Judging Forms at Tournaments
- Thread starter Azulx
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #3
What makes you say that?
Forms are for training and study.
You don't judge a javelin thrower by how nicely they lift weights, you don't go to a football game to watch the players do jumping jacks.
Martial arts are for fighting. People gain other benefits from the training, but the arts exist to help people deal with violence.
When we make a big thing of forms we spread the idea that aesthetics have a place in the martial arts, and they do not. Because the next thing is people start altering forms to look pretty and then mangling techniques to look cool and then you have a dance instead of a fighting art.
A great many karate styles went through this in the 20th century and are only starting to recover.
I did about fifteen years judging Black Belt forms in open tournaments. But I don't know how to answer your question, probably do to phrasing. You don't look to "give" anything, you just judge - pretty much on the same tenets used by any style in teaching of it's forms.
And I know it probably seems strange coming from a guy who doesn't do forms at all, but I never once asked to judge, they asked me.
- Eyes focus on the major hand.
- Body unification, all body parts start to move at the same time, and also stop at the same time.
- Hand coordinate with foot, elbow coordinate with knee, shoulder coordinate with hip.
- Soft -> hard -> soft -> ...
- Flow smoothly,
- Balance,
- Speed,
- Flexibility,
- Power generation,
- Personal flavor (this is art),
- ...
Last edited:
Why do you think that aesthetics have no place in martial arts? It all depends on how you look at things, why you're doing martial arts, and what martial arts you are doing. The phrase "beautiful kendo" is a fairly common refrain from the highest level kendo practitioners. Aesthetics runs throughout most of the Japanese arts, in some form or another. It is all in how and why you approach the aesthetics that make the difference, in my opinion.
Headhunter
Senior Master
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2016
- Messages
- 4,765
- Reaction score
- 1,598
I hate forms In tournaments for the same reason I don't like point fighting people break the rules of their style to get a trophy. A lot of form guys you'll see doing huge circular motions when in a normal class they would be told to not do that
They do but the beauty is in the proper execution of the technique, in the throw, the strike and in how you use your techniques to gain the upper hand against your opponent. Beauty is watching a kata being done with meaning, power and understanding which is unlikely to be considered 'pretty' by a judge looking to award points, the 'award' you get from doing and knowing your kata is having efficient weapons in your arsenal.
Kata done for competition has all the 'untidy' but necessary bits taken out, the ones doing the kata's should also be able to demonstrate techniques from the kata which as they have taken a lot out or moved hands/feet/arms to make it look more pleasing could be difficult.
That depends upon your viewpoint. Some folks aren't interested in fighting (take a look at Shin-shin-toitsu Aikido). And some folks enjoy finding other uses for training methods (Billy Blanks did a great job of turning some into great exercise). There's nothing wrong with forms competition as an aesthetic art. I will say aesthetics should be a secondary consideration (or less) in training, other than training for competition.
As Tez posted, the beauty of the martial arts are incidental. I appreciate the aesthetics and I appreciate them more when they showcase proficiency or deep understanding.
However my problem is when you make the beauty the point.
I've no problem with what the individual does or what they get out of training. My issue is with a collective message that the appearance of the form has value.
Again consider the examples I gave: to start awarding Javelin medals by judging the form of the Javelin thrower's weight lifting would make a mockery of the sport.
Or better yet to judge how the thrower centres himself, hoists the Javelin, and how dramatically he strides to the throw line and mimes throwing the javelin.
By giving medals for these vaguely martial dances we say that doing karate is the aim, not being able to use karate, just going to class and doing it. Better still putting on a show.
That conflation muddies the already murky water over what a martial art is.
As I said in my earlier response, it depends on what martial art you are practicing, and how you approach aesthetics. You tossed a blanket statement saying beauty The vast majority of the koryu arts that I've practiced are taught through kata. A properly done kata is much more than a dance, and a devastating cut delivered precisely where it is obviously supposed to be is a beautiful thing to watch. If you subtract from the beauty of that cut, then you've made it less effective, because that's where the true beauty lies.
You threw out a blanket statement saying that aesthetics has no place in the martial arts, I simply disagreed with you. I have no idea what happens at karate tournaments or who gets medals for what as I've never actually seen one, and this seems to be what you're referring to. However, In the martial arts that I am familiar with, you would not be judging the javelin thrower's weight lifting, as that is totally disconnected from throwing a javelin. In my arts you would judge the javelin thrower based on the smoothness of his run-up and wind-up, whether he has exhibited a smooth and effortless center twist to generate the proper torque, whether his javelin is properly gripped and thrown at the height of his power arc, and how much distance he has attained through his throw. You are trying to say that all of the aesthetics don't matter, and it only matters how far he throws the javelin. However, without the proper mechanics (aesthetics), the thrower will not achieve his maximum distance.
Proper form in the martial arts is there for a reason, and striving for proper form is necessary for much more than just aesthetics. However, you can fairly easily judge someone's progress and standing just by observing how well they adhere to proper form in their movements. This, in my opinion and experience, is the reason for forms in tournaments. Of course, it also depends upon the ability of the judges to be able to properly evaluate the competitors.
JR 137
Grandmaster
@Azulx
Here's some info from my organization's kata judging criteria. Not sure how applicable it will be, but it seems pretty universal to me. Scoring and what they're looking for are on pages 1-2...
https://www.regonline.com/custImages/400000/407854/Go-En_AdultTournRulesRegs.pdf
Edit: The rule that I noticed that's different from every other tournament I've seen is allowing a competitor to start a kata over again (for a full point deduction). I haven't seen that one anywhere else.
Here's some info from my organization's kata judging criteria. Not sure how applicable it will be, but it seems pretty universal to me. Scoring and what they're looking for are on pages 1-2...
https://www.regonline.com/custImages/400000/407854/Go-En_AdultTournRulesRegs.pdf
Edit: The rule that I noticed that's different from every other tournament I've seen is allowing a competitor to start a kata over again (for a full point deduction). I haven't seen that one anywhere else.
Last edited:
Why have belt tests at all?
I didn't say I had a problem with forms, my issue is with kata competition. You may want to re-read what's been said on the subject.
I agree with everything you wrote up to the last paragraph.
This is precisely the problem I feel exists due to kata competition: that the change in focus from form as a tool to achieve victory in combat to form for forms sake, produces paper tigers who can look the part, but who lack everything else you need to be able to apply their martial art.
A solo form doesn't tell us if you can block a punch or synch your footwork or adjust to unscripted responses or select the best attack for the situation or lay traps for the opponent etc etc etc.
You say that if the aesthetic elements aren't in place the javelin thrower cannot maximise his range, so then surely range is all you need judge. By fixing the form to one ideal you limit potential for individual variation and development through the orthodox. Where if we consider the results and look for consistency in them we can find the best practice for the individual and know that it works. You have a living breathing art and not just a ritual pattern devoid of meaning.
I'm sure in the koryu arts you spend enough time on the practical side for this not to be a big concern, but us gendai people have had to recreate that aspect (at least in karate) because of the disconnect from reality that occurred. Part of that disconnect was the myths around kata and the culture of "doing" karate rather than fighting with karate.
All of which is meaningless without an opponent and cannot really be judged by observation.
Not entirely. I can tell if a student is putting power in a strike without them hitting anything. I can tell by te structure of a block if it is likely to be useful. I can tell by their smooth (or not) movement if they are making controlled transitons.
I'm not a fan of form nit-picking (precise angles, minute adjustments of hand positions). Viewing them for aesthetics is fine as a sideline, or as something separate from fight training. Within fight training? Okay, so long as it's the functional pieces that are part of the aesthetic. I suspect testing forms became common practice in order to test many students at once. I'm not a fan of testing forms (and I do it), except as a training tool they must know to participate in the curriculum past that point.
