Traditional or MMA preference

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
[B

But I wonder how many people HAVEN'T done any form at least 1000 times, yet criticizes their value ...
[/B]

I can honestly sat that there was a time that was the primary method of training that I was taught.

Oh isn't 1000 a great number! Heres something interesting. Since any given form can be considered to have an "infinate" number of techniques including variations. Then just practicing 1 form 1000 times should in essence be an excellant way for a student to learn (and be able to apply) an "infinate" number of ways in which to defend themselves.

Technically after practicing any given form a 1000 times a student "should" be well on his way to becoming a devestating fighter with his "infinate" number of techniques!

Yes 1000 is a great number! But I don't need an "infinate" number of "possibilities" to teach my student. Maybe 25 is more realistic. Lets see, a jab, hook, uppercut, straight cross, vertical and horizontal elbows, headbutt, eyejab, round house kick, a few takedowns (that’s 12 so far), a few arm locks, 5 chokes and 5 leglocks including heel hooks. Now my student will practice these 25 (no where near an infinite number) techniques a 1000 times.

Now who is going to progress faster and more proficiently (as a fighter)? I think I know who I'll put my money on.



:asian:

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by akja
I can honestly sat that there was a time that was the primary method of training that I was taught.

Oh isn't 1000 a great number! Heres something interesting. Since any given form can be considered to have an "infinate" number of techniques including variations. Then just practicing 1 form 1000 times should in essence be an excellant way for a student to learn (and be able to apply) an "infinate" number of ways in which to defend themselves.

Technically after practicing any given form a 1000 times a student "should" be well on his way to becoming a devestating fighter with his "infinate" number of techniques!

I did not say or mean this at all, and it does not logically follow.

Maybe you were told this as an explanation when you weren't ready to understand what was meant. (No offense meant by this. :asian: ) Forms or not, it is best to focus on a limited number of techniques, and the applications (infinite?) will arrive with practice. Forms HELP YOU do this, and do not "dilute" your training with "infinite" possibilities. They just end up that way as a by-product of good training, with or without forms, and require no additional mental effort or practice.

[/B]
Now who is going to progress faster and more proficiently (as a fighter)? I think I know who I'll put my money on.
[/B]

All things being equal, "faster" is in contradiction to "more proficient".

If you want to refine the basic techniques over a lifetime to perfection AND be able to use them in progessively more and more situations appropriately, forms will do just that (if used properly, which often times they are not).

But if you're just "playing" martial arts to learn a bunch of techniques, you may as well stop at a 6-week community/adult education course.

(Which, by the way, I have taught for years. I've done learning and teaching both ways, so I'm not making assumptions about all this.)

 

[twinkletoes]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
All things being equal, "faster" is in contradiction to "more proficient".

I don't think this is true. There are some training methods that will produce skills over a long period of time. There are other methods that will produce the same skill level in a shorter period of time. That means that some methods of training will make the student "more proficient" "faster" than another method. There's no contradiction there.

And since akja was speaking in terms of overall functionality (at least, that's my reading of it), I think he is correct there too. One's overall performance will also hold to the idea that some methods will produce results "faster" while still making the student more proficient.

I don't think akja is speaking of martial artists who are trying to "refine the techniques over a lifetime" OR "playing at the martial arts to learn a bunch of techniques." There is plenty of room in between.

For example, someone who takes up boxing in order to improve his ability to defend himself will develop skill in his 6 punches, first by delivering them with good form on the bag or mitts, and then in action by drilling or sparring. His goal is neither "perfection" nor "playing," but rather to become proficient, and more quickly ("faster") than someone who is doing it by practicing forms 1000 times. He will do thousands of reps of his punches, but it will be in context and much of it will be while he is moving around inthe ring with a live opponent. This will allow him to spend less time training than the forms practitioner, because he will not have to do "technique practice" AND live drilling, but he will get both at once. This means that in less time, he develops more skill. (Again, forms are an OK way to work on correct technique, but are on about equal footing as other solo training methods like shadowboxing).

~TT

 

[MJS]

If you want to get better at doing something, the only way its going to happen is if you actually get out and train with some resistance. You can stand in front of a heavy bag all day long doing various combos., but until you get out and spar, you will never know if you will be able to actually pull them off if you needed to. The heavy bag is not going to hit back, but your training partner will! I think that is where TT is headed with the "live training" that he talks about! The same goes for the forms. Yes, they are great, but if you think that by doing them 100 times is going to help you fight better, I dont see how this will happen. Now, if you take the moves from the kata, and actually apply it on someone who is giving you some resistance, then yes, I can see it paying off.

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

#8: Forms teach the beginning student to breathe, and bring more-advanced students back towards their real center.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
I did not say or mean this at all, and it does not logically follow.

Maybe you were told this as an explanation when you weren't ready to understand what was meant. (No offense meant by this. :asian: ) Forms or not, it is best to focus on a limited number of techniques, and the applications (infinite?) will arrive with practice. Forms HELP YOU do this, and do not "dilute" your training with "infinite" possibilities. They just end up that way as a by-product of good training, with or without forms, and require no additional mental effort or practice.



All things being equal, "faster" is in contradiction to "more proficient".

If you want to refine the basic techniques over a lifetime to perfection AND be able to use them in progessively more and more situations appropriately, forms will do just that (if used properly, which often times they are not).

But if you're just "playing" martial arts to learn a bunch of techniques, you may as well stop at a 6-week community/adult education course.

(Which, by the way, I have taught for years. I've done learning and teaching both ways, so I'm not making assumptions about all this.)

I thought you should know that I do train in 2 styles that use forms but I do not teach them at this time. I will in the future when I teach those classes officially. For now I'm pushing what I beleive is the maost effective use of time.

I think that all training has its place and that us as individuals need to learn what is better for us as martial artists. But to be limiting oneself to one form of training in my opinion would be like holding myself back.



:asian:

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by akja
[
I think that all training has its place and that us as individuals need to learn what is better for us as martial artists. But to be limiting oneself to one form of training in my opinion would be like holding myself back.



:asian: [/B]

Good point!!!

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

#9: Forms teach analysis.

 

[MJS]

Ok, seeing that forms and the importance keeps coming up, here is another question. How effectively can they be used to defend yourself? You watch a tape of Dillman doing the applications of kata. He does ALL of his KO's on people that are not moving. They are standing still, waiting for him to do the KO. Now, I ask, how effective is that? I'm not saying that all applications have to be a KO, but it is important to do them on someone that is moving, resisting, etc. not standing still. While I do not want to sound like I'm talking trash about Dillman, I'm simply stating that by not having any "aliveness" (Gee, that word keeps coming up ALOT!!! Hey, I like that word) you are not going to get the same feeling as you would from an attacker that is resisting.

Opinions on this?

Mike

 

[twinkletoes]

Mike,

You are right about many of the dillman KO's. They are bunkai that seem to be tailored towards stationary attackers.

However, I don't think many other people do bunkai in his unusual way.

I think most people would take much more contextual type applications from their forms, which, as you noted, would probably be best practiced separately in an alive manner (in order to derive the maximum benefit).

~TT

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by MJS
Ok, seeing that forms and the importance keeps coming up, here is another question. How effectively can they be used to defend yourself? You watch a tape of Dillman doing the applications of kata. He does ALL of his KO's on people that are not moving. They are standing still, waiting for him to do the KO. Now, I ask, how effective is that? ...

That's not what forms are for. Of course it will look silly. Some people who use forms don't get it and then do embarassingly unrealistic demos.

However, if used properly, you can have someone attack you in a certain way to show a certain part of the form.

But to set people up one after another to fight to your left, right, front, to demonstrate more than a few movements is, IMO, silly.

 

[twinkletoes]

Originally posted by akja
I think that all training has its place and that us as individuals need to learn what is better for us as martial artists. But to be limiting oneself to one form of training in my opinion would be like holding myself back.

That is an awesome quote. Good call, akja.


Robert,

I do not agree that forms teach analysis. I think forms are used as a template for analysis, and that teaching proper analyzing is the job of the instructor. However, I don't think a student could learn analysis from a form alone. Otherwise, any application that someone can pull out of their form is "correct," and I'm not ready to buy into that kind of relativism.

I think it also brings up the question "Analysis of what, specifically?" That might be interesting to discuss.

Best,

~TT

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
That's not what forms are for. Of course it will look silly. Some people who use forms don't get it and then do embarassingly unrealistic demos.

However, if used properly, you can have someone attack you in a certain way to show a certain part of the form.

But to set people up one after another to fight to your left, right, front, to demonstrate more than a few movements is, IMO, silly.

Oh, dont get me wrong----I think that by doing anything w/o resistance or movement is doing nothing but hurting, not helping. Yeah, its fine for expalining the finer points, but I want to see it done full speed. I do believe however, that you can take a move and apply it to SD. Perfect example--short 3---that is filled with SD. I guess what I was trying to say was, is why train something that is not practical? Why waste time doing it, when you can be spending your time learning things that you will actually be able to use!!

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

#10: Forms not only dissect actions that otherwise would be treated as monoliths, but encourage the discovery of multiple applications for the products of such analysis. In other words, forms encourage students to move beyond being permanent slaves to the teacher's demands.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
#10: Forms not only dissect actions that otherwise would be treated as monoliths, but encourage the discovery of multiple applications for the products of such analysis. In other words, forms encourage students to move beyond being permanent slaves to the teacher's demands.

Forms require the "correct understanding" in order to "disect" these actions within the forms. Without this level of understanding it can be and sometimes is wasted movement (until a higher level of understanding is achieved).

So is that 8 yearold thats spent the last 3 years doing kata any better than an 8 yearold just starting out? How much? Why?

:asian:

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
#10: Forms not only dissect actions that otherwise would be treated as monoliths, but encourage the discovery of multiple applications for the products of such analysis. In other words, forms encourage students to move beyond being permanent slaves to the teacher's demands.

... many people use forms as a means to make a system TOO permanant -- slaves to a static set of techniques. Only a good teacher can overcome this, and they are rarely the ones chosen to lead the system's next generation.

Otherwise, I totally agree.

 

[rmcrobertson]

#11: Forms provide a repeatable vocabulary that encourages students who are not brilliant beginners to learn, and encourage advanced students to constrantly re-examine their basic premises and habits of movement.

 

[MJS]

Something else to keep in mind. How many people know what they are doing in the kata? how many Inst. know the meaning of the kata? I've heard people ask questions to their Inst about the kata and what the moves are that they are doing, and do you know the reponse?? Because thats the way you do it! Thats the way you do it???? What the hell kind of answer is that?

If you dont have a good Inst. you wont have a good kata. instead, all you will have is just a pattern of preset moves and a robot doing them!

Mike

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
#11: Forms provide a repeatable vocabulary that encourages students who are not brilliant beginners to learn, and encourage advanced students to constrantly re-examine their basic premises and habits of movement.

I like that one!

:asian:

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by MJS
...

If you dont have a good Inst. you wont have a good kata. instead, all you will have is just a pattern of preset moves and a robot doing them!

True. But the fact is that without forms, it is easier for a teacher to make something up that looks like it will work in real life but doesn't. How many times have we seen a room full of "robots" doing the same movement over and over?

Examples of bad teachers using forms and good teachers not using forms is just as irrelevant as the opposite.

And forms work better for some students than others. Some need other modes of learning.