The Point in Forms

[Chiduce]

Originally posted by tonbo

I'll buy that. I don't deny that parts of forms get used in actual sparring or combat. I just find it hard to believe that someone would actually be able to pull off a full technique that consists of more than a couple of moves.

Then again, I ain't all that experienced, IMHO...

For example: a very simple technique that I know is as follows, against a right punch: From a right guarding stance, right inward block to opponent's punch. Follow with a right back knuckle to the temple, then a right back knuckle to the solar plexus. Right elbow smash to the left pin of the jaw, followed by a right outward shuto to opponent's right side of neck. End with a right inward shuto to the opponent's left side of the neck.

Okay, please understand, this is a VERY basic technique, and I have left out checks, use of the left hand, and other "cool" bits--just put in the very bare bones.

Now, even if I change the targeting of the elbow to hit the chest (to be more "legal" in sparring), I *still* can't pull this whole technique off. Usually, I get about half of it before all bets are off (before my opponent either hits me or gets too close to hitting me).

Maybe I don't think or move fast enough, I don't know. However, I have been told before that my situation is fairly typical. I have also been told not to rely on being able to get off whole techniques, whether from forms or not--stick to the simple moves, put together in short, simple sets. For me, flowing and doing the old "stick and move" works much better than pulling in sets from a form or whole techniques.

I won't deny that there are some forms more geared toward combat. Makes sense. However, I will stick to the belief that "forms is forms and sparring is sparring"; forms, like techniques, were created for "ideal" situations. I have yet to have an opponent hit me or attempt to hit me in an "ideal" situation. There is usually more going on....

Anyway, not to argue with you. If you or your students pull off techniques, or if anyone else does, hey....more power to you. My opinions are my own, based on my experience. If I am wrong, so be it (I know I need to train more, anyway--always will!).

Thanks for the reply!!

Peace--

That was a pretty devastating technique for the defense against a right punch. It reminds me of our orange VII defense against the same punch. I agree with you about having not to use the complete technique in either sparring or actual street confrontation. Yet, depending on the level of martial skill with which the stylist has will probably determine which set of moves he/she will use as the go ahead motion to end the confrontation. In sparring it would just expose the level of contact and degree of physical exertion, where martial abilities would be more prevailent even though skill would be a factor. Thus, in sparring in different situations it would be putting together the winning sets of motion. In the streets or any potentially fatal situation it would be through yielding and adaptation; the putting together of life saving finishes (once the intial contact is made), (through one's martial level of skill) to fail the violent life threatening and fatally damaging attack.
Sincerely, In Humility;
Chiduce!

 

[tonbo]

Wooo.....where to begin?

Okay, first of all, the technique that I described is an orange belt technique. By the time you learn this technique, you have been in the art for about, oh, 6-8 months. Essentially, you are still getting basics down. In a more advanced version, the second back knuckle actually strikes more in a downward "rolling" motion from the opponent's right lower ribs, heading down toward the dantien/bladder. As they double over or bend inward, you pop them back up with the right elbow. When they go back up, you wrap the outward shuto into their neck, aiming to do damage to the collarbone junction there, driving them downward again. Use your left hand to "check" their head to your left, exposing the other side of the neck for a similar inward strike. During this whole exercise, the left hand is being used for checks and "slaps", helping to position or brace the opponent into position for some of the strikes. You are also using your knees to keep contact with their lower body, so that you are in fairly close. No, the opponent will NOT "stand still" during the technique, and will move quite a bit--the advanced technique compensates for this by having you "ride" the body with the strikes and checks, positioning the opponent for each following strike. Blah, blah, blah. (Sorry, I don't want to rant on TOO much!!)

Anyway, you get the idea. Yeah, fights usually don't, and shouldn't last more than a "few moves". My point exactly. Most often, sets in forms are not quick or simple. They are designed to teach methods of motion, or what kinds of strikes logically follow others. IMHO, they are designed to get people to *think*, not just try to pull off techniques by rote.

Your example is something I would consider an exception. In the form you presented, that is something like 3 moves (depending on what you qualify as seperate moves). Quick and simple, and logically flows. Most form sets that I have had contact with are more like 5 or 6 moves. Again, you see how things work, and you adapt from there.

I totally agree that you can't spar like you would fight. There is no way to do that, short of gladitorial combat allowing maiming and death. You are very right there. However, I would disagree about the translation of forms into applicable techniques. My opinion (and this is my opinion, not gospel of ANY kind!!) is that you learn forms and techniques to give you the skills you need to truly defend yourself, but not necessarily tools for all occasions. A rough analogy is taking literature/writing classes. You may READ all the Tolstoy, Confucious, Dickens, etc. that is out there, but you won't necessarily *write* like them. You will develop what works for *you*. Your art gives you the forms and techniques so that you see how things work, and, when called upon to use them "in real life", you will be able to let your body (and training!!) take over. I still think that, given an actual situation, people will just MOVE, they won't think, "Oh, yeah...what was that technique against a right punch again?". That's my point--you learn techniques as tools, not *necessarily* something that you will use "verbatim" in a situation.

Anyway, I agree with quite a bit of what you have said, and I may be just rambling around here. I appreciate your pointing out that I had made a pretty broad generalization (and probably did it again at least once in this post!) about techniques and schools. I can only go off of my own experience, limited as it is. I do know that there are schools out there that teach short, quick, easily applicable techniques for situations. THOSE (much like your example) I can see being used directly from forms--2 to 3 moves is something most people can remember and use. Much more than that, they might have (might!) a problem.

Anyway, again, just my 2 yen. Your opinion and comments are well said and very appreciated.

:asian:

Peace--

 

[fissure]

Tonbo:

Most often, sets in forms are not quick or simple. They are designed to teach methods of motion, or what kinds of strikes logically follow others. IMHO, they are designed to get people to *think*, not just try to pull off techniques by rote.

I think you have a similar outlook on forms as me, if not I will apologise in advance!
I think forms are of great importance and contain many excelent tech., and combos. of tech. some of which are obvious - others take a little digging.
The aspect I have a problem with is taking an entire kata as a 'blue print' for a real fight that accually happened against multiple opponents.
I just try to imagine me and 3 or 4 evil henchmen attacking a peacefull Karate Master.I'm fairly sure we would 'bum rush' him all at once, not attack one at a time only to see each other destroyed while the rest of us wait our tern.
IMO segments of kata can be effective combat sequences.I believe that kata creators took many of these sequences and blended them together, resulting in the forms we have today.
I will now hide in the corner and await the on-slaught

 

[sweeper]

5 on 1? My bet is that master runs for the nearest weapon and attempts to stack as many of you as poasable..

 

[fissure]

5 on 1? My bet is that master runs for the nearest weapon and attempts to stack as many of you as poasable..

What would be your estimation as to the average number of imaginary attackers in an advanced Dan level form?

 

[Shinzu]

some of our dan forms use 4 imaginary opponents. i feel that is a good number, but maybe a bit unrealistic at times.

 

[sweeper]

I don't know I'm not the one that suggested the situation.

 

[Dronak]

Originally posted by fissure

I just try to imagine me and 3 or 4 evil henchmen attacking a peacefull Karate Master.I'm fairly sure we would 'bum rush' him all at once, not attack one at a time only to see each other destroyed while the rest of us wait our tern.

Not like I know, but I thought there was some logic behind not doing that in a fight -- if too many people attack at once, they'll end up just getting in each other's way. I thought that was why you normally don't see any more than two people attacking one person at once.

As for how many attackers are imagined in forms, I have no idea. All I can say is that for one of our basic forms when I tried to picture how I'd be attacked to use these combinations, I decided that there had to be more than one person attacking. Not sure how many, but some of the moves didn't seem to make any sense if there weren't at least two attackers. E.g., a strike forward followed by a strike backward -- what happened, the one attacker got hit, then ran around behind you to try to hit you from behind? Somehow I don't think so.

 

[fissure]

I just try to imagine me and 3 or 4 evil henchmen attacking a peacefull Karate Master

shinzu - Me plus 3 puts me at your number.
Sweeper:

I don't know I'm not the one that suggested the situation

Do you beleive that there are not multiple attackers implied in kata?If not what is your take on what is happening?Honestly, I want to know you take on this.
Dronak, many of our forms also have attacks/defences in two directions , dealing with multipule opponents at the same time.

I feel as though the last several post are mearly trying to poke holes in my comments, without bothering to answer or give different oppinions as to my main line of thought.
That is:

I think forms are of great importance and contain many excelent tech., and combos. of tech. some of which are obvious - others take a little digging.

The aspect I have a problem with is taking an entire kata as a 'blue print' for a real fight that accually happened against multiple opponents

The last in particular intersests me. Do you get the impression that entire kata could be the record of a 'battle plan' that was at some point carried out.Or do you feel that there are many effective 'groupings' of combat tech. 'mashed' together for the sake of practice?
I have given one line of thought about this. I know its fun to mearly take a word or sentance and then pick it apart.But if you have another concept for the real life use of the total kata, let me hear it.My oppinion of many things in MA has changed or at least been modified over the last couple of decades, give me your thoughts- maybe this could be another.:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Hi All,

Yes I do forms and I see the purpose of them, but it is not the 'most' enjoyable part of the art for me.

As for the, multiple attacker theme, have 3 to 5 guys who know how to attack together. What I am about to describe occurred while I was bouncing one evening.

6 guys causing problems and one took a swing at a young lady. I stopped it from happening. Things persuade from there and four made their move, while two waited for their turn. Two of the four each charged and grabbed an arm and tried to raise my jacket up over my head, the third of the four came around behind to attack my hips and legs, basically keeping me immobile. Or that was their attempt. The fourths plan was to punch me in the face while his friends held me. Needless to say with some blind luck, keeping my head just enough and two friendly people who picked up the two stragglers, I was able to kick and punch elbow and knee and roll on the floor with the four of them. Note: I did take my share of the same, and once we were rolling yes the four got in each others way, but they all knew their positions and keep trying to return to them when we would stand back up.

So practicing for multiple attackers no matter how it is, is a good idea in my mind.

Have a nice day everyone.

Rich
:asian:

 

[fissure]

Maybe I'm not asking my question in the right way, let me try this:
Rich Parsons -

I was able to kick and punch elbow and knee and roll on the floor with the four of them.

Lets transport you back in time and make you a founding farther of some MA.You have this same experience.You want to find a method of passing down your combat experience, you come up with forms.(good idead by the way!)
Do the forms you create each consist of movements and tech. that occured in one confrontation.Such that every form is a representation of a complete and seperate combat situation unto itself.Or are the situations from several instances strung together to form a convenient format to train these seperate combos?
My opinion is the later, I'm just want to know what other experienced people here think.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by fissure

Maybe I'm not asking my question in the right way, let me try this:
Rich Parsons -
Lets transport you back in time and make you a founding farther of some MA.You have this same experience.You want to find a method of passing down your combat experience, you come up with forms.(good idead by the way!)
Do the forms you create each consist of movements and tech. that occured in one confrontation.Such that every form is a representation of a complete and seperate combat situation unto itself.Or are the situations from several instances strung together to form a convenient format to train these seperate combos?
My opinion is the later, I'm just want to know what other experienced people here think.

Fissure,

My apologies for not getting the point.

Me personally, I think if the experience was a good experience, I would use that. If the experience was too short to be able to form a kata of length then I think stringing them together would be a great idea.

Now, here is what is in my forms/kata/dances, that almost all the techniques have different applications with slightly different moves and techniques. Talk about confusing for beginners.

I am not sure if I answered you question, in the manner you wanted.

Rich

 

[sweeper]

Sweeper:
quote: I don't know I'm not the one that suggested the situation

Do you beleive that there are not multiple attackers implied in kata?If not what is your take on what is happening?Honestly, I want to know you take on this.
Dronak, many of our forms also have attacks/defences in two directions , dealing with multipule opponents at the same time.

Well I don't exactly have loads of experience with forms but from what little I know of it I would say that rarely does it look like you would be fighting multiple attackers directly, rather you are fighting multiple attackers implicitly. For example, say you throw an attack one way than turn around to fire off another attack than turn 1/4 to fire a thired, that doesn't mean you are fighting 3 people, that "could" just mean you practiced a half turn and a quarter turn with two techniques so if you ever were forced to attack a flanking opponant than you would have some practice, but genneraly I don't think forms would have you in the middle of a gang of fighters simultaniously gighting in multiple directions, that could be an aplication but I don't think it would be a goal, not being a goal and assumming a practitioner attempted to avoid such a situation or get out of it asap than the majority of times you fight multiple attackers your situation would be diffrent. In other words it could be that you are in the center of multiple attackers but in my view it is much more likely that such attacks are modular, they are there with intent to be transposd to many other situations.

As to my post.. I was trying to point out that you probably wouldn't simply stand and fight off an attack by multiple attackers, you would do everything to gain an advantage and you would want to minimise other's effectiveness by moving around to minimise contact with them.

and Dronak, when you have multiple people attacking one person it doesn't mean everyone trys to get a punch in, it's more like they circle the person, one guy attacks as a distractions wial others move in to grapple him/her.

 

[fissure]

it could be that you are in the center of multiple attackers but in my view it is much more likely that such attacks are modular, they are there with intent to be transposd to many other situations.

So after all the back and forth, you basically have the same opinion as me. Namley Kata hold many interprative combat sequences, and are not huge battle plans to be carried out in specific order against an army of assailants.

 

[sweeper]

basicly yes, I find it much less efficient to attempt to give a "battle plan" for every situation and in all likely hood if someone had attempted that I think it would be imposable to give it all to a student leaving the next generation with many holes in their system, I find it much more likly that even if a kata were to be modeled after a real fight that happened somewhere, it is intended to be more versatile than simply a coregraphed battle plan. Further more it seems that in the past efficiencie in training was just about as important as it is now for alot of martial artists, (especialy considering the age of most common martial arts you find today) so it would follow that someone would attempt to transfer information as concisely as posable.