Repetitions in forms

[skribs]

I'd like to talk about repetitions in forms. No, not repetitions of forms. That's not a very interesting discussion. We all know that the more you repeat a form, the better you will know it. I'm talking about repetitions of the techniques in a form, or in the set of forms done in an art. Specifically, I'd like to look at three different pieces:

1. When techniques are or are not mirrored on each side.
2. When techniques or combinations are repeated (more than just to mirror them) in a form
3. When forms replicate the forms that came before them

I'm going to present my thoughts and opinions on these three items. However, I don't really know what questions I want to ask on them. At this moment, I don't even know what point I'm trying to make. Just trying to get thoughts on "paper" and see if it sparks discussion. If you disagree with my thoughts, agree and would like to add more, or if you think more or less points should have made it to the above list, this is the invitation to add your thoughts, comments, and criticisms of my post below.

I know a lot of you know me on this forum, but some of you don't (or don't know me very well). My experience with forms is exclusively through Taekwondo. When I mention other martial arts, this is based on a small amount of research and discussions, as opposed to direct experience. I will mostly be referring to the official Kukkiwon forms (Taegeuks and some others, which are available to see on Youtube) and to the basic form that is the same in many arts (Taekwondo's "Kibon Il Jang", Tang Soo Do's "Kicho Hyung Il Bo", or Karate's "Taikyoku Shodan").

Mirrored or Mobius
Taekwondo, Karate, and Tang Soo Do all three train strikes from both sides (compared with boxing, where you generally choose whether to be orthodox or southpaw). Yet, the forms are not exactly mirrored on either side. For example, in Taekwondo, you might practice 5 kicks with the right leg, and then 5 with the left leg. And then 10 kicks alternating right and left legs. But with Kibon Il Jang, you will do 5 down blocks with the left hand and 3 with the right; and you will do 5 punches with the left hand, and 7 with the right. The 90-degree turns are all to the left, and the 270-degree turns are all to the right (well, you turn to the left 270 and end up on the right).

Take it further into the Taegeuk forms. Let's go up to Taegeuk 7. This form does a very good job of replicating every technique or combination. You start with two blocks to the left, then the same two to the right. Then you do two two-hand blocks going forward; the same blocks with the left and then right hands. This pattern of doing something with one side and repeating it on the other continues all the way through, except for the last two techniques: a left-hand block and right-hand punch. Those are not mirrored. (There is also a single move about 25% into the form, which is symmetrical and therefore already mirrored). I could also nitpick the footwork, and say that the first combination starts from choonbi (ready position) with a 90-degree turn, and the second combination starts from cat stance with a 180-degree turn. But...I think it's impossible to mirror every single detail unless you simply repeat the entire form as a mirror image. Either that, or every single combination needs to return to choonbi, which is going to break the flow of the form.*

The school-specific forms I learned were very egregious about this, especially the black belt form variants that we would call "Koryo Il Jang" or "Keumgang Il Jang" (compared with the official forms of Koryo Hyung and Keumgang Hyung). These forms were essentially the official form with some minor tweaks, and then a huge addition in the middle. For example, Koryo Il Jang would start with the same block, double kick, chop, punch, block combo, except for two things. The stances and techniques were a slightly different style, and the block was a diamond block (low block to the front, outside block to the rear) instead of a single inside block to the front. However, the last set in the form was completely changed for the "Il Jang" version. This version featured a long string of 15+ techniques that are not mirrored on either side. Not even close to being mirrored. The same thing with Keumgang Il Jang. It is essentially Keumgang Hyung, with an interruption halfway through, which features 25+ techniques that are one long string.**

I did say above that it would be impossible to mirror every detail. There are only two forms I can think of that manage to mirror every technique (at least, 2 out of the 30 that I have personally trained). None of the Kibons do it. None of the Palgwes (my school's versions) manage it. None of the black belt forms, or my school's variants manage it. Pyongwon comes close, except the first two techniques are a low block to the right and middle block to the left; and the last technique is not mirrored. Keumgang comes very close as well, except it has lopsided hand counts for the techniques in its opening segment. Most of the forms are mirrored on the horizontal sections, but then the vertical section is done the same side each time. The two forms that actually hit every technique and combination on both sides are Taegeuk 3 and Taegeuk 6.

The same can also be said for the weapon forms we did at my old school. Not all of the weapons had forms. But out of several sword forms, a knife form, a bo form, and a double nunchaku form, none of them were a perfect mirror. Double nunchaku was closest, except it had lopsided hand counts as well.

*There is a third way around mirroring the details, and that is to have the details mirrored in another form, instead of simply by repeating the form in a mirrored fashion. For example, if Form 1 has you turn 270 to the left (ending to the right) and performing a down block, but no mirrored version; then Form 2 (or 3, 4, 5, etc.) could feature a 270 turn to the right (ending left) and performing a down block. The general concept is one I want to explore from the other direction in the third section.

**Funnily enough, I once did Keumgang Il Jang as a mirrored version of itself. What I found is that there were several techniques that I struggled with doing the form normally, which I did much better in the mirrored version. For example, a spin hook kick with by better leg and a roll with my better shoulder.

Repetition in a Form
One thing I noticed about the Taegeuk forms compared to the Palgwe forms is that there is much less repetition of techniques, combinations, and sets in the Taegeuk forms. There are only two Taegeuk forms that repeat a line. Ironically, those are also the only two that manage a perfect mirror: Taegeuks 3 & 6. The other six Taegeuks only repeat a line once. However, many will repeat a combination more than is required to mirror it. For example, Taegeuk 2 has three copies of kick and punch at the end, which is one more than needed to mirror the technique.

Compare this with the Palgwes (especially the earlier Palgwes) and the Kibon forms, and you see a stark contrast. Kibon 1 repeats the "turn, down block, step, punch" combination eight times! Palgwe 1 has "turn down block, step, inside block" five times. Palgwe 2 repeats "turn, high block, kick, punch" six times.

There are two questions that must be asked here:

1. How much should a form repeat itself?
2. What constitutes a repetition?

It might make sense to reverse those questions, as it makes logical sense to know what a repetition is before you try and analyze how often it should happen. In this case, I feel it fits better if I first talk about my thoughts on how to get reps. Palgwe 4 features a combination a the start that I really liked. It is used twice in the form, both at the beginning, and in the middle. However, I practiced the combination in the beginning for a week straight. I did not practice the entire form. I broke it down step-by-step. The second line to feature the combination, well that was just a matter of copy + paste the muscle memory. I already had it.

I did not benefit on the combination by having it repeated twice in the form (four times if you count the mirrors separate). Once was enough. You can get more repetitions on techniques by breaking the form down, or by repeating the entire form. Forms could be made shorter by editing out unnecessary copies. Or they could have additional content added in. Of course, there is one reason I can think of to keep a form longer without variation: it's easier for beginners to learn. I don't think it's impossible for a beginner to learn a more complicated form, as the first ITF and ATA forms (at least, as far as I can tell from a brief search) are much more complicated than Kibon Il Jang. And many Kukkiwon schools jump straight into the Taegeuks, which I would argue Taegeuk 1 is more difficult than Palgwes 1-3, with no lines repeated.

What is a repetition? There's a reason I've been talking about combinations and not just individual techniques. This is one I don't have a specific definition for. It's more case-by-case, depending on how complex the form is. However, I would say that any time you repeat the same sequence of moves in the same stance, it is a repetition. Otherwise, it is a variation. For example, in Taegeuk 2, there is a "down block, front kick, high punch" combo and a "down block, front kick, middle punch" combo. The two combos feature different punches (middle or high), and feature different stances with the punch. These are not repetitions, but are rather a variation. I feel that variation is very healthy for a form, as it gives you different techniques that you can do.

On the other hand, when your form is as simple as Kibon Il Jang, there is a lot of repetition. Kibon Il Jang is just 8 steps on repeat for a 20-count (meaning 2.5 repetitions). One local school I was considering joining has what they call "Tiger 1", which is essentially Kibon Il Jang, but just the first 16 steps. This solves numerous problems I have with the form, but that's another discussion. But at least it cuts it down to exactly 2 repetitions of the 8 steps. Even then, the first four (block, punch, block punch) and the last four (block, punch, punch, punch) are very similar. The only difference is you add "punch, punch" as a possible combination. The "punch, punch" is mirrored by the last punch in the line. However, it could also be mirrored by only doing 2 punches, or three steps. This would also allow you to mirror the line on the way back instead of repeating it. If you do the full 20 steps, it also means you could mirror the 270-degree turn.

Replication in the Form Set
To take the previous discussion point one step further, there is also the replication of a combination throughout the form set. I've been largely ignoring footwork, but this is something that's been on my mind as I've been thinking about it. At my old school, we had Kibon 1-5 and Palgwe 1-8 to get your black belt. All the way up through Palgwe 5, all of the forms had a basic I-shape. Up through Palgwe 3, and all follow roughly the same exact steps in the I-shape. It wasn't until red belt that we strayed away from it. Out of the first 8 forms, 6 of them start with a down block to the left.

The Taegeuks have been getting a lot of praise from me in this thread so far, but they're not a whole lot better. Every Taegeuk form has a horizontal set at the top, middle, and bottom, with one solid vertical line and one interrupted. For example, Taegeuk 1 is top, middle, bottom, with the forward vertical interrupted, and the backward vertical straight. I would label this as TMB. Taegeuks 1-3 and 6-7 are TMB, 4-5 are TBM, and Taegeuk 8 is the only one to be BMT. The only possible combination that is missing is MBT, if you started forward, did something in the middle, continued forward, had a line at the bottom, and then came all the way back. And like the Palgwe forms, there is a lot of "turn to the left and down block" at the start of these forms, as 5 of them start out this way. The first 7 forms all start to the left.

Compare this with the Yudanja, or the official Kukkiwon black belt forms. They have different shapes, which represent different symbols. Koryo loosely follows the I pattern, and Taebaek follows it to the letter (pun intended), but Keumgang has a very distinct shape, Pyongwon is a line, and Hansoo (which I haven't learned) has diagonals! That's also true of our Taebaek Il Jang and Pyongwon Il Jang, both feature diagonal lines in addition to the horizontal and vertical lines. (That's as far as I got, I don't have any comments on Sipjin Il Jang or anything after). I think it's worth noting that there is a loose association between the patterns of the Taegeuks and the symbols that represent them, but since the symbols are very similar, the patterns are very similar.

This has mostly been a discussion in the overall choreography of the form, which isn't necessarily what I wanted to look at. However, along the same lines (pun not intended this time), I did mention that out of the 5 Kibons, 8 Palgwes, and 8 Taegeuks, a whopping 11 of them start with "turn to the left and down block." In the 8 Taegeuks, your left hand will do 8 down blocks in walking stance and 8 down blocks in front stance (not to mention two-hand blocks like scissor blocks).

I said in the first discussion point that things which aren't mirrored in a form could be mirrored in a form set. However, I also feel that things which are included in a form should be varied in later forms in the set. In all of the examples above of "turn to the left, down block", there are slight variations in the various forms in the set. None of those lines are the same, even if the first hand technique is. However, it is something that could be slightly edited* so that the forms start different. For example, if Taegeuk 2 started with a middle block, Taegeuk 3 with a high block, and Taegeuk 6 with an inside block, then the only two that would be somewhat similar are Taegeuks 1 and 5, but the stance is so different that they're barely the same. (It would also fix it so that Taegeuk 3 and Taegeuk 6 have different lines on bottom and top).

Closing Thoughts
I think I appreciate the Taegeuks more after going through this thought exercise. There are a number of small details I don't like about the Taegeuks and their style, which add up to me not personally preferring them over other styles of forms I've learned and seen. But this thread has given me a slight pause on that. (I still prefer other styles, it's just a smaller delta now).

I was going to post this in the general forum, but I realized that I was going into more and more detail on the Taegeuks in particular, and so I decided to bring it over to the Taekwondo forum. That's not to say I don't value input from those who do other forms and styles (and maybe I should've posted it in General anyway). I know in the past I haven't seemed as open, but those were different threads with a different purpose. Those were threads trying to make sense of the Taekwondo forms and how they are taught, which means I wanted input from those who learned Taekwondo the way Taekwondo is taught. On the other hand, this thread is more about form design in general, which I feel is a more open topic.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Wow. I think this is the longest post I've seen from you. That's OK since the topic is a meaty one. It's great that you are digging into your forms - that's what they're for and that leads to greater understanding of what forms are about. There was a thread about repetition in forms not too long ago, and although it centered on single moves, there is a lot of overlap in the topic. Here's a few ideas (not gospel) on the subject that come to mind:

While there are a number of standalone techniques (letters) in forms, for the most part they are composed of combinations (words), each letter contributing to a functional word. The words are what a form is designed to teach, IMO, so it's beneficial to view forms mostly as a series of 2-5 move combinations, say a block-strike-kick-takedown-punch, or kick-backfist-grab and pull-elbow, each move setting up the next until the ending move finishes the opponent.

As for repetition, there are a number of possible reasons for it. Stressing the moves/combos that are designed to defend the most common attacks and thus most likely to be utilized. Provide practice for both sides. Practicing variants of a combination (as you mention), whether it be targets or footwork. Sometimes a technique is repeated in a single combo, just like a double letter may appear in a word, as it may require doing the move twice (with same or opposite hand) to facilitate the combo. Regardless of style, the forms have been designed with a purpose, though the purpose may vary from Okinawan to Korean styles.

You mentioned that many forms open with stepping to the left. This is true in other styles as well. Why? It could just be an adopted convention, or it's possible that since a right punch is/was the most common opening attack, stepping to the left will put you on the attacker's outside line (and in position to take his back by the end of the combo).

Another thing you mentioned is the pattern of movement in the forms. Some forms may track a T floor plan, others an X or a + or a combination of these. All the above apply to all forms, regardless of style. I think most/all forms in Shotokan and TKD begin and end in the same spot. Not always in Okinawan styles - they may be off a step or two. (I have no idea about CMA.)

I think it's important to understand that the Shotokan/TKD forms are inherently different from the Okinawan forms in terms of historical origins. The Okinawan forms were generally developed in the 1800's to early 1900's as distilled versions of some old master's style. (This was before popular commercial MA, classes then being taught to only 1 - 6 people at a time.) It was common then for the masters to cross train with other masters, so their particular style was actually a hybrid of other styles' forms, their system having forms originating from a number of other styles. Much like the English language (very irregular) being a hybrid of Greek, Latin, Germanic, etc....

The Pinan forms were more or less constructed and planned for Japanese school step-by-step mass instruction of 20-100 kids at a time. (Not 100% accurate, but enough illustrate my point.) Other Okinawan forms were re-worked by the Japanese and became more structured, more systematic and perhaps more symmetrical. This trend was even more pronounced I think as the forms made their way into Korea. The result of this may have led to the greater repetition of moves seen in TKD as a planned lesson curriculum.

IMO, one should embrace their style as it's laid out, and as one advances over the decades, explore variations, applications and questioning, "Why is it like this?"

 

[Earl Weiss]

>>>You mentioned that many forms open with stepping to the left. This is true in other styles as well. Why? << I understand it to be a cultural eastern philosophy thing. At least as far as TK-D is concerned. For fundamental exercise if you start with a block it's a left side technique, if you start with an attack it's a right side technique. Like Left hand is for the toilet and right for eating.
From a practical standpoint, since most warriors were right handed that would be there right side so you would want to attack there non weapon or left side thereby using a block to that side to defend against such an attack first would make sense

 

[wab25]

The more something is repeated, the more basic and fundamental it is. In other words, the more important it is. In Shotokan, you see the down block -> lunge punch combo show up a lot. That is because those movements are fundamentals to the system. Improving that one combination will improve all of your Shotokan Karate. Getting a deeper understanding of that combo, will give you a deeper understanding of Shotokan Karate. Just like shrimping in BJJ... you do it a lot, it shows up a lot.... because it is fundamental to BJJ. Getting better at that one technique will improve you BJJ.... getting a better understanding of shrimping, will give you a better understanding of BJJ.

Another way to look at Kata, is as a medium to explore advanced ideas. True, you should be able to explore the advanced ideas, in the advanced kata.... but some of us, find it easier to take the advanced idea and start to explore it in a kata, where I don't need to think about what comes next. I can start to explore that new advanced idea in the kata that is nothing but down block -> lunge punch a bunch of times. Then I can move the idea to the more complicated kata... and then start on the next advanced idea at the beginning. So now kata becomes not only a set of things to learn how to do and to teach the beginning students... but it also becomes a medium in which to study higher level concepts.

 

[skribs]

I think most/all forms in Shotokan and TKD begin and end in the same spot. Not always in Okinawan styles - they may be off a step or two. (I have no idea about CMA.)

In my experience with TKD forms, they try to end on the same spot. This is another case where the Taegeuk forms outperform the Palgwe forms. However, Taegeuk 1 ends up a little bit behind where it started. The problem with the Kibon and Palgwe forms is a problem that I imagine exists in Taikyoku Shodan - by simple math, the form should end in the same spot. If you move 2 to the left, you then move 2 to the right. There's 4 forward and 4 backward.

But what isn't accounted for is that the stances are shoulder width apart, and doing 2 to the left and 2 to the right actually puts you backward 2 shoulder widths. At the top, you move backward 2 extra shoulder widths. At the bottom, you move forward 2 to cancel it out. And then the last 4 steps at the top move you back another 2.

This is one of the problems that Tiger 1 fixes by only going for 16 steps instead of 20. It also is an exact 2 repeats of the pattern instead of 2.5 repeats. And it ends on a Kiyhap (spirited shout), which feels much more satisfying. Doing the kiyhap and then having 4 extra moves is like when Jean-Ralphio on Parks & Rec tried to rap people's names, and always added one more word after the rhyme.

 

[isshinryuronin]

From a practical standpoint, since most warriors were right handed that would be there right side so you would want to attack there non weapon or left side thereby using a block to that side to defend against such an attack first would make sense

Disagree. First, karate evolved mainly as a civilian self-defense method, not for use on the battlefield against armed opponents. Second, getting to the opponent's OUTSIDE greatly reduces his options for countering, gives you more opportunities for control, and opens up his back which is a major goal in a fight.

 

[Tez3]

>>>You mentioned that many forms open with stepping to the left. This is true in other styles as well. Why? << I understand it to be a cultural eastern philosophy thing. At least as far as TK-D is concerned. For fundamental exercise if you start with a block it's a left side technique, if you start with an attack it's a right side technique. Like Left hand is for the toilet and right for eating.
From a practical standpoint, since most warriors were right handed that would be there right side so you would want to attack there non weapon or left side thereby using a block to that side to defend against such an attack first would make sense

Slight detour here sorry. Were left handers in the East also made to use their right as happened in the West making it fairly certain the attack would be 'right handed'?

 

[punisher73]

Slight detour here sorry. Were left handers in the East also made to use their right as happened in the West making it fairly certain the attack would be 'right handed'?

More than likely, although I don't have specific information on it, but if we make the assumption that they weren't forced to switch over, it is estimated that 90% of the world's population is naturally right handed. So, training for the most likely attach, things would be set up against the right hand.

 

[punisher73]

The problem will ultimately be, "we don't know why". Only the originators/creators of the specific kata can answer that question.

There are a lot of theories though, and I think all of them might have some merit to them.

1) Reinforcing important technique combinations
2) Going back to one side or another for aesthetic reasons.
3) Using kata as a mnemonic device ( for example, PEMDAS-Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally to teach the order of operations in math: Parenthesis/Exponents/Multiplication/Division/Addition/Subtraction). The repeating movements represented things to remind you of the various applications and more than one option. This is one reason why kata shouldn't be changed to fit a specific application. By doing so, you lose the other applications it was meant to illustrate.
4) Each time it is repeated, it is a different situation being presented. So the moves are never actually repeated, it just appears that way without the attacker providing the context.
5) The movements are teaching concepts/ideas and aren't meant to be technique specific meaning Technique A is the counter to Attack B. This idea is more present from the chinese forms that were brought into Okinawan Karate, for example, Sanchin Kata.
6) The movements are repeated for internal/external conditioning. For example, the bridge building isometrics that you see in Hung Gar and some other southern based kung fu styles.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but I have seen ALL of these reasons in different katas. IMHO, I think that the repeated movements in katas can be any of those reasons and each repeated movement has its own unique context and reason for repeating and isn't necessarily the same reason for all katas repeated movements.

 

[punisher73]

Sorry double post

 

[skribs]

The problem will ultimately be, "we don't know why". Only the originators/creators of the specific kata can answer that question.

If the reason is lost, then it no longer matters. What matters is the reason we currently have, and whether that reason is enough or not. If you are an instructor, then what is your reason for these, other than "because it's what I learned"? If you are a student, then what is your instructor's reason for teaching you these forms in this way, other than "because it's what s/he learned"?

Take it a step further. If you are trained in multiple styles and are opening a school, you have options, and you can weigh those options based on factors of how close they fit to your mentality on the purpose of forms and how well their designs fit your purpose. Or, if you're breaking off of an organization and now have more freedom, how to pick the forms your school will use (or how to design forms that "fix" the things you're not happy with the ones you've learned).

4) Each time it is repeated, it is a different situation being presented. So the moves are never actually repeated, it just appears that way without the attacker providing the context.

5) The movements are teaching concepts/ideas and aren't meant to be technique specific meaning Technique A is the counter to Attack B. This idea is more present from the chinese forms that were brought into Okinawan Karate, for example, Sanchin Kata.

While there are a number of standalone techniques (letters) in forms, for the most part they are composed of combinations (words), each letter contributing to a functional word. The words are what a form is designed to teach, IMO, so it's beneficial to view forms mostly as a series of 2-5 move combinations, say a block-strike-kick-takedown-punch, or kick-backfist-grab and pull-elbow, each move setting up the next until the ending move finishes the opponent.

I've not learned forms in context, except for surface-level "this is to block X and Y" or "this is to strike Z". From what I can tell, this is fairly common in Kukkiwon schools. There is also very little discussion of grappling in the forms I've learned and the way I've learned them.

We did memorized one-step "sparring" drills, but those were completely separate from the forms. I don't know that I've ever done forms with a second person providing the context. Unless the form is designed with two people in mind, I also don't know that it would be necessary to have that context provided by repeating the same technique in a different context, as an instructor could just provide different contexts for the same technique in the forms.

6) The movements are repeated for internal/external conditioning. For example, the bridge building isometrics that you see in Hung Gar and some other southern based kung fu styles.

I do see this as a purpose for the forms. I don't see why you can't just repeat the entire form to get the conditioning. Or do similar movements to get the same conditioning, but change another variable so it's something different.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Disagree. First, karate evolved mainly as a civilian self-defense method, not for use on the battlefield against armed opponents. Second, getting to the opponent's OUTSIDE greatly reduces his options for countering, gives you more opportunities for control, and opens up his back which is a major goal in a fight.

Differing opinions are great. While you may be correct " First, karate evolved mainly as a ...." We would first have to define "Karate" and when the evolution took place and whether the roots it evolved from were indeed "civilian self-defense method, not for use on the battlefield against armed opponents." and then whether or not any "evolution" was done with the intent of ignoring / eliminating those roots / purposes, and substituting something else.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Slight detour here sorry. Were left handers in the East also made to use their right as happened in the West making it fairly certain the attack would be 'right handed'?

Sir, I do not know.

 

[Earl Weiss]

The problem will ultimately be, "we don't know why". Only the originators/creators of the specific kata can answer that question.

In the case of the Chang Hon system ( first several forms heavily based on Shorin and Shorei precursors) General Choi was asked about one in particular (6 Repetitions of the "W" Shape Block" ) and his answer was "Practice" nothing else.

As far as doing one side and then the other his text states the purpose is to practice both sides equally (Not strictly followed in all Chang Hon Patterns) so, no mystery there.

 

[Tez3]

Sir, I do not know.

No problem, I'm always curious about it because my son and husband are left handed, my daughter and I right. King George Vl was left handed but made to use his right and ended up with the stutter that blighted his life as king. It's known forcing children to do this can cause stuttering and learning problems.

 

[punisher73]

If the reason is lost, then it no longer matters. What matters is the reason we currently have, and whether that reason is enough or not. If you are an instructor, then what is your reason for these, other than "because it's what I learned"? If you are a student, then what is your instructor's reason for teaching you these forms in this way, other than "because it's what s/he learned"?

Take it a step further. If you are trained in multiple styles and are opening a school, you have options, and you can weigh those options based on factors of how close they fit to your mentality on the purpose of forms and how well their designs fit your purpose. Or, if you're breaking off of an organization and now have more freedom, how to pick the forms your school will use (or how to design forms that "fix" the things you're not happy with the ones you've learned).





I've not learned forms in context, except for surface-level "this is to block X and Y" or "this is to strike Z". From what I can tell, this is fairly common in Kukkiwon schools. There is also very little discussion of grappling in the forms I've learned and the way I've learned them.

We did memorized one-step "sparring" drills, but those were completely separate from the forms. I don't know that I've ever done forms with a second person providing the context. Unless the form is designed with two people in mind, I also don't know that it would be necessary to have that context provided by repeating the same technique in a different context, as an instructor could just provide different contexts for the same technique in the forms.


I do see this as a purpose for the forms. I don't see why you can't just repeat the entire form to get the conditioning. Or do similar movements to get the same conditioning, but change another variable so it's something different.

Since we don't know the original intent/purpose of the older katas/forms, we should acknowledge that and be willing to admit that this is our best attempt to understand what the applications may be. There are many traditional applications that have been passed down to us though. I'd have to track it down because I don't have it handy (I know its posted somewhere here on Martialtalk), but there was an interview in Classical Fighting Arts magazine with an old karate master that studied under Chotoku Kyan (I believe) and he said that there was the "public" versions of the forms that they were taught in the big public classes, which was only the first level of application. This was the usual block/punch/kick we see. Then if the students studied at the actual dojo there were two more levels to all of the forms. The second level started to include the grappling aspects of the moves. The third level was the lethal fight ending applications for the moves when it WAS a life/death situation. Most of what was taught after WW2 was the first level of applications and we are still trying to figure out the other stuff. We have plenty of historical evidence through the writings of the older masters and oral traditions that the kata was changed to make it more suitable for the general public. We also have quotes from some of the older masters that they didn't know what all the moves were for. I am in agreement that if you were going to teach your own thing that you would want to pass on material that has the most information contained within them. Guys like Iain Abernathy have done amazing things with the applications of their traditional forms. Is it the "original" applications, who knows. Is it functional and applicable for today's streetfighting? Absolutely. Patrick McCarthy is another one who has developed the "Habitual Acts of Violence" template to help figure out the applications of the moves based on the premise that karate was developed as a civilian self-defense method and what are the most common ways people are attacked.

I often use the example from The Little Mermaid. We are like the seagull with a fork and calling it a "dinglehopper" and using it as a comb. The application worked just fine, but that wasn't the original intent. Same thing with applications from kata. Some we know, some we just have to give it our best guess.

Here is an example of "conditioning" in the forms. After the salutation, there is a series of isometric exercises and then the "application" portion of the form begins. The "bridge" is a very important concept so extra time is spent developing that and is seperate from the general conditioning a person gets from performing a form at high speed (cardio) or using dynamic tension to develop strength.

Here is an example of a "two man set" that was very common in the Chinese arts, but we don't see in the Okinawan/Japanese karate styles.

Uechi-Ryu stayed very close to the Chinese roots of how Kanei Uechi learned it in southern China. Notice how it is different than the Japanese inspired "Ippon Kumite" (one step sparring based on Kendo). You can see how it would be combined for a solo practice that very closely matches their katas.

Not trying to trash TKD, but if we look at a game of telephone we can see where information is lost. The Chinese had their arts and passed them onto the Okinawans. The Okinawans took their own art and then combined elements of kung fu into it. The Okinawans then passed on the art to the Japanese and made changes to make it more suitable and different than other Japanese arts (for example, changing the range it was meant to be used at to a long distance kendo range instead of close quarters and removed the grappling to differentiate it from jujitsu/judo) Then the Koreans brought Japanese karate back and then eventually made changes to make it their own art. Originally, the katas were the same as Japanese karate katas. But, they created their own using bits and pieces of the moves from the karate katas and added their own stuff to it. There have been people like Simon John O'Neil (The Taeguk Cipher) who have gone back to the Japanese katas and looked at the old applications of those to bring in realistic applications to the patterns. The same has been done in other arts as well, going back and back trying to find applications of what the moves may have been. For Okinawan karate, some have gone back to Chinese Chin Na and matched up movements.

There used to be an article online from Charles Goodin about Bunkai. Goodin recommended looking at American Kenpo's self-defense techniques to see what the applications in traditional katas were. You start to see A LOT of the same movements from those S-D techniques as moves against grabs, bear hugs etc. and not just against punches/kicks.

 

[punisher73]

In the case of the Chang Hon system ( first several forms heavily based on Shorin and Shorei precursors) General Choi was asked about one in particular (6 Repetitions of the "W" Shape Block" ) and his answer was "Practice" nothing else.

As far as doing one side and then the other his text states the purpose is to practice both sides equally (Not strictly followed in all Chang Hon Patterns) so, no mystery there.

I remember listening to an instructor who got his BB in Korea in the 60's. He won a first edition copy of Gen. Choi's first book in Korean in a tournament. According to this instructor, Gen. Choi stated in the book that they were not taught the deeper meaning of the moves beyond the block/punch/kick applications. This was removed later on from the book.

If you look at the "original" TKD patterns, they were just the Shotokan katas. I believe in Tang Soo Do, they still use those patterns but have a strange history about how they are matched with certain animals and came from China.

Understanding a bit of Korean history and the atrocities that they suffered under Japanese occupation, I can understand why they would want to change and remove the Japanese influence from it and create their own cultural martial art. Which I believe they have achieved through the years to make it their own.

 

[isshinryuronin]

We would first have to define "Karate" and when the evolution took place and whether the roots it evolved from were indeed "civilian self-defense method, not for use on the battlefield against armed opponents.

I think for most purposes we can view "karate" as the MA developed in Okinawa by combining their native MA with Chinese kung fu during the later 1700's to early 1800's. Battlefield warfare was long gone by this time, not to say thugs did not have access to clubs and the occasional knife. Funakoshi and Miyagi notably owned revered copies of the Bubishi, one of the earliest existing MA compilations known. There are several dozen illustrations of techniques, many of them employing grappling (kicking is interestingly absent), and none of weapon self-defense, though some of this may have been added to the art at some point later on.

and then whether or not any "evolution" was done with the intent of ignoring / eliminating those roots / purposes, and substituting something else..

Oh, I think this is absolutely true (thus providing much fodder for debate on this forum). The evolution beginning roughly about 1930 entailed removal of much grappling (to differentiate it from judo by the Japanese authorities) and vital point strikes (to make it safer for school kids). So, some of karate's roots were "ignored / eliminated," at least as popularly taught to the general public (the masters' private students sometimes had the "more original" version taught to them). And the sportification of karate had a major impact, channeling the purposes of karate towards physical development and competitive sport. This "modernized" version of karate was what was originally passed on to the West and Korea.

 

[skribs]

Not trying to trash TKD, but if we look at a game of telephone we can see where information is lost.

This was basically the result of me trying to find a direct practical application in the exact way we do things in Taekwondo.

 

[J. Pickard]

I'm way too tired to fully comprehend this right now, but it seems interesting so I will definitely come back to this.