"Kata" - an amateur's perspective [Archive]

AZeitung

01-Oct-2004, 02:21 AM

For those of you who haven't read my post to the intro's section of the forum, which I assume is most of you, I'd like to start out by mentioning where I am in my martial arts development.

When I was very young, I took Karate for several years, although it was through the park district, and I only went to practice once a week (you could go twice a week, but it would cost more). I was only a blue belt by the time I quit, due partly to the fact that I didn't attend a lot of belt tests, which were only held two or three times a year to begin with (I don't remember the exact number). I remember almost nothing from karate, but still feel minor influences from it.

Starting in 7th grade, I began fencing, which I continued part until way through my senior year of highschool. At the time I never considered it a martial art, but since it involved sparring, and only sparring (after the first seven weeks), I believe that it has been beneficial to me, at least in that area.

For a little over a year, I have been studying Kuk Sool Won at the University of Illinois. I train for about 12 to 14 hours a week, which is really all I can do, given my current belt level (there's an advanced practice on Sunday's), unless I can get some people together to practice informally on off days. I'm currently only a bluebelt.

I wouldn't consider myself a very competent fighter at this point, and I know that most of the Goshin Jitsu guys at our school (many of whom have been practicing regularly and intensely for around 6 years) could give me a severe beating, despite the fact that I am continually trying to improve abilities.

That being said, I am probably not the best person in the world to be discussing martial arts in depth, since I have not yet learned the intracacies of my art. However, after reading some discussions on this board, I would very much like to throw in my two cents on forms, or "katas" (Kuk Sool Won uses the Korean word "Hyung" for forms, so I will probably use that terminology as well throught this article).

First of all, I'm sure almost everyone will agree that the best way to learn to punch or kick isn't by sparring. I would like to begin here, and slowly work my way toward discussing forms. It is easy to see that practicing certain techniques in a live match isn't usually as beneficial as drilling them by looking at ground fighting. If an opponent has full mount, and you wish to reverse your positions, so that you are on top and he is on bottom (despite the fact that he can still keep his legs locked around you), you might want to trap his leg and arm, then push up and over with your hips. This particular technique has much better success in people who first drill simply the movement, then with the added weight of a person on top, than it does in people who only practice it live.

With regards to kicking, in addition to the fact that a first time kicker is unlikely to have much success against another opponent, drilling kicks in the air forces the kicker to work on several other things as well.

First of all, there's the matter of power. No matter what kind of sparring you practice, I doubt anyone ever deliberately tries to kick his opponent with full force, using the best kick that he possibly can. Such practice would be dangerous. Most kicking in the air should never be done with full force either, but when a kick is in the air done well, I believe you can achieve at last a little bit of what karate practitioners (sometimes) call "Kime", which is supposed to be the power to make a strike deadly enough to kill with one hit. Although I don't think I've ever done a kick quite that good, I often kick in a way, into the air, that I feel is powerfull enough to severely hurt anyone who is in its way.

Second of all, there is a matter of balance. Many of the kicks we do in Kuk Sool involve turning your back heel just slightly, relieve pressure from the back knee, and increase the power of the kick. Kicking into a punching bag, or another person, provides a repulsive force that actually makes such kicks easier to do, while remaining standing. When doing these kicks, I believe it is important to have good enough balance to rotate your heel, peform a quick, powerful kick, then rotate it back and return to your original stance. The controll necesarry for doing this is lost when you hit another object. I work on this on my own quite a bit, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, to see just how balanced I am, and just how much controll I have.

Third of all, there is the matter of range of motion. I realize that in a fight, your range of motion will probably not be cut short by any more than it is when kicking a bag, or in sparring, but I believe it is also important to feel the full range of a kick, the way the joints line up, the way the power changes as the leg moves outward, and the way your balance shifts at the end. Who knows, perhaps some day you will have to kick someone who moves back farther than expected while you execute the kick, but you still want to hit him. Perhaps you will miss all together, and will need to stay in controll. Or perhaps, knowing how powerfull your kick is at different points, you will want to back up and execute a round kick from a different part of the leg/foot.

Much of this can be applied to punching as well. Before I even hit a punching bag, I knew what a strong fast, fully extended (and probably bad for the elbows) punch felt like. When I started hitting a bag, my punches felt a little bit weaker than I would have liked, and I worked to emulate some of the feeling and motion that I had achieved while punching into the air.

Having hopefully established the importance of drilling hand and foot strikes before trying them in sparring, I would like to move on to a discussion of forms.

At the most basic level, forms are combinations of punches, kicks, and blocks. If nothing else, they should at least provide simple drilling of these moves. A kick in the air is a kick in the air, provided it is done well, and doing it in a form should be no less beneficial than doing it outside of one.

In warmups, we often repeatedly practice our forms, after drilling individual kicks an punches. In this case, it becomes, in part, another way of drilling punches, kicks, and blocks, which have already been organized, so that you practice a wide range of techniques.

Another reason that we often drill forms in warmups, is because they are good excercize. Key Cho Hyung, the white belt form, is quite long, and requires quite a bit of work. Going through it several times quickly gives you a very good cardiovascular workout. Going through it several time slowly, especially with low stances works your leg muscles, and gives you a very good lower body, anaerobic workout.

The low stances, which we often practice our kicks from outside of the forms, have importance beyond pure excercize. I've heard it said on this form that super low stances lead to bad habits for street fights, and indeed I do agree that super low stances can be a hinderance in real fights, but they aren't always. Even in fencing, we practiced low stances, and when sparing (still in fencing), I used something very similar to kong kyo jase. When grappling, I often find myself in need of additional stability, which can often be achieved by dropping my stance lower. I know that in many instances a low stance can make it difficult to move, or easy to get hit, and I probably would never use quite as low of a stance in real life as I do in practice, but low stances can often mean stability, which is a good thing. And no matter how much I practice incredibly low stances, the kind of ridiculously low stance that would make it difficult to fight, will never feel natural, will always make me tired, and will never become my go to stance for real combat. Practicing stances that are "too low" probably won't develop bad habits.

In addition to giving the practitioner the ability to excercize low stances, practicing low stances in the forms gives the practitioner the necessarry traning to be able to move in low stances. No matter how long you practice your horse stance sitting still, there is no garauntee that you will be able to ever move around in a stable manner from horse stance, and there is even a lower probability that you will ever be able to execute a good kick coming out of horse stance. Forms provide this practice. In real life, even though you may never need to do a kick from a really low stance, if you can do a kick from there, you can do it from anywhere.

For example, in Joon Geup Hyung, there is a spin kick (dora chagi) which is executed from long stance. This is much more difficult than executing it from a more upright position, but the point is to improve the practitioner's spin kick. Now, I have a pretty lousy spin kick, but I do believe that practicing Joon Geup Hyung is helping me.

But what's the point of practicing a spin kick, you might ask? Why do really high kicks that you should, and would, never use on the street? First of all, before I try to make my point, I would like to say that I understand the danger of high kicks, and head kicking. In a tournament last year, that didn't involve ground fighting, I accidentally knocked people down on more than one occasion, when they tried to kick my head, by either blocking, or attacking at the same time. That being said, I don't believe such kicks are completely useless.

There is, of course, the argument that high kicks, and spin kicks help stretch your muscles, which is 100% true. Also, as with doing kicks from a low stance, I believe that working on high kicks improves your balance and mechanics in a way that makes low kicks much easier. If you can do a super high kick, doing a low kick should be no problem. However, I believe that working on high kicks may actually give you skills that you could use in a combat situation.

Right now I don't feel skilled enough, but perhaps after 16 or 20 years of practice, I will be able to kick well enough, and judge well enough, to be able to perform head kicks, or spin kicks on my opponent. Say what you will about spin kicks, but a study was done, by measuring the damage of various kicks on cadavers, that showed the spin kick was the most powerull and damaging of any kick. In addition, especially when fighting more than one opponent, you may find yourself in a situation where your limbs are not in convenient places, but you still need to push someone away with a kick, or where you realize that an interesting opportunity has presented itself to do a complex kick. Such opportunities may be rare, but the ability to take advantage of them is probably part of what separates a great fighter from a good one.

In addition, forms combine movements and attacks in a way that you may not have thought of before, and which is unique to your style. They not only give you ideas on how to combine various strikes and kicks, but give you practice in the execution of something which might be a very effective, but very difficult combination. At the very least, experiencing the movments of forms gives you experience in the type of movements that are supposed to be effective in, and which are unique to, your martial art. Before I began studying Kuk Sool, I moved like a fencer. Now, I move like a Kuk Sool Won practitioner. I have gotten used to more fluidity, and less linearity in my movement, and feel like I can combine attacks and blocks in a way that I never could before.

Even if I had found that forms didn't work for me, I would still not be very quick to dismiss them, since they have been in use, and produced quality fighters, since at least 1000 B.C., from when there are records of Greek Pankration fighters using a sort of dance to hone their combat abilities.

This may be a modern era, but that doesn't mean that we necesarrily have access to better ways of learning how to fight. We may have pads, which allow us to do harder sparring without getting hurt, but in the past, often times people didn't care about getting hurt. I have heard that Korean warriors used to practice in such a way that a mistake on one person's part could lead to him getting killed or maimed by another. Sparring isn't anything new, and I don't believe that it can truly be a substitute for forms.

Similarly, I don't think that forms are a substitute for everything else, but my point is that they are an important, incredibly useful, part of training.

And finally, no matter what, I will always love foms. They are beautiful and intriguing, and even if someone here can prove to me that they are of no value whatsoever, I will continue to practice them. Many people may find them to be a great source of enjoyment, and if you are one of those people, that is a good enough reason to practice them.

TheMightyMcClaw

30-Dec-2004, 10:42 PM

Interesting stuff.

I always view forms as a type of record. Since writing a manual isn't nescessarily an option, a form allows you to put complex techniques in a way that can be easily tought to and remembered by others.

Fish Of Doom

30-Dec-2004, 11:06 PM

AZeitung...amen, i'm with you man...

Timmy Boy

31-Dec-2004, 12:26 AM

What I'm about to say is nothing that hasn't been said before millions of times on this board, and some may find it offensive due to the art they do. I will be as polite and respectful as I can but this is my honest opinion.

IMHO... the problem with katas, air hitting and similar methods is that they're dead training drills with no resistance. This means that techniques develop in ways which aren't applicable to fights without varying them beyond recognition, and useful instinctive habits are not developed. I'll give the example of my old TSD club; although of course your school may work very differently, I believe I probably used similar methods to you.

The first drill we did in a lesson was "air basics" like you discussed, walking up and down the hall practicing stepping forward and punching/blocking/whatever. The fact that there was no resisting opponent in front of us meant that this dead training became a focus of our lesson, and here it was shown in the overcomplicated movements involved in executing simple attacks and blocks. The basic techniques were too complicated to call on instinctively in a fight and too slow to be effective, as a direct result of a dead training method. Had there been a live opponent in front of us, the habits would have been forced to develop differently.

The second drill we did was forms, and this suffered from the same problem. Aesthetic "coolness" seemed to be the order of the day, and practical effectiveness was confused with looking good.

The third drill was three or one step sparring. Both of these drills involved an "opponent" moving towards you with an attack, then you blocking and countering. IMO, the crucial skill with blocking (if you're going to do it) is being able to do it fast enough to deflect a fast incoming attack, with any damage you cause to the limb as a side effect if anything. This drill did not teach you to block quickly as your opponent made poor telegraphed punches which you defended against with slow hard blocks. You could make the most ridiculous counter attacks this side of the WWE because your "opponent" wasn't following the attacks up with anything else.

A fourth drill was speed kicking. Being an art with a korean basis, TSD put a big emphasis on kicks, and speed kicking was where your partner held a kickbag for you and you had to hit it 50 times with each leg. The result of having to hit it so many times in a short time limit was that people would barely touch the bag and their technique suffered horribly.

Free sparring was the only training drill we did with any element of aliveness. Even it had its shortcomings, and big ones at that, but at least it developed reactions. What was worthy of note was that, when people found themselves in a situation with a moving, resisting opponent, TSD techniques were thrown out of the window. The stances were higher with different hand positions, everyone did jabs instead of reverse punches, everyone did simple soft brushing blocks rather than hard blocks... I'm sure you get the picture. They found that, in a live situation, TSD was too slow and too impractical.

Of course, you should learn to do the basics in the air first, otherwise you'd be groping around in the dark trying to work out what you were supposed to be doing. But this kind of training should be kept to a minimum IMO, just enough so that you get the idea so that you can then apply it in fighting. If the technique is so complicated that it takes loads and loads and loads of practicing it in the air to get it right, you're wasting training time that could be spent on applying more simple, practical and realistic techniques.

The big wake-up call for me was starting judo. This was EXACTLY how they trained - you learn the move, then you spar, and you spend far more time sparring than learning the move because it's a far more efficient use of training time. You can throw all kinds of accusations at judo, it doesn't contain striking (at least not these days), it's just a sport, etc etc, but it is good at what it aims to do because the people practice what they are supposed to be doing i.e. grappling. It's just like anything else, practice makes perfect. Any other hobby which requires skill is best learned by practicing, what's different about martial arts?

Let's be more specific for a moment. Let's take your theory that sparring isnt a good drill for developing punching technique. I would say that provided you receive guidance from a coach it is an EXCELLENT drill for improving your punching technique, and by that I mean the punching technique that you will actually have in a real fight with the adrenalin going and some thug giving you grief. In sparring, you practice performing the technique under pressure against someone who isn't just going to let you stand there and do it to them. Your ability to perform your technique well in other situations means nothing if you can't perform it well in sparring.

Of course, your aim in martial arts may not be to become an effective fighter. To each their own. But live training drills with realistic conditions will IMO develop far more applicable fighting habits than dead training drills against the air or a compliant partner. Practice makes perfect.

Gary Crawford

31-Dec-2004, 01:14 AM

AZietung, First let me compliment you on writing so well.I wish I could communicate as well as you.The thing that got my attention is your fencing experience.You must have exelent footwork.I sounds like you are definatly enjoying what you are doing now and you are articulate and open minded.Don't change that.If you ever decide to expand past your current style,I'd say you have outstanding potential for Jeet Kone Do.I came from an extensive Kenpo background and found that learning JKD didn't take anything away from those skills.I just became a better fighter.Learning the fencing footwork was (and still is after 5 yrs) the most challenging part for me,but each time I sparr,it feels more natural. Even though JKD has no Kata's,I still enjoy them.I think they are a fundemental part of learning basics.That's why I never recommend JKD to students with no previous martial arts. Spin kicks-Keep working on them.If you like to see how well they work for someone who is extremely quick,go watch a USTU/WTF Teakwondo tournament.If you are quick enough,they are a very good weapon(especially from a close distance).Just my two cents.

Ikken Hisatsu

31-Dec-2004, 01:49 AM

jeez louise that was a long post.

First of all, I'm sure almost everyone will agree that the best way to learn to punch or kick isn't by sparring. quite right. the best way to DEVELOP your punching is by sparring. I would like to begin here, and slowly work my way toward discussing forms. It is easy to see that practicing certain techniques in a live match isn't usually as beneficial as drilling them by looking at ground fighting. If an opponent has full mount, and you wish to reverse your positions, so that you are on top and he is on bottom (despite the fact that he can still keep his legs locked around you), you might want to trap his leg and arm, then push up and over with your hips. This particular technique has much better success in people who first drill simply the movement, then with the added weight of a person on top, than it does in people who only practice it live. yep, again you hit it on the head, and then missed out the crucial part- once you know the technique you will only get better at it by practicing against someone who is fighting back.

First of all, there's the matter of power. No matter what kind of sparring you practice, I doubt anyone ever deliberately tries to kick his opponent with full force, using the best kick that he possibly can. speak for yourself. Such practice would be dangerous. funny, because if you go to any muay thai camp thats how kicks are delivered. maybe slightly less force than if they were in a fight, but if I didnt block a headkick from my teacher I would be out cold. but when a kick is in the air done well, I believe you can achieve at last a little bit of what karate practitioners (sometimes) call "Kime", which is supposed to be the power to make a strike deadly enough to kill with one hit. uh sure. ever seen someone killed by a head kick in any martial sport? doesnt happen, unless you weigh 300 pounds and are fighting off a 12 year old girl. I often kick in a way, into the air, that I feel is powerfull enough to severely hurt anyone who is in its way.you feel? you dont KNOW though do you? so why not find out? spar in a realistic manner and you will quickly find out how much hurt you can do with a kick. continue kicking air, and you will continue to "feel".

When doing these kicks, I believe it is important to have good enough balance to rotate your heel, peform a quick, powerful kick, then rotate it back and return to your original stance. The controll necesarry for doing this is lost when you hit another object. of course you have to know what to do when you miss. part of the reason for shadow boxing in muay thai is so that you can control your leg if it misses. this is not the only way to develop balance though, it is a secondary manner. you know the best way? kick a moving target that is trying to kick you. that way you will learn timing and knowing when to kick will become instinctive. this applies to your next point as well so we will skip that.

Much of this can be applied to punching as well. Before I even hit a punching bag, I knew what a strong fast, fully extended (and probably bad for the elbows) punch felt like. When I started hitting a bag, my punches felt a little bit weaker than I would have liked, and I worked to emulate some of the feeling and motion that I had achieved while punching into the air. to a much lesser extent than kicks (if you continually fall over throwing punches its your technique, not your balance). and of course they felt weaker, because you are stepping up a level from punching air.

At the most basic level, forms are combinations of punches, kicks, and blocks. If nothing else, they should at least provide simple drilling of these moves. A kick in the air is a kick in the air, provided it is done well, and doing it in a form should be no less beneficial than doing it outside of one. doing a set of moves is not a bad thing. doing them in a completely static way, against the air, is. in muay thai, we will be hitting pads as hard as we can as fast as we can. the footwork changes, if you slip a little it doesnt matter- you will remember what made you slip next time and correct it. doing a static form, EXACTLY the same way each time, teaches nothing that could not be taught better through basic partner drills.

Another reason that we often drill forms in warmups, is because they are good excercize. Key Cho Hyung, the white belt form, is quite long, and requires quite a bit of work. Going through it several times quickly gives you a very good cardiovascular workout. Going through it several time slowly, especially with low stances works your leg muscles, and gives you a very good lower body, anaerobic workout. I thought so too. when I did kung fu, our higher level katas were quite tiring, lots of spinning and jumping about. however doing a pattern of attacks as fast and hard as you can on a pad is leagues above it. i was one of the fittest people at my kung fu kwoon- when i went to muay thai, I was nothing compared to them.

The low stances, which we often practice our kicks from outside of the forms, have importance beyond pure excercize. I've heard it said on this form that super low stances lead to bad habits for street fights, and indeed I do agree that super low stances can be a hinderance in real fights, but they aren't always. anything to convince me or is this rhetoric? I see absolutely no advantage to training in a low stance. if you want leg endurance, go running. you want power, go lift weights. a static low stance makes you flat footed, slow, and a very easy target. which can often be achieved by dropping my stance lower. yes but you are in that stance for a short amount of time arent you? you arent just sitting there in a low stance (unless you enjoy people using you for leg reaps) I know that in many instances a low stance can make it difficult to move, or easy to get hit, and I probably would never use quite as low of a stance in real life as I do in practice, but low stances can often mean stability, which is a good thing. riding a cycle will prepare you for riding a motorcycle. you obviously dont see what is wrong with this statement if that is your attitude. to me, i would think- "well why not just ride the motorcycle to begin with?" And no matter how much I practice incredibly low stances, the kind of ridiculously low stance that would make it difficult to fight, will never feel natural, will always make me tired, and will never become my go to stance for real combat. Practicing stances that are "too low" probably won't develop bad habits. yes it will. when the adrenalin hits we resort to what is ingrained in us. if you always practice low stances thats what you will go into, simple as that. you practice how you play.

In real life, even though you may never need to do a kick from a really low stance, if you can do a kick from there, you can do it from anywhere. interesting how you use the term "real life" to divide what you do from what would actually happen. thats false by the way, for the same reason i stated above. learning to kick from a regular fighting stance will teach you to kick. learning to kick from a stance you will never be in in a fight will only hinder you.

But what's the point of practicing a spin kick, you might ask? Why do really high kicks that you should, and would, never use on the street? First of all, before I try to make my point, I would like to say that I understand the danger of high kicks, and head kicking. In a tournament last year, that didn't involve ground fighting, I accidentally knocked people down on more than one occasion, when they tried to kick my head, by either blocking, or attacking at the same time. That being said, I don't believe such kicks are completely useless. while high kicks are dangerous, they can pay off. higher risk=higher payoff (or at least thats the idea). I agree with you here.

Also, as with doing kicks from a low stance, I believe that working on high kicks improves your balance and mechanics in a way that makes low kicks much easier. If you can do a super high kick, doing a low kick should be no problem. However, I believe that working on high kicks may actually give you skills that you could use in a combat situation. again we come to the fact that you think but dont know because you have never tried it. muay thai and kyokushin fighters are renowned for their leg kicks. how do you suppose that is? because they practice low kicks? :shock horror:
the mechanics of a high kick and a low kick are different. practicing high kicks makes you good at high kicks, not low kicks. very simple.

Right now I don't feel skilled enough, but perhaps after 16 or 20 years of practice, I will be able to kick well enough, and judge well enough, to be able to perform head kicks, or spin kicks on my opponent. thank god it doesnt take anyone who gets into the ring that long. Say what you will about spin kicks, but a study was done, by measuring the damage of various kicks on cadavers, that showed the spin kick was the most powerull and damaging of any kick. ok whoah. on cadavers? how old exactly was this test? and power has little do with usability. how many knock outs do you see by a spinning kick compared to a plain roundhouse kick on combat sports? In addition, especially when fighting more than one opponent, you may find yourself in a situation where your limbs are not in convenient places, but you still need to push someone away with a kick, or where you realize that an interesting opportunity has presented itself to do a complex kick. Such opportunities may be rare, but the ability to take advantage of them is probably part of what separates a great fighter from a good one. true. being prepared for anything makes you a good fighter. preparing a move you will probably never use when you could be developing a move you use often makes you a dumb fighter.

In addition, forms combine movements and attacks in a way that you may not have thought of before, and which is unique to your style. They not only give you ideas on how to combine various strikes and kicks, but give you practice in the execution of something which might be a very effective, but very difficult combination. At the very least, experiencing the movments of forms gives you experience in the type of movements that are supposed to be effective in, and which are unique to, your martial art even better way to develop combinations? put on some gloves and practice with an opponent. god this is too easy.

Even if I had found that forms didn't work for me, I would still not be very quick to dismiss them, since they have been in use, and produced quality fighters, since at least 1000 B.C., from when there are records of Greek Pankration fighters using a sort of dance to hone their combat abilities. so you think we should go back 3000 years in our training methods because you once saw an inscription on a wall with wrestlers dancing?

This may be a modern era, but that doesn't mean that we necesarrily have access to better ways of learning how to fight. We may have pads, which allow us to do harder sparring without getting hurt, but in the past, often times people didn't care about getting hurt. I have heard that Korean warriors used to practice in such a way that a mistake on one person's part could lead to him getting killed or maimed by another. Sparring isn't anything new, and I don't believe that it can truly be a substitute for forms. and back then, life was cheap. you can practice like that if you want to develop arthritis at age 40 and live in pain for the last 30 years of your life. you say it cant be a substitute? funny, because I look around and all the pro fighters of today seem to think otherwise.

And finally, no matter what, I will always love foms. They are beautiful and intriguing, and even if someone here can prove to me that they are of no value whatsoever, I will continue to practice them. Many people may find them to be a great source of enjoyment, and if you are one of those people, that is a good enough reason to practice them. quite right. you do it because you enjoy it and so long as you do, theres no reason to stop. thats the overwheliming reason behind everything- enjoyment. if you dont enjoy life, you lose.

Jang Bong

31-Dec-2004, 02:04 AM

Tim - a very nicely returned 'opposing view' to AZeitung's well presented thoughts (far more civilised than some of the comments in the "Kata - why the hate?" thread :D)

The highlighted words in this quote allow everyone on MAP to get along - good work.

Of course, your aim in martial arts may not be to become an effective fighter. To each their own.

After saying that - I'm still PRO-kata, as I am looking to learn an art and not just how to fight well. If I become an effective fighter as a side-effect of that, then so much the better ;) if I'm ever unlucky enough to need to use these skills. :(

Other arts (you mention Judo in a 'sporting' sense) where active competition is expected as part of taking up the 'art' means that students already have a combat mentality. Nothing derogatory - they simply know going to class number 1 that at some point someone is going to try and knock their block off. There are others learning these arts (like me) that would be quite happy going through life without ever raising a hand to someone.

I use our kata like the scales and finger-exercises from my childhood piano lessons - between them they contain all the basics, from which I can pick out the specifics I need. By learning them and disecting them, we have a blueprint we can return to without having to memorise x-dozen individual drills (so as not to miss a technique).

Melanie

31-Dec-2004, 02:07 AM

I have to say some very valid points were brought up. But most importantly:

"you do it because you enjoy it and so long as you do, theres no reason to stop. thats the overwhelming reason behind everything- enjoyment. if you dont enjoy life, you lose."

Timmy Boy

31-Dec-2004, 07:08 AM

Tim - a very nicely returned 'opposing view' to AZeitung's well presented thoughts (far more civilised than some of the comments in the "Kata - why the hate?" thread :D)

The highlighted words in this quote allow everyone on MAP to get along - good work.

Thanks!

After saying that - I'm still PRO-kata, as I am looking to learn an art and not just how to fight well. If I become an effective fighter as a side-effect of that, then so much the better ;) if I'm ever unlucky enough to need to use these skills. :(

Fair enough!

Other arts (you mention Judo in a 'sporting' sense) where active competition is expected as part of taking up the 'art' means that students already have a combat mentality. Nothing derogatory - they simply know going to class number 1 that at some point someone is going to try and knock their block off. There are others learning these arts (like me) that would be quite happy going through life without ever raising a hand to someone.

I think the crucial thing about judo is that, in the lesson and in compettition, you learn it as a sport. It's a physically rough but fairly safe and very fun game and many people enjoy it purely for this. Therefore, the combat mentality you mention is somewhat different, as you often feel like you're training for a sport rather than a martial art. This is also why sports martial artists are generally not the knuckleheads they're made out to be (I'm just saying, I know you're not suggesting that they are). However, judo is both, and my real-life grappling skills are developing well by playing this "game".

I use our kata like the scales and finger-exercises from my childhood piano lessons - between them they contain all the basics, from which I can pick out the specifics I need. By learning them and disecting them, we have a blueprint we can return to without having to memorise x-dozen individual drills (so as not to miss a technique).

OK, I have three questions here.

1) How much training time do you devote merely to practicing the kata, rather than applying its techniques?
2) Are the techniques you use in kata the same as the ones you use in live drills?
3) If I have the right idea here, what you're saying is that your kata is like a reference book full of information on the basic techniques. Therefore, they would be impossible to remember by doing things like pad drills alone, compared to boxing where there are only four basic attacks. If this is the case, is this multitude of techniques really necessary when you could simply use a few that work and do live drills with them?

IMO this is one of the biggest problems created by complex arts. You learn several techniques which perform the same purpose, so they're too confusing to do live drills with. Many are also too dangerous to do live drills with. If you can't do a live drill with a technique it's highly unlikely to be reliable, especially given the very small target areas of such techniques (eyes, throat) which require pinpoint accuracy. However, if the art is designed to be simple and practicable from the outset, rather than simply learning as many ways to hurt someone as possible, training time is spent far more efficiently and good habits develop through live training. I really believe this was the core problem of the TSD I did - there was too much emphasis on simply "knowing" millions of techniques as a means to effective fighting ability and as a result the applicability of the art as a whole suffered horrendously.

ubermint

31-Dec-2004, 08:19 AM

If an opponent has full mount, and you wish to reverse your positions, so that you are on top and he is on bottom (despite the fact that he can still keep his legs locked around you), you might want to trap his leg and arm, then push up and over with your hips. This particular technique has much better success in people who first drill simply the movement, then with the added weight of a person on top, than it does in people who only practice it live.

Yes, but here's an important detail: We go from dead drill to alive drill to full out sparring within the course of about an hour. One class.
The technique is always immediately applicable. That's aliveness in a nutshell.

With regards to kicking, in addition to the fact that a first time kicker is unlikely to have much success against another opponent, drilling kicks in the air forces the kicker to work on several other things as well.

This doesn't apply to Muay Thai. The MT kicks are first learned with a bag. When shadowboxing you have to kick in the same manner as if you were hitting a person, which entails commiting yourself fully to the kick. Muay Thai kicks are so commited that a missed kick will cause you to spin around or land awkwardly, so it's best to start with something to impact.

First of all, there's the matter of power. No matter what kind of sparring you practice, I doubt anyone ever deliberately tries to kick his opponent with full force, using the best kick that he possibly can. Such practice would be dangerous.

Nope. With good equipment, you can hit with full force. Not all the time, but it can be done.

Most kicking in the air should never be done with full force either, but when a kick is in the air done well, I believe you can achieve at last a little bit of what karate practitioners (sometimes) call "Kime", which is supposed to be the power to make a strike deadly enough to kill with one hit.

"One strike, one kill" is a myth.

Although I don't think I've ever done a kick quite that good, I often kick in a way, into the air, that I feel is powerfull enough to severely hurt anyone who is in its way.

Again, you think. Not to be rude, but it's a large assumption. If you don't regularly spar with these kicks, your likelyhood of being able to hurt anyone with them is very low.

This article explains things a lot better than I can:
http://sfuk.tripod.com/articles_02/thorntonforms.html

Fish Of Doom

31-Dec-2004, 01:24 PM

kime is firmness, not one-hit kills, it is achieved by tensing only the fist so that the movement comes out strong but does not slow down.

Infrazael

31-Dec-2004, 10:30 PM

I believe that forms should be learned, then completely destroyed by the practitioner, who then puts it back together, piece by piece, slowly examining every piece, and weighing the effectiveness, power, and practicality behind each piece.

If i truly believe a technique is useless, i'll not practice it with drills. however, those techniques/combos in which i find to be extremely powerful and effective, i will practice over and over again.

I believe that all forms are ONLY good if you systematically analyze it, and practice it TO YOUR FORMAT, NOT to the format in which it was taught.

tswolfman

01-Jan-2005, 07:37 PM

I Agree with the Last Post in that you have to Analize Each Part of the Forms for the Best Benefit. Although Forms were put together for particular reasons and you should look at those reasons along with what the indivual techniques are.

Jang Bong

02-Jan-2005, 12:19 AM

OK, I have three questions here.

1) How much training time do you devote merely to practicing the kata, rather than applying its techniques?
2) Are the techniques you use in kata the same as the ones you use in live drills?
3) If I have the right idea here, what you're saying is that your kata is like a reference book full of information on the basic techniques. Therefore, they would be impossible to remember by doing things like pad drills alone, compared to boxing where there are only four basic attacks. If this is the case, is this multitude of techniques really necessary when you could simply use a few that work and do live drills with them?

1) This needs to be directed to the guys in class who get to 2 or 3 of the sessions per week rather than my measily Sunday morning session. Sunday is a mixed bag, and is the main source of the 'weapons' element - the other two sessions have a far higher proportion of sparring and bagwork. (Different training venue - different equipment)

The forms are used to mark belt progression - we learn and memorise them, and use them for solo workouts (without equipment). Our instructor is more likely in class to set up a senario, give us a 'technique' to use, and then ask "Which form?" - reminding us that everything is there in the 'reference book'.

2) The techniques are directly from the forms for the 'perfect attack' ;) but we are then moved into adapting to the real world where very little is perfect. So a move will start the same way, but could move 2 or 3 ways depending on 'what happens next'.

3) We have 'favoured' techniques for 'real life' problems - these we drill more regularly and agressively than other techniques. After saying that - the origins of the 'arts' must have taken decades to develop into a form that can be passed on as a whole. (I know - some MA's are fairly recent as far as forms etc are concerned, but I'm talking about the old stuff :) )

This is my difference in view between 'learning to finish a fight quickly', and 'learning the whole of an art'. It takes a full knowledge and a great deal of ego to say "I don't think we need this part - I'm not teaching it - let it die".

Many are also too dangerous to do live drills with. If you can't do a live drill with a technique it's highly unlikely to be reliable, especially given the very small target areas of such techniques (eyes, throat) which require pinpoint accuracy.

We drill in a safe manner using techniques / targets that will work - but are then instructed in the minor adaptations that would make them dangerous. An example from our last class (before Christmas) involved a takedown with a kick to the back of the leg. We drilled it by kicking the calf muscle - but were then told how to make the technique devistating if we ever needed to. If in real life we 'followed the drill', then it would work to an extent - we simply know that it could do a lot more damage if we pick our target differently.

I really believe this was the core problem of the TSD I did - there was too much emphasis on simply "knowing" millions of techniques as a means to effective fighting ability and as a result the applicability of the art as a whole suffered horrendously.

We talk a lot about the affects of adrenaline / fear / surprise. My instructor believes that if you do not put yourself in danger on a regular basis, then in a 'real life' situation you will only remember 1 technique in 20. If you only know 20 techniques, then you'd better hope the 1 you remember is the one that counts. If you have learned (over the years) 200 techniques, and seen even more, then your chances increase in proportion. (It is always possible that the situation you end up in actively reminds you of the correct answer)

Hopefullly in this wide world of MA - there is something for everyone. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Timmy Boy

02-Jan-2005, 06:03 AM

We talk a lot about the affects of adrenaline / fear / surprise. My instructor believes that if you do not put yourself in danger on a regular basis, then in a 'real life' situation you will only remember 1 technique in 20. If you only know 20 techniques, then you'd better hope the 1 you remember is the one that counts. If you have learned (over the years) 200 techniques, and seen even more, then your chances increase in proportion. (It is always possible that the situation you end up in actively reminds you of the correct answer)

I don't agree with this. If you're used to using techniques in live sparring then all the ones you need will come to you instinctively. Boxers don't forget how to do right hooks.

Jang Bong

03-Jan-2005, 08:24 PM

I don't agree with this.

My instructor has far more life and combat (MA competition, and possibly other) experience than me, so I'm not going to contradict him ;) His wisdom is a combination of personal experience, and accumulation of information over the years - including work with the prison service (staff and inmates).

Boxers don't forget how to do right hooks.

Since you told me there are only 4 attacks, I should hope they don't :D:D This example does step aside my idea of people who are 'not used to fight situations' - boxers are used to it and actively seek it.

Taking my musical analogy in a different direction... I learned quite a few guitar chords back at school - and I can follow a list of chords and make the music sound like it should. I am neither a guitarist nor an entertainer by my view of things.

There are some people who learn 3 or 4 chords, practice them again and again, and go out making lots of money - good luck to them. Then there are others who learn all the chords, and a variety of styles of strumming, plucking, and in other ways 'twanging' the strings. They play from a wide variety of musical styles, and can adapt to changing situations. Technically speaking, both groups are 'guitarists' and may even be 'entertainers', they simply followed different directions along the same path.

If everyone decided that 3 or 4 chords were enough to make music, and that is all anyone learned, then everything else would die out. Fortunately there are an infinite variety of musicians, and an equal number of 'martial artists' - all good, all valid, and no degradation to any of them.

Regarding the 'numbers of techniques needed' - another bit of wisdom is that every technique has a counter. [Please don't bombard me with "well how would you deal with...." because I'm just learning :)] If you meet someone who knows the counter to each of your 2-3 dozen good techniques, then you're in trouble :D

Timmy Boy

03-Jan-2005, 11:01 PM

My instructor has far more life and combat (MA competition, and possibly other) experience than me, so I'm not going to contradict him ;) His wisdom is a combination of personal experience, and accumulation of information over the years - including work with the prison service (staff and inmates).

He has a lot more than me as well. But, with all due respect, I don't think we should start slinging credentials at each other, otherwise we'll all just start quoting "experts" and the discussion will be boring and fruitless :p

Since you told me there are only 4 attacks, I should hope they don't :D:D This example does step aside my idea of people who are 'not used to fight situations' - boxers are used to it and actively seek it.

Why not actively seek it but with mitigations for safety?

Taking my musical analogy in a different direction... I learned quite a few guitar chords back at school - and I can follow a list of chords and make the music sound like it should. I am neither a guitarist nor an entertainer by my view of things.

There are some people who learn 3 or 4 chords, practice them again and again, and go out making lots of money - good luck to them. Then there are others who learn all the chords, and a variety of styles of strumming, plucking, and in other ways 'twanging' the strings. They play from a wide variety of musical styles, and can adapt to changing situations. Technically speaking, both groups are 'guitarists' and may even be 'entertainers', they simply followed different directions along the same path.

If everyone decided that 3 or 4 chords were enough to make music, and that is all anyone learned, then everything else would die out. Fortunately there are an infinite variety of musicians, and an equal number of 'martial artists' - all good, all valid, and no degradation to any of them.

I do see your point, but playing guitar is different to fighting. You can afford to plan ahead with what you're going to do and simply put the plan into motion, whether you use 3 chords or 30. It's not the same kind of skill. Fighting is different, you need quick reactions with reliable techniques.

Regarding the 'numbers of techniques needed' - another bit of wisdom is that every technique has a counter. [Please don't bombard me with "well how would you deal with...." because I'm just learning :)] If you meet someone who knows the counter to each of your 2-3 dozen good techniques, then you're in trouble :D

Simply knowing the counter isn't enough. Being used to applying the counter is what is needed.

Timmy Boy

07-Jan-2005, 10:54 AM

jeez louise that was a long post.

Well, to be fair, this is the articles forum :p

Gyaku

07-Jan-2005, 11:09 AM

Timmy Boy

07-Jan-2005, 11:14 AM

A polite thread on kata. Nice and refreshing.

What do people think about the analogy between kata and shadow boxing?
I often think the aspect of shadow boxing that makes it effective is visualisation. Could the same measure of effectiveness be applied to kata, if visualisation techniques were also used?

If the moves people did in katas were the same as the moves they really planned to fight using, yes, otherwise the visualisation would be unrealistic.

Gyaku

07-Jan-2005, 11:27 AM

So really this would rest on the depth of knowledge regarding applications? So the flaw may not be in the kata themselves but rather in the way movements are interpreted? Poor interpretation means poor application.

The Bubishi (an old karate text) is very interesting in this regard. One of the bunkai it recommends is a take down in response to a 'headhunter'. Certainly most MMA's will buy into that a well tested method. However this same move (From Kanku-Dai) is normally taught by some karate organisations as a duck away from an over heard kick! Could this problem of 'lost in translation' apply to other techniques?

Timmy Boy

07-Jan-2005, 12:22 PM

The Bubishi (an old karate text) is very interesting in this regard. One of the bunkai it recommends is a take down in response to a 'headhunter'. Certainly most MMA's will buy into that a well tested method. However this same move (From Kanku-Dai) is normally taught by some karate organisations as a duck away from an over heard kick! Could this problem of 'lost in translation' apply to other techniques?

Perhaps, to a degree. But what about things like basic punches and kicks?

Gyaku

07-Jan-2005, 01:54 PM

Perhaps, to a degree. But what about things like basic punches and kicks?

Again, perhap lost in translation. If you're refering to the basic hikite (hand drawn to hip) you could have a point, but if you refer to Kunakoshi's early texts he claims this is to pull an opponant into a punch, a far more feasible application.

Timmy Boy

07-Jan-2005, 02:31 PM

Again, perhap lost in translation. If you're refering to the basic hikite (hand drawn to hip) you could have a point, but if you refer to Kunakoshi's early texts he claims this is to pull an opponant into a punch, a far more feasible application.

Ah, now this makes more sense! So perhaps the solution could be found in bunkai?

Gyaku

07-Jan-2005, 02:36 PM

Yup agree there. Of course you still have to spar to learn to apply the techniques.

GojuKJoe

07-Jan-2005, 03:03 PM

I haven't actually read this thread because I can't be bothered to read all of your long winded posts :D

My opinion on kata is that if it helps you then do it. It helps me, so I do it, I don't need to justify it to anyone and I think these big arguments are pointless and never get anywhere. I will say though, that kata are very useful when done right. Just look at Mas Oyama, one of the toughest blokes in martial arts. He practised kata hundreds of times a day, and practised the "air basics" endlessly to perfect his technique, and he was inarguably a very good fighter. However kata for some people, is not the right way for them to train and so it holds them back, so my advice to anyone having doubts about their kata training, is to take a step back and see if it is helping you or not. If it is, then great, but if it's not, maybe you should find another art to train in, or just do less kata.

ap Oweyn

07-Jan-2005, 03:34 PM

Ah, now this makes more sense! So perhaps the solution could be found in bunkai?

I would be interested to see a group construct a set of sparring drills specifically on movements from the kata. I've seen the reverse process, where kata are altered (higher stances for example) to more closely reflect sparring. But I haven't ever seen a karate class where they took two sparrers and said, "alright, Mike, you can only throw reverse punches using good front stances and Jim, you defend using your forearm blocks and the appropriate stance transitions."

See I'm willing to accept that kata has a point (though I don't personally make use of it). But I think kata gets treated like magic. You do it and the skills automatically have a positive impact on your sparring. And that, I don't really believe. Except for the more abstract benefits like stretching and conditioning.

Stuart

Timmy Boy

07-Jan-2005, 03:53 PM

I haven't actually read this thread because I can't be bothered to read all of your long winded posts :D

Well, you've not come to the right place, this is the articles forum lol!

My opinion on kata is that if it helps you then do it. It helps me, so I do it, I don't need to justify it to anyone and I think these big arguments are pointless and never get anywhere.

They often do degenerate into pointless and unconstructive style bashing, but this one has been anything but IMO.

I will say though, that kata are very useful when done right. Just look at Mas Oyama, one of the toughest blokes in martial arts. He practised kata hundreds of times a day, and practised the "air basics" endlessly to perfect his technique, and he was inarguably a very good fighter.

I personally think Oyama's ability was more to do with the fact that he trained himself into being hard as nails, he did some crazy stuff, not just kata and air basics.

However kata for some people, is not the right way for them to train and so it holds them back, so my advice to anyone having doubts about their kata training, is to take a step back and see if it is helping you or not. If it is, then great, but if it's not, maybe you should find another art to train in, or just do less kata.

I think what's more in dispute now is not the existence of kata but the purpose of it and how one should train with it/use it. So the discussion has progressed after all :D

Gyaku

07-Jan-2005, 04:04 PM

I agree, there is a tendency to see kata in some magical alchemical light. By training kata you can suddenly apply all the movements.

I would be interested to see a group construct a set of sparring drills specifically on movements from the kata.

That would be interesting. However I have a problem with this. I train kata as a fixed movement. If you will, a 'standard' of technique or correct structure. Even your top MMA's like Shamrock talk about 'proper' structure etc. Kata is the codification of this 'proper structure'.

Kumite is the art of variation in technique and structure. Sometimes you must modify the technique, heighten the stance, lower the stance etc according to your opponant. In essence you're studying the amount of variation from that original form. For me kumite is an extention of kata.

I don't thing you need kata to fight well, but you need to fight well to do kata well!

Timmy Boy

07-Jan-2005, 04:07 PM

Kumite is the art of variation in technique and structure. Sometimes you must modify the technique, heighten the stance, lower the stance etc according to your opponant. In essence you're studying the amount of variation from that original form. For me kumite is an extention of kata.

If I may be just a little cynical for a moment... what if the sparring people do looks far more like kickboxing than the karate movements? Surely that's complete rejection of the techniques in the katas rather than modification of them? And do instructors teach you good ways of adapting them?

Gyaku

07-Jan-2005, 04:29 PM

No, not cynical at all. I've often asked myself the same question.

To me its a problem of 'scrappyness'. A skilled karateka against an unskilled less able fighter will still maintain 'kata' - I know, because I can do it, and so can many of my students.

Scrappyness becomes a problem when you have equally able fighters. However, normally the fight is won (or at least is able to dominate) when one fighter is able to get in a technique that is correct in kata (proper use of hip etc).

If you look at MMA compos you'll see vast spaces of scrappy technique, that doesn't resemble kickboxing, karate or anything else, they're just doing what they can, which is fight. The first person who is able to exact a well structured (ie good kata) technique will usually win.

ap Oweyn

07-Jan-2005, 04:50 PM

If I may be just a little cynical for a moment... what if the sparring people do looks far more like kickboxing than the karate movements? Surely that's complete rejection of the techniques in the katas rather than modification of them? And do instructors teach you good ways ot adapting them?

That's what I'm wondering too. I actually really like Gyaku's comments about a basis for the inevitable variation of sparring. But I think that in most cases, the variation is strong enough that it leaves the basis behind entirely. I'm thinking that if more sparring drills were done from the kata basics, then the degree of variation would decrease.

Good points all around though. Keep it up.

Stuart

Matt_Bernius

07-Jan-2005, 05:18 PM

The question of practice v. execution is one that most TMA's don't like to address. It can be broken down to a couple of ideologies:

1. In the end we're all programmed to fight a certain way and under stress we revert back.

2. Fighting always optimizes to match other fighting. Therefore if someone is kick boxing you, you have a tendency to kick box.

3. Training amd fight preparation are the issue. If you introduce sparring in a manner that allows for experiementation people are more likely to experiement and optimize.

4. That the techniques and kata originally looked closer to that type of fighting and became stylized.

There's arguments for each of these cases. From a training methodology standpoint I tend to closely align with the third option. I think the way that sparring is taught in many schools prevents beginners from utilizing their arts. That inability to access skills in turn instantiates a mental schism between kata and application. That schism in turn only widens as time progresses and the training methodologies stay the same.

There is a lot of truth in the other ideologies. I do think that we have a number of hard wired survival skills that we can't easily bypass. Evidence shows that we optimize training to the practical success vectors of the combat situation (a great argument against point sparring btw).

Finally, we get this idea that every second of sparring should look like a kung fu movie. The fact is, even in the UFC, that the stylistic differences, the killer moves, only briefly come out during matches. Take a Royce match, isolate the first minute or so, and show it to a person who doesn't know who he is. They'd guess he's a karate man or something along those lines. His BJJ only differentiated itself when the opportunity allowed. The same thing is true of much of Kata/Form material. Like in Aikido, basic punching and kicking does 70% of the work and creates the opportunities for usage of advanced techniques.

- Matt

ap Oweyn

07-Jan-2005, 05:32 PM

There's arguments for each of these cases. From a training methodology standpoint I tend to closely align with the third option. I think the way that sparring is taught in many schools prevents beginners from utilizing their arts. That inability to access skills in turn instantiates a mental schism between kata and application. That schism in turn only widens as time progresses and the training methodologies stay the same.

I think this right here is the crux of the issue. That schism between practice and execution is the primary reason I balk whenever someone says "don't introduce sparring until much later, when the techniques have been internalized."

That reality check should be a constant process. I can subscribe to Gyaku's idea that kata represents an ideal from which we know we'll deviate in reality. But ONLY if that process of deviation is explored as you go along. So that when you learn a low block reverse punch combination (for example), you're exploring both the ideal and the reality at roughly the same time.

It does little good to learn the ideal for months or even a year before testing them in sparring. Because the feedback you're getting all in one go is too much for most people to single out individual facets of their game to work on. For example, a student spends 6 months learning the basic blocks, footwork, and kicks, then they spar. All of a sudden, the basic blocks aren't catching all the attacks. The student doesn't have the time to move from back stance to front stance to cat stance. The timing and range on the kicks are constantly changing. That's a lot of adaptation to do all at one time, in the midst of a sparring match.

If sparring drills were incorporated all along, then there would be less variance to learn to deal with at any given moment. The schism would be smaller at any given moment. In my opinion.

Stuart

YODA

07-Jan-2005, 05:44 PM

Well, you've not come to the right place, this is the articles forum lol!

Actually - if you read the forum description - this forum area is intended for discusion of articles posted in the ARTICLES SECTION. (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/magazine/) Not for posting articles in :rolleyes:

Matt_Bernius

07-Jan-2005, 05:44 PM

Quite right Stuart. The only thing that I'd add is that the sparring should be optimized for each level of learning.

For as much as martial arts teachers often remind students to "go slow" first, beginner sparring environments (and the point sparring structure in general) tend to counteract this type of advice. Beginners get into an adrenaline dumping, performance situation, even with light contact, that negates all previous training.

Our solution is to temporarily take speed and strength out of the equaision. The goal is to place students in an environment that they build up a trust in their abilities while not worring if they're head is going to be separated from thier shoulders.

Once the student grows accustom to working within that frame work the pace can be increased at a rate that matches thier overall progress.

- Matt

GojuKJoe

07-Jan-2005, 05:50 PM

ok, so i've read the thread now, and i agree with most of whats been said but i'm still definately pro kata because it has helped me become a better fighter and get good technique, which in turn leads to more power. And
tim you are right, i'm surprised to see that this hasn't turned into a kata bashing thread.

ap Oweyn

07-Jan-2005, 05:50 PM

Good point Matt! Thanks for reminding me. I wanted to draw a distinction between free sparring and sparring drills. I absolutely agree. Variables should be limited to train specific things. Whether you're limiting speed, range of techniques, level of contact, etc. It's the difference between sparring for the full experience and sparring to achieve specific gains in a specific area of study.

I agree. Many teachers I've seen don't use sparring as a tool. Just as a proving ground. Or worse yet, as an undirected activity with no real connection to the other training methods in the curriculum.

Stuart

Matt_Bernius

07-Jan-2005, 05:56 PM

Many teachers I've seen don't use sparring as a tool. Just as a proving ground. Or worse yet, as an undirected activity with no real connection to the other training methods in the curriculum.And that, like teaching people to kick knives out of hands, makes the baby Jesus cry.

- Matt

ap Oweyn

07-Jan-2005, 05:59 PM

LOL

I just can't imagine what the objection is to it. Anyone?

Timmy Boy

07-Jan-2005, 10:44 PM

I agree with ap-oweyn and Matt Bernius with regards to sparring. If you teach students to perform a load of slow, strong, powerful movements to any target area, then tell them that they're only allowed to spar lightly with big restrictions on target areas (including the head), then of course there's going to be very little correlation between the basics/kata and free sparring! It's as if you're learning two completely different martial arts at the same time and neither complements the other. Is the crucial thing to address, perhaps, fixing the correlation in some way? At TSD, I always felt that people would have far more incentive to use proper technique if the sparring was a bit harder...

Fish Of Doom

09-Jan-2005, 10:59 PM

w wewre once taught during a seminar before a tourney by a kumite expert, that there were six basic guidelines to kumite, only one of which i can remember :D : vigorous aplication, which means that through the light/medium contact used at kumite, you have to actually do the moves in a way that had you actually hit hard, could have knocked to oponent out or sent him sprawling to the floor, moving like if you were in a real fight for your life, only with medium contact, so if you do a high kick, so have to do it so that had it touched it would stun/knock out/kill your oponent, if you punche him, you should be as if you wanted to knock the air out of him, etc.

the expert fought a couple fights then on the dan's kumite rounds and kick quite a number of black belt butts(hook kicks to the temple, spin kicks to the stomach, punches to the nose, etc, the only strong contact was the spinkick that sent the other one flying, and knocked the air out of him for quite some time)

EDIT: IMO i'd say that's one thing that complements in kata and kumite, because the tendion used in kata movements is used for vigorous aplication and the vigorous aplication can halp the body get used to kata body tension.

Timmy Boy

09-Jan-2005, 11:51 PM

w wewre once taught during a seminar before a tourney by a kumite expert, that there were six basic guidelines to kumite, only one of which i can remember :D : vigorous aplication, which means that through the light/medium contact used at kumite, you have to actually do the moves in a way that had you actually hit hard, could have knocked to oponent out or sent him sprawling to the floor, moving like if you were in a real fight for your life, only with medium contact, so if you do a high kick, so have to do it so that had it touched it would stun/knock out/kill your oponent, if you punche him, you should be as if you wanted to knock the air out of him, etc.

Hmm, TBH this sounds a bit complicated and "thinky" to me.

EDIT: IMO i'd say that's one thing that complements in kata and kumite, because the tendion used in kata movements is used for vigorous aplication and the vigorous aplication can halp the body get used to kata body tension.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.

Fish Of Doom

09-Jan-2005, 11:59 PM

Hmm, TBH this sounds a bit complicated and "thinky" to me.
just do the moves like if the oponent just shot all of your living relatives but following the rules of the tourney(eg: you hit him hard he's dead, only you don't hit him hard)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.
that fighitng with strong movements gets you used to tensing during blows, helping with strong kata movements, and vice-versa, of course it it only my opinion

Ikken Hisatsu

10-Jan-2005, 12:09 AM

Timmy Boy

10-Jan-2005, 12:30 AM

i have this secret method of learning how to get used to tensing during blows- its called sparring with contact. dont tell everyone though! this is my masters secret!

what on earth is the point in "pretending" to do moves that "would" hurt if you had hit them? what you are doing is training yourself to miss.

I always used to find in TSD sparring that it was too much mental effort to fight effectively and safely. You had to make sure you didn't make too much contact and hurt your opponent, so that meant either engaging your brain (i.e. not your instinct) or engaging your instinct and ingraining unrealistic habits.

I will reiterate my point that I don't want to bash the style that anyone does here, but nearly all of the solutions to the problems discussed that I've heard so far have been theoretical and complicated. It's all far too much beating around the bush for my taste. Fighting with aggressive instinct on one hand but using your brain to remember it's not full contact on the other, having loads of techniques because the likelihood is you'll only remember 1 in 20 in real life if you're not used to combat... there is an easier way!

I think instinct is the single most important aspect when it comes to applying martial arts. Complicated drills which involve too much - or even any - conscious thinking are a Bad Thing, IMO. Your brain is not what controls you in a real fight.

Fish Of Doom

10-Jan-2005, 12:32 AM

no, because what you're suggesting is we do loose non contact sparring, we ACTUALLY hit each other hard and sometimes fall to the ground punching each other, i never mentioned non contact, i just said that we do figght strong like in full contact but with medium contact.
i've seen people send each other flying with spinkicks, and smashing mouths, breaking bones, bleeding noses, kicking groins and even a couple of those whiplash knockouts that last two seconds(in light-medium contact sparring).
and there's this black belt who's deafmute but is an excellent karate-ka(one of the best i know actually, and quite a nice dude) and he got trashed quite violently once(he always respects the sparring rules, but i know if he actually hit hard there could be bodies all over the place) and they had to keep him calm and help him between six people(he got hit everywhere along the course of like five fights or so i think, including a close range thrust punch to the heart area, several groin hits, a mouth hit and i think he got one in the back also), and he couldn't get up from the pain(though i've seen him kick butt quite hard also at other times).
strangely the kumite in our comps is more brutal with BBs than with 15, 16 and 17 y/olds(some of the most violent).

EDIT:oops took to long, consider this as quoting ikken...

now for TST: i don't want to start a style vs. style also, but the moves that are to be used on street are the ones allowed in sparring in our comps and dojos(except elbowing and knee-ing, we drill that with "live" drilling)

i also never said medium was strong, only that you had to do as if you were fighting strong, throwing hard blows, so that when you need to apply that strenght, you can just loosen yourself a little more

and i also never said our style is not dangerous, only that the practitioners fight violently.
and it think it IS lack of conditioning for younger people, and "counter-conditioning" for older ones, as older students(esp.black belts) practice "free-combat"(ju-kumite), which is actual preparation for real street fighting.
kyokushin and similar were developed to acomodate full-contact and know how to control it(kumite rules for my style and other older ones i think was developes when masters were just starting to develop comps, and took into account fighting each other, and had to filter dangerous techniques and decide what to do with the other ones), mine wasn't, and most students(around here at least) have such crappy ideas about MAs that they would end up killing each other literally, i train with a couple of those.
most TKDers around here have joined McDojangs for that, as they think flashy and dangerous is the rule, and theyget beaten up or beat up other people.

anyway this is degenerating into a kumite arguing thread and it's the kata article, so i'll stop now, we all think different? then so be it, no point in ruining a fine thread like this.

Timmy Boy

10-Jan-2005, 12:37 AM

Ikken Hisatsu

10-Jan-2005, 12:45 AM

Fish Of Doom

10-Jan-2005, 01:04 AM

so its like full contact.... but not? how do you fight "like" full contact but only at medium contact level? its one or the other.

are you trying to show how "tough" your club is? because it comes off as the kind of place that gives martial arts a bad name. people getting broken limbs and jaws is NOT a commonplace thing (or shouldnt be at least) in any martial arts school. someone fighting 5 people in a row and being hurt so badly they cant move? are we supposed to be in awe of how manly you all are? If thats the way your school operates I can only hope you get found out and shut down.

now that's just stupid, i'm just saying i've seen people get hurt in COMPETITIONS!, and you've never seen how the guys here fight, i myself consider myself a good MAist and i respect the rules, i've taken full-on roundhouses and knuckle strikes to the head from an angry guy to let him vent his anger because i know he needs an outlet for it, and i don't hit back.
i'm not showing off that they're macho or tough, i just said that the guy abode by the rules and got a beating from people, because accidents happen, because they hit wit VIGOROUS APPLICATION, which again means you hit like you wanted to kill, but you control yourself.

I already edited my last post, and that answers most of TST's post and some of yours, now let's stop arguing over kumite in the kata article please as this feels like you want to flame me and our sparring rules(not that i'm accusing you), but i Do accuse you of saying other people want to pose as machos because they talk about hard medium contact sparring, while YOU brag about how full contact is the only supreme rule.

if i'm gonna get sin binned for this then so be it, i joined this forum to expose and debate my opinions without being thrown around like a rag doll, and i get treaten like if i were back at my school.

my opinion

fish of doom

Timmy Boy

10-Jan-2005, 01:17 AM

i also never said medium was strong, only that you had to do as if you were fighting strong, throwing hard blows, so that when you need to apply that strenght, you can just loosen yourself a little more

Throwing hard blows isn't strong?

and i also never said our style is not dangerous, only that the practitioners fight violently.

As opposed to fighting non-violently?

and it think it IS lack of conditioning for younger people, and "counter-conditioning" for older ones, as older students(esp.black belts) practice "free-combat"(ju-kumite), which is actual preparation for real street fighting.

So why not do more/better conditioning?

kyokushin and similar were developed to acomodate full-contact and know how to control it(kumite rules for my style and other older ones i think was developes when masters were just starting to develop comps, and took into account fighting each other, and had to filter dangerous techniques and decide what to do with the other ones), mine wasn't, and most students(around here at least) have such crappy ideas about MAs that they would end up killing each other literally, i train with a couple of those.

Then what's wrong with your school accomodating full contact?

most TKDers around here have joined McDojangs for that, as they think flashy and dangerous is the rule, and theyget beaten up or beat up other people.

Again, surely that supports the case for full contact, to drill in realistic attitudes?

anyway this is degenerating into a kumite arguing thread and it's the kata article, so i'll stop now, we all think different? then so be it, no point in ruining a fine thread like this.

I see no sense in stopping a discussion just because we have different opinions on something, otherwise it would be boring. Discussing kumite is relevant because kumite is the sparring, as in the pretend fighting. If people are doing katas in a completely different way to how they practice fighting, surely there is a problem?

My overall point to you, Fish, is that your proposed solutions to the problems we've mentioned are only necessary for you because your club is unwilling to take the simple route - i.e. training really hard. Saying things like "oh well we don't do full contact because people would get injured through not being conditioned enough" only strengthens the case for training hard. The way to get really good at martial arts is to train hard to improve on your weak areas rather than just accepting them as they are and avoiding doing anything about them.

Fish Of Doom

10-Jan-2005, 01:34 AM

oh please you're degenerating all of my answers, i don't want to discuss this anymore, reminds me too much of discussions at school

"I see no sense in stopping a discussion just because we have different opinions on something, otherwise it would be boring. Discussing kumite is relevant because kumite is the sparring, as in the pretend fighting. If people are doing katas in a completely different way to how they practice fighting, surely there is a problem?"

this is totally off-topic, that's why i want to stop it, it's like posting fencing stuff in the capoeira forum

i won't touch this thread anymore, since you and ikken seem bent on bringing me down, when i just posted my opinions, and then you started asking questions, i answered with all honesty and you begin throwing stuff at me, i'm sick of this.

if i'm gonna get sin binned then so be it, i may or may not deserve it, but i don't want to talk to you two anymore, you've rekindled in a minute of reading all the anger i have from three years of school bullies, and i'll end up trying to kill anybody who so much as looks at me if i continue arguing, so please stop!

Melanie

10-Jan-2005, 01:43 AM

I'm sorry that you feel so upset about this thread. If you feel its better to bow out then by all means, I understand. Emotions are high granted but all opinions are valid and each will get their air time - so long as no one is derogatory or personal and so far I haven't seen any personal attacks.

There appears to be good reason for all remarks, but maybe and please let me emphasize the maybe, they haven't been read properly. Perhaps take a step back tonight and re-read the thread tomorrow. This is an imformed thread - lets not ruin it now please :)

Humblebee

10-Jan-2005, 01:46 AM

perservere and respect

Ikken Hisatsu

10-Jan-2005, 01:47 AM

if you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen

Melanie

10-Jan-2005, 01:51 AM

Thats not helping Ikken :) Please :)

Humblebee

10-Jan-2005, 01:52 AM

or go in the garden and take deep breaths

Fish Of Doom

10-Jan-2005, 01:57 AM

i am respecting them, that's why i said i'd go out, else i'd be all over them.

and ikken, please don't tell me to do what i already said i'd do, because that i consider personal.

and in my opinion i'm more insulted by people saying things like "your style can't accept full contact because blah blah blah, than people insulting me.

my priority in insults is my family, my friends, my martial art, my style and finally myself, and i know my limits and how i react when i cross them, because it's happened dozens of times, that's why i'm leaving the thread, so as not to explode in a screaming fit, and in doing so, my morality perseveres over my instincts of manic ear bursting.

now please get this back to the original subject

KATA

not kumite

fish of doom

Ikken Hisatsu

10-Jan-2005, 02:02 AM

didnt you already leave?

Timmy Boy

10-Jan-2005, 02:05 AM

and in my opinion i'm more insulted by people saying things like "your style can't accept full contact because blah blah blah, than people insulting me.

Fish, we are discussing training methods here. If you are insulted by people preferring other training methods to yours, or simply making logical points that disagree with your opinions, then I question why you joined this site at all.

now please get this back to the original subject

KATA

not kumite

fish of doom

You're not hearing me, Fish. Kumite is very relevant to this discussion because of the huge inconsistency between karate as seen in the kata and karate as seen in the kumite. Since the kumite seems to be so drastically different, it calls the point of kata into question.

Humblebee

10-Jan-2005, 02:06 AM

And they're off :bang:

Melanie

10-Jan-2005, 02:07 AM

Please refrain from baiting one another...this is not the forum that likes that! Please stop now.

Jang Bong

10-Jan-2005, 04:39 PM

Timmy Boy

10-Jan-2005, 04:51 PM

It always happens when I think I'm letting someone see a different point of view. Just scanned through the last page-and-a-half, and it looks like a totally different thread that has ignored all the constructive byplay (with differing views) that had gone before.

Sad! :( :rolleyes:

If people want definitive statements, then in my oppinion "Learning a martial art", and "Learning to fight (effectively or otherwise)" are two different things.

Anyone that things there is no benefit in Kata/Hyungs may simply not be able to see the benefit.

To be fair Jang Bong, I have been trying very hard to keep this thread from degenerating into style-bashing and I really enjoyed it when it was going properly. I have still been making constructive comments, but sadly Fish of Doom took my opinions a little too personally.

I would welcome further discussion from yourself, Ikken Hitatsu, ap oweyn, Gyaku, and all others who have been able to discuss opinions like adults.

Jang Bong

11-Jan-2005, 01:31 AM

Timmy Boy

11-Jan-2005, 10:53 AM

Unfortunately the sometimes observed opinion that "Kata does not relate directly to real life fighting" gets translated (sometimes by interpretation - sometimes by deliberate malice) into "Kata serves no purpose and is useless. Anyone who pratices it is wasting their time and should be fighting".

Well no, and as I said, each to their own.

I go back to my comments that you TST and IH have chosen arts that are heavily into direct combat as a major part and result of your training. I did not miss the point of it being a 'controlled and relatively safe' arena, but you sidestepped my reference to people who do not actively 'want to fight'.

I haven't sidestepped it, Jang Bong. In my very first post on this thread I said that I was talking purely about people who DO train to fight. Besides, arts like judo all have mitigations so that people can spar realistically AND safely, so there's nothing to be scared of. I think you have sidestepped my point that there is a difference between hard sparring and real fighting.

You may look down on me for being a peaceable type of guy - but going back to my guitar anallogy, I reserve the right to learn to play without having to be a performance artist. My skills may never have been tested by your standards, but my hope is that they never will be.

I think you're confusing me for some kind of knucklehead. I'm not trying to put pressure on anyone to start fights with people, I'm simply inquiring as to why it's a bad idea to spar hard.

The usual sidestep for the 'blueprint of the art' is the fact there are too many techniques and you shouldn't need the blueprint. This does not try to discredit the use of kata - it attacks the whole art in order to throw the learning of kata out. Not a good result. :(

There's nothing wrong with a blueprint, I just have concerns about how much training time is devoted to simply repeating the movements of the kata rather than applying them.

At class last week (the 'shotokan karate' one I am a guest at) the drill was to block a punch to the jaw, and respond with an immediate attack of your own. The tricky part was that each response needed to be different. The lady I was working with didn't know how I could come up with so many - I was simply taking an appropriate move from each form in turn (starting off with a straight middle-punch from basic form 1 and going on from there).

OK - We're off again :)

Well if your goal is simply to learn loads of counterattacks, then yes, that was very well done. But even you implied that you were still training in how to fight, hence such statements as "my instructor says that if you learn 20 techniques you will only remember 1 so you need to learn loads to make up for it", and now you're talking about not being a fighting type of guy? The point is, we are ALL training in how to fight, even if we don't pla

First off, in judo and boxing, you don't HAVE to compete. Secondly, sparring in the lessons is NOT dangerous. When I talk about sparring hard, I'm not talking about two guys completely mullering each other. Like a real fight, you have to apply techniques under a lot of pressure, you have the adrenalin going etc. However, unlike a real fight, certain techniques are banned, the fight stops when you tap, in boxing you don't hit on absolute full power if it's not a compettition fight, your opponent (if he is a senior belt) will help you out, etc.

Gyaku

12-Jan-2005, 11:49 AM

To Tang Sou Tim and others, you've made some really great posts.

I thought I might provide my schools take on kata ( I practise Tsubaeme-Ryu, which is an offshoot of Shotokan) and its place in karate training.

1.Pure Kata---------------2.Limited Kata---------------3.No Kata

If you look at the above 'diagram'.

At number 1, we have the practise of Pure Kata, here there is zero variation, practise is confined to a strict 'ideal'. Here we take a movement from a kata. Let us for take Tekki shodan as an example. The form opens with an open hand movement followed by an elbow strike.
At this level in practise, students have to apply correct principles to their these movements. So proper breathing, hip rotation etc are stressed.

Next we apply the movement against a non-resisting opponant. This is a bit like Ippon kumite or one step sparring.

At this point only an ideal kata is used.

2. At this point we start with variation.
Here we might use an isolation drill where one person tries to grab their opponant and land a punch. The Bunkai is applied in this setting, but with variation in timeing height etc. However, basic principles are still being applied, like breathing etc.

Eventually we move to randori or free fighting, where the student gets the opportunity to apply and ingrain the technique against a fully resisting opponant.

3. At this level we have residual effects of training, where the principles of the technique are applied in an endless variation. So proper breathing etc are applied to other completely different movements.
An example is during a very scrappy fight, although form is difficult to apply, proper breathing is still applied, hips are still used to throw punches etc.

Finally, we also see kata as a consolidation tool, in that it is a physical reminder of techniques and principles sharpened and applied in real kumite, rather than simply a learning tool.

Timmy Boy

12-Jan-2005, 12:02 PM

In my previous post, that should have said "even if we don't plan to", not "even if we don't pla", I only realised that typo just now and it's too late to edit!

Timmy Boy

12-Jan-2005, 12:05 PM

Ok Gyaku, thanks for helping to get this thread back on track :). Now, a question with regard to your model of training. I think the crucial drill there is the second one, as it provides the bridge between kata and kumite. Could you possibly provide more details about it? In particular I'd be interested to hear about the speed, spontaneity, and what skills the drill specifically works on.

Gyaku

12-Jan-2005, 12:32 PM

I agree, the isolation drills are vital, and make the bridge.

I take a either a thematic skillset approach to the drills.

Thematics are common types of attacks, for instance the old grab by lapel and punch is common, but you need to understand that is have infinite variety, you can be grabbed in many way, your oppnant might remain static and punch or they might even push and pull etc. In reality its very dynamic. So we work with a theme of attack rather than a very specific attack.

When we drill a theme, one person will attack using this method, but will try their best to resist any counters and land their punch (so they'll push and body punch, then head punch, whatever they can!) - which is exactly ho wit would happen in a real situation. The amount the person resists is up to the consent of students.

Other themes are kickers, knifers etc. Thet are basically common problems that occur in fighting. The kata technique is taught in relation to a thematic problem.

A skill set approach is different. Here we will help students build certain reflexs, balance, strength etc. One student might hold an impact bag while another delivers kicks that require the student to correctly position of the hips in kicking, for instance a stepping front kick, roundhouse kick and back kick sequence. Again to refer to kanku dai, we might practise this kata over and over to build aerobic endurance.

Timmy Boy

12-Jan-2005, 12:39 PM

All sounds good to me, how much time is dedicated to the first of the drills?

Overall I think that setup is pretty good, it's someone taking the kata movements and actually using them in good, realistic drills.

It kind of reminds me in a way of what we do at judo. Sometimes, we modify the "textbook" techniques slightly in order to make them work better, e.g. putting both legs over for the cross armlock/armbar, rather than the traditional one, or this pin I got showed last lesson where simply moving one arm into a different position than the textbook move stopped uke from being able to move at all.

Gyaku

12-Jan-2005, 12:57 PM

how much time is dedicated to the first of the drills?

Generally as soon as th estudent is ready. I have a flexible approach, once the student can cope at one level, they can step it up, more resistance, speed etc.

So in a class, I might have the beginners just doing simple one step drills so they can get a handle on basics, whie advanced students will be working with more resistance.

Overall I think that setup is pretty good, it's someone taking the kata movements and actually using them in good, realistic drills.

Thanks, it took me nearly 8 years to figure it all out! Although I must say most karate schools don't train this way, which is a shame.

What about the kata themselves. I don't think all kata or versions of kata are necessarily effective from a bunkai position. Some kata are better than others.

How do you approach kata, if you practise it?

Timmy Boy

12-Jan-2005, 01:01 PM

How do you approach kata, if you practise it?

I don't anymore :D but in TSD we just did the forms. We were told to learn and use the moves in the forms, but we only did this in one and three step sparring which were slow and unrealistic, so they all got thrown out the window when we did free sparring.

Infrazael

12-Jan-2005, 05:42 PM

Because alot of the moves in forms aren't THAT applicable. Oh there are ones that are, Sao Choy, Gwa Choy, and all the combinations WITHIN the forms we do. However, the lones like eyepokes and the ones that involve heave stance transitions I dont' use yet, mainly because mine aren't that fast yet. . . . . .

Timmy Boy

12-Jan-2005, 06:14 PM

Infrazael

12-Jan-2005, 10:02 PM

What exactly did you do anyways? Krappy Karate???

Timmy Boy

12-Jan-2005, 10:05 PM

What exactly did you do anyways? Krappy Karate???

Ren Yi Wu Kwan Tang Sou Dao. Read my explanation on the first page for what was wrong with it.

notquitedead

13-Jan-2005, 01:44 AM

If people want definitive statements, then in my oppinion "Learning a martial art", and "Learning to fight (effectively or otherwise)" are two different things.
While I disagree (I realize people study martial arts for different reasons, but they were created for just one), that statement makes the thread a lot shorter. ;) I train mostly because I enjoy it, but I don't enjoy training that doesn't help me improve my ability to fight. For that reason, I don't do kata. I've done them before and I didn't really think they have any benefits. Besides, techniques done in forms are often different from their actual applications. I could go on and on about it, but this post from another forum (here (http://p072.ezboard.com/ftaekwondo67109frm24.showMessage?topicID=209.topic )) says it better than I can.

Something always confused me about kata -namely the inconsistancy between the 'correct' kata and the realities of application.

A prime example -taken merely because this Bunkai interpretation of the Kata is not controversial and the kata is well known, is the Winding Throw from Bassai Dai.

A winding throw (Makikomi in Judo/Jujitsu circles) has several variations and hybrids. A general example is this:
http://membres.lycos.fr/johannvyncke/images/2kyu/Soto-Makikomi.gif

Basically grab the opponent, hook one foot around their furthest leg and twist your hips so that you drag them around your hips.

In the Kata is is done by pivoting clockwise with your left foot and shifting your right across your body as you turn anti-clockwise into front stance (zenkutsu dachi), left inwards block (soto uke) across body. This action is illustrated below left.
http://usera.imagecave.com/armchairstrategist/bassai-dai-3.jpg

However, note that in the kata the back remains vertical and the feet are positioned in perfect stance -inhibiting the full twisting of the hips. in application the body is usually tilted significantly, the stance more upright and twisted and significantly, the right foot (or left if done other side) has to hook their furthest leg. The natural finishing position in the application is depicted above right.

The arm positions are open to contention -whilst it might work with the inward block depicted it is notable that it is not a natural way to do it nor common in Judo etc.

So why do it so wrongly in the kata -why use stances/postures which are not functional in application -if kata really is to entrain moves that can be applied, surely it is logical that the kata resembles as closely as possible how they are applied??????

Timmy Boy

13-Jan-2005, 03:23 PM

ap Oweyn

13-Jan-2005, 03:27 PM

I do remember hearing somewhere that, over time/at some point (can't remember which), many of karate's head honchos became more concerned with the aesthetic qualities and the "martial way" rather than fighting, and as a result the movements became more stylised and impractical. Anyone know anything about this?

I doubt it was any sort of concerted effort or decision. I think it's just a predictable consequence of them no longer representing the state of the art in military technology. Without the constant reality check, rust builds up. In retrospect, it might look like a directed effort. But in reality, I think it just happened.

Stuart

Timmy Boy

13-Jan-2005, 03:29 PM

I doubt it was any sort of concerted effort or decision. I think it's just a predictable consequence of them no longer representing the state of the art in military technology. Without the constant reality check, rust builds up. In retrospect, it might look like a directed effort. But in reality, I think it just happened.

Stuart

So do you think perhaps competition has something to do with it?

To clarify, I don't mean that suddenly they re-wrote all the moves and overnight it turned useless. I'm not even saying it's useless now. What I thought happened was that the heads of karate federations stopped doing full contact fighting in their schools to concentrate on the other, less combat focussed elements of martial arts training, and without that goal of effective fighting, the standards of practicality in the techniques began to diminish to make way for more aesthetic quality. Hence the kata has impractical moves in it now, or so the story goes.

ap Oweyn

13-Jan-2005, 03:50 PM

So do you think perhaps competition has something to do with it?

To clarify, I don't mean that suddenly they re-wrote all the moves and overnight it turned useless. I'm not even saying it's useless now. What I thought happened was that the heads of karate federations stopped doing full contact fighting in their schools to concentrate on the other, less combat focussed elements of martial arts training, and without that goal of effective fighting, the standards of practicality in the techniques began to diminish to make way for more aesthetic quality. Hence the kata has impractical moves in it now, or so the story goes.

Oh, I see what you're saying. I think.

I don't know. I think it probably began out of an earnest belief in what we now dismiss as the "too deadly for competition" defense.

On the one hand, when you're talking about swordfighting, archery, halberd, etc., there really isn't a very good way to simulate that experience. Fencing doesn't give someone the experience of being stabbed. Or of stabbing someone else. It's still an abstraction. It's just that most of us find sparring less of an abstraction than forms are. And in a day and age where "combat" for most of us means getting punched or kicked rather than run through, that might well be true. But when martial arts first began to fade from "day-to-day" combat, it may well have been that kata were the next reasonable step. Unfortunately, that allows room for distortion and compromise. And in some cases (many cases) that distortion and compromise took root.

I have no idea whether this is the case. It's hypothesizing.

Think about the weapon arts that now spar though. I mentioned fencing. I can personally attest to the fact that stick sparring (at least WEKAF armoured stickfighting) isn't a very faithful representation of what it would be like to get bashed with a stick proper. Anymore than paintball is a faithful recreation of a fire fight.

I think I just muddied the waters more than cleared them. At least in my own head. :)

Timmy Boy

13-Jan-2005, 05:11 PM

I don't know. I think it probably began out of an earnest belief in what we now dismiss as the "too deadly for competition" defense.

So the fact that they refused to practice realistically in compettition meant that they had to just speculate about the techniques and thus they're not as effective as they might have been had they been properly pressure tested and refined?

On the one hand, when you're talking about swordfighting, archery, halberd, etc., there really isn't a very good way to simulate that experience. Fencing doesn't give someone the experience of being stabbed. Or of stabbing someone else. It's still an abstraction. It's just that most of us find sparring less of an abstraction than forms are. And in a day and age where "combat" for most of us means getting punched or kicked rather than run through, that might well be true. But when martial arts first began to fade from "day-to-day" combat, it may well have been that kata were the next reasonable step. Unfortunately, that allows room for distortion and compromise. And in some cases (many cases) that distortion and compromise took root.

I can really see what you mean here. Many martial arts were designed to kill, hence the way that many of them include weapons training, so the people who designed them naturally thought "well, if we practice fighting like this in compettition, we'll all kill each other!"

I have no idea whether this is the case. It's hypothesizing.

I personally think it's a pretty damn good hypothesis. Here's my extension. Note - for the purpose of this post, I will refer to combat sports and martial arts as separate things for the sake of clarity, it is NOT an expression of an opinion and I'm not trying to go down the road of "is kickboxing a martial art":

Back in the old days, combat sports and martial arts were seen as separate things (and many see them separately today). One was designed to kill, the other was merely a sport that provided one with useful everyday combat abilities. Thus, it was never thought to compare martial arts with combat sports. Different things, different purposes, they existed in parallel.

Martial arts were therefore not seen as something you could really test. In battles, you would have a weapon anyway, and anyone unfortunate enough to lose their weapon in battle would only have one chance to see if their unarmed martial art really worked, and that chance would in all likelihood be against an armed opponent, probably in armour. Therefore the techniques remained in the realms of theory, so they didn't see anything especially wrong with learning kata as a codification of their techniques.

When the age of samurai and knights was long gone, martial arts began to be taught to civilians the world over. This presented those teaching the martial arts with two problems.

1) Killing someone in combat was no longer desirable, people wanted to learn martial arts for use in everyday fights.

2) Martial arts instructors would now have to put their money where their mouth was, as people would now be testing the arts in real fights.

This resulted in a crisis in martial arts. Many of the traditional techniques were found to be impractical, and often practitioners of the arts - being not used to combat situations - were unable to apply the arts in real fights. This had not been an issue before, but now it was. Boxers, wrestlers and other combat sportsmen remained confident in their abilities.

Then along came stuff like the UFC, PRIDE and K1, which were dominated by representatives of the combat sports. Limited as they were, the combat sports seemed in the eyes of many to be far more practical for real fighting, and people started to doubt the credibility of many martial arts.

And then we had threads like this one, trying to assess what was wrong! :p

THIS IS JUST A HYPOTHESIS. IT IS A SUGGESTION, NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT. I AM INVITING DISCUSSION, NOT FLAMING. I also appreciate that I'm generalising greatly.

Thankyou :D

notquitedead

13-Jan-2005, 05:15 PM

But when martial arts first began to fade from "day-to-day" combat, it may well have been that kata were the next reasonable step.
It's interesting that some arts settled on kata, but others (wrestling, boxing, fencing, kenjutsu, jujitsu, etc) becamse sports (kenjutsu became kendo, Kano made judo safer so it could be practiced in randori, etc.).

ap Oweyn

13-Jan-2005, 06:29 PM

It's interesting that some arts settled on kata, but others (wrestling, boxing, fencing, kenjutsu, jujitsu, etc) becamse sports (kenjutsu became kendo, Kano made judo safer so it could be practiced in randori, etc.).

Yeah, it really is. It's fascinating actually.

That's the thing. Either one is an abstraction, as I said. None of us are warriors. We're all engaged in simulation. And there's a dissonance between what we do and reality. For all of us. Every one of us has chosen to compromise on one side or another. Either by introducing rules and equipment or practicing patterns.

I choose the former. To my mind, the latter would make more sense if you could ward off the "cub scout game" effect. (We played it in cub scouts anyway.) Where you whisper a phrase into someone's ear and they go down the line. Then you see how distorted the message is by the end. That's kind of how I view some kata. If in that game each person was required to turn to someone outside the game and repeat the line, you'd have a constant check that the line hadn't changed. Or at the very least, that the sentence still made sense.

Stuart

ap Oweyn

13-Jan-2005, 06:43 PM

So the fact that they refused to practice realistically in compettition meant that they had to just speculate about the techniques and thus they're not as effective as they might have been had they been properly pressure tested and refined?

That's the thing though. I think at a certain point in history, they probably were practicing realistically. The guys who actually knew what it was to apply their skills had a physical and mental model for recreating the moves in abstract. It's only as time wears on that application gets lost. Think about when a guy creates a kata today. Or even 100 years ago. How long had it been since the movements had actually been applied?

I don't know about you guys, but at 33 years old, I've never had a fight in my life. Never mind an actual life-threatening altercation. Am I the only one? Or does it seem likely that many of the people (the filters) through which a given system has passed also had no concrete experience?

That's the inherent source of dissonance in martial arts, to my mind.

I can really see what you mean here. Many martial arts were designed to kill, hence the way that many of them include weapons training, so the people who designed them naturally thought "well, if we practice fighting like this in compettition, we'll all kill each other!"

Yeah. While I find it absurd that a guy can't enter a tournament because his system is reliant on eye gouges and kicks to the cash and prizes, it does make sense that in a time when safety gear hadn't been conceived, "sparring" wouldn't have seemed viable.

I personally think it's a pretty damn good hypothesis. Here's my extension. Note - for the purpose of this post, I will refer to combat sports and martial arts as separate things for the sake of clarity, it is NOT an expression of an opinion and I'm not trying to go down the road of "is kickboxing a martial art":

Back in the old days, combat sports and martial arts were seen as separate things (and many see them separately today). One was designed to kill, the other was merely a sport that provided one with useful everyday combat abilities. Thus, it was never thought to compare martial arts with combat sports. Different things, different purposes, they existed in parallel.

Martial arts were therefore not seen as something you could really test. In battles, you would have a weapon anyway, and anyone unfortunate enough to lose their weapon in battle would only have one chance to see if their unarmed martial art really worked, and that chance would in all likelihood be against an armed opponent, probably in armour. Therefore the techniques remained in the realms of theory, so they didn't see anything especially wrong with learning kata as a codification of their techniques.

That makes sense. I mean, look how often on this board you have to convince someone that boxing, wrestling, or fencing are legitimate martial arts. Many of us still have a mental block that prevents us from accepting that.

When the age of samurai and knights was long gone, martial arts began to be taught to civilians the world over. This presented those teaching the martial arts with two problems.

1) Killing someone in combat was no longer desirable, people wanted to learn martial arts for use in everyday fights.

2) Martial arts instructors would now have to put their money where their mouth was, as people would now be testing the arts in real fights.

This resulted in a crisis in martial arts. Many of the traditional techniques were found to be impractical, and often practitioners of the arts - being not used to combat situations - were unable to apply the arts in real fights. This had not been an issue before, but now it was. Boxers, wrestlers and other combat sportsmen remained confident in their abilities.

Then along came stuff like the UFC, PRIDE and K1, which were dominated by representatives of the combat sports. Limited as they were, the combat sports seemed in the eyes of many to be far more practical for real fighting, and people started to doubt the credibility of many martial arts.

And then we had threads like this one, trying to assess what was wrong! :p

THIS IS JUST A HYPOTHESIS. IT IS A SUGGESTION, NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT. I AM INVITING DISCUSSION, NOT FLAMING. I also appreciate that I'm generalising greatly.

Thankyou :D

I think that you're homing in on something important, yeah.

All of these debates, in my opinion, stem from the dissonance inherent in martial arts now. As I said before, none of us are waging war with this stuff anymore. Some martial artists have defended their lives or others' lives with their skills. And their perspectives should be heavily weighed in these discussions. But what each of us train day in and day out only gets part of the reality check. It never gets the whole thing. Thank God.

After that, we get defensive. We appeal to authority (Master X did it this way, so we do it this way or Chuck Liddell KO'ed a guy with this, so I do it this way). We rationalize (if our style was created for the battlefield, and the style survived for hundreds of years, it must work). And we go through countless other mental gymnastics. But the bottom line stays the same, in my opinion. What we do is, by and large, an abstraction.

Stuart

notquitedead

13-Jan-2005, 09:43 PM

To my mind, the latter would make more sense if you could ward off the "cub scout game" effect. (We played it in cub scouts anyway.) Where you whisper a phrase into someone's ear and they go down the line. Then you see how distorted the message is by the end. That's kind of how I view some kata. If in that game each person was required to turn to someone outside the game and repeat the line, you'd have a constant check that the line hadn't changed. Or at the very least, that the sentence still made sense.
If is the key word there. ;) I'm sure that has happened quite a bit. Then there are people who claim to find "hidden" meanings of the movements that probably weren't meant to be there before.

Back in the old days, combat sports and martial arts were seen as separate things (and many see them separately today). One was designed to kill, the other was merely a sport that provided one with useful everyday combat abilities. Thus, it was never thought to compare martial arts with combat sports. Different things, different purposes, they existed in parallel.
While there may be some truth to that, I don't think that's right. In the "old days" you are referring to, the roots of fencing weren't just sports. "Boxing" wasn't just a sport. Wrestling wasn't just a sport. These things were as "martial" as the Eastern martial arts. Eventually these things did become sports, but I think that is what kept them alive. Sadly many Asian arts didn't follow that path. Kano struck a balance between sport and the "dangerous" stuff by creating judo with both randori and kata (keep in mind kata in judo are done with two people, or at least that's what I've been told :p). In Kano's time, kata may have been the best way to preserve these techniques. Now they can be recorded on vhs/dvd, saved on a computer, photographed, practiced on dummies that simulate targets (BOB comes to mind), etc.

Martial arts were therefore not seen as something you could really test. In battles, you would have a weapon anyway, and anyone unfortunate enough to lose their weapon in battle would only have one chance to see if their unarmed martial art really worked, and that chance would in all likelihood be against an armed opponent, probably in armour. Therefore the techniques remained in the realms of theory, so they didn't see anything especially wrong with learning kata as a codification of their techniques.
I think to discuss this we would have to talk about the West and the East separately as they had a different mindset. I'm guessing you were referring at least in part to Japan. The Japanese would probably have trained differently than Europeans because to many of the Japanese, martial arts were spiritual. There are various websites that talk about martial arts in medieval Europe, and I've seen many examples of practicing with wooden or dull weapons with a partner.

2) Martial arts instructors would now have to put their money where their mouth was, as people would now be testing the arts in real fights.
Unfortunately, many instructors choose not to.

After that, we get defensive. We appeal to authority (Master X did it this way, so we do it this way or Chuck Liddell KO'ed a guy with this, so I do it this way). We rationalize (if our style was created for the battlefield, and the style survived for hundreds of years, it must work). And we go through countless other mental gymnastics. But the bottom line stays the same, in my opinion. What we do is, by and large, an abstraction.
That's correct, but the heart of this thread is about how to make your training less of an abstraction. Some of us feel that the best way to do this is to get on a mat, in a ring, or in a cage. Others feel that it is best to do a kata. Neither is "real", but I feel the first option is closer to reality.

Maybe this is a subject for a new thread, but what is a "real fight"? Is it when someone pulls a knife on you and tries to kill you? Is it when some punk on the street tries to start something? The latter can often be resolved without any violence at all, but if it does become physical then there is no guarantee that any eye gouging etc will take place.

If a "real fight" can happen and not violate any rules of a MMA event (just using MMA as an example, feel free to substitute any combat sport), then what makes MMA not real? 4 ounce gloves that just protect your hands (allowing punches to be thrown harder without offering hardly any padding)? If a fight with gloves on isn't "real", then what if you are training in a MA class and then get into a fight with another student while wearing gloves? Is that "fake" even if you are trying to kill eachother? ;)

Edit: I started a new thread in the general section so I don't hijack this one.

Timmy Boy

13-Jan-2005, 09:47 PM

All of these debates, in my opinion, stem from the dissonance inherent in martial arts now. As I said before, none of us are waging war with this stuff anymore. Some martial artists have defended their lives or others' lives with their skills. And their perspectives should be heavily weighed in these discussions. But what each of us train day in and day out only gets part of the reality check. It never gets the whole thing. Thank God.

After that, we get defensive. We appeal to authority (Master X did it this way, so we do it this way or Chuck Liddell KO'ed a guy with this, so I do it this way). We rationalize (if our style was created for the battlefield, and the style survived for hundreds of years, it must work). And we go through countless other mental gymnastics. But the bottom line stays the same, in my opinion. What we do is, by and large, an abstraction.

Stuart

I believe Royce Gracie wrote something along these lines once. He spoke of the inescapable realism problem in martial arts training; to practice the arts with complete realism would be far too dangerous, and mitigations have to be made. This can be done in two ways: the first is to not practice realistic application and restrict movements to the kata and other such dead training drills; and the second is to work within a certain ruleset to allow realistic application and put oneself at risk of the criticism that there are no rules in real life. Either way results in a lack of realism and a barrage of disbelief in the applicability of the art in question, either because "it doesn't work in real life" or because it's "just a sport".

However, an instructor has to do SOMETHING, otherwise he cannot teach his art, so he has to sit down and think about what mitigations he will make, taking into account the effect it will have on the real-world practicality of the art. This, IMO, is where the effectiveness of a martial art is really decided; how well does the instructor cope with the reality problem? How realistic and practical can he make the martial art without making it too dangerous? Practicing the art will, as you say, always be an abstraction for the reasons above, but I think how much of an abstraction it is can be greatly affected.

I believe this corresponds with what you said, Pankration. I believe MMA represents that point where the reality problem is tackled at its greatest possible level. It is safe enough for regular practice, and realistic enough to provide that there is very little chance of the outcome being different if the few rules that do exist weren't in place. To put a finer point on it, eye gouges don't count for enough to have a significant chance of changing the outcome of a fight.

Timmy Boy

13-Jan-2005, 09:52 PM

While there may be some truth to that, I don't think that's right. In the "old days" you are referring to, the roots of fencing weren't just sports. "Boxing" wasn't just a sport. Wrestling wasn't just a sport. These things were as "martial" as the Eastern martial arts. Eventually these things did become sports, but I think that is what kept them alive.

I agree entirely. I don't mean the actual combat sports we know today e.g. boxing or wrestling, I mean the entire concept of combat sports as a whole.

Gyaku

14-Jan-2005, 10:36 AM

Hmm interesting debate here guys.

While I agree to a point, yes many arts have become too abstracted. However if I could introduce a few points.

First, all of us have the ability to fight, we don't need a martial art to do this. Just because you don't spend hours a week on a pnchbag doesn't mean you don't have a solid punch.

However, while MA training is abstract, they do provide the opportuinity to develop the necessary skills conditioning that IS applicable 'real' fights. Even an art such as aikido teaches fairly good habits - such as not turning your back, spacial awareness etc.

Second, I think that there has been plenty of 'real application' filtering into many of the TMA's. We sometimes forget that policemen, doormen etc all use MA's frequently in the course of their duties, and so they provide an alternative platform with which to evaluate training. MMA compos are only one avenue of analysis.

Timmy Boy

14-Jan-2005, 10:42 AM

First, all of us have the ability to fight, we don't need a martial art to do this. Just because you don't spend hours a week on a pnchbag doesn't mean you don't have a solid punch.

Yes, I think this is an important point. I don't want to appear to be writing off training other than my own as completely useless.

However, while MA training is abstract, they do provide the opportuinity to develop the necessary skills conditioning that IS applicable 'real' fights. Even an art such as aikido teaches fairly good habits - such as not turning your back, spacial awareness etc.

Again, agreed. I believe all martial arts have something useful to offer.

Second, I think that there has been plenty of 'real application' filtering into many of the TMA's. We sometimes forget that policemen, doormen etc all use MA's frequently in the course of their duties, and so they provide an alternative platform with which to evaluate training. MMA compos are only one avenue of analysis.

I think this post has reminded us of a very important point; that TMAs can still be very practical and useful for self defence. If they weren't, there wouldn't be so many people who have successfully defended themselves using them.

However, that doesn't mean that there are no bad training methods around, and there are still many high ranking martial artists around who lose real fights to untrained opponents pretty easily. I once saw a ju jutsu champion get absolutely worked, for example.

Gyaku

14-Jan-2005, 10:49 AM

However, that doesn't mean that there are no bad training methods around

I wholeheartedly agree with you. A bit like being told that all that you need to do is train kata (ie just practise it over and over again) to become a good fighter! Hopefully people are becoming more informed about martial arts (a good thing about the UFC!) and will shop around for a good school

Timmy Boy

14-Jan-2005, 10:51 AM

I wholeheartedly agree with you. A bit like being told that all that you need to do is train kata (ie just practise it over and over again) to become a good fighter!

That's precisely what I mean! Many clubs do not use such practical training methods as the ones you described.

Taliar

14-Jan-2005, 11:36 AM

Yet again we arrive at the conclusion that the way you train is much more important than what you train.

MMA clubs probably have better training methodologies that the average TMA club, but this does not mean that all TMA clubs have bad training. Unfortunately I think that as the MMA market becomes more saturated with clubs and instructors the standards will drop. While things like UFC and PRIDE make MMA high profile and show off its good points, it may also encourage people to open schools of lower quality to cash in on people wanting to emulate this. In a similar way to what has happened to TMA's.

On the subject of patterns. As I do TKD we have patterns in the syllabus, i quite enjoy doing them, however I have never thought of or been told to think of them as simulating a fight. I think of as a mixture of ways to practice technique and a workout (they certainly make me sweat).

In my experience there does seem to be that if someone is a good sparrer (not fighter) they are also good at patterns. This is not to say in any way that practicing pattern's made them a good sparrer, more than likely that person trains hard and that training made them good at both aspects.

Finally I would say that patterns is only 50% physical, the rest is mental, if you just practice the movements it makes you good at those movements and simliar ones, just as drilling against stationary pads or compliant 'rolling' on the mat would. With patterns you need to engage your mind. Ask questions about what you are doing, would it work, if not why not and what do you think would. etc.

Timmy Boy

14-Jan-2005, 12:26 PM

Yet again we arrive at the conclusion that the way you train is much more important than what you train.

Damn right! However, some styles do have a tendency to train in certain ways.

MMA clubs probably have better training methodologies that the average TMA club, but this does not mean that all TMA clubs have bad training. Unfortunately I think that as the MMA market becomes more saturated with clubs and instructors the standards will drop. While things like UFC and PRIDE make MMA high profile and show off its good points, it may also encourage people to open schools of lower quality to cash in on people wanting to emulate this. In a similar way to what has happened to TMA's.

I don't do MMA so don't think I'm being biassed, but I'm not entirely sure that's the case. Grappling is such a big part of MMA that I find it difficult to imagine how they could train without going all out.

On the subject of patterns. As I do TKD we have patterns in the syllabus, i quite enjoy doing them, however I have never thought of or been told to think of them as simulating a fight. I think of as a mixture of ways to practice technique and a workout (they certainly make me sweat).

I do think there comes a point where one can practice one's technique in the air too much.

Finally I would say that patterns is only 50% physical, the rest is mental, if you just practice the movements it makes you good at those movements and simliar ones, just as drilling against stationary pads or compliant 'rolling' on the mat would. With patterns you need to engage your mind. Ask questions about what you are doing, would it work, if not why not and what do you think would. etc.

Speculation is good, but sooner or later the hypothesis should be tested IMO.

whip

14-Jan-2005, 02:51 PM

Timmy Boy

14-Jan-2005, 02:57 PM

Fihting is only a small aspect of the whole thing. Forms exist as a way to train the self.

Train the self in what exactly?

The body goes, and there is always someone stronger waiting in the wings, but the mind remains. Forms are the core that hold the whole thing together from thr beginning until you die. Forms are the heart. Forms allow you to truly test yourself. there is no-one to blame, no easy ways out, nothing but will and heart.

I think I speak for everyone when I ask you to explain this a little more clearly :rolleyes:

It is easy to fight when you have something or someone to push against, but solo...can you keep the fire lit?

What do you mean? Can we keep practicing the forms without getting bored?

We all know how things slack off when you miss practices for one reason or another.
In the beginning I was all sparring and fighting, but as I have gotten older, I see the reason and inseperable value of the form. That is the true test of a lifer.

What is the inseparable value of the form? And what is a lifer?

Sorry to start a fight, but it is ABSOLUTLY NECESSARY to know, master, and love forms. If you don't you are missing a BIG part of the richness, and that is sad. :bang: :bang: :bang:

Absolutely necessary for what?

ap Oweyn

14-Jan-2005, 04:00 PM

Fihting is only a small aspect of the whole thing. Forms exist as a way to train the self. The body goes, and there is always someone stronger waiting in the wings, but the mind remains. Forms are the core that hold the whole thing together from thr beginning until you die. Forms are the heart. Forms allow you to truly test yourself. there is no-one to blame, no easy ways out, nothing but will and heart.

That tells me how you feel about forms. But it doesn't really tell me anything concrete about forms practice. The only concrete statement I get from this is that, as you get older, fighting becomes less accessible. And I can certainly get behind the idea that your practice needs to change as you get older. (Even at 33 years old, I'm having to make some serious adaptations to account for medical concerns.)

But there are plenty of martial artists in their 50s, 60s, and 70s who don't rely on forms practice. Ron Van Clief competed in the UFC in his 60s. George Foreman boxed in his 50s. Chuck Norris took up Brazilian Jiujitsu in his 50s. And Helio Gracie is still doing his thing.

It is easy to fight when you have something or someone to push against, but solo...can you keep the fire lit?

I respect your right to believe this. Really. But I don't. I don't believe that pushing yourself to perform a form is harder than contending with a living, breathing, thinking human being.

We all know how things slack off when you miss practices for one reason or another. In the beginning I was all sparring and fighting, but as I have gotten older, I see the reason and inseperable value of the form. That is the true test of a lifer.

After practicing forms for 12 years, I don't believe they're the anything. They're an option certainly. But not the be all-end all.

Sorry to start a fight, but it is ABSOLUTLY NECESSARY to know, master, and love forms. If you don't you are missing a BIG part of the richness, and that is sad. :bang: :bang: :bang:

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I don't really know what to say that I haven't already.

Stuart

ap Oweyn

14-Jan-2005, 04:05 PM

If is the key word there. ;) I'm sure that has happened quite a bit. Then there are people who claim to find "hidden" meanings of the movements that probably weren't meant to be there before.

Absolutely. And I think that's putting the cart before the horse. Instead of recognizing a situation that needs addressing and then finding a tool to fix it, that practice emphasizes finding a use for the tool you've got.

That's correct, but the heart of this thread is about how to make your training less of an abstraction. Some of us feel that the best way to do this is to get on a mat, in a ring, or in a cage. Others feel that it is best to do a kata. Neither is "real", but I feel the first option is closer to reality.

I tend to agree with you. I'm pretty sure I said as much in my last post. But if not, I'm saying it now.

Stuart

Edit: I started a new thread in the general section so I don't hijack this one.[/QUOTE]

ap Oweyn

14-Jan-2005, 04:20 PM

However, an instructor has to do SOMETHING, otherwise he cannot teach his art, so he has to sit down and think about what mitigations he will make, taking into account the effect it will have on the real-world practicality of the art. This, IMO, is where the effectiveness of a martial art is really decided; how well does the instructor cope with the reality problem? How realistic and practical can he make the martial art without making it too dangerous? Practicing the art will, as you say, always be an abstraction for the reasons above, but I think how much of an abstraction it is can be greatly affected.

Absolutely. But, while I have my own beliefs about what will and won't minimize that disparity, they're still not based on an experience of the reality. They're based on my experience of other approximations (e.g., sparring). So I'm going to try and not get too high-and-mighty about my beliefs. Know what I mean?

Great posts by Gyaku and Taliar! Gyaku, I agree that an art that doesn't train in the way I prescribe can still convey valuable skills. I think at the end of the day, the best I can do is make decisions about how I can best proceed. My approach won't fit all the facts. But as TST pointed out, you have to do something.

Stuart

notquitedead

14-Jan-2005, 07:05 PM

Unfortunately I think that as the MMA market becomes more saturated with clubs and instructors the standards will drop.
That's inevitable, but hopefully competition will keep that decay in check.

While things like UFC and PRIDE make MMA high profile and show off its good points, it may also encourage people to open schools of lower quality to cash in on people wanting to emulate this. In a similar way to what has happened to TMA's.
Think about this, though:
How many wrestling gyms do you see that "mcdojos" where the instructor is just after money? How many boxing gyms are like that? How many thai boxing gyms (in the West anyways) are like that? These styles tend to be thought of as sports and the training is most often geared toward that while there are many reasons for training in more "spritual" martial arts. It's easier to make money off of students who are interested in psuedo-spirituality than students are willing to work their butts off day after day.

I don't do MMA so don't think I'm being biassed, but I'm not entirely sure that's the case. Grappling is such a big part of MMA that I find it difficult to imagine how they could train without going all out.
It's simple. The mcdojos will just get rid of live grappling. Instead they will practice compliant takedowns, joint locks, etc. like you see in a typical mcdojo "self defense" syllabus. I know someone who (I'm fairly certain) trained at a judo mcdojo. He has an idea how to do some of the techniques, but he has no experience applying them. He tried on several of us (many who had never trained before) while we just stood there and he couldn't perform any takedowns, etc.

Forms allow you to truly test yourself. there is no-one to blame, no easy ways out, nothing but will and heart.
Replace "forms" with full contact competition or all-out grappling competition and that would make more sense. There are no excuses when you actually test your against someone. What can go wrong in a form? Your rising block is done to high? Your 720 tornado kick was sloppy? The horror!

And what is a lifer?
Someone who goes to prison for a long, long time.

Infrazael

18-Jan-2005, 05:21 PM

Dude, even certain TMA GRANDMASTERS have realized the necessity of realistic fighting and the reduction of forms. Tarm Sarm, for example, of the Buk Sing CLF branch was one of the best fighters. After beating the crap outta his 3 kung fu uncles (SiSus) he got kicked out (I think; check the history for accuracy I'm not going to waste my time on it) and form his own Buk (North) Sing branch.

He emphasized the deadliness aspects of the art, and stressed application over form. Today they only have like 3, and I've heard that some of Tarm Sarm's disciples train with only ONE form.

And they are TMA!!! OMG!!! The thing is, "TMA" can be constantly evolving as well, when there's SMART PEOPLE.

ap Oweyn

18-Jan-2005, 05:24 PM

Dude, even certain TMA GRANDMASTERS have realized the necessity of realistic fighting and the reduction of forms. Tarm Sarm, for example, of the Buk Sing CLF branch was one of the best fighters. After beating the crap outta his 3 kung fu uncles (SiSus) he got kicked out (I think; check the history for accuracy I'm not going to waste my time on it) and form his own Buk (North) Sing branch.

Dude, who are you shouting at?

And if you're not willing to "waste your time" researching your own point, why would you expect us to?

He emphasized the deadliness aspects of the art, and stressed application over form. Today they only have like 3, and I've heard that some of Tarm Sarm's disciples train with only ONE form.

And they are TMA!!! OMG!!! The thing is, "TMA" can be constantly evolving as well, when there's SMART PEOPLE.

Agreed. Again, who are you shouting at?

Stuart

Infrazael

18-Jan-2005, 05:29 PM

I was shouting at anybody who said TMA was complete s**t and all we did was do forms. Sorry lol.

Timmy Boy

18-Jan-2005, 06:52 PM

I was shouting at anybody who said TMA was complete s**t and all we did was do forms. Sorry lol.

I don't remember anyone saying that. :rolleyes:

Infrazael

18-Jan-2005, 07:15 PM

Well, um, :rolleyes: :Angel: :D

:bang: :bang: :bang: :cry: :woo:

Thomas

18-Jan-2005, 07:28 PM

I personally like to do forms... and try to make the best out of them. Here's some food for thought on why we do forms at my school:

-If you wish to hold rank from an umbrella federation, like the WTF or ITF, you may be required to do forms. In my opinion, if I “have” to do something, I will try to do my best and get the most out of it.

-Furthermore, as an instructor within a system, I do not really have the authority to “not teach” a required aspect. Therefore, I will use it to my benefit.

-We tend to use forms as a collection of techniques ordered within our curriculum. As we set forms to our belt ranks, it makes it very clear and easy to keep track of those skills we want students to work on. And, by making student stay current on ALL of their forms, they maintain skills from previous ranks. I know just by looking at a person’s rank roughly what they should (or could) be working on in class, even if I haven’t spent much time with the student. The forms serve as a introduction to many of the technqiues we begin/continue studying at each level (and are reinforced with drills and practiced also against live opponents)

-Practicing the forms helps the students learn proper breathing, form, transition, and power development in their techniques. Taking elements from the forms and using it in other parts of the class is essential… so as to show what the techniques are for and how they can be used in various situations. Yes, there are other ways to teach this, but using forms is a way that works as well (again variety of drills, forms, and teaching styles helps students to learn the applications in various ways)

-Some people who join our school join to take part in competitions, sparring and/or forms. So, we also teach the artistic side of forms to try to properly combine the styles and grace of sequenced movements with power, fluidity, and intent… so that students can do well competing WHILE they develop necessary skills for real life.

-Practicing forms reinforces discipline and study among the students. Students know this is something that have to practice at home and serves as a bridge to getting students to practice more of their skills outside of the dojang. The order and formality reinforces patience, attention to detail, following directions, and focus… all part of “character education” side of the arts that many people join (or send their kids to) for.

For myself, I am fortunate because I like doing forms. I have competed some and done fairly well. I use them for the following reasons myself:

(1) They help me learn/practice kicks, strikes, techniques, and footwork within a set format.

(2) I use them to warm up before a class and to wind down at the end of a class

(3) They help me develop a rhythm of movement and breathing during techniques

(4) for practicing on my own at home, in a hotel room, or somewhere without access to my dojang

They don’t really take up that much time to maintain and learn and I find they help me with focus, transition and application of techniques. I have done lots of different forms in my life, including many of the ITF forms, all of the Taegeuks, some of the Palgye, the black belt TKD forms, and even a collection of Hapkido ones. I don’t really prefer any over the rest… I can get the benefits from any set of forms. I just do the ones my instructors asks me too. If I ever have my own school, I will keep them and teach them like my instructor did. I want to pass the benefits on to my students as well as the heritage.

from the monster thread here:
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=312272&highlight=breathing+umbrella#post312272

Matt_Bernius

18-Jan-2005, 08:30 PM

Just to resurrect two points:

I do remember hearing somewhere that, over time/at some point (can't remember which), many of karate's head honchos became more concerned with the aesthetic qualities and the "martial way" rather than fighting, and as a result the movements became more stylised and impractical. Anyone know anything about this?This was in fact the case, first in Japan, then in Korea, and finally in China. The organized alteration of forms began to occur once martial arts ceased to be treated as military technology and moved into nationalistic theory. In the first two cases, forms were specifically altered to hide/minimize the aspects that tied them to previous culture. In Japan's case forms were made to look both less Chinese and less Okinawan (though a strong arguement can also be made that most of the people doing the codafication may not have fully learned/understood the forms that they were working with). In the case of Korea, it was to remove the Japanese flavor. And in China, with contemporary Wu Shu, it was to emphasize performance. All of these were done for specifically nationalistic purposes (although the actions in Japan and Korea have different social motivators... but that is a different discussion). There have been a number of good articles in the Journal of Asian Martial Arts on this subject over the last few years.

- Matt

notquitedead

18-Jan-2005, 11:05 PM

-If you wish to hold rank from an umbrella federation, like the WTF or ITF, you may be required to do forms. In my opinion, if I “have” to do something, I will try to do my best and get the most out of it.
Rank doesn't help you fight, though.

-Furthermore, as an instructor within a system, I do not really have the authority to “not teach” a required aspect. Therefore, I will use it to my benefit.
Does whatever federation you teach under pay your bills? I doubt it. If I were you I'd teach what I want.

and power development in their techniques.
How does one develop power and correct mechanics without hitting anything?

(1) They help me learn/practice kicks, strikes, techniques, and footwork within a set format.
Why not try drills on thai pads or focus mitts? You'll be practicing the techniques even better because you are actually hitting something.

There are a lot of reasons people do forms, but learning to fight well is not one of them and I don't think people should do them with that goal in mind.

Timmy Boy

19-Jan-2005, 12:14 PM

-We tend to use forms as a collection of techniques ordered within our curriculum. As we set forms to our belt ranks, it makes it very clear and easy to keep track of those skills we want students to work on.

Perhaps this is the problem, having to do forms to pass gradings. Wouldn't it be a better idea - if you didn't have that TKD federation breathing down your neck - to see what skills you wanted the students to work on based on their performance in sparring and live drills?

And, by making student stay current on ALL of their forms, they maintain skills from previous ranks. I know just by looking at a person’s rank roughly what they should (or could) be working on in class, even if I haven’t spent much time with the student.

Yes, but WHAT skills do they maintain from previous ranks, other than good technique in the air?

The forms serve as a introduction to many of the technqiues we begin/continue studying at each level (and are reinforced with drills and practiced also against live opponents)

This is a good idea I think, provided you don't spend too much lesson time just performing the form.

-Practicing the forms helps the students learn proper breathing, form, transition, and power development in their techniques. Taking elements from the forms and using it in other parts of the class is essential… so as to show what the techniques are for and how they can be used in various situations. Yes, there are other ways to teach this, but using forms is a way that works as well (again variety of drills, forms, and teaching styles helps students to learn the applications in various ways)

I think doing forms DOES work on those things... in the air.

-Some people who join our school join to take part in competitions, sparring and/or forms. So, we also teach the artistic side of forms to try to properly combine the styles and grace of sequenced movements with power, fluidity, and intent… so that students can do well competing WHILE they develop necessary skills for real life.

So is there a big difference between their compettition fights and real life?

-Practicing forms reinforces discipline and study among the students. Students know this is something that have to practice at home and serves as a bridge to getting students to practice more of their skills outside of the dojang. The order and formality reinforces patience, attention to detail, following directions, and focus… all part of “character education” side of the arts that many people join (or send their kids to) for.

IMHO this sounds like discipline for discipline's sake. They're practicing things they don't actually need to be good at just for the sake of self-discipline. I think character education in martial arts is equally - if not more - well served by good old fashioned sweat!

For myself, I am fortunate because I like doing forms. I have competed some and done fairly well. I use them for the following reasons myself:

And fair play to you, again I must emphasise people should enjoy their training and it's not for me to tell them what they should enjoy.

(1) They help me learn/practice kicks, strikes, techniques, and footwork within a set format.

Wouldn't it be easier to learn techniques by being shown them and then practicing for a bit, then moving on to live drills, rather than spending a lot of time doing forms?

(3) They help me develop a rhythm of movement and breathing during techniques

Is it a rhythm of movement and breathing that you use when you spar?

(4) for practicing on my own at home, in a hotel room, or somewhere without access to my dojang

I see your point with this one, but that is only a plus so long as practicing forms is actually assisting your fighting ability.

Jang Bong

19-Jan-2005, 01:07 PM

Thomas

19-Jan-2005, 02:07 PM

Rank doesn't help you fight, though.
For me, martial arts isn't all about fighting. I don't get into a lot of fights and don't compete anymore. For me martial arts is learning an entire system and developing myself into a good martail artist and a good instructor. Learning the requirements and applying them under the tuelage of a certified instructor is a good way for me to do that.

Questions for you:Along those lines, has the system you are training in (are you still training?) helped you out in your fights and in your fight career? How often have you put your skills to the test in a real fight or in the "ring"? How do you know that training in a system with rank doesn't help develop a person as a good fighter.... is from a long term experience in the martial arts and in various systems?

Does whatever federation you teach under pay your bills? I doubt it. If I were you I'd teach what I want.

My federation (ICHF and ITA) is a very good one that provides me with access to some of the top martial artists in the world through personal seminars and through tapes (GM Pellegrini, Julius Melegrito, Carlson Gracie, Frank Huff, etc.). For the small cost that I pay to belong I have experienced instructors and people supervising me and helping me along the path of the martial arts. I teach their system because (1) I believe it is effective and (2) because I like the benefits in working with them. The extra nice part is that as long as I teach the basic system, I can add-on whatever I want... from Filipino arts to ground grappling to weapons to trapping... all with support and instruction from some of the top guys in the world. Can your school offer the same?
How does one develop power and correct mechanics without hitting anything?
Have you ever shadow boxed or practiced footwork drills without a partner? Have you ever practiced swinging a stcik or slashing with a knife without hitting anyone. Before you go and hit something full force, you need to practice the mechanics and form, preferably isolated from other issues like contact. Later you can take those skills and add the contact and resistance. Working them in a form is one way to do it. We then apply the skills in other ways.

Why not try drills on thai pads or focus mitts? You'll be practicing the techniques even better because you are actually hitting something.
Again doing forms is just one way to practice this. We do use pads. Check out my journal sometime and see what we do in class. There are lots of ways to learn, practice and apply technqiues. I would recommend checking out some local schools and seeing how they do it. Everything you learn can be added to what you yourself do in your own training.
There are a lot of reasons people do forms, but learning to fight well is not one of them and I don't think people should do them with that goal in mind.
I don't think this is addressed to me but I'll respond anyway. (I don't recall saying "Forms is the ultimate way to learn to fight"). Training in forms is just one tool for training. They help you develop your footwork, combinations, rhythym and breathing.... all of which are skills that you use in a fight.

I think people need to realize that there are lots of ways of doing things and that forms are just one tool that can be used in conjunction with other drills, sparring (under various rules), bag work, and so on. My advice: get out and experience some other arts, get some more experience in the arts, and try all sorts of different tools. Then select the ones that work for you and incorporate them. It's one thing to learn all the "right answers and right references" from Internet sources, but to learn how to be a good martial artist, you need to get out and train in various schools in a variety of ways and test your skills against resisting partners.

Timmy Boy

19-Jan-2005, 02:08 PM

Is it my imagination, or do those of us speaking up for forms deal with them as "one of many complementry tools for learning" [nice to see Thomas coming in], and those that are against simply dismiss them as "less use than other things, so a waste of time to do"?

No, it's not your imagination, but those arguments aren't opposed in the way that you think. You say "well, they are one of many useful training methods", but we say "well, why not just use the most useful?" If there is a more effective way to achieve the same result in your precious training time, where's the logic in using a less effective method?

This is the negative implication that can 'inflame' some of the members who love their traditional arts and feel they are 'under attack' - and it can be seen when someone else recognises this and turns the heat up to get a reaction. :woo: I like to think I'm a bit older (if not wiser) and not so easy to spark off :D

You are wiser. Some people just can't take any kind of criticism of their training methods.

Tim seems semi-converted, and can accept some of our points, but appears (from my reading) to not want lesson time spent on them. On that basis, how do you learn them and show that you know them? If you don't spend the time then they will not be learned and will fall into disuse. It is as interesting to see the points you don't respond to as the point you do.

I'm not semi-converted, I just try and listen to your points, and to be fair, I think I'm doing fairly well :)

As for learning them, I have done 3 martial arts which involved katas/forms and I was able to learn the sequences in about 10 minutes, if that. Of course, getting the moves exactly right is a different story, but I believe there are far better ways of getting the moves exactly right than just performing the form in the air over and over.

Pankration90's "Rank doesn't help you fight, though." comes back to the differences between learning to fight effectively and 'learning a comprehensive art'. We accepted early on that these were two different things (although the learning of a martial art does involve learning to fight).

Yes, but martial arts ARE designed for fighting, even if you choose to study them for other reasons. I'm totally with Pankration90 on this. Besides, this discussion is about effectiveness, and if you don't care if your art is effective, then there's no need to try hard.

The information from Matt regarding the changes of the forms was interesting (I'm still not into 'history' :)), but our instructor added another piece to the jigsaw puzzle on Sunday. We were working a sparring drill with our Jang Bongs (sorry - Bo), and had just carried out a high attack to the head with one end of the stick. He halted us all, and then removed the weapon from the assistant instructor. We watched as the next move was carried out - another high attack with the opposite end of the (now removed) stick. What we saw was a classic outside-to-inside block with the opposite hand coming back to hip/belt level.

So many of these threads include the line 'nobody punches from down at the belt - why not stand in a fighting stance' - but this example reminded us that the armies of the past did not resort to 'open hand' combat until the very last minute - they went from projectiles, to long weapons, to short weapons before ending in that position. Many army drills would be weapon based (and then converted for hand-to-hand), and if these are what has been handed down then oddities may make sense after all. Without a time machine to see why things are done, we need to be very careful about any definitive statements.

(If we are back to weapons based drills, then it is much harder to 'spar' safely, and there wouldn't be enought 'pads' for a whole army - so perhaps this 'simulation' becomes more reasonable) :)

Your point about us not really understanding the purpose of many techniques in the kata is valid, but many teachers don't understand them either. If you don't even understand what your technique is supposed to do, how do you expect to use it effectively?

More specifically (related to your example), in this day and age, we are not learning unarmed martial arts to take on armed attackers. Even if you're damn good you're still at a severe disadvantage. Thus, the focus has shifted to being able to beat other unarmed assailants. People expect practicality in streetfights these days, and if you can't beat an unarmed attacker using your skills, what chance do you have against an armed one?

Thomas

19-Jan-2005, 04:22 PM

Perhaps this is the problem, having to do forms to pass gradings. Wouldn't it be a better idea - if you didn't have that TKD federation breathing down your neck - to see what skills you wanted the students to work on based on their performance in sparring and live drills?

Luckily for us, our federation doesn’t “breath” down our neck. It merely states “If you want to test for rank in our system, do the following…” I chose to be constantly evaluated (formally and informally) under the watchful eye of my instructor, who happens to be the best instructor I’ve ever met. Therefore I follow the basic requirements of the system and am more than able to add as I please.

Our forms contain the basic strikes, kicks, and footwork that we work in each belt level (a whole other debate). By using the forms to introduce the concepts and techniques, it gives us a base to start with and later expand the techniques and concepts in other ways and in other applications. We don’t “just” teach with the forms… the forms are just one tool.

Beyond that, as I mentioned in my reply to Pankration90, I like the benefits, resources, and instructors in our Federation. If learning a few forms gives me greater access to these resources and people, I am all for it.

Yes, but WHAT skills do they maintain from previous ranks, other than good technique in the air?

They retain the basic strikes, kicks, and footwork from previous forms. Those basic concepts are expanded and built upon through drills, exercises, sparring and then added/changed/adapted in the next set of forms. All of the forms work together to continually, progressively, and spirally develop the basic blocks into more complex blocks of technique… all using the same basic concepts
This is a good idea I think, provided you don't spend too much lesson time just performing the form.

Good point and I think this is where some people get confused. I think some people have the faulty idea that schools that practice forms just practice forms all day. The teaching and practicing of forms takes up a fairly small chunk of our class time… maybe 30 minutes per week and often serves as a refresher bit on the techniques and/or as a warm-up to other drills (often drills revolving around elements of the forms)
I think doing forms DOES work on those things... in the air.

Yes. But also consider that the footwork, breathing, rhythm, set-ups, and combinations can be developed and practiced in the air and then applied against a real opponent. Again, practicing a technique in the air (during a form) a couple of times and then taking it and applying it in drills or sparring is a good way to introduce/refresh it without using a lot of time. It also is a way to help students remember what we covered so that they can later practice on their own, either through the form or by extracting the elements I want them work on with a partner
So is there a big difference between their compettition fights and real life?
Of course. Competition always involves rules of some sort (another big debate) and even so-called “No Holds Barred Events” bar holds and technqiues in the interest of safety. Not everyone joins a martial art for full contact-anything goes fighting. Regardless the value of sparring is a good one. Sparring provides and opportunity for students to try out their techniques against someone who (10 doesn’t want to get hit and (2) wants to hit them.

However, the skills we develop in sparring transfer over to the self defence side (and yes, you need to take the time to teach the transfer of skills). The forms help students develop good footwork and changing of direction and motion while delivering combinations of techniques, all of which transfer to sparring and which transfer to self defence. Again, the forms introduce the concepts and techniques, then they are extracted and drilled/practiced and then applied in sparring under the “normal rules” After that you take those same skills and apply them in sparring under different (or open) rules sets to more closely approximate “real life situations”.

IMHO this sounds like discipline for discipline's sake. They're practicing things they don't actually need to be good at just for the sake of self-discipline. I think character education in martial arts is equally - if not more - well served by good old fashioned sweat!

And one way to make them sweat and train hard is to provide a clear and concise set of “homework” to do on their own. For younger students I like having them practice forms at home because they are reinforcing skills on their own that I can evaluate and build on in class. Yes, having them fight may be a better way to learn, but I really don’t want my younger or beginner students fighting without supervision of an instructor at home. Therefore, forms can fill the void and may be easier to remember than a set of drills (which when done alone, fill the same purpose as a form anyway).

And fair play to you, again I must emphasise people should enjoy their training and it's not for me to tell them what they should enjoy.
Thank you. For students who come to us and want to train with us (we do have a good reputation), I explain to my students that the forms are a requirement for testing for rank. If you don’t want rank, you can train here and not do forms. I also describe the benefits as I see them of forms (see this post). Again, they are not a real “huge” time commitment.

Wouldn't it be easier to learn techniques by being shown them and then practicing for a bit, then moving on to live drills, rather than spending a lot of time doing forms?
Yes. I don’t recall saying that we spend “a lot” of time on forms. We use them as a warmup and a refresher/remembering aid for the techniques we are doing. We do the forms and then move on to the applications, drills, and sparring. Check out my journal some time and see what we actually do in class

Is it a rhythm of movement and breathing that you use when you spar?

Yes. The footwork and combinations and the breathing is all the same. Sometimes it may be faster or slower, but that is how you need to adapt the “tool” (forms) to the application (sparring)

I see your point with this one, but that is only a plus so long as practicing forms is actually assisting your fighting ability.

There are many ways to develop your fighting ability without actually fighting. I don’t imagine you spend all of your martial arts time fighting. Practicing techniques, bag work, drills, and sparring all are tools to help you become a well-rounded fighter that can adapt to various conditions and situation so that you will be able to apply the sum of your learning in a real situation if you have to.

GojuKJoe

19-Jan-2005, 04:41 PM

The way we practise kata is the best way to do it I think. We learn the form, and go through it until we can do it without any help, learning the applications as we go. Then after we know the form, we concentrate on practising the applications with a partner, and spend much less time actually going through the motions of the kata on the air. Like in my last session, we went through the kata about 3 times, then practised about 4 applications over and over until I could do them without hesitating and thinking.

Timmy Boy

19-Jan-2005, 06:27 PM

Luckily for us, our federation doesn’t “breath” down our neck. It merely states “If you want to test for rank in our system, do the following…” I chose to be constantly evaluated (formally and informally) under the watchful eye of my instructor, who happens to be the best instructor I’ve ever met. Therefore I follow the basic requirements of the system and am more than able to add as I please.

Oh right, it's just that the way you said it made it sound like you simply taught forms out of compulsion and wanted to make the most of them.

Our forms contain the basic strikes, kicks, and footwork that we work in each belt level (a whole other debate). By using the forms to introduce the concepts and techniques, it gives us a base to start with and later expand the techniques and concepts in other ways and in other applications. We don’t “just” teach with the forms… the forms are just one tool.

It's simply going through the form endlessly that bothers me really.

Beyond that, as I mentioned in my reply to Pankration90, I like the benefits, resources, and instructors in our Federation. If learning a few forms gives me greater access to these resources and people, I am all for it.

I don't think that this alone would be enough, if it was me.

They retain the basic strikes, kicks, and footwork from previous forms. Those basic concepts are expanded and built upon through drills, exercises, sparring and then added/changed/adapted in the next set of forms. All of the forms work together to continually, progressively, and spirally develop the basic blocks into more complex blocks of technique… all using the same basic concepts

Why not just see how they perform in the drills rather than look at their forms?

Good point and I think this is where some people get confused. I think some people have the faulty idea that schools that practice forms just practice forms all day. The teaching and practicing of forms takes up a fairly small chunk of our class time… maybe 30 minutes per week and often serves as a refresher bit on the techniques and/or as a warm-up to other drills (often drills revolving around elements of the forms)

The problem I have with schools like those I went to before is that their "form" practice just consists of practicing performing the forms and then never applying the moves in alive drills. I'm not against forms full stop and I appreciate that not all clubs are like that.

Yes. But also consider that the footwork, breathing, rhythm, set-ups, and combinations can be developed and practiced in the air and then applied against a real opponent. Again, practicing a technique in the air (during a form) a couple of times and then taking it and applying it in drills or sparring is a good way to introduce/refresh it without using a lot of time. It also is a way to help students remember what we covered so that they can later practice on their own, either through the form or by extracting the elements I want them work on with a partner

Do you not find there is variation beyond recognition when students attempt to apply their techniques and footwork from the forms in live drills?

Of course. Competition always involves rules of some sort (another big debate) and even so-called “No Holds Barred Events” bar holds and technqiues in the interest of safety. Not everyone joins a martial art for full contact-anything goes fighting. Regardless the value of sparring is a good one. Sparring provides and opportunity for students to try out their techniques against someone who (10 doesn’t want to get hit and (2) wants to hit them.

Precisely.

However, the skills we develop in sparring transfer over to the self defence side (and yes, you need to take the time to teach the transfer of skills). The forms help students develop good footwork and changing of direction and motion while delivering combinations of techniques, all of which transfer to sparring and which transfer to self defence. Again, the forms introduce the concepts and techniques, then they are extracted and drilled/practiced and then applied in sparring under the “normal rules” After that you take those same skills and apply them in sparring under different (or open) rules sets to more closely approximate “real life situations”.

Again, does the footwork still look like it does in the forms?

And one way to make them sweat and train hard is to provide a clear and concise set of “homework” to do on their own. For younger students I like having them practice forms at home because they are reinforcing skills on their own that I can evaluate and build on in class. Yes, having them fight may be a better way to learn, but I really don’t want my younger or beginner students fighting without supervision of an instructor at home. Therefore, forms can fill the void and may be easier to remember than a set of drills (which when done alone, fill the same purpose as a form anyway).

I wouldn't set homework if I didn't feel it was going to benefit.

Thank you. For students who come to us and want to train with us (we do have a good reputation), I explain to my students that the forms are a requirement for testing for rank. If you don’t want rank, you can train here and not do forms. I also describe the benefits as I see them of forms (see this post). Again, they are not a real “huge” time commitment.

If belts are supposed to be indicative of fighting ability, and forms are just a dead training exercise, then IMO forms are not something students should be tested on.

Yes. I don’t recall saying that we spend “a lot” of time on forms. We use them as a warmup and a refresher/remembering aid for the techniques we are doing. We do the forms and then move on to the applications, drills, and sparring. Check out my journal some time and see what we actually do in class

I never said you did :p

Yes. The footwork and combinations and the breathing is all the same. Sometimes it may be faster or slower, but that is how you need to adapt the “tool” (forms) to the application (sparring)

Do you teach them how to adapt it or do they just find their traditional movements don't work and improvise of their own accord, resulting in what looks more like bad kickboxing?

There are many ways to develop your fighting ability without actually fighting. I don’t imagine you spend all of your martial arts time fighting.

No, I don't, I'm not advocating that.

Practicing techniques, bag work, drills, and sparring all are tools to help you become a well-rounded fighter that can adapt to various conditions and situation so that you will be able to apply the sum of your learning in a real situation if you have to.

I think you're right as far as LIVE drills go.

notquitedead

19-Jan-2005, 11:59 PM

For me, martial arts isn't all about fighting.
Martial arts aren't just about fighting to a lot of people, and that's fine. I'm talking about one specific reason, though: learning to fight. I tried to make that clear at the end of my last post.

Questions for you:Along those lines, has the system you are training in (are you still training?) helped you out in your fights and in your fight career? How often have you put your skills to the test in a real fight or in the "ring"?
It depends on what you consider a "real fight", see my thread in the general discussions section. ;) I've never been attacked by someone who was trying to kill me, but I have used my training to restrain people who were trying to start stuff (before it escalated into something worse).

How do you know that training in a system with rank doesn't help develop a person as a good fighter....
I didn't say that training in a system with ranks doesn't help you fight, I said the ranks themselves don't. A blackbelt isn't guaranteed to beat a white belt.

Have you ever shadow boxed or practiced footwork drills without a partner?
Yes, but I practiced random combos of the techniques I actually use when sparring. Forms are usually done with very little change and many contain techniques that the student doesn't even spar with (and probably wouldn't fight with either).

They help you develop your footwork, combinations, rhythym and breathing....
Footwork can be practiced in forms, but it's always going to be the same. Combinations can be practiced in forms, but they are always going to be the same. I prefer shadowboxing to forms because it allows me to practice being spontaneous and not always being predictable (I still don't even shadow box that much, I prefer to hit something).

My advice: get out and experience some other arts, get some more experience in the arts, and try all sorts of different tools. Then select the ones that work for you and incorporate them.
I don't claim to have a lot of experience in martial arts, but I trained in forms for longer than I've trained in styles that don't use forms. So far I haven't found any reasons to go back to doing forms...

I know forms are just one "tool" you can use. However, some tools are more effective than others. Which gets work done faster, a screwdriver or an electric screwdriver?

They retain the basic strikes, kicks, and footwork from previous forms.
There are other ways to remember techniques. Besides, if a technique is useful, the student will probably use it frequently and won't forget it.

Thank you. For students who come to us and want to train with us (we do have a good reputation), I explain to my students that the forms are a requirement for testing for rank. If you don’t want rank, you can train here and not do forms. I also describe the benefits as I see them of forms (see this post). Again, they are not a real “huge” time commitment.
And if they don't decide to try and get to the next rank, do you refuse to teach them the techniques of higher ranks? That's my main problem with ranks based on certain criteria. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with ranks based on skill (ie I've of places only promote you to the next rank if you can beat everyone at your current rank).

Ikken Hisatsu

20-Jan-2005, 01:02 AM

iyou hit on the thing that I dislike most about forms there pankration- set footwork. I think all the bad things that come from katas stem from that. in a live pattern you arent judged on footwork. by restricting your footwork to a set guideline you restrict how you can adapt. for instance, whenever my coach throws a hook he takes a small "leap" forward. it works for him, he gets a huge amount more range and I have seen him end fights with this because the other guy wasn't expecting a hook from such a range. but for some people, having a totally solid base for a hook is more important (usually bigger guys who arent quite so quick on their feet, or guys who use the fists more to set up the kicks)

if you are made to perform a move in the exact same way every time such as in a form, you will never discover the nuances that might make it more effective for you. you are basically doing what worked for some guy however many hundred years ago.

GojuKJoe

20-Jan-2005, 01:23 AM

The key to successfully training forms, is to not be bound so strictly to their movements. Contrary to popular opinion, they are not supposed to be followed EXACTLY as shown.

Matt_Bernius

20-Jan-2005, 01:37 AM

Look, I've posted this a few times, I'll do it once more.

Forms are nothing more than a mentod of cataloging movements within a system. And I still will contend that they are the best method for doing so. They're a syllabus. This is in much the same fashion that belts/rank are simply a method of categorizing and arranging content for teaching based on skill level.

The idea that belts and forms are completely disconnected with fighting ability is an oversimplification. However, on the surface I can agree with it.

Ultimately they function as an important, but somewhat limited training tool. If you want to learn how to fight in a systematized format, they can be a good component of a training regime. However they are also a beginners and teaching tool. Not unlike tools like the "A-B-C" song which is popular here in the states.

However, they should never become the primary focus of training. Forms should be taught as a catalog, with ideas extracted from them and drill using progressive resistance in live formats. And that's what good programs do.

As far as "dead footwork"... yes, it is for specific reasons of codafication. But as long as a program isn't drilling the idea that a form footwork pattern is the primary way that one should move, I don't see the issue. Again, the goal is to use the form as a basis and then spend the majority of time drilling the concept.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see no dichotomy in having forms and still being able to fight. It's not for everyone. But neither is anchovies on pizza.

- Matt

Timmy Boy

20-Jan-2005, 02:07 AM

Forms are nothing more than a mentod of cataloging movements within a system. And I still will contend that they are the best method for doing so. They're a syllabus. This is in much the same fashion that belts/rank are simply a method of categorizing and arranging content for teaching based on skill level.

Then why are they promoted so much within the syllabus of so many styles?

Ultimately they function as an important, but somewhat limited training tool. If you want to learn how to fight in a systematized format, they can be a good component of a training regime. However they are also a beginners and teaching tool. Not unlike tools like the "A-B-C" song which is popular here in the states.

Such a limited training tool should not IMO be given as much prominence as it often is, and they should have a close relation to how people will actually use the techniques therein.

However, they should never become the primary focus of training. Forms should be taught as a catalog, with ideas extracted from them and drill using progressive resistance in live formats. And that's what good programs do.

Agreed, see for example Gyaku's posts describing the drills he uses.

As far as "dead footwork"... yes, it is for specific reasons of codafication. But as long as a program isn't drilling the idea that a form footwork pattern is the primary way that one should move, I don't see the issue. Again, the goal is to use the form as a basis and then spend the majority of time drilling the concept.

If it isn't the primary way one should move, what is the point in teaching it? As for its role as a basis, there is a big difference between variation for personal preference and everyone in the whole club using techniques that look nothing like the forms and actually a lot more like bad kickboxing.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see no dichotomy in having forms and still being able to fight. It's not for everyone. But neither is anchovies on pizza.

- Matt

It doesn't make you unable to fight and it's not useless, I just think there are better ways to spend your time than simply learning the forms, and if forms are used then they should contain directly applicable techniques.

Matt_Bernius

20-Jan-2005, 02:24 AM

Then why are they promoted so much within the syllabus of so many styles?Cultural reasons. In most Karate Styles this was due to the integration of Karate as a physical education activity in Japanese school around the turn of the century. This was then spread into Korea. Some Chinese arts took a page out of the contemporary Wu Shu book and added more forms as well.

If you look at Kata/Forms in traditional Chinese, Okinawan, or Japanese (not Karate) systems you'll find far less forms for the most part than in many modern systems.

Such a limited training tool should not IMO be given as much prominence as it often is, and they should have a close relation to how people will actually use the techniques therein.Agreed. As I've posted many times in the past. But this is a training methodology issue not necessarily a system issue. The possible exception are large organizations that ridgedly specificy what the training mix is. However such organizations have far deeper running problems than simply training mix (and are not, in my opinion in any way "traditional").

If it isn't the primary way one should move, what is the point in teaching it? As for its role as a basis, there is a big difference between variation for personal preference and everyone in the whole club using techniques that look nothing like the forms and actually a lot more like bad kickboxing.See my earlier post on page three regarding movement. I move like I do in the forms for the most part. The three forms we have feature explosive foot movement, multiple stance styles (including ones that resemble modern boxing), etc. etc. etc. So the form contains the footwork dynamic which is then trained in multiple directions and ways on the floor.

The issue of Karate people moving one way in the form and a different way in sparring goes back to training methodology.

It doesn't make you unable to fight and it's not useless, I just think there are better ways to spend your time than simply learning the forms, and if forms are used then they should contain directly applicable techniques.And guess what... they do. But sad as it might seem the average instructor doesn't understand how to unlock the form or use it in the way it was intended. And at that point, they might as well be jettisoned from that specific program because they have little to no value. However, I've interacted with a number of instructors (including a select group on this board) who can strip down and reconstruct forms, talking to every application within the form and explain how the concepts can be rearranged like pearls on a string to form countless combinations.

I am willing to admit that my experience may be the exception. To put it a different way, just because an incompitant teacher can't teach derivation doesn't mean we should necessarily throw out calculus (as much as I'd love that). The flip side is, every student doesn't need to learn it either.

- Matt

Timmy Boy

20-Jan-2005, 10:49 AM

The issue of Karate people moving one way in the form and a different way in sparring goes back to training methodology.

So there's a deliberate reason why they do it?

Taliar

20-Jan-2005, 11:29 AM

I have said this before, and i'll say it again. People who are good at forms are also good at sparring, (IMO) so maybe there is a correlation.

I agree that the amount of time spent on forms should be quiet small. However I find them excellent for giving yourself a quick warmup/workout when no other tools are available. While they are not about fighting they are related to fighting skills.

And lastly and most importantly I ENJOY THEM and get benefit from them. If you don't enjoy them or feel you get any benefit from them you are not going to think them worthwhile, but if you do you will use them.

Forms are like Marmite. It is a food that will give you energy, it is not the most healthy energy rich food in the world, but it is food. Just as forms may not be the most effective training method, but they are a training method with benefits. Some people love Marmite and some hate it, just as some like or hate forms, and they will never be converted.

Marmite will not do you any harm (just as forms wont) unless you have to much of it in your diet and ignore the other needed foods (training types).

I like forms but detest Marmite :D

Timmy Boy

20-Jan-2005, 11:38 AM

I have said this before, and i'll say it again. People who are good at forms are also good at sparring, (IMO) so maybe there is a correlation.

You also said that was more to do with those students just being hard working, and I severely doubt there's a correlation because many people are good at forms but not sparring, and vice versa.

And lastly and most importantly I ENJOY THEM and get benefit from them. If you don't enjoy them or feel you get any benefit from them you are not going to think them worthwhile, but if you do you will use them.

Enjoying something doesn't make it useful. I didn't mind doing forms, some of the more advanced ones I learned were fairly fun, but I found them about as useful as a helicopter ejection seat.

Forms are like Marmite. It is a food that will give you energy, it is not the most healthy energy rich food in the world, but it is food. Just as forms may not be the most effective training method, but they are a training method with benefits. Some people love Marmite and some hate it, just as some like or hate forms, and they will never be converted.

If it isn't the most effective training method, why bother?

Marmite will not do you any harm (just as forms wont) unless you have to much of it in your diet and ignore the other needed foods (training types).

No, but they take up valuable training time.

I like forms but detest Marmite :D

I'm the opposite :D

Taliar

20-Jan-2005, 11:59 AM

Timmy Boy

20-Jan-2005, 12:26 PM

I said I enjoy patterns and feel they benefit me, that may not be true for you, but people are different, I am not going to try and make you do forms if you don't want to, but I will do them and personally feel they are of benefit.

I'm not trying to ruin your enjoyment...

They may not be the most effective training method but I do feel they are benefical, also the add variety and enjoyment to my art. Going back to my food analogy. Do you follow a strict exacting diet, some people do and get the benefits from it. Myself I follow a fairly healthy diet of lots of fruit and veg and lean meats etc, however I still like to have a beer, or some chocolate, and it doesn't do me any harm. If you followed a strict diet I think it would be very boring.

Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy forms and I never did. But this thread is about effectiveness. Why are you trying to justify the fact that you like forms to me, I'm not telling you what to enjoy!

I know forms are not the most effective manner of training, but they are still of benefit and I like them so what is the problem with me doing them. As long as you appreciate their weaknesses and don't spend to long doing them I can't see an issue. (Unless the desire is to 'win' the discussion).

This discussion is about how useful forms are in comparison to other training methods. And yes, I have raised the point already about spending too long doing them.

Unless you wish to be at the very top with the best 40/50 guys in the world in MMA I can't see the problem. I can't see how much difference the 30 - 60 mins of forms training out 7 - 8 hours off TKD I do a week is going to make me a hugely ineffective sparrer / fighter.

I didn't say it's going to make you a hugely ineffective fighter, I just said I believe there are far more useful training methods you can use.

Taliar

20-Jan-2005, 12:47 PM

So if there are more useful methods that must mean that forms have some use. I do not dispute that there are 'more useful' training methods than forms, however it is my personal belief that forms add something to my art (not fighting ability but connected to the skill set involved in fighting) that is not covered else where. This may only be a small benefit but it is one that I will continue to use.

If my goal (and I think many others) was to become the most effective fighting person I could be then there are many other things that would need to be done aswell, least of all is a small amount of forms practise. You may as well post saying that people shouldn't sit down watch TV and relax when they could be training as they will not be as effective fighters by doing anything else.

Most of your points have been accepted by all the people who 'support' forms in this thread, they have however said that they realise this but for their own reasons they will contiue to practice them. Most have realised the relative postition that forms need to take in training and have a sesible attitude to forms training.

If you think you are going to convince everyone to say 'I have realised the error of my ways and will never waste time on forms again' I'm sorry to say its never going to happen. You have your view on forms and others have theres and as long as each is based on the personnal experience and desires of the martial artist, each is equally valid.

We just have to agree to disagree :D

Timmy Boy

20-Jan-2005, 12:52 PM

How many times do I have to say "to each their own" on this thread before people start listening to me? Look at the very first page of this thread. Azeitung is defending katas from an effectiveness point of view. I argued against it on the same principle, effectiveness. So have most people on this thread. I have listened to arguments from people on both sides of the fence. If you enjoy forms, great, I'm not saying you shouldn't, but this thread is about effectiveness and if you don't want to discuss effectiveness, don't post on this thread criticising me for trying to force my viewpoint down the throats of people who don't care. Don't put words in my mouth, it adds nothing to the discussion.

Taliar

20-Jan-2005, 12:59 PM

Yes but I have said while other methods may contain more effective training, forms offer a different viewpoint that adds to your repitoire of training methods and provides things that other methods don't and that forms are valuable, but should not be over emphasised and that a rounded and balanced view of training is needed. This is my viewpoint and my belief. You are free to have yours but mine is equally valid. Neither viewpoint can be proved as the results are qualititive not quanititive.

Timmy Boy

20-Jan-2005, 01:04 PM

Yes but I have said while other methods may contain more effective training, forms offer a different viewpoint that adds to your repitoire of training methods and provides things that other methods don't and that forms are valuable, but should not be over emphasised and that a rounded and balanced view of training is needed.

Right, well stick to this point rather than accusing me of trying to force my opinion on people.

This is my viewpoint and my belief. You are free to have yours but mine is equally valid. Neither viewpoint can be proved as the results are qualititive not quanititive.

If you feel that there is no point discussing this, why are you posting on this thread?

Taliar

20-Jan-2005, 01:17 PM

It seemed to me that you were looking for 'forms supporters' to accept your viewpoint. If i read into your comments wrongly I apologise.

While you seem to put forward the view that only the most 'effective' training method should be used. However my viewpoint is that while you should concentrate on the most effective training methods, other training methods can help broaden your abilities and are useful if applied correctly and with thought.

I would view a session of only forms as largely a waste of time, however I would not view using a limited percentage of your time on forms as a waste of time, especially if properly linked in with the other parts of your session.

Timmy Boy

20-Jan-2005, 01:23 PM

It seemed to me that you were looking for 'forms supporters' to accept your viewpoint. If i read into your comments wrongly I apologise.

No, I wasn't. I was debating. I would be far more rude than this if I was just trying to make people accept my viewpoint, I have simply raised arguments.

While you seem to put forward the view that only the most 'effective' training method should be used. However my viewpoint is that while you should concentrate on the most effective training methods, other training methods can help broaden your abilities and are useful if applied correctly and with thought.

Yes, and sadly many clubs don't bother making things more useful.

I would view a session of only forms as largely a waste of time, however I would not view using a limited percentage of your time on forms as a waste of time, especially if properly linked in with the other parts of your session.

The link is the crucial point here.

Jang Bong

20-Jan-2005, 01:26 PM

Hi Taliar - loved your post (and personally hate Marmite :D:D:D)

To steal a comment from someone elsewhere - there are 10 types of MAP member, those that understand binary and......

I thought of this and then realised just how valid a 'comparison' this could be. If the sum total of the forms contain the 'codification' of the 'art', then the more they are studied the deeper you get into the art. Binary code is the base level of the operation of the computers you are sitting at NOW! You don't need to learn binary to create results on the computer, but whichever tools (languages) you are using you are working within an 'artificial environment' with limitations and restrictions. Years ago I was writing in BASIC, and was asked by and Assembly code programmer "Don't you feel limited by the language?" - I replied that "It hasn't stopped me doing anything yet!". Sound familiar? :)

I've been sneered at by computer tutors for advocating the teaching of simple HTML - others tell me "there is no need - you can use <insert favourite page designer here>". I stand by my oppinion that knowing what is below the tools gives you a wider view.

Or as honorary MAP member Albert may have said:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and length of this thread (provided everyone stays nice), and I'm not sure about the former.

Taliar

20-Jan-2005, 01:41 PM

Quote:
I would view a session of only forms as largely a waste of time, however I would not view using a limited percentage of your time on forms as a waste of time, especially if properly linked in with the other parts of your session.

The link is the crucial point here.

I totally agree the linking of forms into the whole of your training is the critical part, as with any aspect of training using it in issolation without relating it to everything else vastly reduces the usefulness of that training.

Thomas

20-Jan-2005, 02:09 PM

It's simply going through the form endlessly that bothers me really.
If all I had to do in class were forms, I'd be bored too. I don';t think that's the issue (with me anyway). As I wrote previously, we don't spend a huge amount of time on the forms and we use the forms to reinforce other training.

I don't think that this alone would be enough, if it was me.

Take a look at the main website sometime (www.ichf.com). For me, I really enjoy the Federation. On the Hapkido side we don't have forms (use drills instead) and on the ITA side we do have forms (and drills). The drills and forms fill the same function and I find both systems effective.

Why not just see how they perform in the drills rather than look at their forms?

We do that during the constant informal evaluation. However, for rank in our choisen system, the forms are an additional requirement. If students want the rank, they do the forms. I don't set the policy therefore I will make sure if we have to do forms, we will get the best out of them. Agin, forms are just another tool.

The problem I have with schools like those I went to before is that their "form" practice just consists of practicing performing the forms and then never applying the moves in alive drills. I'm not against forms full stop and I appreciate that not all clubs are like that.
If my school did that, I don't think I'd like them either.

Do you not find there is variation beyond recognition when students attempt to apply their techniques and footwork from the forms in live drills?

There is variation but that is to be expected. The basic technqiues and footwork from the forms shows up in sparring and in self defence applications. The variation is necessary because in real life, nothing will go exactly as you want. I like the students to learn the "ideal" setting (in the forms) and then we apply them.

Again, does the footwork still look like it does in the forms?
Again, yes.

I wouldn't set homework if I didn't feel it was going to benefit.
Me too. That's why I have them work the forms at home. They are covering the basic technqiues they need to know so they do the drills and sparring in class where they are supervised by me to prevent improper application and/or injury. Forms fill that role well for my students.

If belts are supposed to be indicative of fighting ability, and forms are just a dead training exercise, then IMO forms are not something students should be tested on.
First off, I disagree with with the bold -faced part. Belts only represent (to our system) the level of mastery of the curriculum. Within each level,m there will be beter fighter than others and some people with lower rank may be better fighters than higher rank. However, the rank is there to note how much of the curriculum has been mastered and to indicate that someone responsible has evaluated them. As an instructor, I may hold the highest rank in the classroom and I should have the best understanding of the curriculum... but I might not be the best figher in there. My job is to teach them the skills to become a better fighter... hopefully better than myself at some point (but they will still have stuff to learn from me). Beyond that, in your argument, we must disagree becauise I do not believe forms are a "dead training exercise" and I see the value in including them.

Do you teach them how to adapt it or do they just find their traditional movements don't work and improvise of their own accord, resulting in what looks more like bad kickboxing?

I hope our sparring doesn't look like bad kickboxing (what does that look like.... do you have any photos or videos to illustrate?). Take a look in my photo gallery to get an idea of what our sparring does look like.

Yes, I do teach the stduents how to adapt forms to sparring and self dfence technqiues and I also allow them to experiment and test it to find their own answers too. Instruction, guidance, and experimentation are all valuable learning tools.

Let me know if you have any more specific questions. My intent in debating this topic is NOT to change anyone's mind. I am just expressing what we do in our school and why. I think you and I have covered the same basic questions a couple of times now, so we'll see where this goes from here.

Thomas

20-Jan-2005, 02:21 PM

I know forms are just one "tool" you can use. However, some tools are more effective than others. Which gets work done faster, a screwdriver or an electric screwdriver?

Is faster always better? Electric screwdrivers sometimes strip the slot of the screw or sometimes over -tighten and break the screw (which causes more work later) or sometimes the batteries are dead when you need it.

Being able to use various tools and technqiues helps reinforce the material in various ways (helps in retention) and helps show other applications. Doing everything the fastest and easiest way can lead to overlooking valuable options that can turn up with other approaches. Variety is good.

There are other ways to remember techniques. Besides, if a technique is useful, the student will probably use it frequently and won't forget it.
Yes... I don't recall arguing againt this. My point has constantly been to use various drills and methods... including forms. And, I don't believe in spending too much time on only one method.

And if they don't decide to try and get to the next rank, do you refuse to teach them the techniques of higher ranks? That's my main problem with ranks based on certain criteria. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with ranks based on skill (ie I've of places only promote you to the next rank if you can beat everyone at your current rank).

No. We teach based on ability. If students want to earn rank they have to take the formal test and prove it. If they don't want rank (we have a few of those), they learn the curriculum and advance with the others based on what they've done and can do. Some people (myself included) like the benefits that come with the rank and federation affiliation.

In most cases the people who take the ranking route generally have a clearer forcus on the overall system and curriculum and tend to be longer temr students. Some students who train with us without testing for rank eventually decide that the membership and benefits are good and they end up ranking up afterall.

Matt_Bernius

20-Jan-2005, 02:37 PM

So there's a deliberate reason why they do it?
It isn't a deliberate/interntional reason. It comes back to training methodologies. See this previous post:

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=390749&postcount=33

- Matt

Timmy Boy

20-Jan-2005, 04:47 PM

Infrazael

20-Jan-2005, 05:57 PM

I remeber the second day of my Kung Fu training, when my Sifu told me to NEVER follow what he does exactly, because my Kung Fu is my own. If I copy him, then I will not experience any real Kung Fu, because it is about individual improvement. He stressed that my techniques need to be natural and relaxed, not tense or "exact" like alot of people do it. To be "exact" is to severly limit oneself in terms of ability.

ubermint

20-Jan-2005, 07:26 PM

So would you say that the limited rules of sparring, which often resemble those of kickboxing (though not as hard), means that the students are prevented from using their art properly, forcing them to resort to kickboxing tactics? For example, is there no incentive to use a full scale reverse punch rather than a quick "jab" when you're only allowed to make light contact?

I know you're trying to lead into a debating trap, but just as an aside:
I heard from my instructor, a former Hapkidoist that reverse punches with chambering actually signify grabbing the opponent's wrist and pulling it down to your hip, while striking with the other hand at the now undefended side. A kind of "trapping" technique.

Now if this is true, it would make more sense. While trapping is less practical than a good stiff jab, it still makes more sense than using a reverse punch while in free movement range, where it is clearly inferior to boxing.

notquitedead

20-Jan-2005, 08:36 PM

I have said this before, and i'll say it again. People who are good at forms are also good at sparring, (IMO) so maybe there is a correlation.
...I know plenty of people who are good at forms, but not very many of them can fight. There is no direct connection between doing forms well and fighting well. Get a random sample of tai chi practitioners who spend a lot of time on forms and see how well they fight compared to people who've never done forms in their life but have done a lot of live drills and sparring (I'm not insulting tai chi, but a lot of the people that train it do so for health reasons and don't spar).

but I found them about as useful as a helicopter ejection seat.
:D

Is faster always better? Electric screwdrivers sometimes strip the slot of the screw or sometimes over -tighten and break the screw (which causes more work later) or sometimes the batteries are dead when you need it.
Forms not only take longer, but you don't train as well in forms as you would in other methods.

In a fight, your footwork will depend on what your opponent is doing. Wouldn't it make sense to practice your footwork with an opponent, then? If you can't, wouldn't it make sense to shadow box with random footwork instead of doing the same exact thing repeatedly?

In a fight, you are going to be defending against something. Your defense (blocks etc) will be in response to something that happens first. In a form, you are doing the block by yourself. Wouldn't it make more sense to do drills or sparring where you actually have to defend against something?

In a fight, combinations are used to set up other strikes. In a form, there is no one to confuse or distract. Wouldn't it make more sense to develop and test these combinations with a partner?

In a fight, your target is a solid object. Wouldn't it make more sense to develop the mechanics of your strike on a solid object?

Infrazael

20-Jan-2005, 08:55 PM

Another thing about form practice - you'll eventually want to be able to mirror all your forms. I've been practicing mirroring with all the ones I currently know, and it has expanded my agility ALOT.

notquitedead

20-Jan-2005, 09:10 PM

By mirroring you mean doing them with the opposite side, right? If so, why not do drills, sparring, etc practicing fighting from that side?

Timmy Boy

20-Jan-2005, 09:52 PM

I know you're trying to lead into a debating trap, but just as an aside:

Actually no I'm not, I'm checking that is what Matt Bernius means, and just in case you hadn't noticed, this IS a debate.

Matt_Bernius

21-Jan-2005, 12:24 AM

So would you say that the limited rules of sparring, which often resemble those of kickboxing (though not as hard), means that the students are prevented from using their art properly, forcing them to resort to kickboxing tactics? For example, is there no incentive to use a full scale reverse punch rather than a quick "jab" when you're only allowed to make light contact?No. I think it comes to a fundimental breakdown in training regime. That begins with how sparring is introduced to the class, and a fundimental issue that instructors don't understand form.

Additionally it gets to some unfortunate misunderstandings of techniques like the chambered reverese punch. The fact, as I stated, is that the average instructor don't know how to fundimentally teach their systems. And there are countless cultural reasons for that.

As I attempted to suggest, I don't this sparring is introduced in a way that allows people to use the fundimentals of the form. I'll expand on this later.

- Matt

tswolfman

21-Jan-2005, 01:26 PM

I love the Analogy about a screwdriver and a electric screwdriver but lets expand this further a minute. If you make something with a peg instead of a screw is it less powerful, less reliable. That all depends on the curcumstance. Forms are like a peg they are a way for puting together things that are hard to connect without some out side force. Yes we could use a screw either Fast with an electric screwdriver or slow with a normal screwdriver and get the job done. But if you use a peg it will be slower and will blend with everything better in the long run. Sparring, Fighting, Physical, Mental, Spritual are all different boards you need to put them together how you see fit for the best product over all. Forms, Drills are ways of doing so. Each has to find there own way. Weither it be Fast with a Electic Screwdriver or slow with a peg. It is more that just what forms are but how they fit into the whole picture to round out the finished product that matters. Sometimes they will break and wont work right other times they have to be sanded to excellence it all matters on the indivudal.

Thomas

21-Jan-2005, 01:52 PM

Forms not only take longer, but you don't train as well in forms as you would in other methods.

In a fight, your footwork will depend on what your opponent is doing. Wouldn't it make sense to practice your footwork with an opponent, then? If you can't, wouldn't it make sense to shadow box with random footwork instead of doing the same exact thing repeatedly?

In a fight, you are going to be defending against something. Your defense (blocks etc) will be in response to something that happens first. In a form, you are doing the block by yourself. Wouldn't it make more sense to do drills or sparring where you actually have to defend against something?

In a fight, combinations are used to set up other strikes. In a form, there is no one to confuse or distract. Wouldn't it make more sense to develop and test these combinations with a partner?

In a fight, your target is a solid object. Wouldn't it make more sense to develop the mechanics of your strike on a solid object?

The points you make are valid, but I think you are missing the main element of what I am trying to say: we don’t do “only” forms. They are one tool that we use in addition to everything else (and more) that you listed above.

It’s a good thing to research and compare other points of view and training methodologies. However, I think people need to do the one thing that makes them a better martial artist physically: get out and train in an art for a period of time and also explore other arts through cross training. All the theory in the world doesn’t mean anything without having tried it out, practiced it, and incorporated into your own style.

For a person who has seen forms or tried them out for a short period of time, it may not seem like a valuable tool. But training in forms under a good instructor who knows how to apply the lessons (and curriculum contained within) the forms to practical drills and sparring… can be very valuable. For forms to be effective though, there has to be the further application and decoding of the skills… without that step, they are not as valuable. They should not be used as a "stand-alone" art form... but as one tool to be used.

notquitedead

21-Jan-2005, 10:24 PM

we don’t do “only” forms.
I'm aware of that. However, instead of doing every possible training method I could, I focus on the most useful ones.

For forms to be effective though, there has to be the further application and decoding of the skills… without that step, they are not as valuable.
That's adding an extra step just for the sake of it. All the techniques that are in the form can be learned without learning the form first. I could make a form that contained the movements of several wrestling techniques, or I could learn them and drill them with a partner right from the beginning. There is no "adjusting" period of going from theory to practice, you learn it on an opponent from the start.

I'm not saying you or anyone else should stop doing forms, but I am more concerned with improving my ability to fight and compete so I choose to train without them.

Jang Bong

22-Jan-2005, 01:05 AM

I could make a form that contained the movements of several wrestling techniques, or I could learn them and drill them with a partner right from the beginning.

Still no argument here that you are wrong - but as you teach your student, and they teach theirs, and that goes on for 20 generations of student, how sure are you that the essence of your several individual drills will be accurate? It is easier to pass on one form with several techniques than several different drills.

I missed out on the 'Chinese Whispers' comments (a couple of pages back) - [I]"Send three-and-fourpence, we're going to a dance!". [For the younger members, the original message was "Send reinforcements, we're going to advance" :D]

With regard to this, there are some instructors (like my own) who are delving back into old martial documentation and comparing the forms with those done now and bringing the documentary knowledge back into his teaching. This is like being number 30 in the whispers game and sneaking back to ask number 5 what was really said. [Notice I said number 5, not number 1 - interpreation of what is read still comes into it]

One for Tim (as he keeps casually ignoring this when it comes up :)) There have been some examples of fighters that you seem to accept as 'good' or 'hard' - and it has been pointed out that they practice forms. Your immediate response is that they reason they are good is less to do with forms and more with the rest of their training. BUT WHY DO THEY PRACTICE FORMS??? Maybe they know something more than meets your eye when you see them as 'wasted training time'.

notquitedead

22-Jan-2005, 02:23 AM

Ikken Hisatsu

22-Jan-2005, 04:20 AM

wrestling, boxing, muay thai, savate, BJJ, all of these manage to pass on their moves in a complete form and have done (except bjj) for a long long time, without the use of kata.

Timmy Boy

22-Jan-2005, 12:01 PM

Still no argument here that you are wrong - but as you teach your student, and they teach theirs, and that goes on for 20 generations of student, how sure are you that the essence of your several individual drills will be accurate? It is easier to pass on one form with several techniques than several different drills. [If you argue that your memory is good enough, then run it up to a few dozen techniques :D]

Does it really matter if the technique changes over time as long as it's still effective?

One for Tim (as he keeps casually ignoring this when it comes up :)) There have been some examples of fighters that you seem to accept as 'good' or 'hard' - and it has been pointed out that they practice forms. Your immediate response is that they reason they are good is less to do with forms and more with the rest of their training. BUT WHY DO THEY PRACTICE FORMS??? Maybe they know something more than meets your eye when you see them as 'wasted training time'.

I don't ignore it whenever it comes up. The only one who has been mentioned so far is Masutatsu Oyama, the founder of Kyokushinkai Karate, and I will expand on the same response I provided earlier. Hard as he was, he still had a lot of very flawed ideas - he severely damaged his hands through conditioning, for example. He believed that practicing katas in the air was what made him good, whereas it's obvious to an outsider looking at how he trained that the guy just made himself hard as nails. Katas had nothing to do with it. It's no more relevant than what brand of toothpaste he used, but because the katas looked like fighting it's easy to make an illusory correlation.

Hawks

04-Mar-2005, 02:57 PM

shotokanwarrior

04-Mar-2005, 05:45 PM

Timmy Boy

04-Mar-2005, 05:45 PM

This Might be a stupid question but has anyone thought to think about the entire motions in Kata. A stack to the hip and then a counter followed by a punch, there are alot of self defense possibilites in those motions. I have been taught that the end of the move is just the posture and that the action actually takes place in the middle. As my hand comes across to stack and i can counter the punch. I can thern strike on what would look like my side counter and then I still have a punch to throw.

Then why isn't this taught and why don't karateka spar like that?

There is also the concept of 2 handed techniques. Most kata only shows one and even when we train basics we only use one hand to stack and the other hand to throw a punch. We can certainly use both hands all of the time. As my hand stakcs to my hip I can be pulling something or have a hold of something and then strike with my other hand. IMO there is unlimited potential in any one of our "basic" motions.Part of transitioning from a karate student to a Martial artist is to actually apply what you learn to your art and make it your own.

The problem is that the "making it your own" usually seems to mean fighting in a way that looks far more like kickboxing, with a high guard and punches from much higher up than the hip, and no large lunging footwork. If EVERYONE is ditching the traditional techniques to fight like that, why not train to fight like that in the first place?

What do you mean by "stack" exactly? I think I'm missing something in your reply which I will understand much better if I know what that means. However, if by "stacking" you mean that you draw your hand back to your hip as the other one punches allowing for a follow up, then your hand is in a far better place to follow up with another technique if it's near your head, as well as providing more protection.

Anybody have an opinion?

Yep! :D

Timmy Boy

04-Mar-2005, 05:56 PM

I personally think the only reason katas hold so much weight at gradings is because they're popular with all the people who are in it to look cool in front of their friends but are too scared to actually walk into a ring. This despite the fact that it's semicontact sparring, not the goddamned UFC. I actually know people like this and I've made that point to them but they just trail off saying 'I know, yeah, but...' .

I think it's because of a few reasons:

1) Many people think full-contact sparring is too dangerous, so there have to be other drills to demonstrate one's knowledge of karate because the sparring that IS used isn't representative enough.

2) Tradition.

3) Since Gichin Funakoshi got his hands on karate it became less fighting-centred and more to do with "budo" - at least that's my understanding. Hence full-contact sparring wasn't used anymore as fighting was no longer the main concern, so if you wanted to demonstrate your karate, kata practice was the other obvious way.

This of course leaves the question of "well, what about kyokushinkai and its offshoots?" to which my answer would be that Oyama was a student of traditional karate styles, so besides the hard sparring and conditioning he saw no reason to change things. Kyokushinkai DOES produce excellent fighters, but again I believe this is due to their hard sparring and conditioning rather than katas.

I may have said some of this already but it's a long thread and I haven't looked at it for ages.

NOTE: Before anyone replies to this to tell me how inaccurate my interpretation of karate's history is, please feel free to point out flaws in a respectful way. I like the way this thread has been civil for the most part unlike most threads on a similar topic and I'm sure we'd all like to keep it that way.

shotokanwarrior

04-Mar-2005, 05:57 PM

People who are good at forms are also good at sparring, (IMO) so maybe there is a correlation.

Actually, not all of them are. There are people who are 'savage' fighters who make fools of themselves at sparring competitions.

I reckon that people who ARE good at both are just keen. When I first started sparring for a while I was a real juggernaut because of having very little skill so relying on adrenaline fuelled savagery...and I used to be the best in the club at katas (my sensei used to hold measly little competitions *puke* Don't think I'm arrogant, I'm not proud of it) So I think they are just people who try to be good at everything.

shotokanwarrior

04-Mar-2005, 06:02 PM

1) Many people think full-contact sparring is too dangerous, so there have to be other drills to demonstrate one's knowledge of karate because the sparring that IS used isn't representative enough.

2) Tradition.

3) Since Gichin Funakoshi got his hands on karate it became less fighting-centred and more to do with "budo" - at least that's my understanding. Hence full-contact sparring wasn't used anymore as fighting was no longer the main concern, so if you wanted to demonstrate your karate, kata practice was the other obvious way.

This of course leaves the question of "well, what about kyokushinkai and its offshoots?" to which my answer would be that Oyama was a student of traditional karate styles, so besides the hard sparring and conditioning he saw no reason to change things. Kyokushinkai DOES produce excellent fighters, but again I believe this is due to their hard sparring and conditioning rather than katas.

1) People who think that katas are more representative of karate than any type of sparring need their heads examined.

2) I know, yeah, damn tradition.

3) People could still do light or semicontact sparring.

Kyokushinkai DOES produce excellent fighters, but again I believe this is due to their hard sparring and conditioning rather than katas.

I agree.

Timmy Boy

04-Mar-2005, 06:08 PM

3) People could still do light or semicontact sparring.

Yes they could, and they do, but the kind of point sparring I've seen in most karate style clubs is so unrealistic as well as different from the techniques they teach that it's no real representation that you can use karate effectively. If you don't want to change the sparring, then you need some other demonstration of karate skills, and the obvious choices are kata and tamishiwara.

Ikken Hisatsu

04-Mar-2005, 06:43 PM

Kyokushinkai DOES produce excellent fighters, but again I believe this is due to their hard sparring and conditioning rather than katas. im curious, how ELSE do you think people become good fighters?

Timmy Boy

04-Mar-2005, 07:46 PM

im curious, how ELSE do you think people become good fighters?

Me, or the person to whom my point was addressed? Jang Bong was arguing that there are good fighters out there e.g. kyokushinkai karateka who are good at fighting AND they do katas so maybe there is a correlation; I was pointing out that the fact that they did katas had no effect on their abilities as it was the hard sparring and conditioning that made them good.

MartialArtN00b

05-Mar-2005, 01:00 AM

My kungfu class is alot of katas, so heres my perspective on it.

Kata has its place, its an easy way to promote fitness, elasticity, and endurance. Sure there are some substitute exercice you can do instead, but theyre freaking boring to do unless you do enjoy going to the gym.

Its also a straightfoward way of showing several techniques and their possible followup. And an easy way for muscle coordination.

Its one method of learning though. To develop power, you definitely need to hit something real. Also, it gives you an idea of whats youre greatest asset. When I started hitting the punching bag, I was surprised as to how WEAK and PAINFUL my punches were. I know that my roundhouse kicks are also weak and that it freaking hurts to give a good solid roundhouse (but its getting better). I also know that crane, snake, phoenix, and leopard fist hurts your hand ALOT without the proper conditionning.(And now my hand conditioning consist of alot of this: :bang: )

To be able to pull off the techniques of the kata, you need to train it on a resisting partner.

To be able to pull off the technique also in the first place, you need to drill it the technique independantly of the kata.

Also, you definitely need to understand the technique. Youre not going to chamber your punch if you cant grab a hold of his arm or else youre leaving yourself wide open.

And the low stance in the kata is part of muscle coordination. The low stance is to give an extra force to the technique. The force doesnt come exactly by adopting the low stance, but more from the shift from an average joe normal combat stance which is alot higher. So you end up adding your weight to the technique while not losing your balance, but the power comes from the shift and a good solid stance. That bit of knowledge pretty much came out of hands on practice.

Kata is more like a textbook, and the usefulness only becomes apparent when you use it properly.

Timmy Boy

05-Mar-2005, 01:20 AM

Kata has its place, its an easy way to promote fitness, elasticity, and endurance. Sure there are some substitute exercice you can do instead, but theyre freaking boring to do unless you do enjoy going to the gym.

Katas are nothing like as taxing as exercising in the gym. As for being boring, well, I guess that comes down to how dedicated you are to getting good. That's not an intended dig - I don't do as much running-type cardio as I probably should because I bloody hate it, but at the same time I accept the consequence that my endurance won't improve as much without it. Plus, I'm no health and fitness expert, but bagwork, sparring and grappling are all fun cardio exercises that are apparently very good for you.

Its also a straightfoward way of showing several techniques and their possible followup. And an easy way for muscle coordination.

You could do that by going straight into bunkai, and as for muscle co-ordination, that can come from any kind of drill.

Its one method of learning though. To develop power, you definitely need to hit something real. Also, it gives you an idea of whats youre greatest asset. When I started hitting the punching bag, I was surprised as to how WEAK and PAINFUL my punches were. I know that my roundhouse kicks are also weak and that it freaking hurts to give a good solid roundhouse (but its getting better). I also know that crane, snake, phoenix, and leopard fist hurts your hand ALOT without the proper conditionning.(And now my hand conditioning consist of alot of this: :bang: )

Agreed :)

To be able to pull off the techniques of the kata, you need to train it on a resisting partner.

Again, agreed.

To be able to pull off the technique also in the first place, you need to drill it the technique independantly of the kata.

If we're talking striking, yeah.

And the low stance in the kata is part of muscle coordination. The low stance is to give an extra force to the technique. The force doesnt come exactly by adopting the low stance, but more from the shift from an average joe normal combat stance which is alot higher. So you end up adding your weight to the technique while not losing your balance, but the power comes from the shift and a good solid stance. That bit of knowledge pretty much came out of hands on practice.

Yes but the low stance also makes you very immobile, hence no-one uses it in sparring, and there are other ways of generating power that don't have this problem.

Kata is more like a textbook, and the usefulness only becomes apparent when you use it properly.

Unfortunately the kata-based drills that are practiced could be practiced independently of actually studying the kata itself.

MartialArtN00b

05-Mar-2005, 03:02 AM

Katas are nothing like as taxing as exercising in the gym. As for being boring, well, I guess that comes down to how dedicated you are to getting good. That's not an intended dig - I don't do as much running-type cardio as I probably should because I bloody hate it, but at the same time I accept the consequence that my endurance won't improve as much without it. Plus, I'm no health and fitness expert, but bagwork, sparring and grappling are all fun cardio exercises that are apparently very good for you.

You are right, doing the specific exercice is alot more efficient especially if you follow a bodybuilder program. And to be fair I do hit the punching bag, as well as run on a daily basis. The only thing Im probably actually missing are the weights and thats because im a cheapskate.

Yes but the low stance also makes you very immobile, hence no-one uses it in sparring, and there are other ways of generating power that don't have this problem.

My sparring experience is still limited as I am just starting so Ill take that into consideration if I keep getting my ass destroyed on a regular basis.

Unfortunately the kata-based drills that are practiced could be practiced independently of actually studying the kata itself.

Problem is hung gar has alot of forms. Only doing drills means some techniques will be forgotten as one might favor some he feels more comfortable, and neglect those he dislikes. Which isnt too far fetched because some of the fists require some hand conditioning that a person might not feel like enduring.

Besides I learn form pretty fast, so I dont mind doing the kata since it doesnt take that much time for me.
And I like studying the kata itself because I can do it alone and Im not dependant on the teacher for the knowledge of other techniques.

Timmy Boy

05-Mar-2005, 01:21 PM

My sparring experience is still limited as I am just starting so Ill take that into consideration if I keep getting my ass destroyed on a regular basis.

I think we're talking mainly about karate here, I don't know anything about hung gar other than it's a TMA with forms so I don't know how low the stances are in comparison.

Problem is hung gar has alot of forms. Only doing drills means some techniques will be forgotten as one might favor some he feels more comfortable, and neglect those he dislikes. Which isnt too far fetched because some of the fists require some hand conditioning that a person might not feel like enduring.

There's nothing wrong with only using the moves you like - most of the top judoka only use a few throws.

Besides I learn form pretty fast, so I dont mind doing the kata since it doesnt take that much time for me.

Learning the motions doesn't take long, perfecting them does. However, it's not the same difficulty as fighting.

And I like studying the kata itself because I can do it alone and Im not dependant on the teacher for the knowledge of other techniques.

Surely you could just pick up this knowledge from other students?

GojuKJoe

05-Mar-2005, 06:21 PM

I don't get why so many people are trying to say that kata is so bad. If you don't like it, don't do it. Nobdy needs you to tell them whether it is effective or not. The fact is, kata doesn't make you a good fighter on it's own, but it doesn't hold you back or make you worse, like a lot of people seem to think. So if a person enjoys doing the kata, and is still a good fighter, what is the problem?

Timmy Boy

05-Mar-2005, 07:04 PM

No-one has a "problem" with people doing kata, but this is a discussion about whether or not it's an effective training drill.

Taliar

05-Mar-2005, 07:47 PM

And many people think that it is a worthwhile training tool, although it needs to be properly used and intergrated with all other aspects of your training.

ubermint

05-Mar-2005, 08:57 PM

I don't.

Jang Bong

05-Mar-2005, 09:27 PM

Nice to see this thread attracting new visitors :) You know full well I'm going to say "Hello MartialArtN00b - some nice points re-raised from a different art".

I said blueprint - MartialArtN00b says textbook - it all amounts to keeping ALL the techniques together in the same place. The response always seems to be "learn the moves through drill", but that brings us back to relying on the human memory and the decisions of individual instructors of what to teach (and what to forget about).

Jang Bong was arguing that there are good fighters out there e.g. kyokushinkai karateka who are good at fighting AND they do katas so maybe there is a correlation; I was pointing out that the fact that they did katas had no effect on their abilities as it was the hard sparring and conditioning that made them good.

... and I was pointing out that as good fighters (far more experienced that I), they did katas. They wouldn't have 'wasted their training time' if there was no benefit. ;)

notquitedead

05-Mar-2005, 09:55 PM

Just because someone is good at fighting doesn't mean they only train in realistic ways. I'm sure there are plenty of good fighters who still do kata for fun.

Timmy Boy

06-Mar-2005, 01:23 AM

... and I was pointing out that as good fighters (far more experienced that I), they did katas. They wouldn't have 'wasted their training time' if there was no benefit. ;)

They would if that was what their instructors were making them do every lesson.

shotokanwarrior

06-Mar-2005, 12:52 PM

If you don't want to change the sparring, then you need some other demonstration of karate skills, and the obvious choices are kata and tamishiwara.

Why do they have to demonstrate it at all? To make money? :confused:

Hey, I've thought of a quotation for people who say 'Even Kyokushin fighters do kata'

'Even a lion has a vermiform appendix'

GojuKJoe

06-Mar-2005, 01:15 PM

Timmy Boy

06-Mar-2005, 01:36 PM

Kata is certainly not necissary to be a good fighter, but it doesn't hurt either. Yes, everything in kata could be done in a different way, meaning all the techniques could be done separately and not in a set of forms, but people do kata because they enjoy it, and it adds a different angle to their training i.e. trying to get all their moves perfect every time. Now what's wrong with that?

Again, nothing is "wrong" with people doing kata if they enjoy it and I've said this several times, we're simply discussing whether or not it's a useful drill for fighting. Whether or not kata is fun is nothing to do with this thread.

Timmy Boy

06-Mar-2005, 01:37 PM

Why do they have to demonstrate it at all? To make money? :confused:

Because if you're promoting someone to a higher rank it should be based on a demonstration of skill, otherwise it's meaningless.

Hey, I've thought of a quotation for people who say 'Even Kyokushin fighters do kata'

'Even a lion has a vermiform appendix'

:D

Jang Bong

06-Mar-2005, 07:12 PM

They would if that was what their instructors were making them do every lesson.

So if these guys are good, then they have probably had good instruction as well as putting in the hours of work. It isn't in the interests of instructors or trainers to waste the time of a talented student, which means the instructors also see benefit in kata.

You still imply that all techniques should be independantly memorable - how do you know that a student has been taught (and practiced) every drill to get every technique in the arts we are talking about? Do you not think that many techniques would be lost along the way as student becomes teacher?? The forms keep it all together in a number of tidy packages. :)

"they would waste time to get more money off you", but that can't be the full answer as a good teacher teaches to pass on knowledge that they believe in. You are far too young to be so cynical ;) ]

Timmy Boy

06-Mar-2005, 08:54 PM

Gyaku

07-Mar-2005, 09:08 AM

Here is my take on kata:

You don't NEED kata to be able to fight. But kata CAN help you become a better fighter.

Here is why:
Memory of technique
brazillian ju-jutsu, MMA and other sport martial arts all manage to maintain their full repotoire of techniques without needing katas.

No, this is not true. Even the Gracies have argued that many techniques are being 'forgotten' because of the focus on competition techniques. Judo also has kata, although these are practised on non-resisting partners to preserve many of the 'koryu' techniques, otherwise banned in competition. Kata seems like a sensible way to remember these techniques.

Condensed movements
In kumite when a movement is used as a block/throw/punch etc, then that is what it is. In kata you're practising a generic movement. So, for example the opening of tekki shodan can be a block, strike or throw. Its a very useful movement. How you use it is dependant on your fighting context. It cuts out a lot of repitetion in training.

Precision training
Kata requires very precise movement - more than you actually need. This is very good for some karateka that have difficulty with body structure in kumite.

Karateka look like kickboxers
A myth, if bunkai is correct, they WILL look like kata movements if you apply them correctly and cleanly. Check out any work by Iain Abernathy, he shows correct form in techniques. Patrick McCarthy is also a good source.

Even if you look at BJJ, the Gracies use techniques for self defense that come right out of karate kata. Shiko dachi, sanchin dachi (including the double uchi uke - it looks just like sanchin kata!) etc are all performed by them with correct structure - absolutly zero deviation!

Buliding physical qualities
Each kata enhances certain attributes in a fighter. practise of Empi for instance will greatly improve your agility. Equally, Gankaku will develop balance.

Now, all of the above can be practised by other means. But kata is one of the few ways that they can ALL be practised at the same time.

Timmy Boy

07-Mar-2005, 09:57 AM

Here is my take on kata:

You don't NEED kata to be able to fight. But kata CAN help you become a better fighter.

Here is why:
Memory of technique

No, this is not true. Even the Gracies have argued that many techniques are being 'forgotten' because of the focus on competition techniques. Judo also has kata, although these are practised on non-resisting partners to preserve many of the 'koryu' techniques, otherwise banned in competition. Kata seems like a sensible way to remember these techniques.

If they can't spar with it and use it in competition I don't put much faith in their ability to use it in real life. As much as I respect BJJ I don't agree with what it says 100%, especially some of the plain rubbish I've heard Helio talking about; e.g. they go on about how you should be able to prove yourself on the mat, but Helio still used the "too d34d1y for t3h str33t" argument to explain why his boys lost in NHB competitions. He also thinks only another BJJer can possibly have the skill to defeat a BJJer.

It seems to me that judo kata is taught by a few clubs simply for the sake of preserving the moves, as it's against judo's philosophy IMO to teach in such a dead way. If you want striking, cross train in boxing. If you want nastier grappling, cross-train in BJJ or submission wrestling.

Condensed movements
In kumite when a movement is used as a block/throw/punch etc, then that is what it is. In kata you're practising a generic movement. So, for example the opening of tekki shodan can be a block, strike or throw. Its a very useful movement. How you use it is dependant on your fighting context. It cuts out a lot of repitetion in training.

Why can't they just go straight into bunkai?

Precision training
Kata requires very precise movement - more than you actually need. This is very good for some karateka that have difficulty with body structure in kumite.

Padwork provides as much precision as you will need, as well as applying resistance, reaction time and footwork.

Karateka look like kickboxers
A myth, if bunkai is correct, they WILL look like kata movements if you apply them correctly and cleanly. Check out any work by Iain Abernathy, he shows correct form in techniques. Patrick McCarthy is also a good source.

This sounds a lot like simply forcing the kata to fit the sparring. However, one point I will give you is that karateka other than kyokushinkai are often forced to spar under very restrictive rules.

Even if you look at BJJ, the Gracies use techniques for self defense that come right out of karate kata. Shiko dachi, sanchin dachi (including the double uchi uke - it looks just like sanchin kata!) etc are all performed by them with correct structure - absolutly zero deviation!

The "self-defence" techniques I've seen in BJJ are laughable. I respect BJJ for their production of good grapplers and their "if you think you can fight, prove it" philosophy, but there is an element of hypocrisy in some of their ideas.

Buliding physical qualities
Each kata enhances certain attributes in a fighter. practise of Empi for instance will greatly improve your agility. Equally, Gankaku will develop balance.

Now, all of the above can be practised by other means. But kata is one of the few ways that they can ALL be practised at the same time.

Yes, but live drills also combine several skills at the same time, such as reaction time and footwork, as well as applying resistance to better enable the techniques to become instinctive.

Taliar

07-Mar-2005, 10:16 AM

So your saying live drills are better than kata's. I don't think anyone will argue against that, but just because something is better it doesn't mean you should discard everything else.

About 80% (IMO) of MMA fights use only, punches, lowkicks, takedown, sprawl, guard and GnP. So going by the numbers this should be all you train as they are the most used and therefore effective techniques, but I bet most MMA's practice alot of techniques that will never get used in the ring, but they do contribute to their training and the fullness of their art.

This thread seems to be going in circles now. Yes there are more effective ways of training than kata's, and you can't only use kata's to train, but kata's do have valuable lessons to teach and also help expand the horizons of MA.

GojuKJoe

07-Mar-2005, 10:59 AM

Like I was trying to say in my previous post (maybe I didn't word it right). Kata is a usefull training method in my eyes, because it takes a lot of practise to get sometihng perfect, which builds discipline and dedication, both are good things for any fighter. Kata are not used to make someone a better fighter, but to me, there is more to martial arts than just fighting, and kata represents this. IMHO :D

Taliar

07-Mar-2005, 11:03 AM

I Agree :D

shotokanwarrior

07-Mar-2005, 11:37 AM

Helio still used the "too d34d1y for t3h str33t" argument to explain why his boys lost in NHB competitions

*vomits*

However, one point I will give you is that karateka other than kyokushinkai are often forced to spar under very restrictive rules.

You're right, apparently it's illegal in semicontact shotokan to kick someone in the side in case of damaging the kidneys. I cry for karate.

Gyaku

07-Mar-2005, 01:08 PM

Why can't they just go straight into bunkai?
Padwork provides as much precision as you will need, as well as applying resistance, reaction time and footwork.
Yes, but live drills also combine several skills at the same time, such as reaction time and footwork, as well as applying resistance to better enable the techniques to become instinctive.

Because thats not always possible. Kata is good practise outside the dojo, when you don't have a partner. Also once the skill is learnt through bunkai kata is v. good as a maintenance tool. Kata shouldn't replace a partner.

It seems to me that judo kata is taught by a few clubs simply for the sake of preserving the moves
This is also true of karate, some techniques are somewhat arcane. A classic example is Bassai-sho, which contains techniques against the Bo. Now for beginner karateka there is no value in learning these applications, but for me, I'm happy to learn it, and I do teach it to senior students. Karate isn't just about being a killer fighter - its also about preserving a historical art.

If they can't spar with it and use it in competition I don't put much faith in their ability to use it in real life.
Not really true, you don't need loads of training to stick your thumb in someones eye. Most day-to-day sparring will give you the skills to do this. But you still need to practise the basic movement - which in this case kata comes in very useful.

Some movements can be stopped before being applied. A classic is the head drop from Bassai. BAsically you bearhug your opponant and drop him head fisrt. If we actually carried this out we'd be killing off our students too quickly (I like them to suffer s-l-o-wl-y). We stop the technique at the pick up point. However we wouldn't be able to do this in a NHB compo.

So, no, just because you can't use it in competition doesn't mean the karateka can't use it.

"too d34d1y for t3h str33t"
?? Some very simple counters to grappler are banned by most NHB compos for being too dangerous, a good example is guard slaming. This could be what Helio is referring to???

This sounds a lot like simply forcing the kata to fit the sparring.
I'm not sure what you mean here, the movement either works or it doesn't.

The "self-defence" techniques I've seen in BJJ are laughable
How so? Actually many other techniques that ARE 'mat proven' can be found in kata. The classic takedown is straight out of kanku dai, again zero deviation. The kata contain strong and useful movements. Also the palm off on the clinch is structuarally exactly as in Bassai - again NO DEVIATION!

About 80% (IMO) of MMA fights use only, punches, lowkicks, takedown, sprawl, guard and GnP. So going by the numbers this should be all you train as they are the most used and therefore effective techniques, but I bet most MMA's practice alot of techniques that will never get used in the ring, but they do contribute to their training and the fullness of their art.

Good point, there is more to all this than the ring.

Timmy Boy

07-Mar-2005, 01:46 PM

Because thats not always possible. Kata is good practise outside the dojo, when you don't have a partner. Also once the skill is learnt through bunkai kata is v. good as a maintenance tool. Kata shouldn't replace a partner.

So is shadow boxing and bagwork.

This is also true of karate, some techniques are somewhat arcane. A classic example is Bassai-sho, which contains techniques against the Bo. Now for beginner karateka there is no value in learning these applications, but for me, I'm happy to learn it, and I do teach it to senior students. Karate isn't just about being a killer fighter - its also about preserving a historical art.

OK, no offence Gyaku, you've given sensible replies - but for the 38746735439856795868789th time, we are talking about effectiveness. Again, this isn't specifically directed at you, but it's the last time I'm going to say it and if this point is raised anymore I'm just going to ignore it because it's irrelevant. Like Taliar said, this thread is going around in circles in places because people are re-raising disproven arguments, let's keep this civil and keep it progressing so that the discussion is actually interesting still.

Not really true, you don't need loads of training to stick your thumb in someones eye. Most day-to-day sparring will give you the skills to do this. But you still need to practise the basic movement - which in this case kata comes in very useful.

It doesn't take long to master a basic movement, that's why they're basic movements.

Some movements can be stopped before being applied. A classic is the head drop from Bassai. BAsically you bearhug your opponant and drop him head fisrt. If we actually carried this out we'd be killing off our students too quickly (I like them to suffer s-l-o-wl-y). We stop the technique at the pick up point. However we wouldn't be able to do this in a NHB compo.

Anyone who's slightly good at grappling isn't going to just let you bear-hug them.

So, no, just because you can't use it in competition doesn't mean the karateka can't use it.

Techniques require practiced use against a resisting opponent to be effective.

?? Some very simple counters to grappler are banned by most NHB compos for being too dangerous, a good example is guard slaming. This could be what Helio is referring to???

I don't know what guard slamming is, so I don't know, but I take a cynical view based on the context of the other things he was saying - it just sounds like an excuse to me, because the other things he was saying were things like "BJJ is better than every other martial art in the world everywhere ever" which is just plain wrong. It just seems like on the one hand, these are the kind of pathetic excuse that BJJers scoff at, but on the other hand their main man is spouting them whenever his boys lose.

NB: when I said "too deadly for the street" I meant "too deadly for the ring", just so that everyone knows what I mean.

I'm not sure what you mean here, the movement either works or it doesn't.

Because, to me, it's the wrong way round if you want to develop the art. Thai boxing, for example, evolved as new things were proven to be effective in the ring, e.g. western boxing hands. Using the kata this way, to me, is thinking inside the box.

How so? Actually many other techniques that ARE 'mat proven' can be found in kata. The classic takedown is straight out of kanku dai, again zero deviation. The kata contain strong and useful movements. Also the palm off on the clinch is structuarally exactly as in Bassai - again NO DEVIATION!

If you watch the Gracie Jiu-Jitsu Basics series of videos, volume 4 (bonus) shows you "self defence" techniques being used. These are basically armlocks etc being used from a standing position against telegraphed punches and kicks - exactly the kind of choreography that I hear so many BJJers (including the Gracies themselves) denounce as unrealistic. These techniques are perfectly legal to use in competition, so what excuse if there for them not being used?

Good point, there is more to all this than the ring.

Yes, but the ring is the best way to deduce what works and what doesn't. In a NHB ruleset, there are very few techniques that are banned in the ring compared to the amount that are, and if you can't punch to save your life in that situation you're not going to be able to do it against a real-life opponent.

Taliar

07-Mar-2005, 01:56 PM

Timmy Boy

07-Mar-2005, 02:00 PM

I think it takes a very long time to master a basic movement, in fact succesful standup is all about mastering basic movements. If you mastered basic moves like jab, cross, turning(roundhouse) kicks, you would be a very effective standup fighter. There is a huge difference between knowing a technique and mastering a technique.

Once you've got the hang of the basic movement, sparring and other live drills will perfect your technique with time, e.g. getting hit round the head enough times will force you to keep your right hand up, tuck your chin in and cover your jaw with the shoulder of your punching hand as you punch. I can do a great jab in the air, so what I need isn't to simply repeat doing it in the air over and over but do practice it under pressure.

Using all available training methods (Live drills, padwork, floorwork, kata's, sparring, weights, cardio) in a balanced and considered approach will help you develop these 'basic' movements.

IMO, if you want optimal performance, take out the katas.

Gyaku

07-Mar-2005, 02:01 PM

Anyone who's slightly good at grappling isn't going to just let you bear-hug them.
I've done it myself, simply wrap your arms around someone as you would for a clinch and then lift + drop. It won't work on everyone, but if they keep quite a close, tight guard it can be done - its unusual and very nasty. You don't even need to use the floor, a nearby wall or edge of a table will also be effective. I don't know of any NHB event that allows it. Notibly it can also be applied from one or two other clinch positions - although a front bearhug is best for the full effect. The point is to prevent them using their hands in breaking their fall, so they use their heads instead.

So is shadow boxing and bagwork.
I think we've done this one already.

we are talking about effectiveness
Good point, I'll keep that in mind! ;)

It doesn't take long to master a basic movement, that's why they're basic movements.
I'm not sure of your point. Kata isn't just about learning a technique, its also about maintenance.

On guardslamming - This is specifically prohibited by NHB rules. it involves picking up your opponant (who has gone into the guard position) and then slamming them to the ground. Its easy to apply but people squealed that it was too d33dly and should be taken out.

I agree that many of the Gracies SD techs are a bit naff, but there are some good ones that are testable, their sanchin to shiko dachi throw is effective. As I've said before there are also loads that HAVE been proven effective on the mat.

On 'forcing' applications. If you read the Bubishi, you will see many applications that are identical to those used in MMA compos. Even the strategies like using a takedown on a striker are there. Yet, the Bubishi is over a hundred years old! Karate kata were devised in the light of realistic fighting conditions. Thanks to kata these techniques are being re-introduced to our repetoire.

However for some lineages of karate, the complete system has been maintained as a result of close analysis of kata. Many of the strategies employed by MMA's have been used by karateka for decades. A good example is Sensei Norman Robinson (8th Dan, former JKA South Africa), he has been teaching grappling as part of karate for over fifty years!
http://www.jks.co.za/mainmnu.php?ida=articles/nr1

Above is a link to an article he wrote long before the term Mixed Martial Art even existed.

However, as a karateka who has trained in several countries, including the UK. Many dojos don't train this way! Most karate organisations in the UK are too competition orientated, I personally think it has to do with lineage.

Hawks

07-Mar-2005, 02:09 PM

Then why isn't this taught and why don't karateka spar like that?

The problem is that the "making it your own" usually seems to mean fighting in a way that looks far more like kickboxing, with a high guard and punches from much higher up than the hip, and no large lunging footwork. If EVERYONE is ditching the traditional techniques to fight like that, why not train to fight like that in the first place?

What do you mean by "stack" exactly? I think I'm missing something in your reply which I will understand much better if I know what that means. However, if by "stacking" you mean that you draw your hand back to your hip as the other one punches allowing for a follow up, then your hand is in a far better place to follow up with another technique if it's near your head, as well as providing more protection.

Yep! :D
Let me start by saying that sparing is not self defense nor IMO is it an art. I just watched UFC last night and you tell me how 2 guiys swinging the arms as fast as they can is considered an art. I certainly see the art in the submissions. For REAL self defense I have been to plenty of seminars where the technique came from Kata directly. The reason it isnt taught this way is you need to start basic for beginners. At some time isnt the individuals responsiiblty to explore their own art? No matter how hard you try you can not be a carbon copy of your instructor. Different body sizes alone will change the way you move. I study Isshinryu and being 6'3" there is no way I can move like Shimabuku.A stack to the hip is where you bring both hands together and place them on one hip. Alot of the Karate schools I've seen teach stacks to the hip. IMO if you ask me people are opposed to kata because they arent willing to work to discover the secrets of Kata themselves. NO ONE can teach you all of the secrets it is much easier to train to be faster and stronger than to actually find the aplications in kata for yourself. Using Isshinryu as an example I have a hard time imaging that a Marine stationed in Okinawa for 18 months could have discovered everything that our art had to offer. If thats the case we would have alot more balck belts walking around now. Who here feels that he or she has mastered their art after only a year and a half ?

Taliar

07-Mar-2005, 02:10 PM

IMO - Leave kata's in but minimise the time spent on them.

I feel that a rounded view of MA's should be taken, if its all about effectiveness and competition it takes a lot of the fun out of it. But thats only my opinion and as with many things if you come at it with slightly different view points there is little chance of agreeing or proving one arguement right and one wrong.

You could say that padwork and drills are not 'real' so only sparring should be practiced.

At the end of the day you have to train in a way that you enjoy and benefits you, and very few people need 'ultimate effectiveness' as very few have the skill or opportunity to get to that level where 15 minutes a week practising katas against 15 minutes spent doing live drills is going to make any difference.

Timmy Boy

07-Mar-2005, 02:17 PM

Let me start by saying that sparing is not self defense nor IMO is it an art. I just watched UFC last night and you tell me how 2 guiys swinging the arms as fast as they can is considered an art.

Guys in MMA use striking arts like boxing and muay thai which are certainly not just swinging their arms as fast as they can.

I certainly see the art in the submissions. For REAL self defense I have been to plenty of seminars where the technique came from Kata directly. The reason it isnt taught this way is you need to start basic for beginners. At some time isnt the individuals responsiiblty to explore their own art? No matter how hard you try you can not be a carbon copy of your instructor. Different body sizes alone will change the way you move. I study Isshinryu and being 6'3" there is no way I can move like Shimabuku. IMO is you ask me people are opposed to kata because they arent willing to work to discover the secrets of Kata themselves. NO ONE can teach you all of the secrets it is much easier to train to be faster and stronger than to actually find the aplications in kata.

This point has been addressed already and I'm not going to do so again. However, I will expand by saying that I don't believe in "secrets of kata". Why? Because katas are simply collections of theoretical techniques used in certain choreographed combinations. No founder of an art in his right mind, if he wants to train effective fighters, is going to make his techniques in the kata seem useless so that people are forced to dig deep and shoehorn the moves to become an effective fighter. What would be the point in "secrets of kata"? It just sounds like a cop-out.

Timmy Boy

07-Mar-2005, 02:20 PM

You could say that padwork and drills are not 'real' so only sparring should be practiced.

The idea behind live training is that you use varying levels of resistance. Drills like padwork are stepping stones in levels of resistance to the end result of full contact sparring. Padwork, for example, is a good drill to use to practice a specific combo.

At the end of the day you have to train in a way that you enjoy and benefits you, and very few people need 'ultimate effectiveness' as very few have the skill or opportunity to get to that level where 15 minutes a week practising katas against 15 minutes spent doing live drills is going to make any difference.

Doing 30 minutes of forms a week had no effect on my sparring in TSD. Doing 2 hours of live grappling every week had a significant effect on my randori within a short period of time.

Hawks

07-Mar-2005, 02:31 PM

I just watched Vitor Belfort a supposed great MMA chase his opponent across the octagon throwing a barage of punches. THERE IS NO ART TO THAT. If anyone can tell me that they have ever been in a real fight and it was anything like sparing I will formally apologise but i have been in plenty of bars and seen plenty of fights and I personally have never seen anything that even resembles sparing involved.Usually someone gets grabbed or they get sucker punched. What part of sparing has anyone seen that in? There is also the intensity issue, you cant go all out in sparing for fear of hurting your opponent and there are just certain areas you cant hit during sparing. In a street fight nothing is off limits. I believe that with Kata you can still train the intensity if you envision your moves done a person.

Gyaku

07-Mar-2005, 02:36 PM

Sorry if this is a repost, but my computer is up the wall again!

Anyone who's slightly good at grappling isn't going to just let you bear-hug them.
I've done it myself, simply wrap your arms around someone as you would for a clinch and then lift + drop. It won't work on everyone, but if they keep quite a close, tight guard it can be done - its unusual and very nasty. You don't even need to use the floor, a nearby wall or edge of a table will also be effective. I don't know of any NHB event that allows it. Notibly it can also be applied from one or two other clinch positions - although a front bearhug is best for the full effect. The point is to prevent them using their hands in breaking their fall, so they use their heads instead.

So is shadow boxing and bagwork.
I think we've done this one already.

we are talking about effectiveness
Good point, I'll keep that in mind! ;)

It doesn't take long to master a basic movement, that's why they're basic movements.
I'm not sure of your point. Kata isn't just about learning a technique, its also about maintenance.

On guardslamming - This is specifically prohibited by NHB rules. it involves picking up your opponant (who has gone into the guard position) and then slamming them to the ground. Its easy to apply but people squealed that it was too d33dly and should be taken out.

I agree that many of the Gracies SD techs are a bit naff, but there are some good ones that are testable, their sanchin to shiko dachi throw is effective. As I've said before there are also loads that HAVE been proven effective on the mat.

On 'forcing' applications. If you read the Bubishi, you will see many applications that are identical to those used in MMA compos. Even the strategies like using a takedown on a striker are there. Yet, the Bubishi is over a hundred years old! Karate kata were devised in the light of realistic fighting conditions. Thanks to kata these techniques are being re-introduced to our repetoire.

However for some lineages of karate, the complete system has been maintained as a result of close analysis of kata. Many of the strategies employed by MMA's have been used by karateka for decades. A good example is Sensei Norman Robinson (8th Dan, former JKA South Africa), he has been teaching grappling as part of karate for over fifty years!
http://www.jks.co.za/mainmnu.php?ida=articles/nr1

Above is a link to an article he wrote long before the term Mixed Martial Art even existed.

However, as a karateka who has trained in several countries, including the UK. Many dojos don't train this way! Most karate organisations in the UK are too competition orientated, I personally think it has to do with lineage

Timmy Boy

07-Mar-2005, 02:38 PM

I just watched Vitor Belfort a supposed great MMA chase his opponent across the octagon throwing a barage of punches. THERE IS NO ART TO THAT.

The thing about punching is that you don't need to have great technique to throw a passable punch as long as you have decent strength. Therefore the difference isn't always obvious. However, Vitor Belfort is a well trained boxer. What looked to you like him chasing his opponent around the Octagon (I presume you're referring to his fight with Wanderlei Silva) was actually a fantastic combination of footwork with his punches - note how he always punches with opposing hands and feet to make each punch a powerful cross - allowing him to throw punches with speed and power, which proved too much for Silva. Silva himself is the kind of bloke who would prefer it if MMA was done with knuckledusters and steel toecaps (as per my mate Shaun at my MMA class :p), so it's not like he's an easy KO. If you want to see bad punching technique, watch Tank fight.

If anyone can tell me that they have ever been in a real fight and it was anything like sparing I will formally apologise but i have been in plenty of bars and seen plenty of fights and I personally have never seen anything that even resembles sparing involved.Usually someone gets grabbed or they get sucker punched. What part of sparing has anyone seen that in?

Full-contact sparring, live grappling, MMA sparring. Basically realistic sparring.

There is also the intensity issue, you cant go all out in sparing for fear of hurting your opponent and there are just certain areas you cant hit during sparing. In a street fight nothing is off limits. I believe that with Kata you can still train the intensity if you envision your moves done a person.

If you are well conditioned and you build up to hard contact rather than diving straight in then there are comparatively very few techniques that you can't do in sparring with a little bit of protective gear like mats, headguards, gumshield and small gloves.

Timmy Boy

07-Mar-2005, 02:44 PM

I'm not sure of your point. Kata isn't just about learning a technique, its also about maintenance.

Doing the other drills will keep your technique up to scratch.

On guardslamming - This is specifically prohibited by NHB rules. it involves picking up your opponant (who has gone into the guard position) and then slamming them to the ground. Its easy to apply but people squealed that it was too d33dly and should be taken out.

You mean like Yoshida did to Royce Gracie and Bob Sapp did to Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira?

I agree that many of the Gracies SD techs are a bit naff, but there are some good ones that are testable, their sanchin to shiko dachi throw is effective. As I've said before there are also loads that HAVE been proven effective on the mat.

I suppose my point about the Gracies was a bit of an aside really, as I said I do like BJJ, I just think they're a bit hypocritical sometimes.

On 'forcing' applications. If you read the Bubishi, you will see many applications that are identical to those used in MMA compos. Even the strategies like using a takedown on a striker are there. Yet, the Bubishi is over a hundred years old! Karate kata were devised in the light of realistic fighting conditions. Thanks to kata these techniques are being re-introduced to our repetoire.

If it's this simple why isn't everyone doing it? This has probably been said already but I can't remember what you said.

However, as a karateka who has trained in several countries, including the UK. Many dojos don't train this way! Most karate organisations in the UK are too competition orientated, I personally think it has to do with lineage

Being competition oriented is a good or a bad thing depending on how realistic the rules are.

Taliar

07-Mar-2005, 02:54 PM

The idea behind live training is that you use varying levels of resistance. Drills like padwork are stepping stones in levels of resistance to the end result of full contact sparring. Padwork, for example, is a good drill to use to practice a specific combo.

Doing 30 minutes of forms a week had no effect on my sparring in TSD. Doing 2 hours of live grappling every week had a significant effect on my randori within a short period of time.

Standup is not grappling and can't be compared.
30 minutes is a resonable amount of time to spend on patterns.

As you have said 'This is in your experience and not provable'

Patterns can also be viewed as stepping stones in technique learning.

Each person is different and will benefit in different ways from different training methods.

Gyaku

07-Mar-2005, 03:03 PM

If it's this simple why isn't everyone doing it? This has probably been said already but I can't remember what you said.

Because semi-contact fighting is still too popular, however, many people like Patrick McCarthy are changing this. Vince Morris does a brilliant intro to his seminars where he says to comp orientated karateka to hit him with a gyaku zuki to the body. They just bounce off - showwing the weakness of the comp mainstay. However many karate organisations outside of the UK, such as in South Africa have maintained the more realistic skills.

Being competition oriented is a good or a bad thing depending on how realistic the rules are.
This is true, but it can develop the wrong mentallity to fighting, especially if you use it for self defense. Although this is a bit off topic I suppose. I have a few problems with the 'UFC' mindset. But deserves its own thread...

I still believe that kata is the best solo, non-equipment multi-tool (sounds dodgy, doesn't it ;) ?) in the Martial arts. You train loads of different aspects in just one kata. Shadow boxing - while it has its place, doesn't quite do this. Practise Kanku-Dai once and you will have practised and maintained more skills/techniques that the equivelant time in shadow boxing.

Jang Bong

07-Mar-2005, 04:42 PM

IMO, if you want optimal performance, take out the katas.

I've got to ask - does this quote signify the reason for your sub-heading "Man on a mission"?

Far too many things to follow up (this thread has been moving fast - if not far :D), so I'll just go for a little one...

Techniques require practiced use against a resisting opponent to be effective.

I think that should finish off with the words "100% effective" - which I may agree with you. But sometimes 70% effectiveness is all that is needed.

Gyaku - some great posts - I've enjoyed reading through them. :)

Taliar

07-Mar-2005, 06:00 PM

Have come up with an analogy which I hope explains why Kata's are worth while.

If we talk about road transportation, the most effective way to transport a large number of people is in a bus, the most effective way to transport a large heavy load is in a truck, the most effective way to get from a to b quickly is in a sports car, the most effective way to travell of road is a 4x4, the most effective way to save fuel is in a little small engined car.

Each of these vehicles is very effective in its area and lacks significantly in other areas. It would be nice to have one of each so we could choose which one we use, however this is impractical, so most have a standard 'family' type car that can car quite a few people, go fairly fast, take the luggage, car the shopping and is economical to run. Even in the standard car bracket their are many different variations.

Within MA we are fortunate in that we have access to these specialised vehicles - i.e very effective training methods, however it is not always practical or possible to train in these ways. Kata fills this gap, without being the most effective method, it is still effective and in a wide range range of areas.

Yes you can replace kata with live drills, sparring, pad work etc (and these should always be a big part of your training), but you need all of them to replace the simple thing of practicing kata, so I feel kata are a worthwhile addition to your training routine.

Ikken Hisatsu

07-Mar-2005, 06:21 PM

so basically you are saying that if you cant do a better form of training then kata will just have to do?

Timmy Boy

07-Mar-2005, 07:08 PM

Standup is not grappling and can't be compared.

Yes, it can. The point is, grappling was taught to me in a live way, and the same could be said of striking using focus mitts. It doesn't take long to get decent fighting skills in stuff like muay thai and boxing for this reason.

Timmy Boy

07-Mar-2005, 07:10 PM

Within MA we are fortunate in that we have access to these specialised vehicles - i.e very effective training methods, however it is not always practical or possible to train in these ways. Kata fills this gap, without being the most effective method, it is still effective and in a wide range range of areas.

Why can't you train in those ways?

Yes you can replace kata with live drills, sparring, pad work etc (and these should always be a big part of your training), but you need all of them to replace the simple thing of practicing kata, so I feel kata are a worthwhile addition to your training routine.

But if kata doesn't perform as well as live drills for its intended purpose, then surely it makes more sense to use live drills?

Timmy Boy

07-Mar-2005, 07:11 PM

I've got to ask - does this quote signify the reason for your sub-heading "Man on a mission"?

Nope - just my nickname :p

I think that should finish off with the words "100% effective" - which I may agree with you. But sometimes 70% effectiveness is all that is needed.

Why settle for that?

Taliar

07-Mar-2005, 07:45 PM

I am going to bow out of this thread as I feel its going no where. I respect your opinions and while mine are very close to yours there are some differences that will never be resolved, so can't see the point in going over and over the same stuff off.

Kata does this - This is better than Kata - Kata does this - This does better than kata.

Also it would be nice to see your opinions posted rather than just taking apart others viewpoints.

Thanks for a good thread :D

Jang Bong

07-Mar-2005, 08:29 PM

Why settle for that? (70% rather than 100% effectiveness)

This followed on from the ideas that (1) some techniques (eye gouges, etc) wear out your training partners if they are perfected against a resisting opponent, and (2) your idea that without a resisting opponent you cannot rely on a technique.

I'd rather have a 70% chance of an extra weapon that I've been told about and praticed in kata than 100% chance (some hope :D) of the other selection of weapons (that may not be available in a given situation).

Or to put it another way:

You have a certain number of techniques that have been learned, practiced, and drilled in the ways you advocate - effectiveness 90 - 100%

TMA's using kata also have a certain number of techniques praticed in exactly the same way as you describe (effectiveness 90 - 100% if they put the same work in) PLUS a whole variety of other techniques that have what you consider a poorer technique of learning and practice (effectiveness 10 - 70%)

Who has the better toolkit? The difference is the kata.

With regard to your last response to Taliar - "Why can't you train in those ways?" and "surely it makes more sense to use live drills?". I've got to ask what sort of a lifestyle you have that has an endless number of training partners available, and the time to enjoy them? I'm working two jobs and trying to keep a house running with a sick wife. When I can get her off to bed, and push the chairs back in the living room - I believe an hour of forms will help me improve my slowly growing knowledge of my art. Or in Taliar's words "it is not always practical or possible to train in these ways."

Taliar - I've tried to leave this thread behind twice already, but it has a facination for me and I keep coming back... :bang: :bang: ;)

notquitedead

07-Mar-2005, 09:25 PM

So if these guys are good, then they have probably had good instruction as well as putting in the hours of work. It isn't in the interests of instructors or trainers to waste the time of a talented student, which means the instructors also see benefit in kata.
The short answer: tradition.

You still imply that all techniques should be independantly memorable - how do you know that a student has been taught (and practiced) every drill to get every technique in the arts we are talking about? Do you not think that many techniques would be lost along the way as student becomes teacher?? The forms keep it all together in a number of tidy packages.
Techniques are easily remembered. Look at wrestling: there aren't any forms, but wrestlers still remember hundreds of set ups, moves, and counters. This is true of every art that doesn't have forms, and these arts are still around.

Like I've said before, if kata's purpose is to make sure no techniques are forgotten as the art is passed from generation to generation, then why do begginers learn kata? They aren't going to be teaching anyone for a long time, if ever.

In kumite when a movement is used as a block/throw/punch etc, then that is what it is. In kata you're practising a generic movement. So, for example the opening of tekki shodan can be a block, strike or throw. Its a very useful movement. How you use it is dependant on your fighting context. It cuts out a lot of repitetion in training.
Please, please say you are joking. Sure, there may be multiple ways you could use that in a fight, but kata isn't helping you practice those in any meaningful way. If you are using that movement as a block, then drill that block with a partner. If you are using it as a strike, then use it in sparring with a partner. If it is supposed to be a throw, practice the throw with a partner. I could do that movement in the air all day if I wanted, but that doesn't mean I will be able to block, strike, or throw well with that movement.

Now, all of the above can be practised by other means. But kata is one of the few ways that they can ALL be practised at the same time.
But you aren't actually practicing those moves. If kata was a good way to practice all the 'applications' at once, then why would there be a need for bunkai?

So your saying live drills are better than kata's. I don't think anyone will argue against that, but just because something is better it doesn't mean you should discard everything else.
If you want to find information about a certain topic, would you rather look for it by reading book after book, or look up that piece of info on Google?

Because thats not always possible. Kata is good practise outside the dojo, when you don't have a partner. Also once the skill is learnt through bunkai kata is v. good as a maintenance tool. Kata shouldn't replace a partner.
Here is a hypothetical situation for you about your "maintenance" idea. Let's suppose that Bob is a great grappler who is very good at one particular takedown. Now let's suppose that Bob goes and lives in isolation for many years. He has no partners to practice with, so he practices that takedown in the air. After a while, he notices that his takedown looks sloppy, so he starts doing it more 'correctly'. Over time, this happens more and more frequently. Now what do you think will happen when our friend Bob tries that takedown on a real person again? My guess is that what he thought looked good is actually an ineffecient way to take someone down- which is my view of many of the "applications" I've seen from forms.

IMO, making someone do something 'correctly' in the air is stupid. What they should be doing is practicing it on a resisting partner so they can learn how to make it work for them (not all people do the same techniques the same), not how the instructor thinks it should be.

Not really true, you don't need loads of training to stick your thumb in someones eye. Most day-to-day sparring will give you the skills to do this. But you still need to practise the basic movement - which in this case kata comes in very useful.
LOL, so on one hand it doesn't take any training to poke someone in the eye, but on the other hand you need to practice kata before this magical secret is possible?

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 01:31 AM

Also it would be nice to see your opinions posted rather than just taking apart others viewpoints.

I already did :rolleyes:

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 01:34 AM

With regard to your last response to Taliar - "Why can't you train in those ways?" and "surely it makes more sense to use live drills?". I've got to ask what sort of a lifestyle you have that has an endless number of training partners available, and the time to enjoy them? I'm working two jobs and trying to keep a house running with a sick wife. When I can get her off to bed, and push the chairs back in the living room - I believe an hour of forms will help me improve my slowly growing knowledge of my art. Or in Taliar's words "it is not always practical or possible to train in these ways."

Yes it is, you just find a MA club that does train in those ways.

ubermint

08-Mar-2005, 04:10 AM

This followed on from the ideas that (1) some techniques (eye gouges, etc) wear out your training partners if they are perfected against a resisting opponent, and (2) your idea that without a resisting opponent you cannot rely on a technique.

You can't. This is a provable assertion. Everyone who has ever fought in a fighting event who doesn't practice with resisting partners has lost.

Every single one.

I'd rather have a 70% chance of an extra weapon that I've been told about and praticed in kata than 100% chance (some hope :D) of the other selection of weapons (that may not be available in a given situation).

It's not remotely comparable. A month of "alive" training is worth a year of "dead" training.

pqute]With regard to your last response to Taliar - "Why can't you train in those ways?" and "surely it makes more sense to use live drills?". I've got to ask what sort of a lifestyle you have that has an endless number of training partners available, and the time to enjoy them? I'm working two jobs and trying to keep a house running with a sick wife. When I can get her off to bed, and push the chairs back in the living room - I believe an hour of forms will help me improve my slowly growing knowledge of my art. Or in Taliar's words "it is not always practical or possible to train in these ways."[/quote]

An hour of forms could easily be an hour of alive training instead. If you can't go to train, condition and shadowbox. Use proven methods and you'll have quantifiable results.
Do kata and it's all theory.

Gyaku

08-Mar-2005, 08:43 AM

You can't. This is a provable assertion. Everyone who has ever fought in a fighting event who doesn't practice with resisting partners has lost.

I think we need to be very clear here - no advocate of kata (including me!) says that we should replace partner work with kata. Kata by itself, like any other training exercise will NOT make you into a better fighter.

An hour of forms could easily be an hour of alive training instead. If you can't go to train, condition and shadowbox. Use proven methods and you'll have quantifiable results.
Do kata and it's all theory.
1. Kata isn't all theory, please read any work by Iain Abernathy or Geoff Thompson on kata and tell me what is the "theoretical" about them. I will conceed that some instructors teach rubbish applicationa though!
2. In shadow boxing you perform visualised movements, kata is NO different, Kata is alive because you visualise the applications - which is what you're meant to do!
3. If kata is so ineffectual as you claim why do top UK reality instructors like Geoff Thompson still train kata?

IMO, making someone do something 'correctly' in the air is stupid. What they should be doing is practicing it on a resisting partner so they can learn how to make it work for them (not all people do the same techniques the same), not how the instructor thinks it should be.

So shadow boxing is ineffective? A method used by everyone from Helio Gracie to Mike Tyson???

Techniques are easily remembered. Look at wrestling: there aren't any forms, but wrestlers still remember hundreds of set ups, moves, and counters. This is true of every art that doesn't have forms, and these arts are still around.
Not true, if you look at old books on wrestling (circa 1920's) you'll see that loads of old techniques have been 'forgotten'. Fashions change and techniques are banned. Wrestlers then 'forgot' them as generations went by. Exactly the same happened with boxing, it used to having throwing and kicking techniques in it. It took the UFC to wake up wrestlers and start researching the old submission techniques. Kata training systems never completely dropped all their techniques, judo and karate is a case in point.

shotokanwarrior

08-Mar-2005, 11:32 AM

I believe that with Kata you can still train the intensity if you envision your moves done a person.

I don't agree, doing katas is nothing like actually doing them on someone.

Do kata and it's all theory.

I agree.

2. In shadow boxing you perform visualised movements, kata is NO different, Kata is alive because you visualise the applications - which is what you're meant to do!

It is different, any idiot could tell you it's different. You move realistically in shadow boxing, you don't act like a robot, you don;t bother 'moving through your centre' or retracting your hand to your hip.

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 11:46 AM

Not true, if you look at old books on wrestling (circa 1920's) you'll see that loads of old techniques have been 'forgotten'. Fashions change and techniques are banned. Wrestlers then 'forgot' them as generations went by. Exactly the same happened with boxing, it used to having throwing and kicking techniques in it. It took the UFC to wake up wrestlers and start researching the old submission techniques. Kata training systems never completely dropped all their techniques, judo and karate is a case in point.

Rules changing is something unavoidable if people want to train safely. Boxing is hardly a viable example when in this day and age it's perfectly possible to train in more than one art and MMA will continue to demonstrate what works because that's the whole point of it. As for fashions changing, well of course they should - if, over time, people are starting to find older techniques ineffective and introducing new techniques which are better, then the older techniques will be ditched, and rightly so. Progress is the key word.

Taliar

08-Mar-2005, 12:28 PM

Damn this thread - just can't leave it alone. :bang:

Please don't take individual lines of this post and reply to them or change there context, reply to the post in whole.

I free acknowledge that kata's are not the most effective training method available, and that other methods are more effective in certain areas.
I am quite good at patterns having won medals in national comps (as well as in sparring). However patterns are my least favourite form of training and I find other methods more enjoyable.

However I feel that patterns do give an angle on training that is unique and benefical. They need to be used in a measured and intelligent manner in order to benefit from them.

Just because I do patterns DOES NOT mean I spend every second training only in patterns and that I do nothing else, which is the indication that is given by others.

Patterns also allow techniques to be evalulated, and incorporate movement principles in one package, they can teach you principles and allow others to see if you have grasped those principles in a simple way, allowing you to focus on the movement, seperately from the end result.

I am not a great believer in the hidden meanings in patterns, but I think that not many people grasp the basic knowledge contained within them, togther with other methods of training patterns can help you develop these basics.

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 12:32 PM

Damn this thread - just can't leave it alone. :bang:

Please don't take individual lines of this post and reply to them or change there context, reply to the post in whole.

Why do that when the post is divided up into specific points? If I don't reply to a point it's probably because I don't disagree with it, or I don't know enough about it to make a point either way.

Taliar

08-Mar-2005, 12:32 PM

Yes it is, you just find a MA club that does train in those ways.

I think the point being made was that while it is possible to train in those ways while you are at your club, not all of us have the time, people, or money to train in those ways when we train on our own.

I for one know that while I can spend hours on my heavy bag, I am never going to convince my GF to hold pads for me for 20 mins.

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 12:35 PM

I think the point being made was that while it is possible to train in those ways while you are at your club, not all of us have the time, people, or money to train in those ways when we train on our own.

I for one know that while I can spend hours on my heavy bag, I am never going to convince my GF to hold pads for me for 20 mins.

Yes... so you change to a martial art club that DOES train using live methods, and do what you can/want to do in your spare time.

Jang Bong

08-Mar-2005, 01:17 PM

Yes... so you change to a martial art club that DOES train using live methods, and do what you can/want to do in your spare time.

I hate adding words to your posts (again), but I presume that this should read "using ONLY live methods" - since you advocate ditching forms. If they did not teach the forms, then you wouldn't learn them, and that limits "what you can/want to do in your spare time".

This response was totally out of context with the posting it replied to, and makes it look like you are just "biting back" as opposed to dealing with a reasonable justification of learning and practicing kata.

Taliar - I told you so ;)

Jang Bong

08-Mar-2005, 01:24 PM

Here is a practical situation - the answer is in the kata (as I was told 2 weeks ago), although I didn't see or know it until it was shown to me. The response to this situation may say a lot about your arts and how you view them.

Someone is standing in front of you, shouting at you, pointing out all your faults, and (horror of horrors) pointing and waving their finger in front of your face. How do you respond?

Gyaku

08-Mar-2005, 01:40 PM

As for fashions changing, well of course they should - if, over time, people are starting to find older techniques ineffective and introducing new techniques which are better, then the older techniques will be ditched, and rightly so. Progress is the key word.
It wasn't progress, for example boxers stopped using elbows. Yet the elbow is probably one of the most consistantly effect striking techniques. If anything, Martial Artists are going back to the older proven techniques.

You move realistically in shadow boxing, you don't act like a robot, you don;t bother 'moving through your centre' or retracting your hand to your hip.
Good kata practise doesn't involve moving like a robot. It involves change of postion, rhythm

It is different, any idiot could tell you it's different.
Its not, kata can be applied 100% without deviation of form, check out Iain Abernathy or Patrick McCarthy is you think I'm taking the mick, show me how what they're doing is not effective.

I don't agree, doing katas is nothing like actually doing them on someone.
Duh, of course, but neither is shadow boxing, weight lifting, skipping, running, padwork, swimming, bagwork or even eating spinach (except for you know who) ;)

Boxing is hardly a viable example Its a beautiful example, without kata, boxing lost loads of very effective and proven techniques (see elbows). It went from a complete art to losing 2 thirds of its techniques. Again, this points to how kata preserves skills - Remember you claimed boxing didn't 'forget' techniques, which is obviously false. Can Boxers cross train? Yes they can. But it still doesn't negate the fact that boxing 'forgot' 2 thirds of its arsenal. I really think you should concede that kata can at least be effective in preserving certain techniques from the ravages of time.

Taliar

08-Mar-2005, 02:02 PM

Yes... so you change to a martial art club that DOES train using live methods, and do what you can/want to do in your spare time.

But we do train in Live methods, this is a point I have made continously throughout this thread. Our training includes (and is not limited to), pad work, live drills, fitness and conditioning, sparring and patterns. Patterns is only a small part of our overall training.

Gyaku

08-Mar-2005, 02:09 PM

Patterns is only a small part of our overall training.
Good point, why can't some people get this into their heads!

At our club most people do about 3 sessions a week. (Only the truly insane come to our early bird classes which would bump the hours way up, but thats only a handful of students)
A rough breakdown of the week:
1-1.5hrs Kata and Bunkai, 2-2.5hrs is spent on kumite and drills, the rest of the time is spent on conditioning, bagwork, warming up etc.

No offense Timmy, but I think we probably do more 'live' training than most MMA clubs that I have seen. I'd say the majority of MMA clubs in London only train about 1.5 hrs a week, and that includes their warm up (Which is not dissimilar to the 2 hour you claim to do). And our club is nothing special, loads of clubs do this.

Taliar

08-Mar-2005, 02:10 PM

I think the point being made was that while it is possible to train in those ways while you are at your club, not all of us have the time, people, or money to train in those ways when we train on our own.

I for one know that while I can spend hours on my heavy bag, I am never going to convince my GF to hold pads for me for 20 mins.

Where in this reply does it indicate that we don't use Live training in class.

It is possible to train in those ways at your club, it is not always possible when you are on your own

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 03:37 PM

I hate adding words to your posts (again), but I presume that this should read "using ONLY live methods" - since you advocate ditching forms. If they did not teach the forms, then you wouldn't learn them, and that limits "what you can/want to do in your spare time".

No it doesn't, because you don't need the forms to learn the techniques that work.

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 03:52 PM

It wasn't progress, for example boxers stopped using elbows. Yet the elbow is probably one of the most consistantly effect striking techniques. If anything, Martial Artists are going back to the older proven techniques.

Or, alternatively, the older theoretical techniques. Boxing lost its old techniques because it's a sport and as such they adjusted their training methods to deal with rules changes. However, this isn't because they didn't do kata, it's to do with rules changes that didn't really make it any safer. As MMA becomes more and more popular, boxing becomes less and less of a good example of arts losing effectiveness due to sport.

Its not, kata can be applied 100% without deviation of form, check out Iain Abernathy or Patrick McCarthy is you think I'm taking the mick, show me how what they're doing is not effective.

And what exactly is it that they do?

Duh, of course, but neither is shadow boxing, weight lifting, skipping, running, padwork, swimming, bagwork or even eating spinach (except for you know who) ;)

First of all, Popeye will always be the man regardless of kata. Secondly, weightlifting and endurance exercises aren't designed to improve your habits, they're designed to improve fitness. Thirdly, live drills other than sparring are still done with some resistance.

Its a beautiful example, without kata, boxing lost loads of very effective and proven techniques (see elbows). It went from a complete art to losing 2 thirds of its techniques. Again, this points to how kata preserves skills - Remember you claimed boxing didn't 'forget' techniques, which is obviously false. Can Boxers cross train? Yes they can. But it still doesn't negate the fact that boxing 'forgot' 2 thirds of its arsenal. I really think you should concede that kata can at least be effective in preserving certain techniques from the ravages of time.

Yes, I do concede that it can, but so what? What you say about boxing is correct, but it highlights the needs to keep sports MA rules relevant to reality and to cross train if you're in a limited art rather than the perceived need for kata. MMA IMHO is unlikely to have its rules changed to any great extent in the foreseeable future due to the fact that it's arguably safer than boxing, so it's extremely doubtful that rule changes will remove too many more effective techniques.

Gyaku

08-Mar-2005, 03:54 PM

No it doesn't, because you don't need the forms to learn the techniques that work.
Not a good answer. Just because you can do without something, doesn't mean it isn't helpful. For example:

You dont HAVE to do focus mitt training to learn technique, but it helps.

You dont HAVE to do road work to learn technique - but it helps.

You dont HAVE to do isolation drills to learn technique - but it helps.

You dont HAVE to do weight training to learn technique - but it helps.

You dont HAVE to shadowbox to learn technique - but it helps.

I seriously can't understand why you believe that perform a series of powerful and well proven movements with visualisation of its application is any less helpful than any of the above componants of training????

Practising kata is a darnside more effective in teaching technique than running around the block or skipping on a rope. But hey, maybe we should get rid of those too!

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 03:54 PM

But we do train in Live methods, this is a point I have made continously throughout this thread. Our training includes (and is not limited to), pad work, live drills, fitness and conditioning, sparring and patterns. Patterns is only a small part of our overall training.

If the argument is that you can't fit in live training all the time because you don't have the means in your spare time, there are plenty of clubs that do almost only live training.

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 03:56 PM

No offense Timmy, but I think we probably do more 'live' training than most MMA clubs that I have seen. I'd say the majority of MMA clubs in London only train about 1.5 hrs a week, and that includes their warm up (Which is not dissimilar to the 2 hour you claim to do). And our club is nothing special, loads of clubs do this.

Yes, I know it's not JUST kata that you do, and that you do do a lot of live drills, but who has the more efficient expenditure of time, the people who concentrate on the live drills or the people who do kata? The amount of overall hours put into the training is nothing to do with the style.

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 04:00 PM

Not a good answer. Just because you can do without something, doesn't mean it isn't helpful.

But there's no need for it at all, is there? It's a waste of time going through kata to learn moves when they can just show you the move then teach you how to apply it.

I seriously can't understand why you believe that perform a series of powerful and well proven movements with visualisation of its application is any less helpful than any of the above componants of training????

They're not all well proven movements, and they're choreographed.

Practising kata is a darnside more effective in teaching technique than running around the block or skipping on a rope. But hey, maybe we should get rid of those too!

Running and skipping are effective for their intended purpose, i.e. fitness. The fitter you are, the harder you can go in your training. They're not designed to improve your actual ability.

ap Oweyn

08-Mar-2005, 04:04 PM

Boxing is an interesting example actually. Gyaku pointed out that boxing lost a great many of its techniques over time and that, if boxing used kata, they might have been preserved. Right?

I think this is a great example of the two avenues we have for preservation. It's pretty obvious that personal combat isn't a part of daily existence for most people today. So wherever we're getting our martial arts experiences, it's not a direct experience of combat. It's a training method.

On the one hand, we get kata. An attempt to preserve a body of knowledge. But it's not generally applied in whole, because the techniques are often "too dangerous" to use on someone in anything less than dire circumstances. Right?

But that lack of application leaves room distortion over time. That doesn't necessarily happen. But there's room for it.

Boxing went the other way. It limited the range of techniques, but preserved the things that absolutely could be applied. So even though the boxer lacks the breadth of techniques (e.g., elbows), he knows that he can apply his jab cross because he's actually done it thousands of times already.

It's just a different priority. You can't have the whole deal (actual combat). And would you really want it if you could have it? So what you get instead is an approximation. Depending on the training method, that approximation requires compromising either on application or on range of technique.

So I don't think that boxing is any more or less impoverished by the passage of time than a more kata-based art is. PERSONALLY, I prefer the smaller range of techniques coupled with the applied experience. But that's just me.

Stuart

Gyaku

08-Mar-2005, 04:04 PM

And what exactly is it that they do?
Best to pick up work by Ian or Patrick.

Or, alternatively, the older theoretical techniques. Boxing lost its old techniques because it's a sport and as such they adjusted their training methods to deal with rules changes. However, this isn't because they didn't do kata, it's to do with rules changes that didn't really make it any safer.
If they had kept kata they would have kept the techniques - this was YOUR example not mine, take responsibility for it. Karate is a case in point, even with fairly restrictive compo rules, we still retained the old proven techniques - albeit some clubs don't train them

First of all, Popeye will always be the man regardless of kata

Too true! Popye the sailor man...

On a different note a pat on the back for everyone, this has been a really heated thread yet nobody has been rude or anything naughty - cool guys!!

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 04:08 PM

Best to pick up work by Ian or Patrick.

I'll check it out sometime, however right now I have to read land law for my coursework. :p

If they had kept kata they would have kept the techniques - this was YOUR example not mine, take responsibility for it. Karate is a case in point, even with fairly restrictive compo rules, we still retained the old proven techniques - albeit some clubs don't train them

OK, fair play, it was my example, and yes, they did lose their techniques. But most sport arts, to my knowledge, didn't unless they were ineffective.

Gyaku

08-Mar-2005, 04:19 PM

But there's no need for it at all, is there? It's a waste of time going through kata to learn moves when they can just show you the move then teach you how to apply it.

Aaah, I see what you're getting at now - 5 billion posts later!

Ok, here is the model of teaching in most boxing classes:

Step1
Technique is demonstrated
eg Hook

Step2
Basic Movement is copyed in the air

Step three
Boxer works with partner on drills
Boxer works on bags
Works on morror to perfect form

Step 4
Boxer takes the technique into sparring

Step 5
Go back to step 1 until technique is perfect

Now, how does it compared to karate:
Step 1
Technique is demonstrated (kata and bunkai)

Step 2
Technique is copied (kata)

Step 3
Karateka practises drills to isolate the skill sfor the technique
Simple bunkai is practised

Step 4
Karateka takes the technique into sparring.

Step 5
Go back to step 1 until its perfect

They're not all well proven movements, and they're choreographed.
Like I said, check out Abernathy and McCarthy and then get back to me. I will admit that some kata are not as effective as others. But most of the traditional Okinawan kata are VERY applicable. Just trust me on this, I CAN apply them in very horrible ways.

Jang Bong

08-Mar-2005, 04:25 PM

Yes, I know it's not JUST kata that you do, and that you do do a lot of live drills, but who has the more efficient expenditure of time, the people who concentrate on the live drills or the people who do kata?

Who has the more efficient expenditure of time? NOT the person holding the pads.

I've just had a mental image of an army training - say 500 men. Three senarios:

1. 250 pairs of men bashing at each other - who is getting it right or wrong?
2. 250 holding pads while the others hit them - who stores or carrys around that amount of 'equipment'
3. 500 people carrying out the same actions allowing trainers to observe the 'odd ones out'.

OK - we are not an army - there may be 20-30 in the class, but that is no reason in itself for discarding the training methods that have kept arts generally recognisable for a couple of thousand years.

Still waiting on my practical senario. (Those that know the kata answer, keep quiet :D )

ap Oweyn

08-Mar-2005, 04:32 PM

Who has the more efficient expenditure of time? NOT the person holding the pads.

I've just had a mental image of an army training - say 500 men. Three senarios:

1. 250 pairs of men bashing at each other - who is getting it right or wrong?
2. 250 holding pads while the others hit them - who stores or carrys around that amount of 'equipment'
3. 500 people carrying out the same actions allowing trainers to observe the 'odd ones out'.

OK - we are not an army - there may be 20-30 in the class, but that is no reason in itself for discarding the training methods that have kept arts generally recognisable for a couple of thousand years.

Still waiting on my practical senario. (Those that know the kata answer, keep quiet :D )

The only problem with that scenario is that when you talk armies, you're talking about being "comfortable" losing some of their number. Particuarly in the age we're talking about. Five hundred soldiers go to battle. Three hundred survive. And you've got a happy general. But what does that do for the individual soldier being trained? (Depends on which group you're in.)

Besides, it seems to be generally accepted that martial arts students are also learning to be martial arts teachers. If that's the case, then holding the pads and coaching someone to hit them is a valid expenditure of time. It's training you to be a trainer yourself.

Stuart

Hawks

08-Mar-2005, 05:14 PM

ap Oweyn

08-Mar-2005, 05:31 PM

I still hold to sparing is not the same as real self defense. I certainly see the point in sparing it teaches timing, foot work and distance but I dont believe for an instant that sparing is the same as self defense. I almost think sparing is harmful to real self defense training. If you constantly train to avoid certain targets when in stress you are going to regress to what you naturally do. I still hold to Kata is the perfect place to train self defense. ALL of your self defense techniques are in our forms. I do agree that training Kata will do nothing for sparing thats why I dont consider them part of same art. Someone can be a GREAT fighter but not a good Martial Artist take Tank for example who is just a big street fighter then look at Royce gracie a fantastic martial artist who won using his art. All being said I still think Katas are the key to any style and I insist the kids I train know their forms. JMO

I agree that sparring isn't self defense. Nothing except self defense is self defense. Everything else is an approximation. An attempt to get a handle on fighting without actually fighting.

But your example about sparring avoiding certain targets relies on the idea that the martial artist can't adapt as the situation calls for it. He couldn't, for example, fire a jab into the opponent's adam's apple. Or kick the knee instead of the thigh. But if that's the case, if martial artists can't adapt on the fly, then how is a kata expert going to make the necessary adaptations in timing, range, footwork, and penetration when the time comes?

I have no objection to kata. In fact, I'll happily accept that it's a valuable tool. But I do disagree with this specific reasoning. The leap from theory to practice is as big for kata as for other training methods. Just as self defense doesn't adhere to the rules of sparring, it doesn't adhere to the pattern, timing, and sequence of kata.

Stuart

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 07:16 PM

Who has the more efficient expenditure of time? NOT the person holding the pads.

I see your point, but IMO this is made up for by the attention to detail that the guy holding the pads will receive when it's his turn.

I've just had a mental image of an army training - say 500 men. Three senarios:

1. 250 pairs of men bashing at each other - who is getting it right or wrong?

In a classroom environment, the teacher can observe the people fighting because there's far less that 100 people, and he can see who's using good technique and who isn't. If you were talking about attention to detail on individual techniques, e.g. improving your jab, then I can see how an instructor wouldn't be able to pick this up watching sparring, but he would be able to if he watched...

2. 250 holding pads while the others hit them - who stores or carrys around that amount of 'equipment'

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, do you mean that all students in the lesson won't be able to bring pads along, or that in real life people don't use pads?

3. 500 people carrying out the same actions allowing trainers to observe the 'odd ones out'.

Please refer to all previous kata vs live drill arguments in light of the arguments I posted against the previous two examples.

OK - we are not an army - there may be 20-30 in the class, but that is no reason in itself for discarding the training methods that have kept arts generally recognisable for a couple of thousand years.

Preserving things for the sake of it isn't my goal so I'm not really bothered.

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 07:19 PM

Hawks

08-Mar-2005, 07:26 PM

That depends on how realistic your sparring is.

I don't see the connection between katas being the place for learning how to fight, and Royce Gracie being a fantastic martial artist who didn't do katas and beat loads of people.
Sparring will never be realstic unless yuo remove all your padding and go at each other. Even the way you start isnt like a real fight. I dont hold that MMA is any indication of good self defense two guys squared up to each other with rules. That alone makes it un realistic self defense. This is just my opinion I fell this way because I cant spar at all but I do have real self defense technique and i am somewhat decent at tuite and PP strikes neither I could ever use in a sparring situation. Like I said this is just my personal experience and the way I train my students. WE certainly spar for fun and again for foot work and timing issues and i also have kids who want to compete and I wont take that way from them. But for self defense we always take ALL of our moves from forms. I dont think you have to chnge them much and the changes are so much in the movements but in the way people look at them.

ap Oweyn

08-Mar-2005, 07:34 PM

Personally, I'm not here to argue beyond the point of comfort. I think you have every hard-earned right to believe what you believe. And I'll leave it at that. Fair enough?

Stuart

Timmy Boy

08-Mar-2005, 09:04 PM

Sparring will never be realstic unless yuo remove all your padding and go at each other. Even the way you start isnt like a real fight. I dont hold that MMA is any indication of good self defense two guys squared up to each other with rules. That alone makes it un realistic self defense. This is just my opinion I fell this way because I cant spar at all but I do have real self defense technique and i am somewhat decent at tuite and PP strikes neither I could ever use in a sparring situation. Like I said this is just my personal experience and the way I train my students. WE certainly spar for fun and again for foot work and timing issues and i also have kids who want to compete and I wont take that way from them. But for self defense we always take ALL of our moves from forms. I dont think you have to chnge them much and the changes are so much in the movements but in the way people look at them.

So doing choreographed techniques in the air is more like real self defence than two people actually hitting, throwing, choking and locking each other? For a further explanation of my point, please read the various already existing threads on whether MMA is realistic or not rather than digressing on this one :)

notquitedead

08-Mar-2005, 09:14 PM

If I quoted and replied to everything I wanted to, this post would be too long, so I think I'll just stick to a few points. :)

1. Shadow boxing and Kata
Shadowboxing and kata are not the same. There are two key differences.

1) Kata has it backwards because you are supposed to practice a movement, then you learn an application for the movement, and then you practice. Shadowboxing is used only to work on techniques that you already use, not to teach you how to use them.

2) In kata, you are doing a prearranged pattern of movements. You are being predictable. When you spar or fight, do you do the same movements in the same order? No, you attack differently every time, using combos and feints. Shadowboxing is the same way, you are simulating a fight with an imaginary opponent. In kata, you are simulating an imaginary drill.

2. Boxing lost effective moves because boxers couldn't remember them.
Gyaku, that is ridiculous. Boxers didn't forget how to punch, or kick, or grapple, or whatever. The rules changed. Look up the Marquis de Queensbury rules.

You may counter by saying that even though these moves are illegal in the sport, they could still teach them for self defense. However, if it became illegal for the goalee in soccer/football to touch the ball with his hands, would he still practice it? No, he would practice things that were still legal and would help him in his sport. Most people who train in boxing do so with the hopes of competing, not to go out on the streets and fight (in fact many do boxing to try and get off the streets and stop fighting).

Also, your point about wrestling leads me to believe you know very little about wrestling. Freestyle, Folkstyle, and Greco-Roman wrestling are the way they are because of RULES, not bad memory. All those holds you were talking about can still be found in catch wrestling- where they came from. Why would a freestyle wrestler need to practice techniques which are illegal?

Not true, if you look at old books on wrestling (circa 1920's) you'll see that loads of old techniques have been 'forgotten'.
Name some wrestlers who went back to catch wrestling to learn to deal with subs, I haven't heard of any. You see, instead of staying closed-minded and looking within their own art's past, they turned to BJJ and other grappling styles which specialized in the things they needed to learn.

3. Kata is the best way to train when you're on your own.
I disagree. I'm not training at a school right now (wrestling's over and I haven't got to start anything else yet), so does that mean I should be practicing kata? No. I run, lift weights, do bodyweight exercises, hit my heavy bag, etc. If I didn't have a heavy bag, I would shadow box. I see no benefit from spending my time on kata. Everything I do when I'm training has a specific purpose.