Sparring

[Gerry Seymour]

The difference between say mma drills and some forms is that mma technique comes about as a reflection of fighting. So the drill is supposed to look like what I would do if I was actually trying to apply the technique. Form work can go the other way in that people can try to apply the technique so that it looks like the form.

This last sentence is where my understanding of forms differs. Forms are not about a "look", but about learning the principles - how to move a given way while keeping balance, covering a certain angle, moving from one stance to the other, etc. With forms, the practitioner can learn to internalize these principles, then access those principles and basic movements when they are needed in application. The forms I'm familiar with (possibly not all, there are many forms I'm not acquainted with) don't create the art, they were created out of the art, based upon the techniques and movements used in combat. Practicing the form is just an additional way to work on those principles, another way of drilling. The exactness of the form, in my experience, gives the student something specific to work on when they are working solo. The variation within the form gives the advanced practitioner something to tinker with, when working solo, to explore some different weight shifts, slight alteration to stances, etc. to see what the effect on their own body would be. Then they take that information when they work with a partner, to see how that translates to an effect upon the partner. This latter part leads to new adjustments for open sparring.

It's not the only path to those adjustments, of course. I'm sure there's a parallel path somewhere in things like boxing, perhaps during shadow boxing or other drills, where solo discovery leads to adjustments in sparring.

 

[drop bear]

Would you care to elaborate on your message here, a bit?

Not everybody treats forms in the same manner. Some people believe that if a technique dosent work from a form it is because you don't understand the form well enough.

People get weird about it. And try to read too much into it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not everybody treats forms in the same manner. Some people believe that if a technique dosent work from a form it is because you don't understand the form well enough.

People get weird about it. And try to read too much into it.

I've had people make that argument. When we got to discussing it deeper, what they meant (in my vocabulary) was that the person didn't understand the technique the form was supposed to teach. They'd missed some key principle, and were only doing the movement from the form, rather than using that movement to activate, for instance, a weight shift. I think some folks get it in their heads that the form is the technique, rather than the technique being something the form is intended to help teach. I've even seen this in my own art, where someone would comment that a student didn't understand the Classical Technique (essentially, a kata of the technique) well enough, and that's why it failed. I'd assert that the student didn't understand the technique the CT was supposed to teach, which is the actual fuctional application and the principles needed to make it useful.

So, yeah, some folks get tied up in the form, rather than recognizing the form is a tool, and the techniques are the reason for the form (if it's that kind of form - not all are) rather than the result of the form.

 

[Flying Crane]

Not everybody treats forms in the same manner. Some people believe that if a technique dosent work from a form it is because you don't understand the form well enough.

People get weird about it. And try to read too much into it.

I can agree with that. Is this a reason to disparage forms across the board?

I've agreed numerous times, both in this thread and in others, that many people do not understand forms, do not practice them appropriately, and get little or nothing from it. I've also acknowledged that some forms are poorly designed and have little or nothing of value to offer. This is all my opinion.

But I still see value in my own practice for forms. I don't disparage it across the board. Just because some people do something poorly, or lack the appropriate understanding or whatever, doesn't mean the whole thing is defunct.

 

[drop bear]

I can agree with that. Is this a reason to disparage forms across the board?

I've agreed numerous times, both in this thread and in others, that many people do not understand forms, do not practice them appropriately, and get little or nothing from it. I've also acknowledged that some forms are poorly designed and have little or nothing of value to offer. This is all my opinion.

But I still see value in my own practice for forms. I don't disparage it across the board. Just because some people do something poorly, or lack the appropriate understanding or whatever, doesn't mean the whole thing is defunct.

OK. But why are you honking on to me about it. I am not disparaging forms across the board.

When I have argued forms it was because I was arguing dogma. Which is a different issue.

 

[Flying Crane]

OK. But why are you honking on to me about it. I am not disparaging forms across the board.

When I have argued forms it was because I was arguing dogma. Which is a different issue.

Are you saying you don't have an issue with forms, only with forms practiced poorly?

Because I've certainly gotten the message that you simply think forms are a joke, and that you have a willingness to argue about it.

 

[drop bear]

Are you saying you don't have an issue with forms, only with forms practiced poorly?

Because I've certainly gotten the message that you simply think forms are a joke, and that you have a willingness to argue about it.

Well don't just make the accusations. Find the evidence.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well don't just make the accusations. Find the evidence.

At this point I'm simply asking you a straight question.

I don't care if you don't like forms yourself. That's your issue and non of my business.

But it does get tiresome when the forms are disparaged across the board, over and over here in the forums. So, just so I'm clear, what is your position?

 

[drop bear]

At this point I'm simply asking you a straight question.

I don't care if you don't like forms yourself. That's your issue and non of my business.

But it does get tiresome when the forms are disparaged across the board, over and over here in the forums. So, just so I'm clear, what is your position?

Forms are fine for what they are. I dont like them so i dont do them.

But i dont like when they are treated as dogma.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well don't just make the accusations. Find the evidence.

I don't think he was making an accusation - just asking you to clarify based upon the impression he'd gotten. I'll admit I had a similar impression until your last couple of posts, so I apparently misread your intent.

 

[drop bear]

I don't think he was making an accusation - just asking you to clarify based upon the impression he'd gotten. I'll admit I had a similar impression until your last couple of posts, so I apparently misread your intent.

People read what they want to i suppose.

 

[Flying Crane]

error

 

[Flying Crane]

Forms are fine for what they are. I dont like them so i dont do them.

But i dont like when they are treated as dogma.

I can live with that. Thank you.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

People read what they want to i suppose.

Not always. Sometimes, it's just a miscommunication. People read what they think is there - sometimes driven by their expectation, and sometimes driven by a difference in vocabulary, communication style, or any number of other things. This is (and always has been) part of the difficulty of text-based communication. Your expression and voice likely would have been clearer to me than your words. Words are far more ambiguous than full, in-person communication.

 

[JowGaWolf]

They don't make fun of people learning techniques at a slow pace, they make fun when they see techniques that have zero level of effectiveness

Not sure what making fun of people has to do with anything.

Again, you're confusing drilling techniques with forms/kata. Forms/Kata have more in common with dancing than an excercise drill.

When a martial artist does a form/kata, he/she is "drilling the techniques." That's what forms are "drilling the technique"

 

[drop bear]

Not always. Sometimes, it's just a miscommunication. People read what they think is there - sometimes driven by their expectation, and sometimes driven by a difference in vocabulary, communication style, or any number of other things. This is (and always has been) part of the difficulty of text-based communication. Your expression and voice likely would have been clearer to me than your words. Words are far more ambiguous than full, in-person communication.

Doubtful. I am worse in person.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Doubtful. I am worse in person.

Then we'd need beer.

 

[Touch Of Death]

The opposite of form, is slop. Just sayin'

 

[Hanzou]

I think it depends how each of you define "form". To me, a form is more like a kata - something you practice to specifications, sometimes without a partner. However, there's a blurry line there, so I can see his point, as well. In our style, the "kata" are called "Classical Techniques" or "Classical Forms". They are a very specific version of the technique, used for teaching specific movements, working with a semi-cooperative partner. These don't look like the kata/forms you'd see in competitions, and some show up in real fighting (self-defense) situations, while others are for teaching specific principles. While those principles would show up in real-world use, the form won't. These Classical Techniques are somewhere between the WC forms in the videos and BJJ's shrimping exercises (which I hate, by the way - good stuff, but I hate doing them).

I think we're entering a slippery slope when we start claiming that a Bjj guy is doing the equivalent of a Kung Fu form when they're practicing a kimura, or that doing jumping jacks is the equivalent of a Kung fu form or kata.

Katas/Forms are very specific things tied to martial arts. They're so specific that a mental image pops in your head as soon as you mention them.

Isn't core strength and good stance part of the toolbox for winning a fight?

Sure, but forms aren't the only way to develop core strength and balance. It can even be argued that they aren't even close to being the best way.

The idea of "secret techniques" is, IMO, more marketing than realistic.

I agree.

I've actually been working on a set of forms like this for my students, to be able to help them learn new techniques by saying, "Okay, you're going to be using this footwork combination from the first kata." Basically, they should help the less-coordinated and less-experienced students improve their movement on their own. It'd also be a tool for highly motivated students who wish I offered more classes, so they can practice more on their own.

I'm of the camp that says that the only thing you should be drilling are the actual techniques. The superfluous stuff is just fluff that dilutes your training time.

As Bruce Lee said: "Anyone who places so much time on kata is wasting their time".

 

[Hanzou]

There are a number of factors, including but not limited to: How the artists fits with the art, the quality of the school, time training, attention to detail, experience etc.

You do understand that the quality of the school, the time spent training, the attention to detail, and the level of experience all leads back to training right?

Further, I think if you've reached the level of instructor and have been practicing an art for decades, at that point you should be a pretty good fit.

He did not crumble down in pain after the first few kicks

Simply because he didn't crumble doesn't mean the leg kicks weren't damaging his mobility. His entire fighting method changed after those first two leg kicks, and you could see how desperate he become and how erratic his movements become. Those kicks were doing some damage.

You said 'any context' not just fighting outside on concrete.

Feel free to name some contexts where the Kung Fu fighter could have prevailed, considering that he was outclassed on just about every level.

And how much training did the Muay Thai fighter have?

Certainly not 30 years worth.

For an art to be traditional the art does not necessarily have to be old, only the traditions it follows have to be.

There's a difference between a traditional MA, and a modern MA that pretends to be traditional.