Katas / Forms

[Moebius]

One of my senseis is a very experienced godan, and he tells me that he was never shown many of the 'hidden' applications in the katas until he took seminars with Master Harril (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Harrill) that he had his eyes opened, so he now tries to pass that along to students who appear ready, able, and desirous of learning more advanced techniques that are in the katas.

I was fortunate enough to attend a seminar by Sensei Harrill. He was a great man and a wealth of knowledge. I had the same experience as your instructor. Sensei Harrill definitely opened my eyes to new possibilities.

 

[searcher]

You need to look at kata/hyung/tul as building blocks. The "simple" kata are simple for a reason. Can you imagine the frustration of a new student trying to learn a complex form? They would not be around for very long. Besides, we would have a mental breakdown trying to remember every sequence in a few complex forms.

Many have shared you opinion in the past and then they switched back to doing it the original way they learned.

You can do it however you want, but the masters that created the forms did so for a reason. And it did not involve making money off of tests.

 

[shihansmurf]

I think kata like taikyoku and fukyugata, and even pinan, could be done away with. Not because the techniques aren't applicable, but because they are redundant. Today, kata like this are used more for "filler", a way to stretch out the curriculum and make more ranks, than anything else.

While I don't disagree that the number of kata could easily be reduced without negatively impacting the quality of martial arts taught to the student I think that eliminating the foundational kata like Taikyoku and the Pinans would be an error. Kata is just a teaching tool. Those basic kata are redundant for a good reason. They ingrain simple and effective fighting movements that are foundational to a martial artist's arsenal. It isn't without cause that nearly every martial arts uses very similar entry level forms, in as much as they use the many of the same block/hit combos as well as locking/throwing techniques.

I think that the Parker Kenpo view of forms as encyclopedias of motion is about the best analogy that I have encountered to explain their role. Now you can get a long way in your education without ever opening up an encyclopedia, but I tend to think that the refrence material will help to increase a student's knowledge base more efficiently than learning without it.



Just my view.
Mark

 

[Jin Gang]

You need to look at kata/hyung/tul as building blocks. The "simple" kata are simple for a reason. Can you imagine the frustration of a new student trying to learn a complex form? They would not be around for very long. Besides, we would have a mental breakdown trying to remember every sequence in a few complex forms.

Many have shared you opinion in the past and then they switched back to doing it the original way they learned.

You can do it however you want, but the masters that created the forms did so for a reason. And it did not involve making money off of tests.

I disagree. It doesn't cause a mental breakdown to remember a complex form...people do it all the time, and did it before the basic kata were invented. Besides, in Okinawan and Japanese karate, which is really what we're talking about, there really are no excessively long or complex kata. I think you're overestimating their technical difficulty.
And you don't try to teach the new student the entire long form all in one day, just the first few moves. Then you pratice those techniques as drills, individually and with partners, and variations, and repeat that section over and over again for weeks or however long it takes, before you add the next section. Of course, this all goes along with physical conditioning necessary to make those techniques effective, and sparring practice. By the time you know the whole form, you'll know the techniques and applications backwards and forwards and be comfortable applying them in free fighting.
It's a different method of teaching than we normally see now.

yes, those kata were not created to make money from tests, they were created as a simplified presentation of kata for the purpose of mass-teaching to school kids, and for public demonstrations. fukyugata means "promotional kata". The ones who invented them had their reasons, and were great martial artists for sure, but I just don't think these kata are the holy relics that people treat them as. My opinion is that the inventors really just intended to put some basics in a simple floor pattern. I think they're great for kids, but adults are capable of handling more than that.

It isn't without cause that nearly every martial arts uses very similar entry level forms, in as much as they use the many of the same block/hit combos as well as locking/throwing techniques.
I think that the Parker Kenpo view of forms as encyclopedias of motion is about the best analogy that I have encountered to explain their role. Now you can get a long way in your education without ever opening up an encyclopedia, but I tend to think that the refrence material will help to increase a student's knowledge base more efficiently than learning without it.

I like the encyclopedia analogy for forms, and I agree. But I see the basic forms like a reader's digest, abbreviated version of that encyclopedia. It's better than nothing, if that's all you're going to get, but if you've got the actual encyclopedia (an "advanced" form), then why not just read that? The longer kata have the same combos and throws that the basic ones do, plus more.

Every martial art doesn't use similar entry level forms. Some martial arts only consist of one or a few long forms. Hung Gar's first form is arguably the longest and most physically demanding one. The way they are taught is little by little, one piece at a time, until you have the whole thing.
Everyone will use whatever forms they like, as it should be. I just don't believe the fukyugata/taikyoku teach anything that would be missed if you practiced only the traditional kata. They aren't necessary for ingraining the movements, any kata should do that, along with the drilling that should accompany each kata. It all depends on the format of the training, I suppose.

 

[shihansmurf]

I like the encyclopedia analogy for forms, and I agree. But I see the basic forms like a reader's digest, abbreviated version of that encyclopedia. It's better than nothing, if that's all you're going to get, but if you've got the actual encyclopedia (an "advanced" form), then why not just read that? The longer kata have the same combos and throws that the basic ones do, plus more.

Every martial art doesn't use similar entry level forms. Some martial arts only consist of one or a few long forms. Hung Gar's first form is arguably the longest and most physically demanding one. The way they are taught is little by little, one piece at a time, until you have the whole thing.
Everyone will use whatever forms they like, as it should be. I just don't believe the fukyugata/taikyoku teach anything that would be missed if you practiced only the traditional kata. They aren't necessary for ingraining the movements, any kata should do that, along with the drilling that should accompany each kata. It all depends on the format of the training, I suppose.

Interesting analogy.

I would think that teaching a larger and more complex form piecemeal isn't really that different than teaching something like Taikyoku. When breaking down the longer form into more manageable chunks, what critera do you use to determine what will be taught to the beginning student? Is the form simply taught in order, the way the IKCA kenpo guys do with thier Master Form, or do you teach sections that are simpler to less experienced students? When breaking down the more complex form, are the segments dicided by movements that have a common theme? Its an interesting way to teach a longer kata, I 'm kinda curious as to how you do so.


I know that every martial art doesn't ue the exact same entry level kata, but if you break down the forms that nearly every martial art uses(those that use forms), there exists a large body of similar techniques that are common to all striking arts(I'm going to limit my comments mainly to striking arts as the only significant grappling knowledge I have is high school wrestling and I don't have a good enough depth of knowledge about how other grappling systems are taught), such as middle block/reverse punch, or outward block/turning front kick.Stylistic differences in the delivery of these movements aside, they are a common thread throughout all striking systems, and present in one form or another in the kata that is taught in all of the striking arts. "Basic" forms like Taikyoku are simply a drill for these techniques.I agree that the material can be simply drilled in vacuum, but so can the techniques in the longer kata. If the longer kata have inate worth as a training tool, it follows that the shorter/simpler ones do as well.
I may have jumbled what I was trying to say in my last post, hopefully this clarifies.

It all depends on the format of the training, I suppose

QFT.
Different training methodologies will find value in different training tools. I like to keep as many training tools on hand, so to speak, in order to find one that helps my students. If a given student is having problems learning kicks, I'll pull out the kick sets I learned when I cross trained it American Kenpo, if another is having issues with blocking then stepping through with a follow up punch, I use the taikyoku kata. Kata are just a means to an end. They are there to teach certain lessons to a student to help them develop their fighting ability. Thats it. After that they are kept around as a reference. I know I still have tons of textbooks in my library from my colledge days, I don't need to reference tham that often, but still Ikeep them. The material is usefull.
Just my view
Mark

 

[Jin Gang]

yes, exactly. There really is no difference between teaching three basic kata, and splitting the long kata into smaller sections. I feel if you're going to learn the longer kata anyways, just do it that way, rather than learning redundant basic kata first. You can give the smaller sections different names if you want, call them different kata, it really makes no difference, but I don't see any point in teaching the same thing twice with two different names. Of course, just my preference.
Really, there is some redundancy in the traditional kata as well, and amongst the forms of any style, because the strategy and motion which the style's founders preferred will be there throughout.
How to break down a kata really depends on the kata or form. I may teach the techniques out of their exact kata order if it is a short kata, like naihanchi. One day I might start on basic blocks and strikes, another day go to elbows and knees, another day on stepping and sweeping, and another on locks and throws. Then teach the kata from start to finish, since it is so short. This is one I'd start with for a beginner, if I was teachin shorin ryu.
A longer kata, I'd just start at the beginning and do a little at a time. Sometimes a move will repeat later in the kata, and that's ok. We'll practice it with drills and partners at the point that it comes up in the kata. This sometimes means that the initial sections are shorter, and the later sections are longer as some of the techniques were already covered in the earlier sections. The way I learned baguazhang was like this, it's a 180 posture form I learned, split into 8 sections. The first section is quite short, but it's techniques are repeated in almost ever other section. So it really depends on the composition of the kata as to how I'd teach it.
There's still a rhyme and reason to which kata you teach when...there are some that have techniques and strategies you want to teach to new students, and some that you will save until later. It all depends on your style and strategy. The primary thing is to spend adequate time practicing all the techniques in a kata or form before moving on to the next thing.
There's really two different issues I'm discussing here. One that is particuarly about the taikyoku/fukyugata kata of shorin ryu based styles, which I personally feel are pretty useless. Better time is spent just drilling the basics, and doing the traditional kata. Another is about placing kata or exercises that have the most fundamental techniques and strategies of the style earlier in the curriculum, to make sure that those techniques are ingrained before moving on to other things that might be considered more advanced fighting. This I agree with, and every style has their own way of doing that, and different forms.