Value of upper level forms?

[isshinryuronin]

To each his own, there’s a lot to Martial Arts.

How does practicing forms translate into knowing how to fight? It doesn’t.

How does not practicing forms translate into knowing how to fight? It doesn’t.

Some of the greatest fighters I’ve trained with can do Kata at the highest level I’ve ever seen. Some don’t do them at all.

So there must be some other magic potion. There is. It’s called train your ash off.

Forms do not teach how to fight. Fighting teaches how to fight. My mother used to tell me and my brother it takes two to fight. She was right. Forms can definitely give some tools to help develop fighting skills, like Driver's Ed classes can help prepare you to get a license. But to learn to drive, one must get behind the wheel in some traffic.

Chuck Norris had excellent forms, Joe Lewis, not so much. From a purely fighting perspective, in sport or street, forms are not required. But if one sees value in pursuing TMA and all its associated benefits, forms can play an integral part.

 

[windwalker099]

Does the combo "right jab, left cross, right hook, left hook, right uppercut, left uppercut" exist in your form? If you form doesn't have it, who is going to stop you from putting this combo into your form?

A: Your MA system doesn't have "flying side kick".
B: I have put "flying side kick" into my system.

Not a problem if it's "your" system.
It might be a problem if it's not, and you claim to represent it.

In the recent past, before the internet, if someone claimed to represent a style without authorization,
they might get a visit from those who were.

I used to help judge form competitions at some of the tournaments in the Southeast US. It was always strange seeing people performing what looked like modified TKD, yet claiming it was some type of CMA style. While it might not be much of a problem in the US, it could be in Asia, Taiwan, and China.

What are called "Master hands" might have the insight and understanding to add or change movements within a style. However, for most, whatever they do—depending on their level—might not be considered representative of the style.

In time, the essence of the original style might be lost.

One of my first taiji teachers, Sam, used American boxing movements in the "outlaw" taiji he taught.
I can still hear him in his Hawaiian-accented pigeon English, saying,
"And now we use the good ol' American left hook."

 

[Buka]

Forms do not teach how to fight. Fighting teaches how to fight. My mother used to tell me and my brother it takes two to fight. She was right. Forms can definitely give some tools to help develop fighting skills, like Driver's Ed classes can help prepare you to get a license. But to learn to drive, one must get behind the wheel in some traffic.

Chuck Norris had excellent forms, Joe Lewis, not so much. From a purely fighting perspective, in sport or street, forms are not required. But if one sees value in pursuing TMA and all its associated benefits, forms can play an integral part.

I agree. And it’s just like doing a jillion pushups everyday. The pushups don’t teach you how to fight, but the discipline to do them everyday, especially when you really don’t want to, help forge your will. Helps the wrists, shoulders and back, too. As well as every part of the body if you do enough of them.

As for Joe Lewis - I hadn’t seen Joe do forms before. But one night working out in my kitchen at 2a.m, the subject came up.

He did the first two forms Shimabukuro taught him in Okinawa. Man, it was something. Although they’re not my cup of tea, I was head, judge at open karate competition for kata and fighting for over twenty years. He would have done very well.

He also did a Kung Fu form that night. It was beautiful. I wish I could remember what style of Kung Fu it was, but I can’t. Joe said he liked that form. Man, it flowed, it was so smooth. We had to move into the dining room for that one, the kitchen was too small.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Not a problem if it's "your" system.
It might be a problem if it's not, and you claim to represent it.

My senior SC brother brough the "flying side kick" into our SC system and called our new system as "combat SC".

 

[isshinryuronin]

Getting back to the original question of the thread, the idea of basic/lower level and advanced/upper-level forms is not black and white with several ways to look at it. I see two major kinds of karate forms, based on their origin.

First, there are the older TMA forms which IMO were all advanced. These were based on the fighting styles of Chinto, Kusanku, and a conglomeration of other forms and fighting styles compiled by various other masters. This was done during a time when most karate/pre-karate practitioners were professional warriors who used their skills in actual combat. By necessity, they had to be "battle ready"/advanced.

As what we would come to call "styles" developed, masters would select forms taught by their teachers (yes, multiple) to incorporate into their own method/style. The next step was to determine in what order to teach them. There are different criteria one could use. One master may see a particular form using principles he feels are more foundational to his concepts of MA. Maybe he felt one is more technically/physically difficult to effectively perform. OR he tailored the order for each of his specific students. At this point, I think all forms they taught would still be considered advanced.

The other major category I see are what I call "constructed" forms, and are generally more recent. These are forms created in a planned progressive manner as part of a set curriculum. Here, the first forms (basic) taught typically consist of basic blocks, kicks and punches, limited footwork, simple embusen (lines of movement) and less complicated and challenging techniques and combinations, progressively getting more advanced in principles and difficulty. Funakoshi (and Itosu) helped establish this model when getting karate into the Japanese public school system. (Ed Parker's kenpo forms well illustrate this model.)

Then there was the related process of the category 1 forms being adapted to the category 2 kind. As karate became more popular/commercial/organized with a belt system, some form of basic>advanced structure was helpful. Some of the "advanced" older kata were simplified by the more recent masters. Seisan in some styles is considered advanced. Shimabuku modified it to be isshinryu's basic form. Goju's Miyagi simplified and modified sanchin kata with Shimabuku taking it a step further in order for the student to concentrate on core and rooting. And there might even be some randomness in kata order. IMO, Pinan/Heian 3 is more difficult than 5 and I think 4 is the easiest. Some Shotokan schools teach Heian 2 before 1.

And lastly, there is the idea that even the most basic kata, or single move for that matter, can be done in an advanced/high-level manner by a senior black belt. The lines between basic and advanced forms can be murky when considering all these factors. In my mind, it's best not to view kata as basic or advanced, the terms being irrelevant at their core, being important only for ranking/testing purposes. The only distinction I currently have of kata is simply being easy or hard on my knees. Other than that, I see them all equally the same.

 

[Haruhiko]

In the past several years I've begun to focus on self-defense and am no longer sure how much value traditional forms have in that context.

Depending on the art, especially whether it's a koryū, the kata (forms) are significant in that they are the physical philosophical foundations of the entire art. To some extent this is true with the newer arts.

The purpose of kata varies between schools, but overall they're appreciated as the physical representations of the school's history and "mu" / mindset.

But from a martial value, a lot of techniques aren't really useful.

Like today on the street? Maybe not depending on the art. You sound like you want to take the art out of the "martial art", which would be disservice to the school and even yourself.

Besides body mechanics and exercise, how can forms build self-defense skills?

Think of forms as pressure tested distillations of their school's philosophy - otherwise they wouldn't have been preserved in the first place.

Ellis Amdur touches on this within the context of koryūha - much older arts:

Ellis Amdur: The Role of Martial Arts in Modern Society – Aikido Journal

aikidojournal.com

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

But from a martial value, a lot of techniques aren't really useful.

If the traditional forms don't meet your requirements, why don't you create your own form?

The form in this video was created by my senior SC brother. It's easy to see that each and every move in the form has combat application.

 

[Haruhiko]

You'll never know the value of "upper level forms" until you've not only reached that level, but beyond it. Like another poster mentioned, it's like learning addition so that you can then better perform advanced calculus.

If poomsae were removed from TKD, I wouldn't have had correct mindset or understanding of my body when it came to sparring.

I see kata as the foundation, and everything else a personal expression of that foundation. But like I said, in koryū it's more than that - the forms are instrumental in preserving the arts, which can then act as a compass to how one might walk, move, or even fight.

It's hubris in my mind to dismiss any form. There are students in Japan who practice a single form for months before moving on to the next, and the reasoning for this is so they are reliably preserving not just the art, but its integrity and history.

 

[Hot Lunch]

IMO, Pinan/Heian 3 is more difficult than 5 and I think 4 is the easiest.

I always thought the same thing, but I think the reason why is because Pinan/Heian 3 is the least compatible with the hard linear movements that are characteristic of Shuri-te.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I always thought the same thing, but I think the reason why is because Pinan/Heian 3 is the least compatible with the hard linear movements that are characteristic of Shuri-te.

It does seem kind of out of place from the others in the series with some unique moves. The high-low double blocks done in the opening series are also seen in goju's seiunchin kata, so there is some cross-over between Shuri-te and Naha-te in this instance. Itosu did study with Higashionna but I don't know if Higashionna taught seiunchin.

I can't completely agree with describing Shuri-te as hard and linear (to the extent that shito-ryu and Shotokan are) but it is somewhat when compared with Naha-te styles which retain more Chinese influence. I do my shorinryu forms with a good bit of circular movement, though it's done tight in and barely noticeable - but it's there and an essential part of my kata.

 

[Leam_Hall]

Ellis Amdur touches on this within the context of koryūha - much older arts:

Ellis Amdur: The Role of Martial Arts in Modern Society – Aikido Journal

aikidojournal.com

That was a great article! I really liked the inclusion of de-escalation skills and attention to use of force law. My own TMA training was really lacking in that and I think many schools are still that way.

His point that maintaining historical authenticity while trying to bring the art into the present is good; it is a difficult task, if that is your goal.

Where I differ from some opinions is in prioritizing ancient arts over modern needs. Yes, practicing a long front stance builds leg muscles and rechambering one hand while doing a low level punch with the other gives great body mechanics. It also leaves your head, throat, and chest exposed. If your punch doesn't take the opponent immediately out of the fight then you're going to be hurt bad.

As in the article, people can devote themselves to mastering an art. He only teaches students who commit to mastery, nothing less. That's his choice and I support him in it.

I'd rather teach the car mechanic whose shop is in a bad part of town. He might come to class dead tired and afraid to take off his shoes because his socks are worn and stinky. Or the soccer mom who is trying to balance everything on her plate, dozens of things she's trying to take care of that she doesn't have time for, and still needs to learn how to protect herself and her kids.

I'm in to preserving people, not history.

 

[HighKick]

Personally, I don't think they can. And that's okay.

I find them to be therapeutic, both physically and mentally. But I also think there's a diminishing returns, where you're just memorizing a new order of stuff instead of learning new things.

Yeah, I think that is the common habit or 'trap' most people get into. They just learn the pattern and never really try to apply it beyond that. Too often this is because people get in a rush chasing the next belt or get pushed toward the next belt.
I believe you recently asked about Bunkai. It is a great question, but with forms the more you apply it in aggregate (multiple movements), the more value the form will have, not just for mental/physical exercise.
A big part of the problem is the countless different explanations you will get for each form. A good thing and a bad thing. I think it is the worst for newer students.

 

[HighKick]

To a degree, yes. However, @skribs said it better than I did: diminishing returns.

We all have X amount of time; 24-ish hours per day spent in sleep, family, work, school, etc. If the basic form(s) teach you 80% (Pareto principle) of the skills, ideas, etc, then you're ahead of the game.

Now the question becomes, what do you spend the rest you time on? Remember, time is limited for all of us and we have a wide range of commitments. You can spend even more hours on stances and techniques that only work in the form, and that's fine if that's your goal. Or you can take the 80% technique and focus on learning distance, timing, accuracy, delivering a strike, taking a hit, being thrown to the ground, local laws on use of force, threat recognition and assessment, situational awareness, in-fighting, grappling, and first aid.

Most often, the 'why' is more important than the 'how'. For example, why do you do deep stances in a form (if your style does)? The practical answer is to build leg strength for sparring/self-defense, not because they look really cool when doing the form.

 

[HighKick]

Once you pass your basic math class (add, subtract, multiply and divide), why do I need to go to the higher level math classes, like algebra, calculus, trigonometry, linear algebra??? They are all just doing addition, subtraction and division, just in different patterns. Why learn new patterns and new uses? You already know addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, memorizing more patterns for using those tools seems pretty useless.....

Technically, all you really need to learn is addition.... after all, that is the only math operation a computer can do.....

I am not certain you took any higher-level math classes.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Once you pass your basic math class (add, subtract, multiply and divide), why do I need to go to the higher level math classes, like algebra, calculus, trigonometry, linear algebra??? They are all just doing addition, subtraction and division, just in different patterns.

When I was in UT Austin, I took the highest-level math "Category Theory". The course number was 695. The calculus was like 305. The 1st chapter of that book said, "algebra is like a tree. modern algebra is like a forest. Today, we are talking about a set of forest."

In that class, there were no homework, no middle term exam, no final exam. At the end of the semester, the professor said, "See you guys in next semester". We were all shocked. One guy asked, "How are you going to grade us?" The professor said, "If you have courage to take this course, you deserve an A".

Category theory's ability to find commonalities between structures and facilitate communication between different mathematical communities makes it a powerful tool for both theoretical and practical applications.

Category theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Haruhiko]

that is the only math operation a computer can do.....

Computers work with electrical charges - on or off. The lowest level programming language is really binary: the 0 communicating no-charge and the 1 communicating charge. It's also why the power icon on a lot of devices is a 1 surrounded by a 0 like this:

My concern is that we memorize a line dance, think we now understand the kata and then pass judgment on the usefulness of the kata, that we just memorized, without ever uncovering what it was trying to teach and or prepare you for.

That may be the fault of the student, school, system, or even the teacher. It should be made explicit the how and why of a kata, but of course over time (in my personal experience), I've been corrected in the first form of one of my arts.
My sensei obviously thought it was time for me to ascertain a more nuanced understanding of the form, and corrected me when he thought I was ready. I've no doubt that I'll be corrected again on this form, but I'm not ready.

Look at the first form you learn in an art, as the foundation. This form holds the most important things for this art.

Very true - especially in older systems.

I'm talking about sparring and learning how to apply the technique to someone outside your system. Forms are born from application. Once you learn application then the form will make sense.

This can occur in paired kata, depending on the system.
Applying techniques in koryū systems against students of other schools is usually a... complicated process from my understanding. It's rare as far as I know, and in some cases requires approval from the sokē.

My concern is that we pay attention to what we can perceive and measure, and being able to judge a form is a lot easier than testing someone's self-defense capability in uneven ground with hazards, multiple opponents, and unknown threat levels.

Train in the park barefooted. Totally different experience, and insightful.
Where self-defence is concerned I can't comment as I don't study any arts to defend myself.

I'm in to preserving people, not history.

History has preserved your ability to know about, access, teach and learn your art. Preserving the art is as important as preserving those who practise it. Much less so in koryū - the school/art of the school comes first. Always.

big part of the problem is the countless different explanations you will get for each form

This shouldn't be the case... unless you go to different dojos and receive instruction from different senseis.

why do you do deep stances in a form (if your style does)? The practical answer is to build leg strength

I don't know about that... building leg strength is a side effect of deep stances. I don't know of any kata or form whose only place in the curriculum was to develop muscle strength, balance etc. It's assumed that you're either already strong enough and aware enough to practise the kata (or at least building on those tangential personal capabilities in your own time); the kata, again, depending on the system, is an expression of the school's fundamental teachings.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I am not certain you took any higher-level math classes.

I think you misunderstood the sarcasm/him using that as a way to portray the issue with the initial post

 

[isshinryuronin]

why do you do deep stances in a form (if your style does)? The practical answer is to build leg strength for sparring/self-defense, not because they look really cool when doing the form.

I agree with Haruhiko that deep stances in kata were not put in to build strength (a deep stance is low, like a horse can be, but if you're talking about a "forward" stance, there is also a weight distribution factor - I'm not sure how you meant it, but no matter). There are better ways to do that. Stances, like ALL kata techniques/postures, are meant to be functional in a self-defense context. But as this context has been often sublimated in favor of competitive or exercise goals, the intended purpose being lost in the evolution of modern karate to a greater or lesser degree depending on the style.

Then, why is there a low/deep stance? After all, it generally limits your agility. What is its/their value? My initial answer is "NONE." In many/most cases there is no martial value in being in a low stance. The value is found in getting into a low stance. Like any other karate technique, the value is not so much its static position, but in its kinetic motion on its way to that position. This is where the work is done. What work?

1. Early karate had a lot of stand-up grappling. When this is the case a lower center of gravity is helpful. When trying to figure out a bunkai, a low stance is one indicator that some of this is going on. (Here, there is some value in this static position).

2. A lot of times when you grab someone it's with the intention of pulling or throwing him down. Getting into a low stance is part of the technique as your weight doing down adds power.

3. The same applies for a downward strike. Ed Parker called this "marriage of gravity."

4. In the case of a forward stance/zenkutsu-dachi, the process of moving some of your weight to the forward leg can drive it into the opponent's leg, buckling his stance and balance.

 

[Badhabits]

I agree with Haruhiko that deep stances in kata were not put in to build strength (a deep stance is low, like a horse can be, but if you're talking about a "forward" stance, there is also a weight distribution factor - I'm not sure how you meant it, but no matter). There are better ways to do that. Stances, like ALL kata techniques/postures, are meant to be functional in a self-defense context. But as this context has been often sublimated in favor of competitive or exercise goals, the intended purpose being lost in the evolution of modern karate to a greater or lesser degree depending on the style.

Then, why is there a low/deep stance? After all, it generally limits your agility. What is its/their value? My initial answer is "NONE." In many/most cases there is no martial value in being in a low stance. The value is found in getting into a low stance. Like any other karate technique, the value is not so much its static position, but in its kinetic motion on its way to that position. This is where the work is done. What work?

1. Early karate had a lot of stand-up grappling. When this is the case a lower center of gravity is helpful. When trying to figure out a bunkai, a low stance is one indicator that some of this is going on. (Here, there is some value in this static position).

2. A lot of times when you grab someone it's with the intention of pulling or throwing him down. Getting into a low stance is part of the technique as your weight doing down adds power.

3. The same applies for a downward strike. Ed Parker called this "marriage of gravity."

4. In the case of a forward stance/zenkutsu-dachi, the process of moving some of your weight to the forward leg can drive it into the opponent's leg, buckling his stance and balance.

Really good points here. Moving into a lower stance can also help to avoid an incoming strike, such as moving towards an opponent into a back stance, thus lowering your head to avoid a punch as you do so.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I agree with Haruhiko that deep stances in kata were not put in to build strength (a deep stance is low, like a horse can be, but if you're talking about a "forward" stance, there is also a weight distribution factor - I'm not sure how you meant it, but no matter). There are better ways to do that. Stances, like ALL kata techniques/postures, are meant to be functional in a self-defense context. But as this context has been often sublimated in favor of competitive or exercise goals, the intended purpose being lost in the evolution of modern karate to a greater or lesser degree depending on the style.

Then, why is there a low/deep stance? After all, it generally limits your agility. What is its/their value? My initial answer is "NONE." In many/most cases there is no martial value in being in a low stance. The value is found in getting into a low stance. Like any other karate technique, the value is not so much its static position, but in its kinetic motion on its way to that position. This is where the work is done. What work?

1. Early karate had a lot of stand-up grappling. When this is the case a lower center of gravity is helpful. When trying to figure out a bunkai, a low stance is one indicator that some of this is going on. (Here, there is some value in this static position).

2. A lot of times when you grab someone it's with the intention of pulling or throwing him down. Getting into a low stance is part of the technique as your weight doing down adds power.

3. The same applies for a downward strike. Ed Parker called this "marriage of gravity."

4. In the case of a forward stance/zenkutsu-dachi, the process of moving some of your weight to the forward leg can drive it into the opponent's leg, buckling his stance and balance.

I'm always amazed how many people say horse stance is useless but I'm always able find examples of people using it.

it's literally every where.

If you do a youtube search for how to sit on a horse it all sounds like stuff you have heard in martial arts.