For all "martial artists" who don't spar (Tai chi, Choi Kwang Do, Aikido etc.)

Huh? Who are you answering to?

What I mean is not a finite amount of technique being able to beat anyone. I mean that while there is a maximum to strength and how much you can train of it (while staying useful), you can always better your technique to overcome bigger challenges. Absolutely perfect technique (a purely theoretical concept) is absolutely unbeatable (nothing can land on it; nothing can grab him; all the strikes have perfect timing and precision). It is a theoretical concept no one can and will attain, but we can always improve towards that goal.

Well, perhaps we do train differently. I don't waste time checking if my stance is wide enough during sparring. I do that outside. Then, I try to apply it in sparring.

Again, see above. You need to train and be taught the form of the technique before you apply it.

I suspect most of our dissagreement come from what we consider is "developping a technique". I consider developping is training to do the right movement. You consider it's the timing. This is merely a vocabulary difference; so I think we probably agree.

Yet I doubt tekkengod would find that part of his training useless, so I suspect his definition of form doesn't include this. You're right, though, that by the real definition of forms, MMA (as well as every style) has them.

Yuuuuup.

Don't worry; I didn't see it as such.

 

Forms a ridged and planned, fighting is flowing and random. I would much prefer to actutually train with a phsyical opponent.

That said i'm talking about form in styles like TKD and Karate.

I do Wing Chun, but i believe the WC forms actually help your training because:

a) they are a index of techniques and principles, not imaginary fights. When training them on your own your training the same stucture/energy as you would use in partner training or a fight.

b) there’s only 3 of them, each providing a building block to the system. Many other styles have between 15 and 50+ forms, an amount i believe serves no purpose.

c) what it teaches is directly related to self defence/sparring (inc. realistic structure, realistic techniques and dynamic tension/energy…). How something is done in the form is the same should you need to defence yourself.

 

Poster a page back, but i am just trying to make that clear overall.

Well... what does that have to do with reality? Sprinters don't train to reach the speed of light! In real life it works both ways, you can have great technique and beat someone stronger, or you can be a lot stronger and beat someone with better technique. There are many examples for both. The outcome in such cases probably depends on too many factors to discuss here, including pure luck.

You don't need to check how is your stance when you are sparring, you feel it! Every time that you receive a strike or land one you are aware something went wrong. Your trainer is also there to point out the subtler mistakes.

In my training, and i suspect in many others' as well, when you learn a new technique it goes pretty much like this:

-Do a form to learn the technique (i.e. do the technique in front of a mirror countless times)
-When you do that good enough (having done bag/padwork as well), try to use said technique in sparring for the first time
-See how horrible your technique actually is
-Now that you know what you are doing wrong, work on it through pad/bagwork, practice the form again if needed
-Get in there and spar again
-If your technique is better, spar harder
-Repeat previous steps as needed

Not quite. Doing the right movement means absolutely nothing if you don't time it right enough to connect! Even landing a powerful punch means little if you break your wrist doing it. I consider "developing a technique" to be the process of becoming able to fight efficiently using that technique, be it a jab or a flying spinning back kick.

By some "definitions" of the terms, MMA have no technique and karate has no striking

 

Training useless techniques is useless. I dont know White Crane forms (maybe you can post a link) but in most cases the techniques trained in forms dont work in self defence.

 

I see where you comming from but i don't believe standard sparring is the only way. You should also train individual drills/techniques/combos etc against a realistic opponent.

 

Yeah, we do that, just not really formalized. Sparring sessions range from relaxed and technical to almost all-out, and the instructor frequently tells us to focus on a technique (for example the teep) or a technique is excluded entirely so we can focus on others (for example the teep, to focus on close range combos).

 

Well, when I see Wing Chun people doing their forms, I do see an imaginary fight as well. Except it's short, simple and does not move around much.

Oh; haven't seen much of those. What I know about Karate forms is from my friends who do Kyokushin (which might not be relevant).

Perhaps some MAs do train useless forms, then. But I don't think it's the imaginary fights that are the problems. I'm repeating myself for the 100th time: doing the imaginary fight is NOT physical training (except perhaps if it's also a stretching/strength/breathing/endurance exercise), nor is it to replace actual resistance training. It's supposed to be a condensed of ideas, concepts, techniques. A travel guide is static compared to actually visiting a country; but it's often a good idea to read it beforehand in order to see what are the interesting places to visit, what are the local customs, laws... Some are perfectly comfortable reading long in-depth guides, while some prefer condensed pocket books to bring along during their trip. It's really quite the same with forms.

What could be wrong with forms, though, are things that are never ever trained anywhere else than in the form. That, I absolutely agree, is wasted time. Except, again, if it's a stretching/strength/breathing/endurance exercise, in which case I wonder what is the use of making it a form rather than a warmup/exercise.

In White Crane, what we do in the forms are things we also train elsewhere.

I would love to point you to good examples of White Crane forms, but they are quite rare. Mr Martin Watts (I believe he has posted a few times on these forums; I wonder if he still reads) has a bunch of them on his site http://www.fujianbaihe.com/fujianbaihe/main.html, but most of those I don't recongnize (though we are most probably training a different branch; and he has zillions of times more training than I do) , even if they are very Crane-y. Mostly punches and parries you'll see in there. And while the parries might seem especially unrealistic to some, bear in mind they are actually used to great effect in sparring. I suspect, however, that Mr Watts is not training especially for self-defense as much as for the tradition (if you read this and can clarify this, that would be great), so you might not see a lot of hard training on his site.

Yes, I have stated multiple times that it was theoretical. What I mean there, however, is that there's a maximum to useful strength one can train. There is no known end to how much someone can train their technique. So while one can get to be the strongest he can, he can always and always get better by training better technique. Another way to put it is that by training better technique, one has the potential to get much better than the one training more strength. There's a much smaller margin between a good sprinter and a better sprinter than between a good technician and a better technician. Of course, this is approximative, as technique is impossible to quantify. Regardless, this is not even the main point, as well as quite irrelevant to the thread.

And how do you differentiate the right stance from the wrong? Because you know how the right stance feels from the forms. No art is simple enough to be simply felt that way with no prior knowledge of what is the right way and what is the wrong way. Well, not in most Chinese Martial Arts, from what I hear. Personnally, I have to train techniques and stances that feel anything but natural at first. They do get more natural, though, but that's not exclusively through sparring. That's from practicing it. And I do that with forms, bagwork, set fighting (reversible forms done with a partner)... No use trying it in sparring if it's not yet natural; it will invariably fail (and the time wasted as a setup to this could have been better used getting familiar with it alone). When it's natural, THEN! I try the application in sparring, get progressively better at it until I am satisfied with my performance at doing it (I am never, but a guy has to make some compromises one day) and its use becomes automatic.

Well, that's a more detailed way of saying what I said.

Well, this confirms what I've been saying about us not using the same terms for the same concepts. You can rest assured; I wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

I think there are lots of kata's added into karate styles that are either too much, or have skills already in other kata's.

In uechi-ryu there are like 8 or so kata's. But, despite what some american teachers may say, originally there were only three or four(sanchin, siesan and some other thing i forgot what it's called)
But others were thrown in because when uechi was brought from okinawa to japan, they needed a longer demonstration, so they made up some kata's using uechi-ryu principles. SOME of these kata's were usefull but alot were just for show or offer techniques/mechanics that are already offered in other kata's.

So many practitioners have to sift through and see what they can grab from 8 kata's. Thats too much to learn, too much to cover, and just how much will you forget?

THAT i think is the problem,soo much to interpret and sift through, having to devote more time learning and memorizeing kata's then looking through them(which is hard since there are SO MANY.)

Some teachers actually only teach 4 or 5 kata's only, since some of the demonstration kata's actually have something to offer.
Atleast mine does.

 

No. Wing Chun forms are not imaginary fight. They are an index of techniques and principles and directly relate to fighting, self defence and other aspects of the art.

But i doubt these techniques actually relate to self defence. I dont see anything trained in forms which cant be trained in a better way.

One could say forms are actually counter-productive because they teach the opposite to what you need for fighting such as timing, natural movement and realistic techniques. Because of this the techniques in forms do not relate to actual self defence.

That said, if you enjoy forms then fine, just be realistic with their use.

I would expect that training parries against a real partner feeding you techniques would be better that against no one.

I dont know enough about White Crane forms to judge, but i see forms used in TKD and Karate and similar styles as not being of real use.

It's better to train a stance when doing drills and actual sparring. Its ok to make mistakes and get if wrong in training, which is exactly the point of training.

The way you train a stance in a form will now directly translate to sparring because in sparring you have someone trying to hit you, and someone who is moving about so it's better to train under those conditions, of at least with a partner at least.