Is power determinable by watching a form?

[Jason Davis]

Ok Right off, I know a lot of styles don't do forms and i know that a lot of people are going to say "a form is just a form", and this might upset a couple of people. but still, I'm going to ask.

Sometimes when I see videos of "masters" performing a form/kata or whatever, It seriously looks like a monkey screwing a football. Then when I see some of these so-called "sparring" matches or "real fight" videos on the internet it looks like 2 monkeys screwing a football. Why is this? Are they just not trying or what?

I don't know if this is what forms and sparring are supposed to look like or not, but I can definitely tell you I would be sitting in horsestance for about and hour if I tried to push that stuff on my teacher.

Tell me if I'm wrong or not, but aren't you supposed to issue power when you perform a form/kata or are you just supposed to go through the movements. I'm confused I was thought that when you do a form you issue power every time you show a technique and you use perfect form. If it's soft style like tai chi you still show the power but it is done a lot slower with the same perfect form thus making it soft.

As for sparring goes, if I don't use good technique when he spar again I will be sitting in horse stance for about an hour. I honestly believe that 1960's and 70's kung fu movies have 1,000,000 times more technique shown in the fight scenes than any sparring video I've seen on the internet or any modern day movie for that matter. Again this is still just how I was thought to do it and I thought that the reason to do forms/katas is to teach you the moves to use and the correct form to use when you use them in a fight. I thought that when you spar/fight it was supposed to look just like you were doing a form.

This is why I thought you were supposed to practice so much and put so much time and effort into martial arts. I thought that you were supposed to practice the techniques so much that it became second nature and you could actually use what you learned and not just try to brawl. If your not going to use what you've learned, aren't you just wasting time?

I seriously thought that a form/kata was supposed to look like you were really fighting someone, and a fight/sparring match was supposed to look just like the form (I know you have to change the technique according to what the other person does, but still).

Maybe I am totally wrong though. If so someone please enlighten me I would really appreciate it. :)

[Black Bear]

The football monkeys look that way because they don't train their skills "alive". I've posted aliveness links all over "General Martial Arts Talk" threads, I'll bet you've seen 'em at least once. But reading your posts, I think you have a sense of the importance of aliveness, intuitively.

Straddling a bench and practicing all the different bodyweight shifts, signals and commands you WOULD use if you were riding a horse, doesn't make you good at riding a horse. Even if you VISUALIZE the horse. REALLY VIVIDLY. It makes you good at straddling a bench and looking like an idiot. The same is true of martial arts.

Forms as a visual performance art can be nice.

Forms as an "encyclopaedia" of knowledge (of moves) is obsolete, since paper, ink, and digital information storage are much better ways.

Forms as a way of teaching people to fight, is in my opinion a bad idea.

So it's not that I think that people shouldn't do forms. I think they should know why they're doing them, and if it's a good delivery vector for that objective.

[Touch Of Death]

While I'm not a huge fan of forms, I will say that, no, a fight and a form should not look alike. Forms are sequences of motion meant to teach you something about motion, they are sequences of moves meant to give you a vehicle to work on principles of motion, last and certainly not least they are pieces of history not necessarily grounded in the reality of the concerns of the day. Sparring, by defenition, is fighting with pre arranged rules. Forms are not subject to those rules; so, its naive to assume they should look similar. To throw out forms is to throw out a perfectly viable training tool. I suspect that those who have done away with them have not come up with an adequit replacement. 70's kung fu movies were built around the forms; so, of course it looks cool. Experienced martial artists know they are watching fiction.
Sean

[Black Bear]

When you say an "adequate replacement" for forms, what function of theirs requires replacement, supposing that one dispenses with forms? Please be specific.

[Touch Of Death]

When you say an "adequate replacement" for forms, what function of theirs requires replacement, supposing that one dispenses with forms? Please be specific. I went to the book for this one... Sparring (or freestyle) is an extemporaneous use of offensive and defensive skills that teaches you how to guage distance, employ effective timing, become elusive, take advantage of vulnerability, angle changes, ect.
Forms on the other hand teach you specific things and allow you to work and develop those things without worrying about those things listed under sparring.
Like I said they are training tools which allow you to work priciples and study how paying attention to one in relation to another may effect your motion. Sparring often leaves you worrying about winning and loosing only. Forms allow you to tinker with your very understanding of the art and practice in that art.
Sean

[Jason Davis]

While I'm not a huge fan of forms, I will say that, no, a fight and a form should not look alike. Forms are sequences of motion meant to teach you something about motion, they are sequences of moves meant to give you a vehicle to work on principles of motion, last and certainly not least they are pieces of history not necessarily grounded in the reality of the concerns of the day. Sparring, by defenition, is fighting with pre arranged rules. Forms are not subject to those rules; so, its naive to assume they should look similar. To throw out forms is to throw out a perfectly viable training tool. I suspect that those who have done away with them have not come up with an adequit replacement. 70's kung fu movies were built around the forms; so, of course it looks cool. Experienced martial artists know they are watching fiction.
Sean
hmmmm..... so your essentially saying that the perfect way to perform a movement isn't the perfect way to perform that same movement in a fight? I'm confused.

I personally don't like practicing form either but i can tell you that when I spar/fight every technique I perform is very very crisp and the intention is obvious.

I may have worded my question wrong... i guess my question is "why do most all of these so called masters that i see in these internet movies fail to excel at actual fighting?"

is that a better question....... and you can tell weather someone can fight or not by looking at them for example an adult with no martial training Obviously looks like they can fight better than an 8 year old.

[jkn75]

Forms are sequences of motion meant to teach you something about motion, they are sequences of moves meant to give you a vehicle to work on principles of motion, last and certainly not least they are pieces of history not necessarily grounded in the reality of the concerns of the day.

As someone in an art that does forms, this statement is excellent. I would add they are also a good form of full body exercise. :asian:

[Black Bear]

Indeed techniques have to be introduced and isolated, but why through a form? Why not through alive partner training? What really does the form contribute?

[jkn75]

hmmmm..... so your essentially saying that the perfect way to perform a movement isn't the perfect way to perform that same movement in a fight? I'm confused.

I personally don't like practicing form either but i can tell you that when I spar/fight every technique I perform is very very crisp and the intention is obvious.

Yes, the purpose of the movement is what changes. The movements should still be performed with power and crispness. If I throw a kick in a form to the body, there is not a moving body on the end of it. I can generate more power there because I am not going to harm someone. In sparring the purpose is not to harm, it is to score a point. In a self-defense situation, the goal is to survive. My techniques will reflect those goals given the situation.


I may have worded my question wrong... i guess my question is "why do most all of these so called masters that i see in these internet movies fail to excel at actual fighting?"

is that a better question....... and you can tell weather someone can fight or not by looking at them for example an adult with no martial training Obviously looks like they can fight better than an 8 year old.

My questions would be which masters are you speaking of and where are these movies so we can see them? Like people, there are good and bad masters. Some look they can not fight but maybe holding back because they are not in a fight they are sparring.

I can't always tell someone can fight by looking at them. I think this is not a good habit to get into, you may be, unfortunately, very surprised one day.

[bdparsons]

Ah, the never-ending debate on forms, useful or useless?? Having experience in arts with and without them, I think there’s a tendency to read too much into the practice. They’re merely a tool in the toolbox. How important the tool is to you will determine the credence you put on its use.

Properly taught forms teach not only individual moves, but transitory movement, flow (even the hard style ones), proper application of power, the handling of speed and accuracy. All of that without even beginning to touch on an appreciation of principles and concepts that may be present. But remember, the original intent of forms was to give a structure to individual practice when training partners are unavailable or uninterested. On the flip side, I’m always struck by those who denigrate the use of forms, yet will drill combinations on the heavy bag or with a partner without complaint. Are these not just mini-forms in their own way, teaching the very same thing? Of course this is where aliveness, spontaneity, reflexive reaction all raise their head as the next step in the process. All just tools.

I would disagree, Black Bear, with your contention that a physical “encyclopedia of moves” is unnecessary in today’s world. The ability to catalog such information in an “efficient” manner actually may lend to an even greater need to make sure a “physical” catalog still exists. Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument may even suggest that because we have such a “hard copy” rendering of an art, practice in itself may become unnecessary. Too extreme? Probably, but I hope you see my point.

Bottom line—individual preference prevails. Even if you are in an art that teaches forms, you’ll only get out of it what you put into it. If you’re in an art that doesn’t teach forms, you may be a tool shy in your toolbox, but if you’ve never used it you probably won’t miss it.

Respects to all regardless of which side of the fence you’re on!
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

[Touch Of Death]

Indeed techniques have to be introduced and isolated, but why through a form? Why not through alive partner training? What really does the form contribute?Lets take Bjj for instance, you can create a two man form and work a take down and escape back and forth. What makes it a form is that you both have a part to play but you offer no resistance to the sequence of motion. Its just a sequence of moves for the sake of that sequence of moves. You may do that for posture, balance, relaxation, speed, ect. I suppose if you found an opponent or training partner that sucked bad enough you are essentialy working on form wheather he likes it or not. However, it is a poor replacement.
Sean

[Touch Of Death]

[QUOTE=Jason Davis]hmmmm..... so your essentially saying that the perfect way to perform a movement isn't the perfect way to perform that same movement in a fight? I'm confused.

I personally don't like practicing form either but i can tell you that when I spar/fight every technique I perform is very very crisp and the intention is obvious.
/QUOTE]I never said anything about perfect motion. The point of forms is to discover applications that aren't so obvious; so, thanks for proving my point.
Sean

[Touch Of Death]

Oh, and yes I do think you can determine skill just by watching a person move. However, there are aspects of fighting that your motion in and of its self has nothing to do with.
Sean :asian:

[KennethKu]

...... To throw out forms is to throw out a perfectly viable training tool. I suspect that those who have done away with them have not come up with an adequit replacement. ....
Sean

Really? I don't see JKD, MuayThai, Burmese Boxing suffer any defficiency for not practicing form.

[Jason Davis]

I would like to say thank you to everyone who gave an answer to my question. It seems that all arts have a different view of how forms work or if they even work at all and all of the answers that were given were very good. thank you all

[Black Bear]

Well you see Ken, this is why I deliberately ignored this thread for awhile. ToD's playing a little fast and loose with the terminology, and is defining form a little more broadly than I think most people use it. And I didn't (and don't) feel like getting sucked into a debate on what a "form" is. Take the BJJ example he gave. BJJ sometimes teaches things in short sequences. One of the first ones I did, which I know is taught by Mario Sperry, involved passing an open guard by "throwing" the guy's ankles, stepping into one side, and going into cross mount, then side guard. It's trained with a partner with timing and resistance. I don't consider that a form, but maybe he does. Then you work the variations, if the guy does this, then this is how you deal with that, and so on. Is that a form? Working a combo, jab jab cross hook, is that a form? Maybe he'd say it is. It's a prearranged sequence of movements. I can't really argue that with someone who thinks differently than myself.

If you define form broadly enough, then sure 'nuff you can't do without them.

[Touch Of Death]

Really? I don't see JKD, MuayThai, Burmese Boxing suffer any defficiency for not practicing form.Well obviously Bruce Lee studied forms for twenty years before his creation of JKD, so , there you go. Muay Thai is a sport, I know nothing of BB so I won't comment. I would argue, however, that any shadow boxing in Muay Thai is working a form.
Sean

[Black Bear]

ToD you putz, we're not talking about Bruce Lee. We're talking about the thousands of JKD fighters around the world who don't do forms. Muay Thai is a martial art--look a little into Thai history before you leap to stereotypes. Burmese boxing, are we talking about Bando KK?

Shadow boxing is "carrenza", or to use your word, it is extemporaneous as opposed to prearranged.

Anyway, I've deliberately avoided getting into any fruitless debate as to what precisely constitutes a form. ToD, having stated his position, is surely going to want to define it broadly (he already said that the word would encompass a short two-man BJJ sequence) and some of these guys are going to want to define it very narrowly. It's just a word. What matters is what you do.

[Touch Of Death]

ToD you putz, we're not talking about Bruce Lee. We're talking about the thousands of JKD fighters around the world who don't do forms. Muay Thai is a martial art--look a little into Thai history before you leap to stereotypes. Burmese boxing, are we talking about Bando KK?

Shadow boxing is "carrenza", or to use your word, it is extemporaneous as opposed to prearranged.

Anyway, I've deliberately avoided getting into any fruitless debate as to what precisely constitutes a form. ToD, having stated his position, is surely going to want to define it broadly (he already said that the word would encompass a short two-man BJJ sequence) and some of these guys are going to want to define it very narrowly. It's just a word. What matters is what you do.Boy, Appearantly you have never heard of extemopraneous forms. I think you can count the number of moves you can make in muay thai on one hand so just how extempo do you think that system is? I think you have a lot to learn about what forms are before you go tossing them because of a limmited understanding.
Sean
Sean

[Black Bear]

:rolleyes: Okay, please give us YOUR definition of forms. It seems to be broad enough to swallow just about any kind of technical training.

Personally I don't care because I don't make use of the word in my training, although I'm sure that every single thing I do short of sparring, you would consider a "form".

[KennethKu]

1. MuayThai is MORE THAN a sport. With all due respect, I doubt many here could last a round coming up against a MuayThai fighter. MT has "combo" not forms.

2. Bruce Lee completely discarded forms. He sure as hell didn't created JKD from "forms".

3. Burmese boxing = Bando.

4. Forms= Conditioning exercises. They get you to tense your muscle and hence develop muscle strength. Repetitions also develop neural pattern, ie build reflex responses. Forms are not the end all be all. By themselves, they are "canned responses" that would fail miserably in real contact.

4.
If you define form broadly enough, then sure 'nuff you can't do without them.
EXACTLY!

[Black Bear]

I never thought I'd like a guy who had a Bruce Lee screenshot as an avatar but... KK is very correct.

We do MT at our school. If you call that stuff forms... boy...

[Touch Of Death]

1. MuayThai is MORE THAN a sport. With all due respect, I doubt many here could last a round coming up against a MuayThai fighter. MT has "combo" not forms.

2. Bruce Lee completely discarded forms. He sure as hell didn't created JKD from "forms".

3. Burmese boxing = Bando.

4. Forms= Conditioning exercises. They get you to tense your muscle and hence develop muscle strength. Repetitions also develop neural pattern, ie build reflex responses. Forms are not the end all be all. By themselves, they are "canned responses" that would fail miserably in real contact.

4.
EXACTLY!Bruce Lee may have dicarded forms, but forms did not discard Bruce Lee. :asian:
Sean

[KennethKu]

Bruce Lee may have dicarded forms, but forms did not discard Bruce Lee. :asian:
Sean

It would be more productive to get to your point directly.

I don't know your level of attainment, so permit me to elaborate on JKD. Bruce Lee, after studying Chinese Gungfu and WingChun, and researched bizillion MAs, eventually evolved to conclude that one can employ modern scientific conditioning and training to acquire all the benefits "form" practice can provide and yet not be constrained by the limitations and drawback of "canned responses".

[Touch Of Death]

It would be more productive to get to your point directly.

I don't know your level of attainment, so permit me to elaborate on JKD. Bruce Lee, after studying Chinese Gungfu and WingChun, and researched bizillion MAs, eventually evolved to conclude that one can employ modern scientific conditioning and training to acquire all the benefits "form" practice can provide and yet not be constrained by the limitations and drawback of "canned responses".If you want to call extemporaneous forms, Combos that is fine with me; however, just bear in mind no matter how you catagorize your art, the components will fall into one of three catagories: Forms, sets, and freestyle. I'll grant you these are my terms, but be that as it may, every time you make a move, its going to fit into one of these catagories. Your systems have not eliminated forms. They simply call them something else.
Sean

[Black Bear]

You still haven't responded to my request to define "forms" and, since you now brought it up, maybe you call tell us what YOU mean by "sets" as well.

I often find that confusion occurs when people fail to distinguish between content and process--what is being trained vs. how one trains it.

The map is not the territory; the menu is not the food.

[Jason Davis]

You still haven't responded to my request to define "forms" and, since you now brought it up, maybe you call tell us what YOU mean by "sets" as well.

I often find that confusion occurs when people fail to distinguish between content and process--what is being trained vs. how one trains it.

The map is not the territory; the menu is not the food.
I don't know weather or not this was directed toward me or not but, a form (at least in my opinion) is like a living book that teaches you how to produce power or timing in any certain movement or technique in reference to an invisible person. By that I mean forms teach you how to do a whole bunch of different moves and allow you practice them in the perfect setting due to the fact that the person you are fighting (which is invisible) will do whatever you want them to. I believe that every individual technique in a form is it's own form and that all of them are just put together so that you can remember all of them easier as they are all similar. So really weather you know a whole form or not I believe that you should still only practice one of the techniques at a time so you learn that one. Doing the whole form teaches you fluidity in movements but not practical application. I personally believe that understanding each individual technique is more important (due to the complexity and application of each possible technique)

The correlation I was trying to make with the origional question was how some people who do forms don't actually use the moves they are tought by the form when they fight. They just stand up and kinda box. I was confused as to why this was.

I posted the origional question because I currently study under two teachers one of them teaches through forms one teaches through application of specifics.

The teacher that teaches by using specific techniques says okay if somebody does this you can do this. Then the technique is shown and worked on until it is understood. After I have a basic understanding of that one technique he says "or you can do this" and it goes on and on until he runs out of things to tell me to do in a certain situation while the whole time he shows he things that could happen while I am trying to perform the technique. So he tries to make me think the whole time by switching things up constantyly when I get a basic understanding.

My other teacher shows me one specific technique in a form and has me practice it for a while until it is "crisp" then he shows me the combat application and all the other uses for that same technique (that he can think of at the time) until I can spar only using that one technique for both attacking and defending.

Either way, both of my teachers make me use the techniques as they are tought. they were tought a certain way so that you can generate more power through the movements. their are like 10,000,000 or more different ways to use each technique. It's up to the student to understand power generation in each one.

Both of the method basically end up with the same result: an understanding of power generation through body mechanics and intention. At the same time both teaching/learning methods teach the complexity of every attack or defense technique. This again is just each of my teachers specific ways of teaching me, and again this may be due to the amout of time that each of them has to spend with me on an individual basis. Power generation is one of the top priorities with both of my teachers. However, I am definitely not able to speak for everyone who does forms or everyone who doesn't because I am completely unaware of how they are tought, or even if anything I just said was at all relevant or even true.
hope that might have clarified my original question:boing2:

[Black Bear]

As a matter of fact, JD, I was talking to ToD.

[Jason Davis]

As a matter of fact, JD, I was talking to ToD.
oh ok sorry

[Touch Of Death]

oh ok sorryDon't be sorry; I can now, at least, answer your question. When people spar they have signiture moves. All moves that are not internalized will be discarded when tasked to fight. Most people will do three or four things... only. Forms allow you to use a larger vocabulary with or with out a partner. The "invisible opponent" thing is but one aspect of what forms are. They are routines meant to teach you about your own motion.
Sets are the isolation of basics for the sake of a specific basic or catagory of basics: Kick set, block set, finger set, strike set, ect. These differ from forms in that forms string unrelated basics toguether to emulate a fight senerio. Adding the vocabulary that you might find in a set or form takes a lot of getting to know that move. Sets, forms , and freestyle are your tools to do so.
Sean

[Black Bear]

Please DEFINE them.

[Touch Of Death]

Please DEFINE them.Forms are offensive and defensive movement arranged into a "dance like" routine. Real opponents can be added at higher levels. At even higher levels the routine can become more extemopraneous.
Sets are the same as forms but generaly focus on a single idea or movement.
Freestyle is your use of the vocabulary found in sets and forms, to handle problems without assumption of injury. You may impose rules to limit injury; however, problems must be handled extemporaneously.

[Black Bear]

Okay, you're being very specific here. Now if skills are only taught in sequences of no more than, oh, three movements... are they dance-like? If they're never taught without real opponents, even at beginning levels, are these forms?

Dude, it's simple cognitive psychology. If a person evaluates what is out there while having the preconceived notion that EVERYTHING fits into these three neat categories, they will squeeze anything they run into, into one of the categories. Expand your mind a little. "There are more training methodologies on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Research what the Filipinos mean by abecedario, numerata, sumbrado, carrenza. What Peyton Quinn called "symmetrical" and "asymmetrical training". Why it is the Blauer Tactical group does ECT. What SPEAR training is. The "3I" approach of the Straight Blast Gym. Simulation training in RBSD.

If you force a square peg into a round hole, you'll get it in, but the corners will get bent in and it won't be a square anymore. If you put these variations through your filter, yes you will be able to say it's more like one than the other, but that's not what it really IS. If you try to view all training concepts through that lens you won't see all they really are and you won't be able to learn from them and utilize them.

[DeilGyre]

Black Bear, why don't you DEFINE how you practice your basics (Blocks, strikes, kicks, stances, etc.) without a partner?
What would you call arranging these things creatively within an economy of motion flow against multiple attackers?
How would you practice hundreds or thousands of repetitions of a basic without a heavybag (thus no injuring yourself from the jolt of impact every time?)
Do you say, Ok I'm going to practice right crosses, and shadow box for a while, paying Attention to your movements, while at the same time visualizing an opponent?
What if you had a huge list of moves? You could go over each one individually, or arrange them all in a shadow boxing session.
How would you suggest to an elderly person to practice their self-defense? - Banging with another senior citizen every day, false teeth and Ben Gay sweat flying everywhere?
How would you instill good MA basics into a 5 year old, with their limited attention span and lack of control? Have them go full contact?

Are Martial Arts only for fighting and whooping ass?
Are they only for elite specimen hardcore fighters?
Shouldn't the common person, people who actually NEED martial arts, have access to moves and SD knowledge, without all the hard contact?

I'm curious...

[DeilGyre]

Back to the original question:
"Is power determinable by watching a form?"

Absolutely. Can't you spot proper body alignment, speed, relaxation, torque, crispness of moves, precision, proper breathing, focus, back up mass, etc?

That's another fine use of forms - practicing your movements full blast, training as if you were in a real fight, without a partner or a heavybag.

[Touch Of Death]

Okay, you're being very specific here. Now if skills are only taught in sequences of no more than, oh, three movements... are they dance-like? If they're never taught without real opponents, even at beginning levels, are these forms?

Dude, it's simple cognitive psychology. If a person evaluates what is out there while having the preconceived notion that EVERYTHING fits into these three neat categories, they will squeeze anything they run into, into one of the categories. Expand your mind a little. "There are more training methodologies on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Research what the Filipinos mean by abecedario, numerata, sumbrado, carrenza. What Peyton Quinn called "symmetrical" and "asymmetrical training". Why it is the Blauer Tactical group does ECT. What SPEAR training is. The "3I" approach of the Straight Blast Gym. Simulation training in RBSD.

If you force a square peg into a round hole, you'll get it in, but the corners will get bent in and it won't be a square anymore. If you put these variations through your filter, yes you will be able to say it's more like one than the other, but that's not what it really IS. If you try to view all training concepts through that lens you won't see all they really are and you won't be able to learn from them and utilize them.In kenpo we have little partner forms we call techniques. If you break a tech down and do the first two or three moves, there is very little dancing going on. They are studies of a basic motion sequence therefore they are forms. Any type of drill you can come up with is a form or a set. You tell the student what to do, he does it, then you just taught him a small form or set. I would contend you were taught to close your mind to the idea of forms, and then given ten other terms for the same thing.
Sean

[Black Bear]

I would contend you were taught to close your mind to the idea of forms, and then given ten other terms for the same thing.
Sean(emphasis added)
Thank you for illustrating my point so perfectly! If a person goes in with the a priori dogma that all training falls into one of these three categories: forms, sets, and sparring, they would think exactly that! They would assume that anything that another person brings up does in fact fall into those categories, rather than find out for themselves, and try to understand what those words are referring to.

But that wouldn't be you now. :shrug:

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

As far as the original thread idea goes, my propensity would be to say "no". Too many 12 year old girls giving powerful-looking forms presentations in the open kata divisions at tourneys, who we know lack the physical development necessary to generate real power, particularly in combat. But they can "hiyah" crisply and sharply enough to win a prize.