous combos to work at the moment and then move on, not meant to be codified and standardized forever.

If it is a codified part of the curriculum, I would expect it to be something a student does not throw away.

Some spontaneous combinations could show up on a test, but it literally could be a brand new combination that you have never seen before because that is the whole point of that exercise, to be flexible and creative.

 

[Flying Crane]

Kata help reinforce the techniques, teach discipline (especially for the kids who want to rush through it), help strengthen our legs and reinforce the stances, and help with memory and neurological pathways (we had a brain cancer survivor who found the forms to really help her get her mind back on track).

My reasoning is as I said above. In middle school, I was practicing my basic arithmetic in the context of algebra, i.e. if I needed to do 4x + 5x = Y, then I'd still need to know 4 + 5 = 9, so 4x + 5x = 9x. If the advanced form includes all concepts covered in previous forms, but expanded on, why do you need to practice the previous form?
.

It sounds to me like your kata are structured differently from the forms I train.

We have certain fundamentals that are consistent to our method and will be found in all of our forms. So those things are constantly trained and given work, regardless of what form we are doing.

But otherwise the forms are rather different in pattern and applications involved for the techniques. So learning one does not replace a previous one. Rather, you are increasing your repertoire.

Forms are a tool meant to help develop certain skills. I don’t like to speak in terms of being good at a form because to me, that implies the form is a product meant to be performed and I do not agree with that. Rather, a form is just a tool we continuously practice in an effort to improve our skills. In that way it isn’t any different from hitting a heavy bag: you just keep doing it in an effort to improve. You are neither good at, nor bad at, the form, but a good teacher can gauge your skill by watching your form. Likewise, getting good at hitting a heavy bag is not the point, but hitting the heavy bag helps you get good at hitting an enemy. And a good teacher can judge your skill to some degree by watching you hit the bag.

Theoretically, once you really learn and master a skill, you could make an argument that you no longer need the tool and therefor discard the form. But in reality I believe that the form continues to be a useful tool for practice, forever.

Honestly, I believe that some systems pile up a list of forms/kata in their curriculum that can grow too large. When that happens the curriculum becomes cumbersome and difficult to practice because there is simply too much to do and not enough time. A form needs to be practiced frequently in order to get benefit from it. If you have so much material that you only do each form once a month, I doubt you are getting much benefit from it. I think it is possible to get a lot of mileage out of a modest amount of material, and I am a fan of that approach, rather than building a curriculum that is so large as to be cumbersome. I feel that three to eight forms, well understood and trained regularly, can be useful, and if you have more than that, it becomes questionable. But that really is for each to ultimately determine for themselves.

However that may be, I feel that if the material is codified as part of the formal curriculum, then you don’t throw it away after you learn something else. If you begin to feel that the curriculum is too large then it might be a sign that you want to consider a different system. If you are a highly experienced person you might consider consolidating what you do and streamlining your own personal curriculum, which could mean ejecting some material if you honestly feel it isn’t necessary. But that is a personal choice and might mean you are on your own and no longer training with your school.

 

[skribs]

I don’t like to speak in terms of being good at a form because to me, that implies the form is a product meant to be performed and I do not agree with that.

That is a point on which we differ, then. We consider the forms to be part of the art, even to the point that our demonstration team has forms specific for demonstration. They're useful training tools, to teach body control, techniques, and discipline, but they are also a performance piece.

 

[Flying Crane]

That is a point on which we differ, then. We consider the forms to be part of the art, even to the point that our demonstration team has forms specific for demonstration. They're useful training tools, to teach body control, techniques, and discipline, but they are also a performance piece.

That is a more recent/modern use for forms. If that is part of what your schools does then that is fine, but understand that historically that is not how forms were meant to be used. This may explain why you and I are disagreeing on whether or not an early form should be kept or discarded. If the form is for performance, you would work on the one that is most impressive to an audience.

A form designed for performance is likely to have fundamental differences from one designed to train combat skills. More leeway is given to impress the audience with athleticism and techniques that may look impressive but be unreliable or even hazardous if attempted in actual combat or self defense. Fundamentals may be altered for asthetic appeal even if it undermines the usefulness and effectiveness of the technique itself. Sometimes these alterations can be structurally unsound and ultimately lead to injury.

 

[skribs]

A form designed for performance is likely to have fundamental differences from one designed to train combat skills. More leeway is given to impress the audience with athleticism and techniques that may look impressive but be unreliable or even hazardous if attempted in actual combat or self defense. Fundamentals may be altered for asthetic appeal even if it undermines the usefulness and effectiveness of the technique itself. Sometimes these alterations can be structurally unsound and ultimately lead to injury.

In our demonstration forms, yes. In our curriculum, I do not believe that to be the case.

 

[Flying Crane]

In our demonstration forms, yes. In our curriculum, I do not believe that to be the case.

Ok, so you guys are making a deliberate distinction between the two, and that is a good thing. I think not all schools are quite honest about that.

So then, with your forms that are not designed for performance, do you feel that a later form is designed to deliberately replace an earlier form, or is there room to see them as parts of the whole that are meant to be worked together to expand the repertoire?

 

[EddieCyrax]

I train in Kempo and our school's test are cumulative. My black belt test lasted 7 hours.

As i went through the ranks the older material was expected to continue to be presented more readily with sharper more precision as you had it for a while. The minimal reprieve received was on the newer material, but you still had to know all the parts and demonstrate you knew it.

Goal of the test, at least at the higher ranks, was how well the material was in grained in to you. How well could you just react and demonstrate the various techniques. And like someone earlier stated.....Kempo has a lot of techniques.

All the blackbelts at my school can demonstrate and teach any under ranks.

 

[JR 137]

Ok, so you guys are making a deliberate distinction between the two, and that is a good thing. I think not all schools are quite honest about that.

So then, with your forms that are not designed for performance, do you feel that a later form is designed to deliberately replace an earlier form, or is there room to see them as parts of the whole that are meant to be worked together to expand the repertoire?

Some forms in karate were designed as entry-level skills in a sense, making the longer, more intricate forms easier to learn later on.

When karate was first being taught to kids in schools, Funakoshi developed the Taikyoku kata. It was as simplistic as he could make a kata - minimal stances and stance changes, minimal hand techniques, etc. Yes, it has combative application. But it’s claim to fame, in a sense, is an introduction to kata overall. It’s name (depending on exact translation) says it all - “Taking the overview.”

Pinan kata were allegedly developed by Itosu; he took Kanku/Kusanku apart and made them 5 distinct kata, making them progressively more difficult. They were intended to easier teach children and beginners, instead of the first kata they learned being Kanku. There’s some evidence that every individual part of what I say isn’t true, but you know how oral history goes.

Miyagi developed the Geksai kata to teach beginners a simpler and standardized kata. Another person who’s name escapes my memory is said to have co-developed them and called them Fukyu instead.

Not completely in opposition to your points, but not in complete agreement either.

 

[skribs]

Ok, so you guys are making a deliberate distinction between the two, and that is a good thing. I think not all schools are quite honest about that.

So then, with your forms that are not designed for performance, do you feel that a later form is designed to deliberately replace an earlier form, or is there room to see them as parts of the whole that are meant to be worked together to expand the repertoire?

For the most part they replace earlier forms, especially the first several. That which isn't replaced in the new forms is usually replaced in the form of another technique. For example, some of the footwork in our Blue Belt forms is replaced by the footwork we use with Eskrima techniques at black belt.

 

[Flying Crane]

It sounds like there are some fundamental differences in use and intention between kata in the Karate and Tae Kwon Do lineages than the forms used in Chinese systems.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Higher grades have no problem helping lower grades when they are in class together. They might not be able to teach the patterns, but they can help with their fundamentals and individual techniques.

If they do not know the lower rank forms, they should go back to that lower rank. Seriously. I'd pull the belt right off someone and swap it for one of the appropriate lower rank.

 

[JR 137]

It sounds like there are some fundamental differences in use and intention between kata in the Karate and Tae Kwon Do lineages than the forms used in Chinese systems.

Yes and no, as far as karate kata vs Chinese forms. I can’t comment on TKD, having zero experience with it.

The taikyoku kata were developed by Funakoshi, founder of Shotokan. A lot of Shotokan schools don’t do them, or only teach them to kids. Some do them across the board. Some use them as a simple introduction, others use the combative techniques. IMO that’s part of the “art” of MA - taking something and using it in any appropriate way.

The kata I listed - taikyoku series, pinan series, and gekisai series are kyu (non black belt) level kata. How they’re used depends more on the teacher/organization than anything else. They definitely have combative applications, but it’s the teachers’ discretion, so to speak, as to what they’re used for. Sometimes, the focus of them is purely performance at lower ranks, then application of the same kata at relatively higher ranks. Sometimes it’s purely performance throughout the ranks, other times it’s purely combative application from day one. Depends on the school.

My point is, being a “karate thing” is way too generic. That’s like saying the point in forms and how they’re presented and applied is the same throughout CMA. I have no CMA experience, it I’m quite sure there’s a ton of variation of the hows and whys of CMA forms.

 

[JR 137]

Then there’s kata that don’t have much as far as the individual movements’ applications go, but they’re obviously not for show either...

Not many kata follow this reason, but if you think about it, you could probably do this with any kata. Yet another facet of kata. And not everyone who does Sanchin does this. Some have never seen anything like it despite doing the kata for years.

 

[skribs]

If they do not know the lower rank forms, they should go back to that lower rank. Seriously. I'd pull the belt right off someone and swap it for one of the appropriate lower rank.

We have plenty of people that have watched the higher level forms and can do them. But of course, they do them terribly, don't understand the nuances, and haven't developed their techniques very well. Should we give them a higher belt because they know the form?

Our higher level students can follow along with a lower form, and have the proper stances, techniques, pacing, and displays of power. They may need to follow with the group or be reminded of the pattern, but they can still do the form, and in doing so display the techniques at the level expected of their current belt.

So we should give the Red Belts a Purple Belt because they don't have the Purple Belt form memorized anymore, even if when asked to perform with the purple belts they can follow along and perform the blocks and strikes at a Red Belt level?

 

[Headhunter]

The whole point of martial arts is you practice what you learn for your muscle memory so if you need it you can use it instinctively why bother learning something for a belt then never practice again it's a waste of time. Like when I was at school I had to learn French for exams, I did the exam passed it but now I've forgotten every single thing from it so if I go to France all that learning I did would be useless

 

[Headhunter]

If they do not know the lower rank forms, they should go back to that lower rank. Seriously. I'd pull the belt right off someone and swap it for one of the appropriate lower rank.

Absolutely how can a black belt teach the beginner the lower if he's forgotten it from over the years that just makes for bad teaching and bad practitioners and the cycle continues and the forms get worse and worse

 

[skribs]

Absolutely how can a black belt teach the beginner the lower if he's forgotten it from over the years that just makes for bad teaching and bad practitioners and the cycle continues and the forms get worse and worse

If you'd read my post that already responded to the thread: they still understand and practice the stances, footwork, and techniques. They just don't have all of the patterns memorized.

Which is worse? Someone with sloppy fundamentals who has memorized the pattern, or someone with sound fundamentals who does not remember a specific pattern?

The Forms we use build on each other. A higher level form includes the same fundamentals as lower level forms. When a form is replaced, the fundamentals it contains are not gone. The lessons, techniques, footwork, muscle memory, etc. are still practiced, just in different ways.

 

[Headhunter]

If you'd read my post that already responded to the thread: they still understand and practice the stances, footwork, and techniques. They just don't have all of the patterns memorized.

Which is worse? Someone with sloppy fundamentals who has memorized the pattern, or someone with sound fundamentals who does not remember a specific pattern?

The Forms we use build on each other. A higher level form includes the same fundamentals as lower level forms. When a form is replaced, the fundamentals it contains are not gone. The lessons, techniques, footwork, muscle memory, etc. are still practiced, just in different ways.

Well they should have it memorised because they should be practicing otherwise again what's the point. If those fundamentals are going to be shown in a later form so there's no point doing them in the earlier forms then just completely get rid of the early forms. If they're not going to do that they should stop being lazy and keep practicing everything

 

[skribs]

Well they should have it memorised because they should be practicing otherwise again what's the point. If those fundamentals are going to be shown in a later form so there's no point doing them in the earlier forms then just completely get rid of the early forms. If they're not going to do that they should stop being lazy and keep practicing everything

So should we not teach kids arithmetic, since they'll be practicing addition and multiplication in algebra? Should we stop putting training wheels on bicycles for new riders?

The fundamentals find their way into more advanced forms because they're fundamentals. The earlier forms teach those, but they can be maintained with the higher forms, just like you can maintain your understanding of arithmetic by balancing formulas in algebra.