Dan Djurdjevic on the purpose of forms

I was kind of hoping he'd just misread my post.

 

@wastelander: what YKW said, and also mutation. take a look at older kata like tomari passai, matsumura passai, chatan yara no kushanku, or videos of people like masanobu shinjo or masaaki ikemiyagi doing goju kata, then look at how 90% of karateka perform modern forms, and what those forms look like in comparison to the older variants and the performances of relatively old school guys. should give you a good idea of why modern karate forms contain so much fail sometimes.

 

Mutation is something that I've been taking into account, actually--I understand that I will never know how the kata were originally performed, and so I feel that some of the movements are open to interpretation. That said, I think YKW may have misunderstood what I was saying. His explanation makes it sound like I expect kata to be one long string of techniques that flow one into another in an applicable manner, which simply isn't the case. My thought is that if you break a kata up into pieces you should be able to find at least one way to use each of those pieces combatively against a resisting opponent, and if you find a piece that you can't use then, in my mind, it is either the air-form of a technique you don't know/recognize or that piece of the kata itself has changed over time and was originally something different. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is what I currently believe, in any case.

 

i pretty much agree with that.

i look at kata applications this way: first i throw out speed, because in the air it's irrelevant and there are way too many arbitrary tempos in different kata, anyway. that out of the way, i look at the directions in which i'm issuing force, as well as the tools used (elbow, forearm, fist, open hand, leg, knee etc), and i run three variables by it: 1- how that movement might be used against another person's body; 2- in which positions a body should be for me to be able to do that; 3- what might someone do to end up in that position, and how can i get them to do that so that i can do the honey badger on them. then i look to see if the footwork has something to do with it, and what i can do if i change the footwork a little bit (for example, i like linking the first 4 moves of naihanchi shodan by adding a forwards step along with the elbow).

this usually results in me finding a few sequences i like, which i tend to go over when i'm bored, and leaving the rest as is until i figure something out that makes me like them.

 

It was a joke from me and don't take too serious about it (there was a at the end of that post). I have spent so much time in my life in forms training until one day my teacher told me that form is for "teaching" and "learning" but not for "training". It suddently waked me up big time. That was the most valuable lesson that I have learned. Just want to share my personal experience with others here. The mistake that I made in the past, I don't like others to repeat the same mistake as I did.

IMO, the best way to learn MA is not from the form but from kick, punch, lock, throw. For example,

- how many different kicks can you execute?
- If you use a side kick, how many ways can your opponent counters you?
- How do you counter your opponent's counters?
- ...

This kind of thinking will lead you into offense, defense, counter, re-counter, combos, ... That's the correct learning path and not just to learn one form after another form.

 

The article brings up very good points. I like the article.

However, in regard to YouKnowWho's posts... I agree that forms are primarily a way of codefying a system or a form of record keeping.

Anything more, you need to have dialog with the founder of the system to find out what the intentions were for each form. In many cases we a lucky to have that knowledge passed down from the founders to students before the founder passes away.

The actual value of a form can change depending on the lesson plan for the day. The SAME form can be simply be a way of passing on knowledge and principles, a way of promoting health, or it can be as complex combat scenario depending on the context and intentions at the moment.

What you do not want is for forms to promote the learning and enabling of bad habit; therefore, context in which a form is applied is very important. IMHO.

 

Hi everyone - Dan Djurdjevic here. I registered on this forum years ago under a old nickname ("Fen") from school. I drop by from time to time, but running my own forum makes it hard to commit to regular contribution elsewhere.

Thank you Wastelander for calling me "skilled"; I make no particular claim to this but I appreciate the compliment. And I had to laugh when you called me "verbose"! Touche! I do write a lot of words. I think this is because I write in the (very) little gaps of time I get. To quote Mark Twain: “I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”

However I would strenuously object to any allegation that my "verbosity" is a symptom of "padding". If you read my articles carefully, I believe you'll find that, for the most part, every point I make is carefully geared towards establishing a cogent argument. I try to move any truly "tangential" material to footnotes.

To convey an argument that is inductively unassailable takes time. This is particularly so when what you are saying isn't straightforward or "intuitive". It is even more so when your argument goes against popular trends. Last, it becomes an imperative when you know you will be put to proof on every statement you make (which I inevitably am - you should see my inbox!).

With the present article, I suppose I could have just written: "I think the core purpose of forms is to put martial techniques in a dynamic context that is both relevant and useful to teaching civilian defence principles". But most people would respond with: "What the hell does that mean?" For a start, explaining my concept of "dynamic context" takes some time. Ditto "natural stepping" and "dead time" - all of which are, I believe, truly worthy of analysis given the inordinate amount of time traditional martial artists devote to stepping in stances (be it in forms or just basics).

Summarising my article as "any part of kata that cannot be applied realistically and while moving with an opponent is useless" is not incorrect, but it is also not sufficient. Such a summary certainly doesn't help resolve a disupte as to whether a particular kata performance is objectively "useless" or not. For example, a sine wave practitioner might happily say: "Yes, we can apply our techniques realistically while moving with an opponent." Yet I submit that my carefully structured argument unequivocally establishes the reverse.

So while I am aware that my articles are hard to "skim read", I think this misses their intended purpose. If I didn't believe they were contributing to martial debate in a useful and scientific (albeit "scholarly") way, I wouldn't bother writing them. And it is for this reason that I wouldn't consider "dumbing them down for easy consumption". Yes, I might write "on the run" as a "stream of consciousness" (much as I speak!) - and my articles could no doubt stand some editing as a consequence; but I can assure you that a great deal of sincere background study and research goes into every article I have written.

 

I never intended to imply that your verbosity was padding--I do feel that everything you write is written with the purpose of fully explaining your point as thoroughly as possible. That said, I don't feel like it always works well in a blog format because it seems like you have to re-explain the same concepts periodically and sometimes the main focus of a post can be lost in having to explain attached concepts. If you were to compile your work into a book format I think I would have an easier time of it, and I would certainly buy it! I've followed your blog for quite some time and I do make an effort to read every post and I have definitely found a lot of value in a lot of the things you have written, but I will readily admit that sometimes it takes me a few tries . I'm glad to hear that I did get the gist of your article and I do understand that my summary isn't a sufficient explanation of the "why" of your post, but I was just making sure I had the "what" so I could address specific instances of "why". That's just how I work, mentally--I need to know the specific subject and then I can break it down, but if it's broken down as the subject is being explained (as is your style) I have trouble comprehending it, if that makes sense?

 

How very true. This has been at the back of my mind since I started. Mine doesn't make for a true "blog" (which is, by definition, and common expectation, far more accessible than what I produce). [I did understand you to be saying this - I was just eager to clarify the reasons for my "verbosity"!]

For the time being I've found the blog format to be a useful way to compile my own notes about the traditional martial arts; notes that I do indeed intend to turn into a series of books (where the format can allow concepts to be developed fully and without need for continual re-explanation).

And I've been pleasantly surprised that, against my own expectations (and despite my unwillingness to make concessions to the blog format), people seem to be reading my articles nonetheless.

Thanks for your feedback!

 

As a matter of interest, I can see why this article might have been harder to read than it should: it really comprises 2 different streams of thought:

The first describes the core purpose of forms as the need for a dynamic context that is both relevant and useful (the "what").

The second discusses how this core purpose can easily be derailed - specifically by reference to ITF's "sine wave" as an example (the "why").

I have split the article into these 2 portions:

http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/forms-their-core-purpose.html

http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/sine-wave-vs-core-purpose-of-forms.html