Nobody said "karateeeee-dance off," because that's Taekwondo Aerobic, which is a formally-recognized type of Taekwondo competition in South Korea nowadays, just as legitimate and competitive as cheerleading competitions in the USA.
What Good are Forms?
- Thread starter dvcochran
- Start date
Nobody said "karateeeee-dance off," because that's Taekwondo Aerobic, which is a formally-recognized type of Taekwondo competition in South Korea nowadays, just as legitimate and competitive as cheerleading competitions in the USA.
I'll happily take responsibility for that queasiness. This isn't as entertaining as the TKD kids, but gets major points for choice of songs.
While that is absolutely awful, I have no regrets.
In reading the objections to forms, it occurs to me that most of them aren't actually objections to forms. They are mostly either:
The first is reasonable from one perspective, but it's entirely possible to make forms that use only movements/combos from actual fighting. Go do some shadow boxing, practicing things you need to work on for fighting. Remember that sequence and use it again the next time. You're doing a form full of techniques you'd use in fighting. There's an argument to be made (and I'd be one of those arguing this) that forms should evolve to match the movements we actually want folks to use in fighting. I'm not at all a fan of forms looking quite similar between groups that don't train together - that suggests to me that they're not letting application lead the form. Of course, there are folks who make a cogent argument on the other side - I'll leave it to them to make that. While mine evolve, they do have some movements that I would never use in fighting. Those were chosen, in most cases, to challenge the student physically.
The second objection is really mostly about too much time spent on forms. I agree that some places seem to have too many forms. While I see a lot of value in a good, basic form, I don't see so much value in having form after form covering the same body of material at progressive levels (I think Shorin-ryu Kensankai has 8+ staff forms). It seems to me most of that time is better spent doing drills, some sparring, etc. But this isn't a problem with the forms - it's an issue with the curriculum. I have one staff form, with 10-17 moves (depending how you count them). If I decide another form is necessary, it will replace the one I have.
The third objection is about the repetitive nature, having to move exactly like others (sometimes at the same time), etc. And this is another one I somewhat agree with. But that's not an issue with the form. Each instructor has to decide what makes an acceptable variation in the form. They could be very restrictive, or allow a wide range of variance. The form doesn't dictate that.
TL, DR: Many of the objections I see to forms are objections to either specific forms, or to teaching style.
- objections to specific forms (don't like the combinations/techniques contained in "forms", because they're not what you use in fighting)
- objections to how forms are used (forms shouldn't take so much time away from other training/there are too many forms)
- objections to how forms are taught (why does it matter if my foot is off by a few degrees, why does a student need to practice in sync with other students)
The first is reasonable from one perspective, but it's entirely possible to make forms that use only movements/combos from actual fighting. Go do some shadow boxing, practicing things you need to work on for fighting. Remember that sequence and use it again the next time. You're doing a form full of techniques you'd use in fighting. There's an argument to be made (and I'd be one of those arguing this) that forms should evolve to match the movements we actually want folks to use in fighting. I'm not at all a fan of forms looking quite similar between groups that don't train together - that suggests to me that they're not letting application lead the form. Of course, there are folks who make a cogent argument on the other side - I'll leave it to them to make that. While mine evolve, they do have some movements that I would never use in fighting. Those were chosen, in most cases, to challenge the student physically.
The second objection is really mostly about too much time spent on forms. I agree that some places seem to have too many forms. While I see a lot of value in a good, basic form, I don't see so much value in having form after form covering the same body of material at progressive levels (I think Shorin-ryu Kensankai has 8+ staff forms). It seems to me most of that time is better spent doing drills, some sparring, etc. But this isn't a problem with the forms - it's an issue with the curriculum. I have one staff form, with 10-17 moves (depending how you count them). If I decide another form is necessary, it will replace the one I have.
The third objection is about the repetitive nature, having to move exactly like others (sometimes at the same time), etc. And this is another one I somewhat agree with. But that's not an issue with the form. Each instructor has to decide what makes an acceptable variation in the form. They could be very restrictive, or allow a wide range of variance. The form doesn't dictate that.
TL, DR: Many of the objections I see to forms are objections to either specific forms, or to teaching style.
Martial D
Senior Master
Rich Franklin was a math teacher. Did his math skills help him become a great fighter in his time? I'm sure I could dig up a couple more fighters with some higher education in math. More evidence mathematics lead to fighting skills?
Or maybe correlation and causation are different things, just as by the numbers dancing isn't fighting.
I already stated that forms have applications, but getting good at fighting isn't one of them. Sure it might provide a marginal gain in body control(although I'm not convinced even that exceeds the gain of proper drilling or sequence training), but for me the negatives I listed earlier outweigh anything you might get there.
I honestly see forms as a very old marketing ploy used to needlessly extend training times to keep sihan/sifu paid for more years. The only one that really benefits is that guy.
Luckily real martial arts training that breaks from that model is widely available now
Martial D
Senior Master
Sounds good, doesn't check out.
It's patently harder to teach a karate guy to box than an untrained guy, for instance. The karate guy will punch and move karate style because muscle memory. The untrained guy will have no such hurdle.
No one ever said they expect to land 150 move combo. Each kata provides a long combo, but in use you would only use 2 or 3 together at a time. In a 150 move kata (not sure there is one that long... but I could be wrong) there are a ton of different 2, 3 and 4 move combos that you are practicing.
Kata done right, is proper drilling and sequence training. Do some schools do it wrong and turn it into a dance? Sure. I would like you to show me drill or sequence that cannot be turned into a dance... I can show you boxing combos that have been turned into dance... it doesn't make proper boxing combos any less effective when done in a non-dance environment.
I guess boxing combos are out now, because someone danced them.
And I guess the only real way to fight is like a boxer? Its also quite hard to teach a boxer karate... as he will move like a boxer... all that muscle memory getting in the way again.
Option #1: traditional kihon and kata training has nothing whatsoever to do with how a successful karate fighter fights any more than algebra does, and Lyoto Machida, Francisco Filho, and Midori Kenji are all scammers teaching irrelevant algebra-like drills to students, just to make themselves rich. What they are training their students is not "real martial arts training." Just a scam.
Option #2: traditional kihon and kata are part of what makes a karate fighter fight like a karate fighter instead of a boxer, and Lyoto Machida, Francisco Filho, and Midori Kenji are teaching people the way they learned, because it is part of what made them into what they are. There is more than one flavor of "real martial arts training."
I know which I believe.
Martial D
Senior Master
Sure. You could conceivably create a form or kata built of usable flowing combos. To my knowledge no such form or kata exists within TMA. Once you remove the practical side, the thing you test it against, quality control disappears and movements less and less resemble reality as teacher after teacher with no practical experience water it down further and further.
No. That is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is dancing it out like that won't do much good either.
Ya. It works both ways. Muscle memory doesn't have a style preference. This has nothing to do with 'real ways'
Martial D
Senior Master
You can couple pointless ritual with actual training you know. I'm sure the ritual..kata..gi..bowing..calling your teacher some name like master or sensei..is what sells a lot of people. The parsley on the side of the plate ain't the meal, but it helps the meal presentation.
D
Deleted member 39746
Guest
It isnt of a direct primary interest or focus of mine, so they are pretty much worthless to me. (which is why i express i disinterest and dismay in most traditional styles as they put a focus on that more than the reverse usually)
And it might be, but going by the proverb of: "better to have it than not need it" it would be better to have that and not need it. Now after my primary focus is complete then yes, all the meditation ones etc are fine to me.
Oh plus some people mis sell the spiritual side of martial arts as being combative when they arent. Not directly anyway, and that isnt of any importance to the non spiritual person anyway. (its not like you an fill out a life insurance document via interpretive dance is it?)
That is just a elaboration of my view on it.
Also the irony is i used something from a TKD form once in light free sparring and i hurt myself more than i hurt the other person. It was a knife hand step back to the foot. Also i don't really know the point in the TKD forms, granted not asked about 4 directional punch/block but from me thinking about it i came to my own conclusion, and the move i used was from a version of that. (trying not to dox myself so i have to keep the sub orginsiation out as its a semi small sub group of ITF)
And i do know the 4 directional punch and block, i have done it enough times i just need a refresher more than anything. Its not really directly applicable to fighting.
D
Deleted member 39746
Guest
Since it keeps getting asked:
I stated i was waiting on a boxing session, and i have done one within 4 weeks of this date. And they are going to be done when time and money allows for both myself and the boxing teacher. Since its 1:1 sessions, it really is as and when time and money allows.
And proper boxing is my focus not boxerise.
@skribsand i was always interested in fighting, i just dont think i have access to a TMA style which really fits my priorities that well. I also plan on un conditioning my hands to the typical boxers fist by doing some things with thinner gloves at home.
To be fair boxing doesnt really fit it fully that well as its not like grappling doesnt exist or kicks or elbows etc. could do worse though.
Last edited by a moderator:
skribs
Grandmaster
I think the attention to detail is an important aspect of the forms in Taekwondo. The specifics are to reinforce the mechanics and concepts taught by the form. The requirement to match exactly means you must spend time training.
Even if it's not a 1:1 for fighting capability, training exaggerated stances and motions helps build muscle memory. People tend to shorten up their techniques in an actual fight, so the idea is that you train for those details in your forms, and then in a real situation it comes out in a more practical manner.
Headhunter
Senior Master
So basically that's a no then?Since it keeps getting asked:
I stated i was waiting on a boxing session, and i have done one within 4 weeks of this date. And they are going to be done when time and money allows for both myself and the boxing teacher. Since its 1:1 sessions, it really is as and when time and money allows.
And proper boxing is my focus not boxerise.
and i was always interested in fighting, i just dont think i have access to a TMA style which really fits my priorities that well. I also plan on un conditioning my hands to the typical boxers fist by doing some things with thinner gloves at home.
To be fair boxing doesnt really fit it fully that well as its not like grappling doesnt exist or kicks or elbows etc. could do worse though.
D
Deleted member 39746
Guest
De escalation is not commonly taught. Nor is it fully viable in all situations. It is important for self defence, but i haven't used that term for why i want to seek martial arts, since i came to the conclusion saying combat is better. (which is uncommon in martial arts to learn BTW, as they don't teach you scaling force usually, de escalation etc, you need to seek out specilist instruction or a uncommon type of school)
And the moral and judicial argument and elaboration of above is probably outside the scope of this thread as this is strictly about forms. Just in case what i stated looks like a borderline ToS break, all i will say is, so long as you have lawful authority to use violence in that situation its up to your own moral judgement if you do or not. (which knowing my typex, it looked greyzone to endorsing unlawful violence. )
And for self defence the first is paramount but read above. Both about my view on it and how the category of martial arts school, usually doesn't teach self defence skills to you. Wouldn't call it common, wouldn't call it rare, so its uncommom if they do. How ever there are some specialist schools which fall outside the martial art category i would say, which do teach you these skills.
I think Ramsey Dewy said something like(in relation to RBSD i think or bad MA):"they teach you how to face violence with wimpy violence"
edit: Martial arts and combat sports also help people with aggression, anger and violence issues also. varying amounts but it gives them a positive place to release it and help control it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Headhunter
Senior Master
Look man I have nothing against you you seem a nice enough guy. but you don't half talk nonsense.
You don't know what's commonly taught in training sessions because you don't train.
How can you say what's commonly taught and what's not taught in martial art classes when you don't train martial arts?
I've been in martial art clubs since I was 8 years old and I've seen deescalation taught in plenty of schools all over the world I've it in karate clubs and other traditional styles I've even seen the basics taught in some sporting clubs. So yes it is commonly taught.
The reason myself and others are asking if your training is because you are constantly posting stuff like you're an expert in it. Your basing your opinions as facts even though you have 0 proof or experience to back it up.
All your "facts" are based on articles you've read. When I post opinions they're based on years of training not what Ramsey dewy wrote in an article. I mean when I post stuff I could be wrong I have been plenty of times and no doubt I will be again. But I've been in the gyms and put in the hours and seen and done things that can back up my own opinions and beliefs
If you don't want to train then there's no shame in that I'm not judging you for it. It's not for everyone but simply you're acting like you're an expert on these subjects and talking like you have all this knowledge and talking down on certain areas when you don't have the experience to base the opinions on.
Last edited:
I've seen this go in both directions. Someone who is singularly ungifted (not naturally athletic, etc.) who has developed good skill in another art is usually easier to teach new movement than a similarly ungifted person who has no training, as the past training (even if it's dance) improves their awareness of their body and ability to control it. Someone who is gifted is usually easier to work with from scratch.
Will some parts be harder to teach to someone with past training? Absolutely. Give me the average well-trained Shotokan Karateka, and I'll struggle for years with their propensity for hard angles, when our movement needs a circular (and line-and-circle) approach.
