"The Taikyoku Problem"

[skribs]

YES. THIS. SORRY FOR yelling.

Your whole post but this specifically. So many people are so narrowly focused on application it can detract completely from the quality of that application, and to me more importantly, how you're developing the significant body intelligence and instilling that within your being.

And that is the difference between particular content (he does this, I do that. A-B-C etc) and quality approach and training. Ultimately a merging of the two is important, but that's why I love solo kata training, and have never been big on application as some be all end all. What are the principles this form is trying to communicate? What's the theme? How is it teaching my body to move, to develop connection, to understand transition, generate power in different ways, in shorter spaces/distances etc? There's so much more to it than just partner work, which, don't get me wrong, has its important place, but it is dramatically enhanced through QUALITY training and looking deeper in the forms.

Instilling that deep body intelligence that quality form training offers is so enriching and fruitful.

Beginner: Get told to do A-B-C.
Intermediate: Know A-B-C well enough to drill them on your own.
Advanced: Break apart A-B-C and try to find new combinations.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Someone had mentioned "snake engine" in this forum before. As far as I remember, he didn't want to talk about how to use his "snake engine" in combat.

One has a

1. good engine, but doesn't know how to fight.
2. bad engine, but knows how to fight.

IMO, 1 < 2.

What will be your respond for B's question?

A: MA is not only for fighting. It can be for health, self-cultivation, inner peace, ...
B: Why do you care about power generation if you don't care about fighting?
A: ...

Because MA isn't only for fighting, but it can certainly be used for that.

You're a man of black and white absolutes. You only believe one thing is correct, and you never stop insisting on it.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Please notice that "fighting skill' can only be developed when you are still young. But "foundation" can still be enhanced through your old age.

I disagree with this. Both fighting skill and foundation can be enhanced throughout one's life. While one's physical abilities (notice I did not say "skills") wane over the decades, the mental, spiritual, and the way one uses their physical abilities (this is "skill") can continue to improve.

See, I feel it’s a better approach to develop that foundation first because then your fighting skill will be powerful from the beginning. If done the other way around, all too often people never go back to fix the lacking issues later.

It's definitely better to develop foundation prior to concentrating on fighting. But I think it's best to develop them concurrently to some degree (with a bit more emphasis on the foundation.) By practicing the foundational skills with their application in mind, those foundational skills will be developed more effectively - drilling the moves with purpose to them, rather than just mechanical motions void of meaning.

By practicing the basics with an aggressive outlook, understanding that those basics ARE fighting techniques right from the start, one will gradually build up their fighting skills as they practice their kihon and kata. Once their basic foundation is strong, the platform is set and ready for advanced fighting skill development. So rather than a two step process: foundation then fighting, development is more of a continuum.

To illustrate: not _________________then..........................., but _______--------------------- (solid line=foundation, broken line=fighting skills) This is the best I can do with my limited computer skills. Of course, fighting can be introduced right at the start just as foundational development does not stop. My simple "diagram" shows only the emphasis, but hopefully gets the idea across.

All phases of karate practice are interrelated, and when practicing any one of them, the other elements should in incorporated to some greater or lesser degree, depending on your immediate workout goal that day.

It may be convenient to break down karate's elements and talk about karate power, speed, fighting, meditative, form, flow, bunkai, strategy, etc. individually, but I (now, after many years) see karate as a single whole. A "Gestalt" view in psychological terms. In the end, karate is karate.

 

[_Simon_]

Beginner: Get told to do A-B-C.
Intermediate: Know A-B-C well enough to drill them on your own.
Advanced: Break apart A-B-C and try to find new combinations.

Yeah for sure, but A-B-C is still content based that often can be construed as 'enough'. As in, the surface shape and general movement path looks good, so it often gets left at that. The quality is another matter, which refers to deeper connection, stability, internal components and to me are what the on-the-surface techniques are pointing to and coming out of.

BUT, every system's requirements are often different of course. I think it's very fruitful to instil the principles and be able to have the control to apply it which isn't necessarily shape-oriented, but the shapes reflect the inner connection and understanding. Blahblah haha..

 

[punisher73]

One thought that I had last night while thinking about the replies is this:

If a student isn't willing to put in the work and wants to do the fun stuff, Taikyoku won't do it for them but a more interesting kata like Tekki, Bassai, etc. just might. On the other hand, if a student is willing to put some effort into Karate, Taikyoku will be useful to them, but also so will a more fun kata. To paraphrase, if a student wants to work hard at Karate, they would likely be able to adapt to a more advanced kata anyways and likely learn the same things as they would from Taikyoku.

Sometimes, take the beginners through a more "advanced" kata. They won't get it and I even tell them not to worry about trying to remember anything about it. You leave them with a feeling and have a seed planted. Then we go right back to the more foundational stuff and talk about the fact that it is these "boring" building blocks that will get them to the "cool stuff" they have seen. I try to make them understand it is necessary to build a foundation that the other stuff is possible.

It doesn't always work, but for many it does when they start to see the "why" of what they are learning and doing.

 

[wab25]

So why can't we learn application (partner drill) first and solo form later?

Anybody wants to comment on this?

As was pointed out... you can learn either one first. Different people prefer the different approaches. Both approaches work.

The thing to keep in mind is that the approaches are different. One problem we have is liking one of the approaches, and then looking at the other approach through the lens of the one that we like.

Yes, you can learn the application of a move first, and then work back to a solo drill. The issue with Karate and many other kata based arts is that they were not developed to be taught in that way. When you look at the Taikyoku Kata, it is a pattern of down block, followed by step forward punch. So lets first teach the application of the step forward punch. That step forward punch, is a punch, it is a joint lock / arm bar, it is a hip throw, it is a lapel / projection throw, it is and escape from a grab.... its a lot more things as well. Which application then do we teach the student, before introducing the solo drill? Or rather, how many of the applications to we teach the student before introducing the solo drill?

If I use the Kata view to look at Chinese wrestling, I could look at your process of application to partner drill to solo drill. What I would see through the Kata lens, is the creation of a kata, where there is only one interpretation, only one thing being practiced. From the Kata lens, that is a horrible solo drill.... But that is looking at an Art through the lens of a different approach. It is very hard to understand and or appreciate an art, when you look at it through the lens of some other art or approach.

 

[wab25]

Beginner: Get told to do A-B-C.
Intermediate: Know A-B-C well enough to drill them on your own.
Advanced: Break apart A-B-C and try to find new combinations.

Shu - Beginner: Get told to do A-B-C.
Ha - Intermediate: Know A-B-C well enough to drill them on your own.
Ri - Advanced: Break apart A-B-C and try to find new combinations.

Just saying... we may actually view things much more a like, than we do differently...

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Now we are talking about the key issue here.

Many Taiji guys love to talk about power generation. But they don't even want to talk about fighting. My question is, "Why should you care about power generation if you don't care about fighting?" If you just want to train MA for health, whether you can generate power or not will have nothing to do with your health improvement.

Should you try to develop fighting skill first, you then try to "enhance" your power generation? What's the usage that one may generate the maximum power, but he has no fighting skill to deliver it?

I have seen so many MA people who has perfect foundation (good speed, good power, good flexibility). But they don't have fighting skill.

I believe one should develop fighting skill first, and enhance foundation later. A bad punch that can land is better than a good punch that hits into the thin air.

See, I feel it’s a better approach to develop that foundation first because then your fighting skill will be powerful from the beginning. If done the other way around, all too often people never go back to fix the lacking issues later. They have developed a certain bit of fighting ability, but with less than optimum power. They never rework it to insert that power in later. People don’t want to do that.

I did it, but it took me a long time to figure it out, and access to better quality instruction. If I had that instruction from the beginning, I could be much better now.

Which one will be more likely to happen?

A guy with good

1. MA foundation will develop good fighting skill later on.
2. fighting skill will enhance his foundation later on.

Please notice that "fighting skill' can only be developed when you are still young. But "foundation" can still be enhanced through your old age.

From the context of the conversation I'm going to assume the following meanings:

"foundation" - posture, stance, balance, structural alignment, body dynamics, power generation, etc, etc.

"fighting skill" - timing, distancing, aggression, appropriate tactical reflexes, sensitivity, reading an opponent, desensitization to getting hit, etc, etc.

It's a bit of an artificial distinction, but it works well enough for the discussion at hand.

I feel strongly that these two categories of development should be trained hand in hand rather than either being delayed too long in favor of the other.

If you train just "foundation" for too long, you can end up with a martial artist who looks good performing solo or with a cooperative partner, but their technique will fall apart once you give them an opponent who doesn't go along with the program and punches them in the face. Also sometimes the foundation can be flawed because the practitioner doesn't have the personal experience to know why the body has to be organized just so or how and when to break the "rules" they are taught.

If you just train "fighting skill" without foundation (I guess by throwing someone into sparring and/or real fights), then you can end up with a fighter who has glaring technical flaws that they have a hard time reprogramming. In addition, you'll be weeding out the students who need to develop fighting skill the most - those who are lacking in natural athleticism, aggression, and fighting spirit. If you throw these students into the shark tank without some sort of foundation to work with, then they are going to quit and never develop their potential.

I try to teach both from day one. It's an incremental progressive process. Maybe at first it's enough that they can get their feet in the right place, bend their knees, and not cower away when their partner feeds them a slow telegraphed punch to react to. As they develop I start being more and more demanding about their technical form and give them more challenging and open-ended partner drills. I like to set aside a few minutes for Q&A and troubleshooting at the end of sparring sessions. I can often use this time to point out how a problem a student just had in sparring was caused by a specific flaw in their technical form. This way the development of "foundation" and "fighting skill" reinforce each other instead of being competing agendas.

 

[skribs]

Shu - Beginner: Get told to do A-B-C.
Ha - Intermediate: Know A-B-C well enough to drill them on your own.
Ri - Advanced: Break apart A-B-C and try to find new combinations.

Just saying... we may actually view things much more a like, than we do differently...

This was in response to the conversation about self-defense training. I still view that forms in Taekwondo are basically stuck in the Shu stage.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I try to teach both from day one.

Agree this is the best approach if your MA system doesn't require new students to learn 15 different forms. When form learning take too much time, it can be an issue.

What I would see through the Kata lens, is the creation of a kata, where there is only one interpretation, only one thing being practiced. From the Kata lens, that is a horrible solo drill....

My long fist training experience may be similar to your Karate training experience. But my Chinese wrestling training experience is different.

After I had learned the 1st SC form - left hand block, grab, and pull while right hand strike out, one day I did the solo form. My SC teacher came to me and asked what I was doing. I told him that I was drilling the solo form that he taught me. He then said, "Form is for teaching/learning only. Form is not for training. If you want to train knee seize, your left hand should be like this. If you want to train front cut, your right leg should be like this."

After that day, I started to understand the meaning of

- Form is for teaching/learning only. Form is not for training.
- Train the same way as you will fight.

 

[wab25]

After I had learned the 1st SC form - left hand block, grab, and pull while right hand strike out, one day I did the solo form. My SC teacher came to me and asked what I was doing. I told him that I was drilling the solo form that he taught me. He then said, "Form is for teaching/learning only. Form is not for training. If you want to train knee seize, your left hand should be like this. If you want to train front cut, your right leg should be like this."

You are still looking at Karate / Kata approach to training from your Chinese Wrestling lens.

My teacher said that when I practice Kata correctly, I am practicing all the applications of each movement, simultaneously. Now, whose teacher is right?

One is not right and the other is not wrong. Different people will find the different approaches right for them. That does not mean that the other approach is wrong, or any less.

After that day, I started to understand the meaning of

- Form is for teaching/learning only. Form is not for training.
- Train the same way as you will fight.

Boxers jump rope, hit the speed bag, lift weights, do sit ups and ab crunches and run.... Are they not training when they do this? I have never seen a boxer jumping rope in the ring during a fight, neither have I seen one hit the other guy like he hits the speed bag....

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

You are still looking at Karate / Kata approach to training from your Chinese Wrestling lens.

Boxers jump rope, hit the speed bag, lift weights, do sit ups and ab crunches and run.... Are they not training when they do this? I have never seen a boxer jumping rope in the ring during a fight, neither have I seen one hit the other guy like he hits the speed bag....

We are comparing 2 different approaches here. You believe form training can be "abstract" (can be a punch, lock, throw, ...). I believe form training should be "concrete".

Do you agree with the following?

One can use:

- partner drill to "develop" combat skill.
- sparring/wrestling to "test" combat skill.
- solo form to "polish" combat skill.
- jump rope, hit the speed bag, lift weights, sit ups, ab crunches, run to "enhance" combat skill.

Boxers use jump rope, hit the speed bag, lift weights, do sit ups and ab crunches and run to "enhance" combat skill.

 

[wab25]

We are comparing 2 different approaches here.

Correct. We are comparing 2 different approaches.

You believe form training can be "abstract" (can be a punch, lock, throw, ...). I believe form training should be "concrete".

I think both approaches are valid, while you, and others are saying the one is better than the other. My point is that different people learn and train in different ways. If one approach works better for you, use that approach.

What we keep doing is going to our preferred approach, and then looking at the other and then determining that it is less because it is not the approach that you prefer. It is different yes. But, that does not detract from the other approach. Both of these approaches have produced very good fighters and martial artists.

Do you agree with the following?

One can use:

- partner drill to "develop" combat skill.
- sparring/wrestling to "test" combat skill.
- solo form to "polish" combat skill.
- jump rope, hit the speed bag, lift weights, sit ups, ab crunches, run to "enhance" combat skill.

Boxers use jump rope, hit the speed bag, lift weights, do sit ups and ab crunches and run to "enhance" combat skill.

Yes. But in saying yes to your list here, is not a proof or admission that your preferred approach is better than any other. All approaches would find value in your list.

My "enhancing" list was in response to your teachers saying that you should not train the form, but train as you fight. The "enhancement" list is a form of training, even though it is not training "as you fight."

Again, I am not trying to change your mind, that your preferred approach is any less than another approach. I am just pointing out that just because the other approach is not exactly like your approach, does not mean it is wrong or should be changed into your approach. As a student, you should find the approach that works best for you. I would also say, that as a student, if you can bring yourself to appreciate the other approach and spend some time there, you may pick up somethings that you would not have gotten otherwise. Now whether that is because one approach teaches certain things a little better than the other or whether that effect is just because it made you look at what you do a little different... is irrelevant.... so long as you keep learning.

Karate and other kata / form based arts should not throw away their kata / forms and should not train in the way Chinese Wrestling does.

Chinese Wrestling should not change the way they train and move to a kata or form based training.

Both camps should recognize that the other camp has value, is successful at training fighters and is in fact different. We tend to like to tear down things we do not understand. Its much easier than taking the time to try to learn and understand, especially when it is not our preferred approach. Why should we find fault with the other approach, just because it does not work for us? If it works for other people, is that not enough?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think both approaches are valid, while you, and others are saying the one is better than the other.

I didn't say one way is better than the other. I have trained both ways. I believe my long fist way is similar to your Karate way. I just said that I like my Chinese wrestling way better than my long fist way.

This is how my high school long fist class training looked like. IMO, it's too heavy on the solo form training.

 

[wab25]

I didn't say one way is better than the other.

I must have miss understood...

There are 2 different ways to learn MA.

1. Learn solo form first. Learn application afterward.
2. Learn partner drills first. When doing partner drill without partner, you have solo drills. When you link solo drills into a sequence, you have solo form.

IMO, 1 < 2. The nice thing about method 2 is you can create your form any way you like.

1 is different than 2, not better or worse (greater or lesser)

You believe form training can be "abstract" (can be a punch, lock, throw, ...). I believe form training should be "concrete".

Training can abstract or it can be concrete. They are different but both work.

I took your statements that one is greater than the other and that you believe one way, but training should be the other, to mean that you were saying one way was better.

 

[Flying Crane]

I didn't say one way is better than the other. I have trained both ways. I believe my long fist way is similar to your Karate way. I just said that I like my Chinese wrestling way better than my long fist way.

This is how my high school long fist class training looked like. IMO, it's too heavy on the solo form training.

What this looks like to me is an attempt to record the forms for reference and as a historical document, and not an example of a typical training session. If all they do is do their forms and then go home, that is a poor training session. There ought to be a lot more time spent on foundation and fundamentals, lots of punches and kicks just drilling those basic techniques, and yes there ought to be two-person application drills as well, at least some of the time. I suspect this was not an actual training session, but was just a display of the curriculum.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What this looks like to me is an attempt to record the forms for reference and as a historical document, and not an example of a typical training session.

If you count the number of the solo forms (include weapon) in that clip, it can be over 30 different forms. Anybody who tries to learn all those 30 forms within 3 senior high school years (3 times a week, 2 hours each class) won't be able to spend enough time in combat training.

 

[Flying Crane]

If you count the number of the solo forms (include weapon) in that clip, it can be over 30 different forms. Anybody who tries to learn all those 30 forms within 3 senior high school years (3 times a week, 2 hours each class) won't be able to spend enough time in combat training.

I agree, it is too many. Some schools end up simply collecting forms. I believe that is misguided. Forms should be just one tool of many, not the only tool for training.

 

[isshinryuronin]

So why can't we learn application (partner drill) first and solo form later?

Anybody wants to comment on this?

We CAN. This is how (karate) kata was originally done. The form was not to teach application, but to practice and remember it after the application was taught. Partner drills were the main practice whenever possible. When not possible, solo forms were used. For various reasons, this order got reversed over the past century.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The form was not to teach application, but to practice and remember it after the application was taught.

Agree with you 100% there. Solo form training can be used to "polish" application. The application has to exist first before it can be polished.