Concepts Without Combinations?

[Danjo]

There are some that claim that it is not neccessary to teach forms or pre-set techniques or combinations in order to teach an art, but to me that sounds iffy at best.

How would one teach the underlying concept of a martial art without teaching combinations that epitomize those concepts?

 

[Flying Crane]

has anybody who makes this claim given you any examples?

I suppose that in theory, it could be possible, but i think it would take an extremely gifted student to actually learn it this way. Sounds like on the intellectual level the concepts could get passed on, but there needs to be a way to bridge over from the mental into the physical. The physical exercises, kata, combos, SD techs, etc. are what does that...

 

[wushuguy]

closest I can think of is yiquan, they don't have "pre-set" fighting techniques per say, however they still have some stance work as the foundation of their gaining qi and strengthening the body, and they have "jian wu" which is like shadow boxing and it is supposed to not have any pre-set combinations or pre-arranged forms. they say from doing the stance work and using a vivid imagination one can fight well, but sparring is still a must in the curriculum.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Teach points of reference. From each point teach them to make a clean strike, and to choose the weapon based on target availability. After a strike has been made the weapon should then return to another point of reference and it at that point you choose the weapon for the next strike. Using Delayed sword as an example a student will learn to shuffle and get off the line of attack with the teachers help and then apply these tools to make one of three moves in succession; hence, there are no combinations, just the logic of what a set up is, a one, two, three combination. Knowing when a set up combination has been foiled and you are on to the next idea, is a plus; so, a single concept way of thinking is attractive if not usefull.
sean

 

[chaos1551]

I appreciate the combinations that teach me concepts. I imagine you could learn the concepts without them, but they're such a wonderful tool. Without them, you'd have to either (yeah) have a great imagination or I suppose you could spar a lot, adhering firmly to striking technique while not letting the sparring match degrade into kickboxing.

Don't take away my combinations, though. That's good stuff. Sometimes I think the "what ifs" make the SD techniques useless in practical application, but they are made useful by teaching not only rote responses to variant snippits of situations but also the movement from one strike/manouver/stance to another strike/manouver/stance.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I appreciate the combinations that teach me concepts. I imagine you could learn the concepts without them, but they're such a wonderful tool. Without them, you'd have to either (yeah) have a great imagination or I suppose you could spar a lot, adhering firmly to striking technique while not letting the sparring match degrade into kickboxing.

Don't take away my combinations, though. That's good stuff. Sometimes I think the "what ifs" make the SD techniques useless in practical application, but they are made useful by teaching not only rote responses to variant snippits of situations but also the movement from one strike/manouver/stance to another strike/manouver/stance.

your combinations were available to you without learning a tech, it would just be points of reference and circumstance.
sean

 

[Xue Sheng]

How would one teach the underlying concept of a martial art without teaching combinations that epitomize those concepts?

Constant repetition and/or drills.

I got the underlying concepts of Sanda pretty easily and there are no forms, for that matter no actual ready stance either. But then it could have been my previous CMA training that is form heavy giving me that understanding too.

But if you stand there and hit a tree long enough and your Sifu tells you that you are hitting it wrong long enough as soon as you hit it right you get the underlying concept of what is being taught to you. How to move the energy, how to generate power properly. And the same goes for throwing copious kicks and drilling Shuaijiao and qinna over and over again.

Technically you do not have any forms to train over and over again to teach you the concepts but you do have repetition of movement and application to teach the concept

 

[Danjo]

Constant repetition and/or drills.

I got the underlying concepts of Sanda pretty easily and there are no forms, for that matter no actual ready stance either. But then it could have been my previous CMA training that is form heavy giving me that understanding too.

But if you stand there and hit a tree long enough and your Sifu tells you that you are hitting it wrong long enough as soon as you hit it right you get the underlying concept of what is being taught to you. How to move the energy, how to generate power properly. And the same goes for throwing copious kicks and drilling Shuaijiao and qinna over and over again.

Technically you do not have any forms to train over and over again to teach you the concepts but you do have repetition of movement and application to teach the concept

Isn't Sanda essentially competition kickboxing taught by the current Shaolin? I understand that in kickboxing there are no forms etc. but that's a pretty limited art in the sense that I'm talking about.

For instance, if one were a student of Kenpo and just drilled the basic punches and kicks, it wouldn't be all that distinguishible from Karate. Nothing wrong with drilling basics for good form, but the concepts of any but the simplest of martial arts are not contained in them. It's how they are put together and how they are used that make one able to tell Karate from Kenpo etc.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Isn't Sanda essentially competition kickboxing taught by the current Shaolin? I understand that in kickboxing there are no forms etc. but that's a pretty limited art in the sense that I'm talking about.

For instance, if one were a student of Kenpo and just drilled the basic punches and kicks, it wouldn't be all that distinguishible from Karate. Nothing wrong with drilling basics for good form, but the concepts of any but the simplest of martial arts are not contained in them. It's how they are put together and how they are used that make one able to tell Karate from Kenpo etc.

Yes you are right and no you are wrong. But you are wrong becuase I was not clear as to which Sanda I was talking about.

Sorry I should have been more clear, the Sanda I was talking about was what I trained which was what they train the police and military and it is decidedly different from the sports stuff that they teach at Shaolin and a plethora of other CMA styles but yet it has many many similarities no matter how hard it tries to deny it .

 

[Flying Crane]

I suppose one could improvise drills and combos on the spot, that would teach the concepts. These would not need to be pre-set, or codified as a formal curriculum.

Is that what you mean?

 

[Xue Sheng]

I suppose one could improvise drills and combos on the spot, that would teach the concepts. These would not need to be pre-set, or codified as a formal curriculum.

Is that what you mean?

pretty much

With Sanda I found it is all in the terminology and it is much more complicated than many, including my Sanda Sifu, say it is

My Sanda Sifu will tell you there is no Qi and not internal but he will also tell you that the power must flow from your feet through your waist to your hands. He will tell you there is no ready stance but then no matter how you stand you should be ready. There is a definite feel (concepts) to this type of Sanda that I do not get in other MA styles and yet there are a lot of similarities to things like Taijiquan and Xingyiquan

But if you are looking for just the concepts of a martial art and you are basing the definition of a concept as an explanatory principle in a scientific system or a general notion or idea or an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars you do not need any forms to teach that and call it martial arts.

However if you are talking specifically the concepts of Kenpo/Kempo then of course you need forms since they are part of what makes up Kenpo/Kempo and makes Kenpo/Kempo what it is and without those forms it is something else since you are missing important concepts of kenpo/kempo.

I run into this with Taiji all the time most of what is being taught out there today is not really taiji at all since it trains only 50% or less of what the art truly is.

 

[Flying Crane]

Whether or not the material is codified and formalized as a curriculum, I think there needs to be SOME kind of physical practice in order to ingrain the intellectual concepts into physical skill. It can't all be just sitting around and theorizing about it. It can't all be just cerebral. That alone will not give you physical skill, tho it can broaden your theoretical understanding, which can give you reason and guidance to adjust how you train physically, which can lead to a higher level of skill. Otherwise, everyone who has read a martial arts book, ought to be a master because of it.

Danjo: care to give us some background on where this topic comes from?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Whether or not the material is codified and formalized as a curriculum, I think there needs to be SOME kind of physical practice in order to ingrain the intellectual concepts into physical skill. It can't all be just sitting around and theorizing about it. It can't all be just cerebral. That alone will not give you physical skill, tho it can broaden your theoretical understanding, which can give you reason and guidance to adjust how you train physically, which can lead to a higher level of skill. Otherwise, everyone who has read a martial arts book, ought to be a master because of it.

Agreed, sanda training is very physical as is Taiji and Xingyi and any other MA.

 

[Flying Crane]

Agreed, sanda training is very physical as is Taiji and Xingyi and any other MA.

never doubted it.

 

[MattJ]

There are some that claim that it is not neccessary to teach forms or pre-set techniques or combinations in order to teach an art, but to me that sounds iffy at best.

How would one teach the underlying concept of a martial art without teaching combinations that epitomize those concepts?

Jeet Kune do. Done mostly via drills, although there is some isolation or pre-set stuff as well. If you are talking strictly kenpo, then I would agree with you, as forms are part of the art.

 

[Danjo]

Danjo: care to give us some background on where this topic comes from?

It came from some folks who said pretty much what I stated. Been an ongoing argument off and on for a few years now.

I'm not saying that one cannot learn how to fight without learning combos etc., but rather a particular art. There is much that passes for fighting, but I wouldn't consider everyone that can fight a Kajukenbo, Kenpo, Karate, Judo, BJJ, CMA student for instance.

 

[Danjo]

Jeet Kune do. Done mostly via drills, although there is some isolation or pre-set stuff as well. If you are talking strictly kenpo, then I would agree with you, as forms are part of the art.

Well JKD is not an art per se. It IS a concept or philosophy. "Keep that which is useful, and toss out what isn't" leaves a lot of room for what it is allowed to be. It's essentially an approach to fighting rather than an art.

 

[Flying Crane]

It came from some folks who said pretty much what I stated. Been an ongoing argument off and on for a few years now.

I'm not saying that one cannot learn how to fight without learning combos etc., but rather a particular art. There is much that passes for fighting, but I wouldn't consider everyone that can fight a Kajukenbo, Kenpo, Karate, Judo, BJJ, CMA student for instance.

I think there's a number of ways to interpret the OP. I'm trying to get the claim clear in my head...

Is the claim that one can teach a new student a complete system from the ground up without any physical training? Purely thru discussion and theorizing?

Or is the claim that one can teach a system based on concepts, using physical training that doesn't happen to be formalized and codified? So each training session is "unique" in the sense that you don't intentionally repeat the same combos or sequences from the day before, even tho basic skills like stances, punches, blocks, kicks, etc. may be standarized?

Is it the Mitose prison/kosho issue?

 

[Danjo]

I think there's a number of ways to interpret the OP. I'm trying to get the claim clear in my head...

Is the claim that one can teach a new student a complete system from the ground up without any physical training? Purely thru discussion and theorizing?

Or is the claim that one can teach a system based on concepts, using physical training that doesn't happen to be formalized and codified? So each training session is "unique" in the sense that you don't intentionally repeat the same combos or sequences from the day before, even tho basic skills like stances, punches, blocks, kicks, etc. may be standarized?

Is it the Mitose prison/kosho issue?

No it's not the Mitose issue, but that's one example.

It's the claim that one can be taught an entire art without the use of combinations etc. It was originally about someone making that claim about Kajukenbo. The statement was that since Kajukenbo is an art that combined various striking and grappling arts into one art, that and such combination of said arts would be the same as Kajukenbo. I disagree. It's not the mere mixing of various arts, but the way it's done and the concept behind it that makes it Kajukenbo or any other art you're looking at.

 

[Flying Crane]

No it's not the Mitose issue, but that's one example.

It's the claim that one can be taught an entire art without the use of combinations etc. It was originally about someone making that claim about Kajukenbo. The statement was that since Kajukenbo is an art that combined various striking and grappling arts into one art, that and such combination of said arts would be the same as Kajukenbo. I disagree. It's not the mere mixing of various arts, but the way it's done and the concept behind it that makes it Kajukenbo or any other art you're looking at.

well I'd agree with you in that it's not just any old mix of certain arts, but rather in HOW they were mixed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Kaju also have it's own body of unique material, such as kata? If so, those things go a long way in defining what the art is.

Capoeira is an example of an art that typically does not codify the training sequences, but that doesn't mean we don't DO training sequences. Capoeira is all about sponteneity with the technique. So we don't like to rely on a codified body of material, such as kata, that gets repeated over and over. The foundational techniques and methods are certainly codified, but how they are strung together in practice is usually not. Each day can be a very different experience, as the instructor creates sequences on the fly, to stimulate sponteneity and the creative eye in the student.