Forms = system?

[Kung Fu Wang]

A good designed set of forms (Kata) should contain all the important principles in the system. The following Q&A makes no sense to me. Your thought?

A: Why doesn't our forms have footwork.
B: The footwork is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have power generation.
B: The power generation is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have defense and counter.
B: The defense and counter are not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have entering strategy.
B: The entering strategy is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have combo set up.
B: The combo set up is not in our forms.
A: Why didn't the form creator include those important training when he designed his form?
B: The form was designed for ...
A: ... ???

 

[skribs]

A good designed set of forms (Kata) should contain all the important principles in the system. The following Q&A makes no sense to me. Your thought?

A: Why doesn't our forms have footwork.
B: The footwork is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have power generation.
B: The power generation is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have defense and counter.
B: The defense and counter are not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have entering strategy.
B: The entering strategy is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have combo set up.
B: The combo set up is not in our forms.
A: Why didn't the form creator include those important training when he designed his form?
B: The form was designed for ...
A: ... ???

What is the rest of B's last sentence? That might answer the question.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A good designed set of forms (Kata) should contain all the important principles in the system. The following Q&A makes no sense to me. Your thought?

A: Why doesn't our forms have footwork.
B: The footwork is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have power generation.
B: The power generation is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have defense and counter.
B: The defense and counter are not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have entering strategy.
B: The entering strategy is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have combo set up.
B: The combo set up is not in our forms.
A: Why didn't the form creator include those important training when he designed his form?
B: The form was designed for ...
A: ... ???

I don't think that's necessary. Forms can serve many purposes, and some principles are not effectively conveyed in forms. The principles must be in the system, but not necessarily in the forms, unless the forms are intended to encompass the entire system.

I'll use my own forms as an example. I purposely haven't covered some concepts in the forms. I worked on forms for most of them, but decided it was turning into too many forms. Having too many forms creates two problems. Firstly, it takes too much time away from other training just to learn the forms. Second, it makes the system less flexible. If one of my students works out a better way of doing something that's shown a certain way in the form (say, an entry to a hip throw), they'd have to change the form if they want it to be accurate to what they teach. I think it also tends to make people less willing to drift from what's in the form, and I think that drift - when driven by feedback in live/resisted training - is essential to an art's development.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A good designed set of forms (Kata) should contain all the important principles in the system. The following Q&A makes no sense to me. Your thought?

A: Why doesn't our forms have footwork.
B: The footwork is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have power generation.
B: The power generation is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have defense and counter.
B: The defense and counter are not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have entering strategy.
B: The entering strategy is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have combo set up.
B: The combo set up is not in our forms.
A: Why didn't the form creator include those important training when he designed his form?
B: The form was designed for ...
A: ... ???

That last "B" is important, and not at all hard to understand. If a form was designed to teach transitions, for instance, there's no reason it need have power generation in it. An instructor can teach power generation for strikes outside a form more flexibly and (IMO) more effectively than within the constraints of a form.

 

[skribs]

That last "B" is important, and not at all hard to understand. If a form was designed to teach transitions, for instance, there's no reason it need have power generation in it. An instructor can teach power generation for strikes outside a form more flexibly and (IMO) more effectively than within the constraints of a form.

I'd argue that if it doesn't have combos, entries, or footwork, it's probably not designed to teach transitions.

There are other benefits to forms - such as to teach coordination, balance, muscle memory, or conditioning.

It also depends on how the forms are used in training. For example, in the TKD schools I've studied, the goal of training forms is to get the details exact in your presentation of the form. In Karate, the goal is to learn the motions and then use Bunkai to figure out applications for the motions in the form. In some styles of Kung Fu, the forms are more about understanding how your body can move than teaching practical techniques and tactics. In Aikido and Hapkido, forms are much shorter and often involve a partner, and it is very easy to directly apply what you are learning.

(Please note I am making a lot of generalizations in my previous paragraph, if you take TKD, Karate, or Kung Fu and you train different than I said, please understand what I'm trying to say).

 

[wanderingstudent]

A good designed set of forms (Kata) should contain all the important principles in the system. The following Q&A makes no sense to me. Your thought?

A: Why doesn't our forms have footwork.
B: The footwork is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have power generation.
B: The power generation is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have defense and counter.
B: The defense and counter are not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have entering strategy.
B: The entering strategy is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have combo set up.
B: The combo set up is not in our forms.
A: Why didn't the form creator include those important training when he designed his form?
B: The form was designed for ...
A: ... ???

A good designed set of forms (Kata) should contain all the important principles in the system. The following Q&A makes no sense to me. Your thought?

A: Why doesn't our forms have footwork.
B: The footwork is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have power generation.
B: The power generation is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have defense and counter.
B: The defense and counter are not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have entering strategy.
B: The entering strategy is not in our forms.
A: Why doesn't our forms have combo set up.
B: The combo set up is not in our forms.
A: Why didn't the form creator include those important training when he designed his form?
B: The form was designed for ...
A: ... ???

I'm having a hard time imagining a form, that has all the above attributes. Do you have a sample to show?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'd argue that if it doesn't have combos, entries, or footwork, it's probably not designed to teach transitions.

Agreed. It would need at least some of that. But I can teach transitions without power generation, and power generation (to a lesser extent) without transitions.

There are other benefits to forms - such as to teach coordination, balance, muscle memory, or conditioning.

It also depends on how the forms are used in training. For example, in the TKD schools I've studied, the goal of training forms is to get the details exact in your presentation of the form. In Karate, the goal is to learn the motions and then use Bunkai to figure out applications for the motions in the form. In some styles of Kung Fu, the forms are more about understanding how your body can move than teaching practical techniques and tactics. In Aikido and Hapkido, forms are much shorter and often involve a partner, and it is very easy to directly apply what you are learning.

(Please note I am making a lot of generalizations in my previous paragraph, if you take TKD, Karate, or Kung Fu and you train different than I said, please understand what I'm trying to say).

Agreed.

 

[Flying Crane]

Forms do not equal the system.

 

[Danny T]

While forms training can be an important aspect of the system. It is but a part of the overall curriculum.
I view forms more as cliff notes or memory reminders. They are not the system.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I'm having a hard time imagining a form, that has all the above attributes. Do you have a sample to show?

 

[skribs]

I'm having a hard time imagining a form, that has all the above attributes. Do you have a sample to show?

Even if it doesn't have all of the attributes, I'm assuming most forms which are trying to teach something directly applicable would have some of them. For example, the Taekwondo forms I learn don't have entry techniques, and the footwork and combos are somewhat stylized, but they do have defense/counter and do have power generation.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the Taekwondo forms I learn don't have entry techniques,...

Among all the 50 forms that I have learned also don't have entry techniques either. This make me to have desire to create a form that contain only entry techniques such as:

1. Uniform stance left side door entry - Right punch. your opponent blocks with right. Right hand pull his right wrist, left hand pull his right elbow, right hand enter.
2. Uniform stance front door entry - Left downward parry, right upward comb hair, left arm wrap, right hand enter.
3. Mirror stance right side door entry - Right hook punch. left arm wrap, right hand enter.
4. groin kick, face punch, ...
5. foot sweep, leading arm jam, ...
6. roundhouse kick, side kick, ...
7. ...

 

[skribs]

Among all the 50 forms that I have learned also don't have entry techniques either. This make me to have desire to create a form that contain only entry techniques such as:

1. Uniform stance left side door entry - Right punch. your opponent blocks with right. Right hand pull his right wrist, left hand pull his right elbow, right hand enter.
2. Uniform stance front door entry - Left downward parry, right upward comb hair, left arm wrap, right hand enter.
3. Mirror stance right side door entry - Right hook punch. left arm wrap, right hand enter.
4. groin kick, face punch, ...
5. foot sweep, leading arm jam, ...
6. roundhouse kick, side kick, ...
7. ...

Could it be because entry techniques are best practiced with a partner and those forms are solo?

You're reminding me of my discussion in the TKD forums about making a kicking form.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Could it be because entry techniques are best practiced with a partner and those forms are solo?

You can define a solo form as partner drills without partner.

When I walk on the beach, I like to repeat

1. left downward parry,
2. right upward comb hair,
3. left arm wrap,
4. right arm head lock.

It's 4 arm moves. But if I coordinate 1, 2 and 3, 4, it's only 2 moves. If I also coordinate 1, 2 with my right foot advance, and 3, 4 with my left foot advance, it can bland my arm move into my normal walking pattern nicely.

If I walk 2 miles, I can drill this entry technique at least 2,000 times. This enter technique will then build into my body system. This way, I can enjoy my beach walking and also my MA training at the same time (kill 2 birds with 1 stone).

You're reminding me of my discussion in the TKD forums about making a kicking form.

I have tried to do that before.

 

[wanderingstudent]

For me, that is practicing techniques. As a stand alone, I see no issue with it. Does it differ from the form? Perhaps, I don't recognize what is being shown; as any particular style. But, it might also help students understand, what the form is not showing.

I know some styles focus on technique, not so much forms. And others are the complete opposite. At the end of day, you have to find what works for you.

I, like most others planned on teaching different; than I was taught. I am at a point, where I do exactly as my teacher and his teacher and his teacher.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'm having a hard time imagining a form, that has all the above attributes. Do you have a sample to show?

I can show you a Jow Ga form that has all of these elements. For me it was common to hear teachers say that everything you need to know to do Jow Ga is in the form. If I had to make an assumption, I would say that this is probably the norm and not the exception.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Among all the 50 forms that I have learned also don't have entry techniques either. This make me to have desire to create a form that contain only entry techniques such as:

1. Uniform stance left side door entry - Right punch. your opponent blocks with right. Right hand pull his right wrist, left hand pull his right elbow, right hand enter.
2. Uniform stance front door entry - Left downward parry, right upward comb hair, left arm wrap, right hand enter.
3. Mirror stance right side door entry - Right hook punch. left arm wrap, right hand enter.
4. groin kick, face punch, ...
5. foot sweep, leading arm jam, ...
6. roundhouse kick, side kick, ...
7. ...

I think entry techniques are in the forms, but it requires some understanding before anyone can actually be able to do it. I've tried to teach my entry techniques to students and every student had the same issues which prevented them from being able to apply the technique.
1. Lack of understanding and trust in the technique. "Do the technique as it's taught vs trying to do the technique as you think it should work"
2. Lack of understanding what is before you. This makes me think of SunTzu and the quote about knowing your enemy and knowing yourself. If you cannot understand the opponent before you, then how can you pick the right technique to use against your opponent. If you don't understand your own resistance against trusting a technique, then how can you learn to use a technique as instructed.

The reason I say this is because there are some Martial Artist are awesome at applying the same techniques that millions of others train. What makes that person so much better when everyone is learning the same technique? If one can learn how to use the system and another cannot, then it's not the system that is faulty.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Taekwondo forms I learn don't have entry techniques,

If your Taekwondo has similar techniques from the Taekwondo forms I usually look at then, there are entry techniques.

This is an entry technique. 100% positive of it and I've seen people suck wind from it. I use it myself because we have similar techniques in Jow Ga. It's in the beginning form. The dead give away that it's an entry technique is because of that step forward.

This is also an entry technique

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

This entire conversation confuses me...entering techniques are basically the number one thing I see in any form I've learned.

 

[skribs]

Maybe we're thinking of different things, because I think of entering techniques as an offensive motion, and most of our forms, even if you step forward, start with a defensive motion.

One of my philosophies is to always think of blocks first, because you should use your arts for defense, not attack.