How do your forms/katas progress?

[jobo]

Kneeling down and punch and standing up is faster for me than to do a kick on the ground.

Kicking someone in the ribs is a different motion than the kicks I'm taught on standing opponents. It involves bringing the leg back to generate the power. If I were to kick someone in the ribs like I kick someone in a standing position there would be no momentum at all going into the kick. Then they could grab my leg and trip me over.

The same applies to a kick down into the face. We do use some of those, but we much more often teach the kneeling punch, because it can be very easy for someone to trip you from the prone position. The kneeling stance is a much more stable platform to strike down from.

A downward kick also lacks the ability to generate power from the ground. Of course, the same argument could be made for a downward punch, but it's easier to put your shoulder into a downward punch than your hip into a downward kick.

Many of our techniques on a downed attacker also occur after a take-down. In many of those we end up knelt down and still have hold of them. A kick wouldn't work from that position. If we're standing, we're usually holding onto the wrist, and would prefer to break the wrist or elbow than kick to the ribs.

Basically, my "weak argument" is that I prefer a more stable platform where I still have hold of them and am less likely to be tripped.

well it was squating and punching, kneeling is more complex again, fine if you find yourself in a kneeling position, but it would be very silly to go from standing to kneeling deliberately, he may have friends, sort of thing.

yes that kick isn't used in ma, the argument is it should be,

we have an on going debate about my kicking techneque, which is more football, ( soccer) than karate, it has its limitations barefooted, but works a treat with a pair of doc martins on. Which is far more likely on a trip to the pub

 

[skribs]

well it was squating and punching, kneeling is more complex again, fine if you find yourself in a kneeling position, but it would be very silly to go from standing to kneeling deliberately, he may have friends, sort of thing.

yes that kick isn't used in ma, the argument is it should be,

we have an on going debate about my kicking techneque, which is more football, ( soccer) than karate, it has its limitations barefooted, but works a treat with a pair of doc martins on. Which is far more likely on a trip to the pub

From a front stance, you pick up your rear heel and then put your knee on the ground. Then you straighten you rear leg to stand up.

Kneeling is not very complex at all.

EDIT to clarify. Kneeling is so simple I've never had to explain the technique before, so I'm not sure how you get that it's so difficult to do.

 

[Flying Crane]

There was a HUGE debate about this in the Taekwondo forums about the practicality of Taekwondo sparring techniques and tactics in a self defense situation. My opinion is that it CAN be effective, but you can't use it expecting it to be like it is on the mat, where the ground may be different and the person you're kicking can grab your leg.



I remember watching a lot of the very flowy Chinese forms and thinking it was more of a dance. Having taken Hapkido for a few years, and then watching Chinese forms again, I see a lot of throwing motions. However, they seem to be interpreted to the uninitiated (as I once was) as either a dance or some weird slaps and strikes. I wonder if this is where part of the disconnect is.

With that said, I don't know that anyone is arguing that the Chinese don't know what they were doing.



Care to elaborate?

Edit: I see you've posted some videos (as I was writing this post). However, they aren't loading for me right now...

The legitimate Chinese forms that’s I have learned and seen have not been showy or flowery. What you may have seen were examples of Modern Wushu, which was developed by the Chinese government in the 1950s as a cultural expression and performance and competition sport. It is based on the older fighting methods, but was altered for aesthetic reasons and deliberately separated from useful combat applications. Now it is essentially an acrobatics floor routine with a martial flavor. And that is what it is intended to be.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

I remember watching a lot of the very flowy Chinese forms and thinking it was more of a dance. Having taken Hapkido for a few years, and then watching Chinese forms again, I see a lot of throwing motions. However, they seem to be interpreted to the uninitiated (as I once was) as either a dance or some weird slaps and strikes. I wonder if this is where part of the disconnect is.

With that said, I don't know that anyone is arguing that the Chinese don't know what they were doing.

In some ways the traditional Chinese forms were specifically designed like this. My instructor told me that the old Chinese Masters were very protective of their more advanced techniques and so hid their "secret" moves in the forms and made the forms look more like dance than combat, so that only devoted students of the style could discover the more advanced techniques and fully utilise the form. He demonstrated such a technique that was hidden in the very first form I ever learned. The movement was a seemingly random circular motion with the arms that on the surface appeared to be just fluff, however it turns out that the movement was actually a type of joint lock.

One thing I found odd when I was training weapons is that the civilian forms followed the whole "flowery hidden secrets" concept, whereas the military forms were a lot more straightforward in their approach. For example, the Jian is a civilian's weapon and the form is almost like a dance, weaving back and forth with a lot of seemingly silly and pointless movements. By contrast, the Dao is a military weapon and the form reflects this with strikes and blocks that are very easy to understand and use.

EDIT: Here's an example of this in action. The first video is a variation on the standard Jian form, whereas the second is a military Dao form.

The differences in approach are very apparent, even taking into account the physical differences in the 2 weapons.

 

[jobo]

From a front stance, you pick up your rear heel and then put your knee on the ground. Then you straighten you rear leg to stand up.

Kneeling is not very complex at all.

EDIT to clarify. Kneeling is so simple I've never had to explain the technique before, so I'm not sure how you get that it's so difficult to do.

kneeling and punching its far more complex movement pattern, than simply kicking someone in ribs, you then of course need to stand up, which is more complex again, all that's. Complexity takes more time as well as more effort.

what easier AND more efficient, kicking a football or kneeling down and punching it. Replace football with person and its exactly the,same

 

[hoshin1600]

I'm not sure we are on different sides of this argument?

with out the in-depth knowledge of some, id say that the transition from Chinese to Japanese ma is more cultural than lost techniques, the. Chinese being more fluid and dance like the Japanese being more stiff and powerful short movements.

i don't think one is superior to the other, just different, if there were lost skills, rather than forgotten as they didn't work in the new style, Chinese ma would be better and it's not

i think we agree on performance. but what i see is that the Chinese seem to have a purposefull application for each movement where the Okinawan and Japanese are more vague about the reasons behind each movement. but like i said i am not a Chinese expert so i am willing to be corrected on that.

 

[skribs]

In some ways the traditional Chinese forms were specifically designed like this. My instructor told me that the old Chinese Masters were very protective of their more advanced techniques and so hid their "secret" moves in the forms and made the forms look more like dance than combat, so that only devoted students of the style could fully utilise the form. He demonstrated such a technique that was hidden in the very first form I ever learned. The movement was a seemingly random circular motion with the arms that on the surface appeared to be just fluff, however it turns out that the movement was actually a type of joint lock.

This is what I was talking about. I tended to think of forms like Taekwondo, where a form is almost always a combination of blocks and strikes. Yet in Kung Fu there are typically a lot of locks and throws.

kneeling and punching its far more complex movement pattern, than simply kicking someone in ribs, you then of course need to stand up, which is more complex again, all that's. Complexity takes more time as well as more effort.

what easier AND more efficient, kicking a football or kneeling down and punching it. Replace football with person and its exactly the,same

You drop your knee to kneel. You straighten your knee to stand up. It's literally one body part moving for the process.

I've been teaching Taekwondo for 3 years now, and I've NEVER had someone say that kneeling is too complicated. I have never once had a single person ask "how do I kneel? Can you give me any pointers on how to kneel down and stand up?"

It is in all likelihood the simplest technique I've ever had to teach. Kneeling and standing back up is simpler than any punch, any kick, any joint lock. I've spent more time teaching proper breathing and proper kiyaps than I have kneeling. I've taught 3.5-4-year olds how to count to 10, and they don't have a problem kneeling.

How in the world is it so complicated to put your knee down?

 

[jobo]

This is what I was talking about. I tended to think of forms like Taekwondo, where a form is almost always a combination of blocks and strikes. Yet in Kung Fu there are typically a lot of locks and throws.



You drop your knee to kneel. You straighten your knee to stand up. It's literally one body part moving for the process.

I've been teaching Taekwondo for 3 years now, and I've NEVER had someone say that kneeling is too complicated. I have never once had a single person ask "how do I kneel? Can you give me any pointers on how to kneel down and stand up?"

It is in all likelihood the simplest technique I've ever had to teach. Kneeling and standing back up is simpler than any punch, any kick, any joint lock. I've spent more time teaching proper breathing and proper kiyaps than I have kneeling. I've taught 3.5-4-year olds how to count to 10, and they don't have a problem kneeling.

How in the world is it so complicated to put your knee down?

i didn't say it was to complicated at all, i said it was a more complex movement than kicking someone , which is a simple statement of fact, how many moving parts have you to kneel, punch and then stand again against just one kick

and that's still not addressing that the kick will deliver far more kinetic energy that the kneeling punch, and in a faster time, its just all round better, and you don't get you trousers dirty

 

[Gerry Seymour]

what we are actually talking about here is realist art VS abstract art.
does the kata look like real fighting moves or are they abstractions of movement. there is nothing wrong with abstraction . sometimes abstractions are more real. but where i have a problem is when someone looks at the abstract art and says "oh see that..now that is clearly a painting of the Millennium Flacon" when it was painted by Van gogh.

Abstractions are a basis for improvising, rather than for specific repetition.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well it was squating and punching, kneeling is more complex again, fine if you find yourself in a kneeling position, but it would be very silly to go from standing to kneeling deliberately, he may have friends, sort of thing.

yes that kick isn't used in ma, the argument is it should be,

we have an on going debate about my kicking techneque, which is more football, ( soccer) than karate, it has its limitations barefooted, but works a treat with a pair of doc martins on. Which is far more likely on a trip to the pub

I use (and teach) soccer-style kicks - they seem easier to lean and have some nice MA applications.

I find use for both downward punches and stomps/kicks when they are on the ground. It just depends upon my body position and the situation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is what I was talking about. I tended to think of forms like Taekwondo, where a form is almost always a combination of blocks and strikes. Yet in Kung Fu there are typically a lot of locks and throws.



You drop your knee to kneel. You straighten your knee to stand up. It's literally one body part moving for the process.

I've been teaching Taekwondo for 3 years now, and I've NEVER had someone say that kneeling is too complicated. I have never once had a single person ask "how do I kneel? Can you give me any pointers on how to kneel down and stand up?"

It is in all likelihood the simplest technique I've ever had to teach. Kneeling and standing back up is simpler than any punch, any kick, any joint lock. I've spent more time teaching proper breathing and proper kiyaps than I have kneeling. I've taught 3.5-4-year olds how to count to 10, and they don't have a problem kneeling.

How in the world is it so complicated to put your knee down?

You are confusing “complex” with “difficult”. They often correlate, but are not actually synonymous. If you are standing upright, kneeling and punching is more complex than a weight shift as kick. From a wide horse stance, it might be a wash. From a wide forward (deep) stance, kneeling and punching is less complex.

 

[skribs]

i didn't say it was to complicated at all, i said it was a more complex movement than kicking someone , which is a simple statement of fact, how many moving parts have you to kneel, punch and then stand again against just one kick

and that's still not addressing that the kick will deliver far more kinetic energy that the kneeling punch, and in a faster time, its just all round better, and you don't get you trousers dirty

I can kneel and punch faster than I can soccer kick, especially with no run-up. If you're talking about dribbling, then yes a soccer kick would be faster, but it would have no power to speak of and I might as well be tickling them.

Kneeling is less complex than kicking, or heck even stepping.

If I was to teach the technique to kick to the ribs, I would have teach people to go against kicking training I've given them, because in a normal kick you bring the knee up instead of bringing the foot back. With a soccer kick, it's the opposite. With a kneel and a punch, every single student I've ever taught has figured out you put your knee down, you ball up your fist and punch just like if you were standing up.

I've spent a LOT of time teaching people to take someone down, but once they're down, kneeling and punching has been automatic, when I say "put your knee down and punch them".

You are confusing “complex” with “difficult”. They often correlate, but are not actually synonymous. If you are standing upright, kneeling and punching is more complex than a weight shift as kick. From a wide horse stance, it might be a wash. From a wide forward (deep) stance, kneeling and punching is less complex.

Our self defense usually ends with:

• Wide horse stance at a 45-degree angle, easy to put the nearer knee down
• Front stance next to attacker, easy to put the knee down

Very rarely are we in an upright position, as we prefer to spread our base for balance and power. The few times we are, we usually have a wrist lock and will go for a break instead of a strike.

If we're in an upright position it's usually because we've done something wrong.

 

[jobo]

I use (and teach) soccer-style kicks - they seem easier to lean and have some nice MA applications.

I find use for both downward punches and stomps/kicks when they are on the ground. It just depends upon my body position and the situation.

I'm not sure you are ever going to get much force in a downward punch? , you get some from dropping your body weight as you go in the squat,but the punch its self,? The mechanics are all wrong

 

[jobo]

I can kneel and punch faster than I can soccer kick, especially with no run-up. If you're talking about dribbling, then yes a soccer kick would be faster, but it would have no power to speak of and I might as well be tickling them.

Kneeling is less complex than kicking, or heck even stepping.

If I was to teach the technique to kick to the ribs, I would have teach people to go against kicking training I've given them, because in a normal kick you bring the knee up instead of bringing the foot back. With a soccer kick, it's the opposite. With a kneel and a punch, every single student I've ever taught has figured out you put your knee down, you ball up your fist and punch just like if you were standing up.

I've spent a LOT of time teaching people to take someone down, but once they're down, kneeling and punching has been automatic, when I say "put your knee down and punch them".



Our self defense usually ends with:

• Wide horse stance at a 45-degree angle, easy to put the nearer knee down
• Front stance next to attacker, easy to put the knee down

Very rarely are we in an upright position, as we prefer to spread our base for balance and power. The few times we are, we usually have a wrist lock and will go for a break instead of a strike.

If we're in an upright position it's usually because we've done something wrong.

that only because you don't practise soccer kicks, if you did you would find it a vast improvement on you current thing,

its a,shame you don't live closer, we could have some fun, with you trying to kneel down and punch a ball, faster than i can kick the ball away from you, that should prove the point

or we could see if you can punch the ball 80 yards, that should sort out which is more powerful

 

[skribs]

I'm not sure you are ever going to get much force in a downward punch? , you get some from dropping your body weight as you go in the squat,but the punch its self,? The mechanics are all wrong

Our kids have an easier time breaking a board by kneeling and hammer-fisting than by kicking, and we only really do the hammer-fist during testing. That tells me it's got decent power and it's pretty natural to do.

that only because you don't practise soccer kicks, if you did you would find it a vast improvement on you current thing,

its a,shame you don't live closer, we could have some fun, with you trying to kneel down and punch a ball, faster than i can kick the ball away from you, that should prove the point

or we could see if you can punch the ball 80 yards, that should sort out which is more powerful

Yes, you can dribble the ball away faster than I can punch it. Would that kick have much power? You can also kick harder than I can punch. But can you do that just as fast as I can kneel and punch? You're making points I've already argued against.

We're usually kneeling down with a grip on their arm as part of the take-down. So there's a level of control there as well as the finishing blow.

As I said, there's a difference between a kick to the ribs and a punch to the face, especially when that punch is going to bounce their head off the ground.

 

[jobo]

Our kids have an easier time breaking a board by kneeling and hammer-fisting than by kicking, and we only really do the hammer-fist during testing. That tells me it's got decent power and it's pretty natural to do.



Yes, you can dribble the ball away faster than I can punch it. Would that kick have much power? You can also kick harder than I can punch. But can you do that just as fast as I can kneel and punch? You're making points I've already argued against.

We're usually kneeling down with a grip on their arm as part of the take-down. So there's a level of control there as well as the finishing blow.

As I said, there's a difference between a kick to the ribs and a punch to the face, especially when that punch is going to bounce their head off the ground.

no i can kick the ball hard enough to travel 80 yards faster than you can kneel down and punch it, i could just as easily kick them in the head, but its a bad idea as the deceleration injuries you foot, i know this from hard experience ribs are better

 

[Flying Crane]

In some ways the traditional Chinese forms were specifically designed like this. My instructor told me that the old Chinese Masters were very protective of their more advanced techniques and so hid their "secret" moves in the forms and made the forms look more like dance than combat, so that only devoted students of the style could discover the more advanced techniques and fully utilise the form. He demonstrated such a technique that was hidden in the very first form I ever learned. The movement was a seemingly random circular motion with the arms that on the surface appeared to be just fluff, however it turns out that the movement was actually a type of joint lock.

One thing I found odd when I was training weapons is that the civilian forms followed the whole "flowery hidden secrets" concept, whereas the military forms were a lot more straightforward in their approach. For example, the Jian is a civilian's weapon and the form is almost like a dance, weaving back and forth with a lot of seemingly silly and pointless movements. By contrast, the Dao is a military weapon and the form reflects this with strikes and blocks that are very easy to understand and use.

EDIT: Here's an example of this in action. The first video is a variation on the standard Jian form, whereas the second is a military Dao form.

The differences in approach are very apparent, even taking into account the physical differences in the 2 weapons.

ok, you’ve attached videos for a Chen Taiji sword form and compare with a Korean dao instead of a Chinese dao, so it’s not an exactly accurate comparison. What you will see in manny examples is both jian and dao done in the context of Modern Wushu as I explained earlier. Both weapons have their Modern variation and can be very different from the proper combative methods.

The issue is less straight forward than that. A dao is easier to learn so was easier to train troops with. However, that does not mean that the jian is not a military weapon. A sword was a sidearm, meaning it was a backup weapon. The bulk of troops would be carrying polearms, they are much cheaper and easier to make and require far less training. So when equipping and training the masses for your army, that is where you get the most bang for your buck. But the sword still had a place on the battlefield even if it was carried by the officers or those of wealth or higher social rank.

There is also a difference between a civilians jian and a military jian. The civilian could carry a lighter weapon as personal defense was less likely to need to defeat an armored enemy. A military jian was more robust and needs to survive the rigors of the battlefield and be able to defeat armor. Techniques and methods would also vary accordingly.

 

[hoshin1600]

i was going to address these comments but it seems @Flying Crane beat me to it.

I remember watching a lot of the very flowy Chinese forms and thinking it was more of a dance.

id say that the transition from Chinese to Japanese ma is more cultural than lost techniques, the. Chinese being more fluid and dance like the Japanese being more stiff and powerful short movements.

The legitimate Chinese forms that’s I have learned and seen have not been showy or flowery. What you may have seen were examples of Modern Wushu, which was developed by the Chinese government in the 1950s as a cultural expression and performance and competition sport. It is based on the older fighting methods, but was altered for aesthetic reasons and deliberately separated from useful combat applications. Now it is essentially an acrobatics floor routine with a martial flavor. And that is what it is intended to be.

the only thing i would add is that we need to remember that karate is a branch of a much older form of Chinese fighting. specifically pre- boxer rebellion. these arts were not flowery like we see today. also that when Flying crane says it was developed by the government there is the other side of the coin which is that other arts where suppressed almost to the point of extinction. this makes the study of history all the more difficult. even in the 1980's there were combative arts that many masters would not admit they knew. i also believe this is in part why there is ans was so much secrecy about actual applications.

 

[Flying Crane]

i was going to address these comments but it seems @Flying Crane beat me to it.







the only thing i would add is that we need to remember that karate is a branch of a much older form of Chinese fighting. specifically pre- boxer rebellion. these arts were not flowery like we see today. also that when Flying crane says it was developed by the government there is the other side of the coin which is that other arts where suppressed almost to the point of extinction. this makes the study of history all the more difficult. even in the 1970's there were combative arts that many masters would not admit they knew. i also believe this is in part why there is ans was so much secrecy about actual applications.

And to reiterate, any form that I have seen from a legitimate method of Chinese combatives has not been flowery or showy. I have only seen flowery and showy in the context of Modern Wushu.

I do believe that Chinese forms can contain subtleties that may mean that not all applications are obvious. They can also be stylized with the purpose of training certain movement patterns through what could be called “exaggerated” movements, but I still do not agree that those are showy or flowery.

 

[hoshin1600]

This is what I was talking about. I tended to think of forms like Taekwondo, where a form is almost always a combination of blocks and strikes.

i do not mean to be condescending in any way but to view forms as a string of blocks, kicks and punches is the most superficial way to view them. that is not your fault. it is the way TKD approaches their art. there can be so very much more going on in them.