Is power determinable by watching a form?

[KennethKu]

1. MuayThai is MORE THAN a sport. With all due respect, I doubt many here could last a round coming up against a MuayThai fighter. MT has "combo" not forms.

2. Bruce Lee completely discarded forms. He sure as hell didn't created JKD from "forms".

3. Burmese boxing = Bando.

4. Forms= Conditioning exercises. They get you to tense your muscle and hence develop muscle strength. Repetitions also develop neural pattern, ie build reflex responses. Forms are not the end all be all. By themselves, they are "canned responses" that would fail miserably in real contact.

4.

If you define form broadly enough, then sure 'nuff you can't do without them.

EXACTLY!

 

[Black Bear]

I never thought I'd like a guy who had a Bruce Lee screenshot as an avatar but... KK is very correct.

We do MT at our school. If you call that stuff forms... boy...

 

[Touch Of Death]

1. MuayThai is MORE THAN a sport. With all due respect, I doubt many here could last a round coming up against a MuayThai fighter. MT has "combo" not forms.

2. Bruce Lee completely discarded forms. He sure as hell didn't created JKD from "forms".

3. Burmese boxing = Bando.

4. Forms= Conditioning exercises. They get you to tense your muscle and hence develop muscle strength. Repetitions also develop neural pattern, ie build reflex responses. Forms are not the end all be all. By themselves, they are "canned responses" that would fail miserably in real contact.

4.
EXACTLY!

Bruce Lee may have dicarded forms, but forms did not discard Bruce Lee. :asian:
Sean

 

[KennethKu]

Bruce Lee may have dicarded forms, but forms did not discard Bruce Lee. :asian:
Sean

It would be more productive to get to your point directly.

I don't know your level of attainment, so permit me to elaborate on JKD. Bruce Lee, after studying Chinese Gungfu and WingChun, and researched bizillion MAs, eventually evolved to conclude that one can employ modern scientific conditioning and training to acquire all the benefits "form" practice can provide and yet not be constrained by the limitations and drawback of "canned responses".

 

[Touch Of Death]

It would be more productive to get to your point directly.

I don't know your level of attainment, so permit me to elaborate on JKD. Bruce Lee, after studying Chinese Gungfu and WingChun, and researched bizillion MAs, eventually evolved to conclude that one can employ modern scientific conditioning and training to acquire all the benefits "form" practice can provide and yet not be constrained by the limitations and drawback of "canned responses".

If you want to call extemporaneous forms, Combos that is fine with me; however, just bear in mind no matter how you catagorize your art, the components will fall into one of three catagories: Forms, sets, and freestyle. I'll grant you these are my terms, but be that as it may, every time you make a move, its going to fit into one of these catagories. Your systems have not eliminated forms. They simply call them something else.
Sean

 

[Black Bear]

You still haven't responded to my request to define "forms" and, since you now brought it up, maybe you call tell us what YOU mean by "sets" as well.

I often find that confusion occurs when people fail to distinguish between content and process--what is being trained vs. how one trains it.

The map is not the territory; the menu is not the food.

 

[Jason Davis]

You still haven't responded to my request to define "forms" and, since you now brought it up, maybe you call tell us what YOU mean by "sets" as well.

I often find that confusion occurs when people fail to distinguish between content and process--what is being trained vs. how one trains it.

The map is not the territory; the menu is not the food.

I don't know weather or not this was directed toward me or not but, a form (at least in my opinion) is like a living book that teaches you how to produce power or timing in any certain movement or technique in reference to an invisible person. By that I mean forms teach you how to do a whole bunch of different moves and allow you practice them in the perfect setting due to the fact that the person you are fighting (which is invisible) will do whatever you want them to. I believe that every individual technique in a form is it's own form and that all of them are just put together so that you can remember all of them easier as they are all similar. So really weather you know a whole form or not I believe that you should still only practice one of the techniques at a time so you learn that one. Doing the whole form teaches you fluidity in movements but not practical application. I personally believe that understanding each individual technique is more important (due to the complexity and application of each possible technique)

The correlation I was trying to make with the origional question was how some people who do forms don't actually use the moves they are tought by the form when they fight. They just stand up and kinda box. I was confused as to why this was.

I posted the origional question because I currently study under two teachers one of them teaches through forms one teaches through application of specifics.

The teacher that teaches by using specific techniques says okay if somebody does this you can do this. Then the technique is shown and worked on until it is understood. After I have a basic understanding of that one technique he says "or you can do this" and it goes on and on until he runs out of things to tell me to do in a certain situation while the whole time he shows he things that could happen while I am trying to perform the technique. So he tries to make me think the whole time by switching things up constantyly when I get a basic understanding.

My other teacher shows me one specific technique in a form and has me practice it for a while until it is "crisp" then he shows me the combat application and all the other uses for that same technique (that he can think of at the time) until I can spar only using that one technique for both attacking and defending.

Either way, both of my teachers make me use the techniques as they are tought. they were tought a certain way so that you can generate more power through the movements. their are like 10,000,000 or more different ways to use each technique. It's up to the student to understand power generation in each one.

Both of the method basically end up with the same result: an understanding of power generation through body mechanics and intention. At the same time both teaching/learning methods teach the complexity of every attack or defense technique. This again is just each of my teachers specific ways of teaching me, and again this may be due to the amout of time that each of them has to spend with me on an individual basis. Power generation is one of the top priorities with both of my teachers. However, I am definitely not able to speak for everyone who does forms or everyone who doesn't because I am completely unaware of how they are tought, or even if anything I just said was at all relevant or even true.
hope that might have clarified my original question:boing2:

 

[Black Bear]

As a matter of fact, JD, I was talking to ToD.

 

[Jason Davis]

As a matter of fact, JD, I was talking to ToD.

oh ok sorry

 

[Touch Of Death]

oh ok sorry

Don't be sorry; I can now, at least, answer your question. When people spar they have signiture moves. All moves that are not internalized will be discarded when tasked to fight. Most people will do three or four things... only. Forms allow you to use a larger vocabulary with or with out a partner. The "invisible opponent" thing is but one aspect of what forms are. They are routines meant to teach you about your own motion.
Sets are the isolation of basics for the sake of a specific basic or catagory of basics: Kick set, block set, finger set, strike set, ect. These differ from forms in that forms string unrelated basics toguether to emulate a fight senerio. Adding the vocabulary that you might find in a set or form takes a lot of getting to know that move. Sets, forms , and freestyle are your tools to do so.
Sean

 

[Black Bear]

Please DEFINE them.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Please DEFINE them.

Forms are offensive and defensive movement arranged into a "dance like" routine. Real opponents can be added at higher levels. At even higher levels the routine can become more extemopraneous.
Sets are the same as forms but generaly focus on a single idea or movement.
Freestyle is your use of the vocabulary found in sets and forms, to handle problems without assumption of injury. You may impose rules to limit injury; however, problems must be handled extemporaneously.

 

[Black Bear]

Okay, you're being very specific here. Now if skills are only taught in sequences of no more than, oh, three movements... are they dance-like? If they're never taught without real opponents, even at beginning levels, are these forms?

Dude, it's simple cognitive psychology. If a person evaluates what is out there while having the preconceived notion that EVERYTHING fits into these three neat categories, they will squeeze anything they run into, into one of the categories. Expand your mind a little. "There are more training methodologies on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Research what the Filipinos mean by abecedario, numerata, sumbrado, carrenza. What Peyton Quinn called "symmetrical" and "asymmetrical training". Why it is the Blauer Tactical group does ECT. What SPEAR training is. The "3I" approach of the Straight Blast Gym. Simulation training in RBSD.

If you force a square peg into a round hole, you'll get it in, but the corners will get bent in and it won't be a square anymore. If you put these variations through your filter, yes you will be able to say it's more like one than the other, but that's not what it really IS. If you try to view all training concepts through that lens you won't see all they really are and you won't be able to learn from them and utilize them.

 

[DeilGyre]

Black Bear, why don't you DEFINE how you practice your basics (Blocks, strikes, kicks, stances, etc.) without a partner?
What would you call arranging these things creatively within an economy of motion flow against multiple attackers?
How would you practice hundreds or thousands of repetitions of a basic without a heavybag (thus no injuring yourself from the jolt of impact every time?)
Do you say, Ok I'm going to practice right crosses, and shadow box for a while, paying Attention to your movements, while at the same time visualizing an opponent?
What if you had a huge list of moves? You could go over each one individually, or arrange them all in a shadow boxing session.
How would you suggest to an elderly person to practice their self-defense? - Banging with another senior citizen every day, false teeth and Ben Gay sweat flying everywhere?
How would you instill good MA basics into a 5 year old, with their limited attention span and lack of control? Have them go full contact?

Are Martial Arts only for fighting and whooping ***?
Are they only for elite specimen hardcore fighters?
Shouldn't the common person, people who actually NEED martial arts, have access to moves and SD knowledge, without all the hard contact?

I'm curious...

 

[DeilGyre]

Back to the original question:
"Is power determinable by watching a form?"

Absolutely. Can't you spot proper body alignment, speed, relaxation, torque, crispness of moves, precision, proper breathing, focus, back up mass, etc?

That's another fine use of forms - practicing your movements full blast, training as if you were in a real fight, without a partner or a heavybag.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Okay, you're being very specific here. Now if skills are only taught in sequences of no more than, oh, three movements... are they dance-like? If they're never taught without real opponents, even at beginning levels, are these forms?

Dude, it's simple cognitive psychology. If a person evaluates what is out there while having the preconceived notion that EVERYTHING fits into these three neat categories, they will squeeze anything they run into, into one of the categories. Expand your mind a little. "There are more training methodologies on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Research what the Filipinos mean by abecedario, numerata, sumbrado, carrenza. What Peyton Quinn called "symmetrical" and "asymmetrical training". Why it is the Blauer Tactical group does ECT. What SPEAR training is. The "3I" approach of the Straight Blast Gym. Simulation training in RBSD.

If you force a square peg into a round hole, you'll get it in, but the corners will get bent in and it won't be a square anymore. If you put these variations through your filter, yes you will be able to say it's more like one than the other, but that's not what it really IS. If you try to view all training concepts through that lens you won't see all they really are and you won't be able to learn from them and utilize them.

In kenpo we have little partner forms we call techniques. If you break a tech down and do the first two or three moves, there is very little dancing going on. They are studies of a basic motion sequence therefore they are forms. Any type of drill you can come up with is a form or a set. You tell the student what to do, he does it, then you just taught him a small form or set. I would contend you were taught to close your mind to the idea of forms, and then given ten other terms for the same thing.
Sean

 

[Black Bear]

I would contend you were taught to close your mind to the idea of forms, and then given ten other terms for the same thing.
Sean

(emphasis added)
Thank you for illustrating my point so perfectly! If a person goes in with the a priori dogma that all training falls into one of these three categories: forms, sets, and sparring, they would think exactly that! They would assume that anything that another person brings up does in fact fall into those categories, rather than find out for themselves, and try to understand what those words are referring to.

But that wouldn't be you now. :shrug:

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

As far as the original thread idea goes, my propensity would be to say "no". Too many 12 year old girls giving powerful-looking forms presentations in the open kata divisions at tourneys, who we know lack the physical development necessary to generate real power, particularly in combat. But they can "hiyah" crisply and sharply enough to win a prize.