A different question about forms, kata and patterns

Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by Monkey_Magic, Jun 3, 2018.

  1. Monkey_Magic

    Monkey_Magic Well-Known Member

    I’m curious to know why many arts place so much emphasis on forms, kata or patterns. axelb’s experience seems very common:-

    NB: I’m not asking if forms are useful, which has been debated plenty of times already. Instead, I’m asking a more nuanced question.

    I don’t understand why this is rarely the case:-
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2018
    axelb likes this.
  2. Tom bayley

    Tom bayley Valued Member

    To properly learn and teach a martial art that uses forms one must do to things.

    1 - learn to diagnose applications from the forms - this should be done by practicing application as discussed on other threads.
    2 - be able to perform the forms correctly so that they can be remembered and passed on correctly.

    Axelb’s experience is not my experience.

    From my personal experience of TCMA I always had both the importance of application and form equally stressed.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2018
  3. Tom bayley

    Tom bayley Valued Member

    Note: practicing application includes sparing.
     
  4. SWC Sifu Ben

    SWC Sifu Ben I am the law

    This. I can't tell you how much of learning forms in wing chun was:
    1. Learn form
    2. Practice form
    3. Fail at an application until I understood how to apply the mechanic
    4. Refine form based on #3
    5. Repeat steps 2-4

    The emphasis is there because in TMA the form is a textbook; my Sifu used to refer to it as a dictionary. You learn to take the words and make phrases, then sentences, and so on until you can deftly string together words however you like. It's really a bunch of movement drilling strung together. And honestly I don't think you can really learn a form without the application. If you don't understand what the movements do, where pressure goes, where energy should be invested, what angles are being covered, then even if you copy really well it's like having the frame and body of a car with no engine.
     
  5. Grond

    Grond Valued Member

    Repetitive patterns seem to be part of every martial art, but as far as "emphasis" of anything I think it varies from teacher to teacher, rather than art to art. As far as grading, in a school thats should be a factor of the time and effort someone spends at the school. Skill level seems unfair in a way, because people sometimes hit natural limits they cannot overcome. Not everyone is going to end up a real master of something, but should the lesser skilled among us be forbidden from owning a particular belt, as long as their ego is in line with their real skill level? Just like not everyone is an A student, but showing up on time, studying properly, and putting in the effort should warrant you enough muster for at least a C+ (average). If some teacher makes sequences the core part of grading, then they're going to have an easier job and promote more people, which is good for a school. But if that gym intends to compete, obviously grading becomes less important than actual preparation. Training sequences and preparing for a fight are so totally different, I think only a really good, uncommon instructor is going to provide both.
     
  6. Tom bayley

    Tom bayley Valued Member

    Why would they "have an easier job" teaching forms? Teaching is teaching whatever the subject.

    Why would you" promote fewer people" if you have an emphasis on application? Bjj has a heavily into belts, as is judo, and tykwando. They dont seam to have problems promoting people.

    Why "But if that gym intends to compete, obviously grading becomes less important than actual preparation." I think that adding grading to the mix is kind of a red herring. My teacher was not big on grading. For example I graded 3 times in 15 plus years. My teacher was, however big on forms.

    Are you implying that "But if that gym intends to compete, obviously Forms becomes less important than actual preparation." ? If so I disagree. My teacher was big on forms. He also trained fighters. The two are not mutually exclusive.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2018
  7. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    This the simplest question to answer.
    People teach loads of forms without much application because martial arts and fighing skill got divorced years ago.
    Teaching just forms is easy. Both for the teacher and the pupil.
    People became more interested in preserving an art or a culture than they did engendering fighting skills.
     
  8. melbgoju

    melbgoju Valued Member

    From a karate perspective, it's worth thinking about the context in which the art was passed down in the 20th century. Pre-WWII, there was a push to gain acceptance into the Okinawan (and greater Japanese) education system; the solo practice of kata was easier to teach than paired applications. This was the first divorce of kata from their original purpose (which was to culminate and provide solo-training for already acquired paired techniques and skills). Then, during WWII there was a period time where karate wasn't trained much and many of the more skilled practitioners died in the war, there was a loss of information. This was the second divorce.

    Post-WWII, there was a lag in training beginning again; some schools no longer had regular instruction and so tried to work out gaps in their knowledge themselves, or just lived with those gaps. Others started teaching the occupying force's soldiers who were often only there for a relatively short period of time and were trained in large groups, again mostly in solo kata and sparring as these were the quickest and easiest to teach to groups. These are the people who then spread karate outside of Okinawa and Japan. This was the third divorce of kata from function.

    To my mind, that's why most karate schools still train kata first, application second (a reversal of the original order of things); due to the circumstances of its promulgation, many karate schools around the world train this way because that's the way it happened to pass down to them. And since there is no general daily necessity for karate to work for the vast majority of its practitioners, there is no reason not to continue teaching this way. So they do.
     
  9. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    I think Mel is onto something with the post-WWII history of Japanese karate being key to the answer to that question.

    In my experience, the forms-first approach described in the original post was definitely true of my Shotokan dojo but definitely NOT true of my college taekwondo club (where the quality of your padwork, sparring, and breaking were far more important than the quality of your forms in advancement). And my current tang soo do school is closer to my college taekwondo club than my old Shotokan dojo on that spectrum (except we don't have mandatory breaking requirements as the final component of each belt test like we did in TKD).
     
  10. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    I think that forms are often seen as the soul of the art, or the "art" of the system. So you're passing down something that identifies your lineage as different to others, hence their importance.
     
  11. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    I think we can all agree that forms, as a pedagogy, have problems as well as benefits. Where we disagree is whether the problems outweigh the benefits.

    The crux of this, to my mind, is when forms become the source, rather than a repository. I reckon it is almost inevitable that forms will become more abstracted and stylised over time. The forms dictate how technique is performed, rather than the other way around. The teachers of the past who created the forms are posthumously bestowed with superhuman wisdom and prescience. Introduction of new techniques must be justified by reverse-engineering the forms instead of just modifying or changing the forms.

    All of these factors show, to me as an outsider looking in, a reverence of the past, and the integrity of the system being held as more important than the progress of active participants.
     
    axelb likes this.
  12. Tom bayley

    Tom bayley Valued Member

    Why do you believe this? why is it inevitable?

    What you describe is not how I learnt, practice, or teach forms. My teacher always insisted that kung fu should be based on practical understanding and thought. "we want thinking students, we dont want to create robots"


    Not in my personal experience.


    Again not so. my teacher and his teachers were exceptional martial artists but they were human and fallible. Famously Tid Kiu Sam - credited with creating the iron wire form , a jewel in the crown of hung gar was known to be an opium addict. His renown as a fighter also included him putting the lamps out and crawling away in the dark rather than fighting against exceptional odds.


    Again not my personal experience.

    My teacher was always happy to allow anyone to use any technique from any art in partner work and sparring, as am I. With a cavitate that there are no surprises that could injure the participants. (e.g. slamming a drop knee ipon on a ignorant partner)

    Your point about not modifying the forms is true. Forms are textbooks. You dont re-write a text book because you get a good idea. You can however right your own new text book if you prefer.

    Again not my personal experience.

    I know that my teacher was exceptional in many ways. But I do not think his attitude to the practicality of forms is exceptional. just on the map forum there many excellent practical common sense based traditional martial artists who use forms as an aid to training and teaching in a way similar to how my teacher taught me.
     
  13. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Because I've yet to see a form that looks like fighting.

    So you don't draw techniques out of the forms? The forms are not seen as paragons of proper technique?

    Textbooks do get rewritten, all the time. That is why it is important to know which edition of a textbook to buy; they are amended, they come with errata, new chapters are added.

    Do you not see how waiting for a new form to become generally accepted might inhibit the evolution of an art? What is the most recent addition to the forms you teach?

    How do forms not produce inertia in a system? How do you reconcile forms' function as protecting the integrity of a style with adapting to individual needs and advances in training methods?
     
    axelb and Knee Rider like this.
  14. Monkey_Magic

    Monkey_Magic Well-Known Member

    I agree. Thanks Mel! It’s a great insight and I’ve learned something.

    MAP mightn’t have the highest volume of forum posts, but I bet the quality of posts is higher than in most forums for martial arts.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2018
    axelb likes this.
  15. Tom bayley

    Tom bayley Valued Member

    Q Why do you believe this? why is it inevitable?
    A Because I've yet to see a form that looks like fighting.

    A form does not look like fighting because a form is not fighting. it is a training tool and a drill. fights dont look like training tools and drills - they look like fights. but fights do contain elements of training tools and drills.

    If you think that a TCMA practitioner is going to do a karate kid impression and strike a classical pose - you really have very little understanding of how forms work.

    Q The forms are not seen as paragons of proper technique? A No

    Forms contain a vast array of mechanics and application. but like a textbook they only show one view. You cant learn to apply an application from reading a book. you cant learn to apply an application from practicing a form. You have to actually do it for real against a real resisting partner. so No forms are not paragons of proper technique - and again you have very little understanding of how forms work.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2018
  16. Monkey_Magic

    Monkey_Magic Well-Known Member

    Guys, I see I’m going to have to step in and referee this :p

    The ground rule for this match :) is that it’s not asking if forms work. This has been debated ad nauseam and nobody changes their mind.

    I’d also like to avoid debating how to make forms an effective training tool; Tom’s already given good answers to this.
     
    Tom bayley, David Harrison and Mitlov like this.
  17. Tom bayley

    Tom bayley Valued Member

    i am duly admonished. I lie In my hammock corrected :)
     
    Monkey_Magic likes this.
  18. Fish Of Doom

    Fish Of Doom Will : Mind : Motion Supporter

    I'm with melbgoju and Mitch. As well as historical events influencing the way styles with forms ended up spreading, there's a point where what starts being important to X is the spreading of the style (continuation of homogeneous lineage) rather than the training of the end goal (fighting). When that point is hit, you end up with a cultural package as well as, and sometimes in lieu of, a way to train people to prevent getting booped by other people, possibly booping them in turn, more so when the package already included ethical and moral guidelines to prevent people from indiscriminately bonking anyone else they come across for no reason (this was the case in karate, for example). In an MA context this does lead to a sort of (never perfect, often very flawed) "preservation" of older content, but tends to prevent much updating of the same, until someone either goes and does their own thing naturally, does it purposefully in willful opposition to the tradition, or finds a way to incorporate it into or annex it to existing tradition. In karate all three are in evidence, and even the former two are liable to become traditions unto themselves when a system of forward-looking training heuristics is lacking that would keep things on track (ie training must be based on not getting booped, and whatever formal content there is must be molded around that).
     
    David Harrison likes this.
  19. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Sorry.

    I really don't know how you can separate why systems place emphasis on forms from what function forms provide to a system, but if you can then good luck!
     
  20. Fish Of Doom

    Fish Of Doom Will : Mind : Motion Supporter

    Sometimes they don't provide any functionality, at least as per how specific schools see them, but rather they "conform" the system, so to those schools focus in them so as to "teach the system", independently of "training" proper, although they may use a variety of arguments as to the functionality that they may or may not have (when they do have it, it is reflected in the training; if the training has nothing to do with the functionality of forms, then that is the same as them having none).
     
    SWC Sifu Ben and David Harrison like this.

Share This Page