Traditional or MMA preference

[A.R.K.]

Twinkletoes,

That was a good post in regards to forms, the lack of realistic need for forms and disciplines that don't use them.

Bravo
:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm just gonna keep posting reasons to learn and to teach those, "useless," forms, as an opposition to the prevailing dogma.

#4: Students need forms to organize their efforts, and to provide a refuge from the sheer violence of martial arts.

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I'm just gonna keep posting reasons to learn and to teach those, "useless," forms, as an opposition to the prevailing dogma.

How about this ... anyone who has done a form OVER a thousand times will know its secrets start to reveal themselves ... hidden applictions, combinations, flow from one opponent to the next without hesitation, etc..

But I wonder how many people HAVEN'T done any form at least 1000 times, yet criticizes their value ...

 

[ob2c]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
I would venture to say that without even realizing it, most of us cross-train because we have no other choice.

I practice what most of you would say is a TMA, American Kenpo. But I have to go for private instruction when I can, and currently I'm having problems keeping a training partner here. So most of my realistic training (as opposed to working on a dummy or in the air) is working out with other martial artists in other styles. This is a sort of cross training, and I've noticed that it gives me a little different perspective and a better understanding of my own art. So I say mix it up, but you don't have to abandon what you are doing just to "round out " or "complete" your style. I'm not an advanced student by any stretch, but sometimes you does what ya gotta do, with or without that "solid base in one style."

 

[A.R.K.]

I'm just gonna keep posting reasons to learn and to teach those, "useless," forms, as an opposition to the prevailing dogma.

I don't think it is a case of being useless, bad or wrong. It is a case of are they necessary. The answer would depend on how you view your training and what you expect/want out of it. If you are training in a martial art with an eye on items other than/in addition to self defense they are wonderful. If you train in what I refer to as a martial discipline where the eye is on self defense in realistic situations then they are fine to train in but not necessarily needed. As mentioned many disciplines do not have forms and do just fine without them. I haven't taught forms in quite some time, however, for personal enjoyment I like three in particular. They help my focus and warm up before work out sessions. But I personally feel that I get more out of 'shadow' sparring/fighting than a prearranged form in regards to realistic aspects.

#4: Students need forms to organize their efforts, and to provide a refuge from the sheer violence of martial arts.

Could you clarify this for me? Martial arts are inherently violent, that is the reason they exist. Forms are in simplistic terms, pre arranged fights. How would a form then provide a refuge? Not nit picking you here, I just feel I am misunderstanding your message

:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

#5: Forms teach us the true proportions of the body, and how to measure distances and ranges in individual terms.

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by A.R.K.
... Martial arts are inherently violent, that is the reason they exist. Forms are in simplistic terms, pre arranged fights. How would a form then provide a refuge? ...

(A) One approach is that martial arts can be a non-violent response to violence. More skill eliminates the need for excessive force. Any moron can kill someone -- it takes SKILL to control a situation.

(B) Forms are not meant to be "pre-arranged" but instead are a series of permutations of technique combinations and situational transition. And there is nothing simplistic about that.

 

[A.R.K.]

(A) One approach is that martial arts can be a non-violent response to violence. More skill eliminates the need for excessive force. Any moron can kill someone -- it takes SKILL to control a situation.

We agree that it does take more skill to control than more direct/damaging techniques. However, even in control one must apply force. At least when it comes to hands on techniques and not simple evasion/redirection. Force even at that level could be considered violent. Symantics to be sure, but just some thoughts to share.

(B) Forms are not meant to be "pre-arranged" but instead are a series of permutations of technique combinations and situational transition. And there is nothing simplistic about that.

But unfortunately, is that not how the majority are taught? This is why I prefer, from the perspective of realism, to practice shadow drills. And again, I'm not against forms per se, but it seems most are seen/taught as class filler. Finding the 'hidden meaning' is fine for esoteric considerations, but one does not need to delve deeply into them to fight a Bg successfully.

My humble opinion.

:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

#6: Forms teach us to move towards the integration of both sides of the body.

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by A.R.K.
... even in control one must apply force. At least when it comes to hands on techniques and not simple evasion/redirection. Force even at that level could be considered violent. Symantics to be sure, but just some thoughts to share.

Forget symantics -- FORCE does not equate Violence -- AT ALL.

I can disable someone with the force it takes to close a door. (Welcome to soft style martial arts.) Closing a door is not violence. In fact, even slamming it is not. Taking someone down in a controlled manner so they are locked without being hurt is not violence.

Even HURTING someone (causing pain only), such as spanking a child, is not violence. HARMING them IS (abuse instead of discipline).

Pain is constructive, damage is destructive.

Sparring is not violent, unless there is truly intent to harm the other person. That's why there are boxing gloves -- turning violence into a "less-violent" sport.

Unless we are clear about waht such words mean (and what they do not), discussion falls into unecessary grey area.

So I'm not splitting hairs here -- I mean this wholeheartedly -- I can "kick someone's ****" using martial arts, and not become violent, if I am skilled enough.

... This is why I prefer, from the perspective of realism, to practice shadow drills. ... Finding the 'hidden meaning' is fine for esoteric considerations, but one does not need to delve deeply into them to fight a Bg successfully.

I LOVE shadow drills. But then again, "forms" are shadow drills, right?

And I don't mean anything esoteric by the word hidden. I just mean not obvious to the eye. There are "hidden" nuances in classical music compositions that you will not hear or see unless you study music theory or listen to it many, many times.

Sometimes you do a form forever, and then find yourself usinga technique you didn't even know you knew. Later you look back and say, "Holy Cow that's from that form I did a thousand times! I never knew you could use it for that!?!?!"

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
#6: Forms teach us to move towards the integration of both sides of the body.

As long as you don't mean symmetry, I agree. The body was not meant to be symmetrical.

Also, keep in mind that the more primitive forms (such as most beginner Karate forms or even some Kung Fu ones, like Si Lim Tao in Wing Chun) are the most widelly taught these days, and they do not integrate the body well at all. Half the time the other hand is kept out of the way, and the feet stay in position for most techniques. Then again, they are early training sets and that is not their purpose.

 

[twinkletoes]

While we're on the topic of forms now, I just wrote an article about them 6 months ago. It will be published on Roy Harris' new website, which is set to launch later this month.

I'll sum up some quick points:

Forms DO build....

speed
strength
technique
accuracy
endurance
concentration
focus
balance

Forms DO NOT build....

Distancing
Timing
Awareness
Improvisation

Forms can be used as a way to memorize a set of techniques, or to give yourself an easy way to practice them. They are a perfectly acceptable method of solo practice, just like practicing in front of a mirror, hitting a heavy bag, or shadowboxing.

On the other hand, they are not an effective method of training by themselves. Like those other methods, they need to be coupled with drills, games, or activities that involve unrehearsed distancing and timing, in order to build appropriate tactics and the ability to provide the correct response in a dynamic environment.

They do have a purpose. However, their purpose can be achieved through other means just as well. Here it becomes a matter of personal preference. For example, some people would rather do forms, and some people would rather hit the heavy bag for a couple hours. While there are some little differences, they are similar.

In terms of memorizing the curriculum, it could be done with or without forms. The attributes built by forms could be done in other ways. But the same could be said for things like breaking or heavy bag work.

In the end, it is perfectly OK to want to do forms. It is also OK to want to NOT do forms. As long as you understand what they accomplish, and you don't neglect any necessary areas, then your training is in good shape.

~TT

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by twinkletoes
Forms DO NOT build....

Distancing
Timing
Awareness
Improvisation

I think I will have to not agree with this. Distancing is learned quite a bit in forms practice. The distancing of your feet, your distance to and from the walls of your practice area, what about the other 12 people doing their forms in that same room?

Timing is one of the major advantages of forms in my beliefs. When you do a block punch you can see exactly how off your timing is in your block to your punch. Forms exsentuate timing so you can work on it.

Improvisation is learned mainly through playing hands with your forms, but what about when you are playing a form and get in the middle and forget it? Do you not improvise to complete the set?

Lets not forget two man sets that are great forms for learning all of the afformentioned qualities.

7sm

 

[FST]

I feel that using or not using forms is up to the choice of the practioner. I no longer utilize pre-arranged forms and prefer to use shadow-fighting, bag work and other training tools to develop my skills alone. I have friends that still utilize forms and enjoy them and they work for their personal training. Forms do not have to be utilized to become a great martial artist, they are simply a training tool to be used by the individual among many tools. If you use forms then that is good for you and if you don't then that is good as well.

In regards to the original purpose of this thread. I like MMA (of MMD or RBSD) for my training purposes. I have plenty of friends that focus on TMA or a mix of TMA and MMA. Again, it is up to the individual to determine how they would like best to train.

 

[rmcrobertson]

#7: Forms teach poise, coupled with the repertoire of motion--and more importantly, a sense of the possible range of useful motion--upon which genuine improvisation must be based.

 

[twinkletoes]

7starmantis,

I understand what you mean. Forms may help you with an awareness of what proper distancing and timing look and feel like. I agree with the way you put that.

However, when I say "distancing" and "timing" in terms of appropriate attributes, I am referring to the kind of distancing and timing that are used in sparring:

distancing: the ability to place yourself at the appropriate location when launching a technique, or the ability to determine exactly what technique is appropriate in a particular location

timing: the ability to recognize the correct time to execute a move

If you are practicing by yourself, you cannot build this kind of timing, because you are not reacting to what someone else is doing. This is the kind of timing one needs to learn! And if the you have a partner, and the partner is doing something prechoreographed, it may feel like you are learning timing, but it is not a true sense of timing. There needs to be a certain freedom to it--that's what allows the student to find the right time by him/herself.

I'll give you an example. If you and I put gloves on and do some punching drills, we could do the following:

I stand in front of you with my hands up. When my hands drop, you punch me in the face.

This may sound like a really good drill for distancing and timing, but if we aren't moving our feet, it isn't!

However, if we do the same drill, with spontaneous, unchoreographed footwork, it will build proper distancing and timing. Why? Because it forces you to place yourself in the right place and punch at the right time. You must improvise, using the skills you have developed, in order to correctly address the dynamic situation. If we stand with feet planted, or with prechoreographed footwork, it won't help you learn how to get yourself from the wrong place to the right place.

This is the kind of attribute that forms practice will not build. However, putting the two methods together would be a good match. The forms would begin to build your awareness, and then a drill like this would give you the ability to use what you had practiced in a spontaneous, sparring-like environment.

Does this make sense?

~TT

PS - I like what Robert has just said:

a sense of the possible range of useful motion--upon which genuine improvisation must be based.

I think that sounds like a good way to put it.

 

[7starmantis]

I wasn't disagreing with your complete thoughts twinkletoes, I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. Also I do plenty of full contact, full speed training. I'm just saying forms do teach you more than you think they do.

Your martial skill is measured by how you can adapt to any situation. It is not possible to train for every possible situation that may arize, this is why you must learn how to adapt, yes even forms, to the real world. Notice I did not say forget forms and train in other situations, forms have a very important role in learning the basic movements and creating what we call muscle memory.

7sm

 

[Brother John]

There is a big difference in what people term as a "traditional discipline".
Being 'non-traditional' is not the same as being a mixed martial artist... which really isn't a martial art... but a combative sport.

Just a thought...
Your Bro.
John

 

[twinkletoes]

7sm,

I didn't think you were disagreeing. No worries, my man.

I did think that I needed to clarify how I meant those terms, because we weren't using them the same way.

The training you describe sounds like what I have in mind. I think we are definitely thinking along the same lines.


Brother John,

You are right. There are other categories besides traditional and MMA. In fact, MMA is slowly but surely becoming its own distinct training regimen/method that could be compared to trad. arts as a separate discipline, rather than a category.

Really, we could say the following exist:

1) Traditional Arts
2) Eclectic Arts
3) Sportive/Competitive Disciplines
4) "Martial" Fitness Programs
5) Combative Arts

Traditional Arts often focus on the development of character and the continuation of traditional training methods, approaches, and material.

Eclectic arts are often blends of traditional methods, or "updated" approaches to traditional methods, approaches, or material.

Sportive/Competitive Disciplines are often programs that emphasize competition or sport-based activities, and train towards those ends.

"Martial" Fitness programs are exercise plans that include movements common in martial arts.

Combative arts often focus on developing down 'n dirty, realistic, pragmatic techniques, like biting, gouging, spitting, ripping, breaking, and killing.


These categories are not exclusive, and in fact, I feel that often programs belong to one or more categories. It is possible to have a traditional/combative program, a traditional/sportive program (often Judo fits here), or a sportive/combative program (MMA programs that also address "dirty tactics" can fit here).

I think it is possible for a style to fit in most of these categories at once. It depends upon the training methodologies employed and the goals addressed.

~TT

 

[twinkletoes]

I think to take this a step further, it is often simplified into traditional vs. MMA not because the arts are exclusive, but because the training approaches often are.

MMA programs are based around competitive arenas, and in doing so train almost exclusively against resistance.

Traditional programs often (though certainly not always) use training methods that do not emphasize freedom to resist on the part of the attacker.

Because of this contrast, most people think of these as the main categories.

In truth, there is more to the story. Traditional Judo emphasizes randori, throwing off the "traditional" distinction in some people's minds, even though Judo is taught in a very traditional way, with universally identical techniques.

So our distinction needs to be made more specific. Arts like Judo which stress improvisation and learning to overcome free resistance can use their methods well, because they continue to test them. At the same time, advanced Judo kata include moves that are not used or allowed in randori, and are done against compliant attackers. This seems to put Judo in both categories at once.

~TT