"Form" or "Combination"

[Earl Weiss]

I expect many will disagree with some or all of the following but it helps make for a good discussion when people agree , at least for that discussion, how terms are defined.

I know there is no generally accepted definition and the answer may be system specific. I think the "Forms" in TMA likely have characteristics not contained in a "Combination" . For instance a form may contain combinations but a combination won't contain a form/ (Kind of like you can put a boat on a ship but can't put a ship on a boat. )

I would say most combinations may contain 2,3,4,or 5 techniques. They will also fit the parameters set by competition rues if that is what you are training for. They may also be focused on a goal of a single opponent, and this opponent will usually be in front of you.

Forms will have very specific technical parameters (Stances used, stance lengths and widths, Targets for certain techniques, striking surface used etc. ) and not restricted by any rule set.

Combinations may have few if any technical parameters.

Forms my have esthetic and / or philosophical considerations not found in combinations.

Forms may be designed to practice both sides equally and you would need to practice a combination with each side forward if that is how you train to fight / spar.

Combinations are often constructed to vary the level and / or angle of the technique in order to create the opening. This may or may be present in forms but to a lesser extent.

So, is this there a "Difference".

 

[marvin8]

I expect many will disagree with some or all of the following but it helps make for a good discussion when people agree , at least for that discussion, how terms are defined.

I know there is no generally accepted definition and the answer may be system specific. I think the "Forms" in TMA likely have characteristics not contained in a "Combination" . For instance a form may contain combinations but a combination won't contain a form/ (Kind of like you can put a boat on a ship but can't put a ship on a boat. )

I would say most combinations may contain 2,3,4,or 5 techniques. They will also fit the parameters set by competition rues if that is what you are training for. They may also be focused on a goal of a single opponent, and this opponent will usually be in front of you.

Forms will have very specific technical parameters (Stances used, stance lengths and widths, Targets for certain techniques, striking surface used etc. ) and not restricted by any rule set.

Combinations may have few if any technical parameters.

Forms my have esthetic and / or philosophical considerations not found in combinations.

Forms may be designed to practice both sides equally and you would need to practice a combination with each side forward if that is how you train to fight / spar.

Combinations are often constructed to vary the level and / or angle of the technique in order to create the opening. This may or may be present in forms but to a lesser extent.

So, is this there a "Difference".

Excerpts from the "The Four Stages of Kata Practise:"

Katas express good examples of the core principles of the combative system that is being recorded. Katas do not record every single technique, combination and variation in the entire system! How could they? So to get the most out of kata we need to practise varying the techniques of the kata whilst staying true to the principles that the techniques represent. This is the third stage of kata practise...

An analogy I like to use to explain how a form records a complete system is that of an acorn and an oak tree (my apologies to those who've heard this before . An oak tree is vast, both in terms of its size and years lived, but everything about that tree, and everything required to reproduce it, is found in a single acorn. A fighting system produces a kata in the same way that an oak tree produces acorns. Both the acorn and the kata are not as vast as the thing that created them, but they record them perfectly. For an acorn to become an oak tree it must be correctly planted and nurtured. For a kata to become a fighting system it must be correctly studied and practised. It is here that we find one of modern karate's biggest failings, in that the katas are rarely studied sufficiently. To return to my analogy, we have the seeds but we don't plant them! ...

These four stages are by no means unique to Karate. In boxing, for example, a student would first be taught the mechanics of the basic punches (stage one). They would then practice applying those punches against bags, focus mitts and a padded up compliant partner (stage two). Once competence had been achieved, the student would practise combinations, blending the punches etc (stage three). And finally they would get in the ring and try it for real (stage four).

 

[skribs]

I definitely think it's system-specific.

My first TKD school (when I was a kid) had "exercises" and "forms". An exercise was more than what you would call a combination, but generally shorter than a form. I believe there were 30-40 exercises and 20-30 forms before black belt (they did kibons, taegeuks, and palgwes). For example, Exercise #1 was 8 movements, where Kibon (basic form) #1 was 20 movements. An exercise typically focused on one thing, where a form might do multiple things. Exercise #1 was just a simple 4 turns with down block + punch in each direction, which gets you used to moving in the cardinal directions and doing techniques. Exercise #2 or #3 was just a bunch of blocks in horse stance. Both exercises and forms were trained for performance for testing.

My second TKD school (where I spent the bulk of my adult training) had "techniques" that would fit what you call combinations, and had forms. To get black belt, there were 29-32 solo "techniques" (combinations) and 60-96 self-defense "techniques" (one-step sparring) that you would learn before black belt, depending on whether you were kid-adult; and 13-21 forms, depending on whether you came in before or after we added the Taegeuks. At this school, you would brain dump, so the actual black belt test was 21 solo techniques, 23-26 self-defense techniques, and 3-2 forms (either Palgwe #6-8 or Palgwe #8 and Taegeuk #8). However, in this case, I would say that the techniques were still mini-forms.

Punching #2-8 (because there was no #1) were rote memorized and we never really went beyond memorizing which step to take and which hand to punch with. At the black belt level, instead of diving deeper, we simply added #9-12 (for 1st dan, 1st gup), #12-15 (for 1st dan, 2nd gup) and eventually #16-20 at 3rd dan. The kicks were essentially the same. Some were simple enough combinations that we would use them frequently (like roundhouse kick-tornado kick), but we practiced that both as "Kicking #8" and as an independent combination. When done as a combination, we were just rote memorizing it like an exercise from my first school.

Self-defense was mostly practiced as a memorization tool. Although we were instructed to increase resistance and learn the techniques properly, I think only a handful of students took it upon themselves to, and only a very small group understood the techniques beyond the numbers.

All of these items were testing items, where you would be expected to know the proper stance and use a similar stance as the forms.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Excerpts from the "The Four Stages of Kata Practise:"

For instance a form may contain combinations but a combination won't contain a form

To combine the main points in these two quotes that IMO well defines "kata": Kata is a collection of combinations which embody the core principles of a fighting system.

These may be grabbing and pulling into a strike, evasion by twisting or side stepping then countering, using weight or stance changes (vertical or horizontal) to increase power, pressure point striking, multiple strikes within a single movement, blocking and striking with both hands simultaneously, or blocking and striking with the same hand, to name a few. Each kata will highlight several of these principles.

To make the form more convenient to execute, it has flow and spatial considerations, but the primary functional unit is the combo series, each of which is a response to a particular attack. The aesthetics are not really relevant to the true original purpose of the form. Of course, tournaments and the loss of knowledge regarding bunkai/application has clouded this in modern karate where appearance is stressed.

If the combo is likened to a sentence/paragraph, then the kata may be compared to a chapter. Combine the chapters (the style's collection of kata) and you have a book about what the system is all about.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So, is this there a "Difference".

Form may contain over exaggerated moves that develop certain ability (such as maximum extension, flexibility, ...). Combo is done exactly the same as you may fight.

In form, you may keep your back arm straight so your punch can have the maximum extension. In combo, you won't do that.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So, is this there a "Difference".

- Form is used to build foundation.
- Combo is used to train combat.

You may start form first and combo later. The question is when you start to train combo, should you come back to train form?

Can you kill 2 birds with 1 stone. I believe you can.