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.