Learning Versus Understanding

[Gerry Seymour]

Are katas and forms synonymous?

I tend to use the terms mostly interchangeably. If I draw a distinction, it's that in my head "kata" are longer forms.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

"kata" are longer forms.

Chang/Yang Taiji long form has 108 moves. I have not heard any Karate Kata has that many moves.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would like to think in the reverse order.

First you decide what finish move that you want to use (for example, a neck choke). you then try to find a path that can help you to reach there (such as a front kick, foot sweep, leading arm jam). It doesn't matter whether this combo sequence is in any form/Kata or not. The advantage of this approach is your MA skill doesn't have to be restricted by the form/Katas that you have trained. You will have much more freedom this way. There are many entering strategies that can help you to apply your "finish strategy" depending on your opponent's different responds.

entering strategy -> finish strategy

IMO, the point of kata is not the specific sequence of techniques or responses. Yes, that's useful for practicing transitions, etc. However, the real value can be broken into two very broad categories:

Physical: the weight shifts, stances, etc. that you get to practice over and over. These often occur in more than one kata, and become that basic movement set ("just movement") that flows without thought.

Principles: the kata force the student into specific situations (transitions, balances, etc.) where specific principles can be learnt. I think this is what Bill is talking about. The forms in my art follow movement sequences that are not always useful as-is. Why are they that way? They force the student to use the principle in question, rather than muscling or using speed to compensate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Chang/Yang Taiji long form has 108 moves. I have not heard any Karate Kata has that many moves.

I'm not comparing your "form" to someone else's "kata". I'm talking about how I use the words. When I use the word "kata" I'm usually referring to a "form" that is longer than other "forms". I rarely refer to shorter "forms" as "kata" - they are just "forms". There's no logic to it - just how I use them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I like what I hear, but one thing stands out. Instict is king. That never changes, but relying on instinct is like relying upon your muscle to hit hard. To be good at fighting you have to be able to think. To see and anylyze. To not only see the current opening but the next opening. Fighting is like chess, the best fighters see several moves ahead. I remember learning chess. I spent many hours learning end game. You understand the end game you understand what you need to do to set it up. Instict, merely focuses on the here and now. Strategy wins fights, instict merely blunders into it. While training instict is good (and nessecary), too much and it leads to ghost fighting. Where the body reacts, but there is nothing there. Learning is how, understanding is when.

Instinct can be replaced with learned responses. Learned responses (in this context), if rooted in solid principles, are based on effective pattern matching. We match patterns of input to patterns of output. That pattern of output, in many arts/styles comes from kata and styles. It's driven by principles, which include strategy, psychology, and kinesiology.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agree that 2 persons on the same level, luck may play some important rule even in the grappling art. This is why the "strategy" is important. If you can lead your opponent into an area that you are more familiar with than he does, you will have advantage.

In a contest, this is perhaps effective. In self-defense, there's no time for figuring out what area you know that the attacker does not. Strategy gives way to principles of effective technique, psychology, etc.

 

[JowGaWolf]

There's even a world of difference even between "doing" and "understanding".

There are parts of my art I didn't understand for years, though I learned to do them fairly early. I could do the technique, and had no idea it wasn't quite the right way, until one day I finally understood the principle, and suddenly it was much more effective.

To my mind, "mastery" is simply short-hand for understanding the principles. It is a starting point for a deeper level of understanding.

Something similar recently happened to me with a technique that I was working (grabbing punches). I learned that the technique in my system for grabbing the punch is dependent on the wrist. Then I did the same technique but with a shorter reach. I discovered that I can grab a punch by locking it between my wrist and forearm. It was a stronger grip on the punch making it really difficult to pull the hand back. The real surprise is that it looked similar to the praying mantis system. Like the lead arm in the picture below.

I don't know praying mantis, so I don't know how closely the shortened Jow Ga technique is to actual praying mantis. But I think if I put a video of the technique, people would assume that it was a technique from praying mantis. I'm also learning that I probably should be doing some finger conditioning since lately I've been getting punched in the fingers because my timing is off.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Instinct can be replaced with learned responses. Learned responses (in this context), if rooted in solid principles, are based on effective pattern matching. We match patterns of input to patterns of output. That pattern of output, in many arts/styles comes from kata and styles. It's driven by principles, which include strategy, psychology, and kinesiology.

You just reminded me of something my sifu stated. He told me that the strategy is actually in the forms. Certain combinations are trained together because that combination contains the strategy.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Certain combinations are trained together because that combination contains the strategy.

The most common striking combo is:

- right hand on your opponent's wrist,
- left hand on his elbow,
- right hand on his neck.

If you can move from wrist -> elbow -> neck, you will have a successful "entering strategy".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You just reminded me of something my sifu stated. He told me that the strategy is actually in the forms. Certain combinations are trained together because that combination contains the strategy.

When I use the term "strategy" in classes, I'm usually teaching about multiple attackers or the potential thereof. Everything else comes down to "principles" (a term whose usage I think I mostly picked up from Guru Mike Casto of Anjing Gembala Penchak Silat - which I think I just misspelled). I suspect what I call "principles" would be closer to your sifu's use of "strategy". Or maybe not - I'd love to find out some day. Maybe yet another something new to learn from another art!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Something similar recently happened to me with a technique that I was working (grabbing punches). I learned that the technique in my system for grabbing the punch is dependent on the wrist. Then I did the same technique but with a shorter reach. I discovered that I can grab a punch by locking it between my wrist and forearm. It was a stronger grip on the punch making it really difficult to pull the hand back. The real surprise is that it looked similar to the praying mantis system. Like the lead arm in the picture below.

I don't know praying mantis, so I don't know how closely the shortened Jow Ga technique is to actual praying mantis. But I think if I put a video of the technique, people would assume that it was a technique from praying mantis. I'm also learning that I probably should be doing some finger conditioning since lately I've been getting punched in the fingers because my timing is off.

This is part of the reason I love to watch videos of other styles, and attend seminars in other styles. I always learn something about my own style along the way. My biggest gain in my understanding of NGA came right after attending a seminar in Yanagi-ryu. The explanations of their techniques gave me a new way to think about my own.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

When I use the term "strategy" in classes, I'm usually teaching about multiple attackers or the potential thereof. Everything else comes down to "principles" (a term whose usage I think I mostly picked up from Guru Mike Casto of Anjing Gembala Penchak Silat - which I think I just misspelled).

To me, the term "strategy" and "principle" are the same. For example, will you call the following "strategy" or "principle"?

- Attack both legs if you can, otherwise attack one leg first and then attack the other leg afterward.
- Attack in one direction, when your opponent resists, borrow his force, and attack the opposite direction.
- When your opponent attacks you, you move yourself to be outside of his attacking path, borrow his force, add your own force, and lead him into the emptiness.
- If you kick, I'll run you down. If you punch, I'll run you down. If you do nothing, I'll still run you down.
- Redirect your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm.
- Jam your leading leg on your opponent's leading leg so he can't kick you at that particular moment.
- ...

 

[JowGaWolf]

The most common striking combo is:

- right hand on your opponent's wrist,
- left hand on his elbow,
- right hand on his neck.

If you can move from wrist -> elbow -> neck, you will have a successful "entering strategy".

What system is this combo for?

 

[drop bear]

In a contest, this is perhaps effective. In self-defense, there's no time for figuring out what area you know that the attacker does not. Strategy gives way to principles of effective technique, psychology, etc.

Strategy is more important in self defence as your environment can have more impact.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What system is this combo for?

The praying mantis system "磨盘手(Mo Pan Shou) - 3 circular palms". Here is an example. It can be used to set up many "finish moves".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To me, the term "strategy" and "principle" are the same. For example, will you call the following "strategy" or "principle"?

- Attack both legs if you can, otherwise attack one leg first and then attack the other leg afterward.
- Attack in one direction, when your opponent resists, borrow his force, and attack the opposite direction.
- When your opponent attacks you, you move yourself to be outside of his attacking path, borrow his force, add your own force, and lead him into the emptiness.
- If you kick, I'll run you down. If you punch, I'll run you down. If you do nothing, I'll still run you down.
- Redirect your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm.
- Jam your leading leg on your opponent's leading leg so he can't kick you at that particular moment.
- ...

That was rather my point - the way different people use them may or may not overlap. I posted my comment to remove any confusion over my usage. You and I use them a bit differently, but not so much so that we can't read and respond to each other's comments, so long as we are aware of the differences and don't get wrapped up in the semantics.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Strategy is more important in self defence as your environment can have more impact.

Here, I think you're referring to what I'd term "principles". Strategy (my definition, not necessarily yours), refers to high-level plans that are executed through tactics. In battlefield terms (an easy analogy for my usage), a General deals with strategy, while a Sergeant deals with tactics. So, in martial arts terms, what I call strategy is the planning before a contest ("You know he has some trouble with his left leg, so keep him moving left as much as you can - keep his weight on that leg.")

Clearly, that's not something you get to do before a self-defense situation. Just as clearly, that's probably not what you mean when you use the word. I think your usage would fall within "principles" for me. That's only a guess, since I don't yet know what your definition is. You could argue that strategy includes things like maneuvering to more stable ground, and I'd have no problem with that definition - which would certainly be important in self-defense.

 

[Lameman]

The last time I got jumped, I saw it comming some 30 feet out. I had plenty of time to straegize. Not always the case. I have also turned around to find someone in full tackle. If you find yourself in a fight half a second before contact. You just act. Half a minute. You have time to strategize. Strategy is the overarching plan. Tactics, or principals (if I understand the meaning), are used to implement that plan. Walking home from the library one day. Four guys jumped out of te bushes. First one was in mid punch, counterclockwise roll to an inverted arm. He fell and I have a bat coming in from the left, a chain from the right. Block the bat, take the chain, fight lasted maybe 6 seconds. There was no strategy, no tactics. 30 feet and I have worlds of time to think all kinds of things. (I did think of running away, but I figured, since they were no danger, let them get the stupid out of their system. Without the risk of them attacking someone else. They attacked me and no one got hurt. Hopfully they went home and didn't do it again. Maybe not, who knows.)

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

(I did think of running away, but I figured, since they were no danger, let them get the stupid out of their system. Without the risk of them attacking someone else. They attacked me and no one got hurt. Hopfully they went home and didn't do it again. Maybe not, who knows.)

How did you have time to evaluate that people attacking you with weapons were no danger in that half a second? And why would you assume they werent?

 

[Lameman]

Sorry, the 30 feet, was a different situation all together. Edit: Honestly weapons are often more of a handicap then an advantage. They don't tend to concern me much since they usually mean that the person can't fight. And is probably a coward. Re-EDIT: Give a man a knife and you make him weaker. Because he forgets about his other weapons.