TKD/TSD/Karate Heresy!

[dancingalone]

Do you think there are too many patterns in TKD/TSD/karate today with duplicating movements? Perhaps even some of those patterns are too 'basic' for the type of students you teach?

Would you remove any of those forms from your lesson plans? Which ones?

(I'm fully aware many if not most will say they wouldn't remove any of the forms, nor would they presume to as that would be 'second guessing' the masters who came ahead of them.)

========================================================

As for me, I would be tempted to teach only 1 Naihanchi form, the first one. And I wouldn't be heartbroken about losing the Pyung Ahn/Pinan forms entirely or leaving out the Kibon/Kicho/Taikyoku patterns.

You can teach the applications contained inside the forms without the forms themselves after all. And if you take that approach, then it makes sense to preserve only the 'better' forms. Teach Kusanku proper since it contains the majority of the techniques in the Pinan forms...

 

[Omar B]

I can tell you that the white belt curriculum in Seido Karate has in my opinion too many katas doing the same thing. Seido Kata 1-3 have the same basic "I" pattern, pretty much the same movments. Kata one has a punch deleivered to the body, Kata two is the same thing with the punch being delivered top the face and kata 3 just changes the block from a lower block to an inside-outside block.

Far be it from me to question Tadashi Nakamura, but one kata being taught and introducing different blocks and punches to the same thing would be just as effective.

 

[dancingalone]

Omar, those sound like the Taikyoku forms from Shotokan. Tang Soo Do people call them 'kicho' or basic forms. Yes, I agree they're largely meaningless other than for rote practice with your beginners. They smack too much of 'busy work' to me.

 

[Omar B]

Thank you, I totally forgot the name the Shotokan guys called them. But yeah, all you need to learn is one of those kata and your sensei can say something like "this time we are gonna do it, but with an inside-outside block," or "this time with a front kick instead of the punch." You can teach the same 'I' pattern kata and plug in whatever the instructor wishes to work on and not turn it into 3, 4 or how many ever.

 

[Manny]

I will erase the kichos. And maybe will eliominate two or three taeguks.I would rather practice 4 or 5 taeguks and m,astered them than do a lot of them and be a messwith all.

Manny

 

[Touch Of Death]

Consolidation may seem like the best rought, but consider the stuff that is the same is the core you need to have mastered, and the differences are simply different applications from that core. The idea then being that you need to practice... a lot. Some Kenpo systems (Tracy's) have hundreds of techs, but realisticly these motions overlap and blend. So, yes, overlap is busywork, but its important busy work.
Sean

 

[Earl Weiss]

Interesting question. The answers come at many levels.

First, it may depend on the pattern series. For the Chang Hon system, admittedly built on the Shorin and Shorei patterns for the first ten or so, each builds on the former. Example is Learning Quarter and half turns, then full turns, then adding kicks etc.

Next is the issue of the move applications. Some think stated applications are the exclusive applications so why repeat them. Others think that the applications stated are not the true applications but those are secret or hidden.

I (believe) have moved beyond both theories of exclusive or hidden applications. Patterns simply teach you how to move in any number of ways with balance, power and efficiency. How you employ the motion is limited only by imagination and effectiveness. So, if a move repeats itself from one pattern to the next, is that same move also preceeded and followed by the same move? If not, then perhaps it affords an method to practice other potential applications, or use the same applications in other circumstances.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Personally, I didnt find any of the forms too easy as I progressed through the ranks. At first I thought they were too easy as Id get them down in one weekend, but then i would go to class and show my instructor and he would show me all the things I was doing wrong. I would then go home, fix the problems and go back and show him again, and then he would get even pickier and more pedantic about what I was doing wrong and this would go on and on until I realised that to really do a form properly right down to the finest points does take a lot of practice. I regularly see black belts doing a yellow belt form and notice one of their feet is out of position by just a couple of degrees (barely noticeable to the naked eye) but its still wrong if you want to get technical. So if a black belt can still make tiny mistakes in a yellow belt form then its not too basic for a yellow belt in my opinion.

 

[dancingalone]

Personally, I didnt find any of the forms too easy as I progressed through the ranks. At first I thought they were too easy as Id get them down in one weekend, but then i would go to class and show my instructor and he would show me all the things I was doing wrong. I would then go home, fix the problems and go back and show him again, and then he would get even pickier and more pedantic about what I was doing wrong and this would go on and on until I realised that to really do a form properly right down to the finest points does take a lot of practice. I regularly see black belts doing a yellow belt form and notice one of their feet is out of position by just a couple of degrees (barely noticeable to the naked eye) but its still wrong if you want to get technical. So if a black belt can still make tiny mistakes in a yellow belt form then its not too basic for a yellow belt in my opinion.

Yeah, I just have a different opinion of forms than you do. I am not concerned about my students meeting some empty "standard" about what a form should look like. People are formed differently after all with different challenges. I don't care if their rear foot is exactly straight forward or out to a 45 degree angle for example, as long as they are balanced, are moving fluidly, and display good power and snap.

The forms are supposed to teach you certain lessons. They are not the end to themselves. So if we think we can learn something better or more easily using another method, by all means let's do it, instead of sticking to some arbitrary lineup of forms simply because that is the way our teacher taught us or worse because some random MA organization requires it so.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Yeah, I just have a different opinion of forms than you do. I am not concerned about my students meeting some empty "standard" about what a form should look like. People are formed differently after all with different challenges. I don't care if their rear foot is exactly straight forward or out to a 45 degree angle for example, as long as they are balanced, are moving fluidly, and display good power and snap.

The forms are supposed to teach you certain lessons. They are not the end to themselves. So if we think we can learn something better or more easily using another method, by all means let's do it, instead of sticking to some arbitrary lineup of forms simply because that is the way our teacher taught us or worse because some random MA organization requires it so.

I agree. For me forms are a very important part of the art but only in ratio to the rest of the curriculum. Too much time can be spent on forms and that can detract from other training. I do however believe that they should be done correctly and not just have a student walking through them. I remember as a yellow belt my instructor constantly picking me up on my rear foot in front stance, I thought he was just being pedantic and then one day he walked up behind me and pushed me while I was in a front stance and I fell on my ***. He then walked up to one of the black belts and did the same and he went nowhere. The difference in his rear foot position was minor but by kicking his heel out just slightly he strengthened his stance substantially. Since then I am of the opinion that if I am going to bother doing forms I do them technically perfect (at least I try to). My club is independent and doesnt have to adhere to organisations standards. Our GM is however, very strict on certain parts of form, particularly stances.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Yeah, I just have a different opinion of forms than you do. I am not concerned about my students meeting some empty "standard" about what a form should look like. People are formed differently after all with different challenges. I don't care if their rear foot is exactly straight forward or out to a 45 degree angle for example, as long as they are balanced, are moving fluidly, and display good power and snap.

The forms are supposed to teach you certain lessons. They are not the end to themselves. So if we think we can learn something better or more easily using another method, by all means let's do it, instead of sticking to some arbitrary lineup of forms simply because that is the way our teacher taught us or worse because some random MA organization requires it so.

1. Why do you think the standard(s) is / are empty?
2. Yes, people are formed differently. If their feet are within a certain range of positions how do you know if they know the purpose and application of the technique or stance?
3. If you believe they know the purpose and application yet seem to be performing outsidethe standard how do you know if they are performing as accurately as they can be?
4. Per above, haven't you ever corrected a student and recieved a comment / reply "I thought I was doing that". ? Perceptions of reality do not always reflect the actuality.
5. What lessons do you think forms teach?
6. What other methods are better or more easily used?
7. Without the patterns what makes the art a specific art as opposed to some form of kickboxing or self defense system?

 

[Bruno@MT]

Yeah, I just have a different opinion of forms than you do. I am not concerned about my students meeting some empty "standard" about what a form should look like. People are formed differently after all with different challenges. I don't care if their rear foot is exactly straight forward or out to a 45 degree angle for example, as long as they are balanced, are moving fluidly, and display good power and snap.

The forms are supposed to teach you certain lessons. They are not the end to themselves. So if we think we can learn something better or more easily using another method, by all means let's do it, instead of sticking to some arbitrary lineup of forms simply because that is the way our teacher taught us or worse because some random MA organization requires it so.

There is a reason that forms are the way they are. There is a reason why feet are angled the way they are. I don't know TKD, but in ninpo, the angling of the feet (and every other part) is like it is for very good reasons, which you are not told right away. You cannot alter those forms without destroying the underlying principles. Also I don't know how TKD organizations work, but in traditional Japanese arts, forms are as they are because they were developed and refined over many generations for the practical application of the art.

Personally I feel that people doing things their own way because they don't see the point, are just plain arrogant / lazy. In my case, if my sensei tells me to angle my feet like that, he has a good reason. If I should say I don't care, I basically say that I know better than him...

Small example: If you do ichimonji no kamae (the default ninpo stance) without angling your back feet properly (45 degrees backwards) you will pretty much damage the ligaments of your knee because the weight distribution will happen in a manner that a knee is not designed for. As a student, you may not see why the foot has to be like that and the knee has to be like that. All you should know is that the sensei says your foot has to be like that. And he should not have to argue every little detail because you should trust that he knows what he is doing. And if you don't trust him... then why are you even there?

 

[dancingalone]

1. Why do you think the standard(s) is / are empty?

Standards are useful if they are applied holistically with regard to the individual AND the situation. Following them rote in the confines of the dojo is a path to removing meaning from them and rendering the forms into mere dogma.

So, a set 'standard' is only the starting place. Deviations, minor or even major, can certainly be acceptable if you are training outside due to the terrain or if you are working the form with a partner to allow for his size and distance.

2. Yes, people are formed differently. If their feet are within a certain range of positions how do you know if they know the purpose and application of the technique or stance?

An instructor that is attentive with a lasting relationship with his students will know whether the variation his students make are proper ones due to their personal situation or whether it is a simple form/technique flaw.

3. If you believe they know the purpose and application yet seem to be performing outsidethe standard how do you know if they are performing as accurately as they can be?

See answer to #2. This is partially the reason why I accept only a small amount of students in my Goju-ryu studio, so that each student will receive my best attention.

4. Per above, haven't you ever corrected a student and recieved a comment / reply "I thought I was doing that". ? Perceptions of reality do not always reflect the actuality.

Indeed. Not sure what the point you are making, other than that is why students need attentive and detailed correction from their teachers.

5. What lessons do you think forms teach?

Different systems and styles (teachers, too!) have different emphasis. For me, forms are a traditional method to transmit actual fighting techniques for practical use, so dissection of a form along with a partner is actually the main purpose of kata. If I want my students to work on improving their technique, there are bag and makiwara drills. Floor practice is useful also when you want to drill footwork in conjunction with striking.

6. What other methods are better or more easily used?

Depends on your goals:

Power - bagwork
Technique - makiwara, floor practice
Cardio/Strengthening - Circuit workouts, traditional karate methods like the stone rods, jars containing sand, etc.
Speed - paper and candle striking drills, paddle/pad work
Distancing - sparring, one/three/five steps
[/quote]

7. Without the patterns what makes the art a specific art as opposed to some form of kickboxing or self defense system?

Oh, don't get me wrong. Kata is the essence of the karate and karate-derived systems. It will always be an integral part of the practice. This thread is more about redundancy and whether some of the specific forms really hold value or not. I believe there are way too many forms, and they're somewhat front-loaded too.

 

[dancingalone]

There is a reason that forms are the way they are. There is a reason why feet are angled the way they are. I don't know TKD, but in ninpo, the angling of the feet (and every other part) is like it is for very good reasons, which you are not told right away. You cannot alter those forms without destroying the underlying principles. Also I don't know how TKD organizations work, but in traditional Japanese arts, forms are as they are because they were developed and refined over many generations for the practical application of the art.

In karate, changes to kata are made all the time. The thought that they remain unchanging over the generations is a myth at best. We only have to look at the forms practiced in the systems that stemmed from the teachings of Anko Itosu to see variation upon variation.

Personally I feel that people doing things their own way because they don't see the point, are just plain arrogant / lazy. In my case, if my sensei tells me to angle my feet like that, he has a good reason. If I should say I don't care, I basically say that I know better than him...

That may indeed be the culture in your art of ninpo. My teacher in Goju-ryu karate is an Okinawan and I actually follow his lead in this. Specific technical standards of how to perform a kata only serve as a starting place and a guide for the final product. The purpose to forms practice is to learn specific fighting techniques - given that understanding we must accept that practical usage dictates occasional if not frequent modification to make it work, considering differences in opponent size.

And obviously, I would want beginners to follow the standard in foot positioning, guard placement, and such. I'm not so much concerned with my black belts who are in the process of internalizing the kata and lessons within for themselves.

Small example: If you do ichimonji no kamae (the default ninpo stance) without angling your back feet properly (45 degrees backwards) you will pretty much damage the ligaments of your knee because the weight distribution will happen in a manner that a knee is not designed for. As a student, you may not see why the foot has to be like that and the knee has to be like that. All you should know is that the sensei says your foot has to be like that. And he should not have to argue every little detail because you should trust that he knows what he is doing. And if you don't trust him... then why are you even there?

I said deviations, not gross failure. Your example is one where correction would be warranted and necessary.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Minor clarification: if I use the term 'Traditional Japanese Art' I mean a koryu system (e.g. Asyama Ichiden Ryu Jujutsu) or a system composed of koryu systems (KJJR jujutsu). Karate is a modern Japanese art imo.

 

[dancingalone]

Minor clarification: if I use the term 'Traditional Japanese Art' I mean a koryu system (e.g. Asyama Ichiden Ryu Jujutsu) or a system composed of koryu systems (KJJR jujutsu). Karate is a modern Japanese art imo.

Point taken. Karate is indeed a gendai art.

 

[jim777]

Far be it from me to question Tadashi Nakamura,

Me too , but as already noted, the Seido kata and Taikyoku kata are 2 different kata sets. I knew what you meant though

 

[Earl Weiss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Weiss
1. Why do you think the standard(s) is / are empty?

Standards are useful if they are applied holistically with regard to the individual AND the situation. Following them rote in the confines of the dojo is a path to removing meaning from them and rendering the forms into mere dogma.
<<<<

So, it would seem that it is not an issue of standards that are empty but rather instructors who teach empty standards.

This is a flaw in the instruction, not the standard.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Weiss
3. If you believe they know the purpose and application yet seem to be performing outsidethe standard how do you know if they are performing as accurately as they can be?

See answer to #2. This is partially the reason why I accept only a small amount of students in my Goju-ryu studio, so that each student will receive my best attention.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Weiss
4. Per above, haven't you ever corrected a student and recieved a comment / reply "I thought I was doing that". ? Perceptions of reality do not always reflect the actuality.

Indeed. Not sure what the point you are making, other than that is why students need attentive and detailed correction from their teachers.
<<<

The point is that if there are standards and there is no physical impediment to performing in accordance with those standards, than the student should in fact be executing according to those standards. However, if you do not have a standard, than you have no idea if the student is performing how they were taught or even if they are performing how they think they should be performing.

 

[Makalakumu]

IMO, it isn't necessarily the amount of kata that you teach. That will just determine how deeply one delves into each one. More important, are the basics. These set the stage for kata practice. They tell you what you are going to be seeing when you analyze the kata. If you want to utilize your kata beyond low block, high block and front punch, you've got to have a different set of basics.

Up to shodan, I teach pyung ahns 1-5, passai dai and sho, and naihanchi shodan.