To Form or Not To Form and the Mystery of "Modern" MA

[7starmantis]

Here is my take on the whole issue.

First, on the "tradition" associated with older systems. While you may never use a three sectional staff in a true self defense situation, it gives you one more edge on your oponant that you could pick up something from your surroundings and use it as a defense tool. Also, it does have some "perserving the art" abilities. Learning a complete system like many old arts are is not ONLY about fighting. It is about honor, peace, knowledge, and yes even history. Knowledge is power my friends and think of the history and knowledge you are learning as well.

Second, the issue of forms. I think the misunderstanding comes from those who have not mastered forms in general. A form is a combination of techniques and moves that you will use in a true self defense situation. The forms give you a chance to learn how to transition from move to move in a quick, fluid, effective manner. They also teach your body the correct movement for different techniques, muscle memory is inherited here. While you will most likely never see a self defense situation where I person simply completes a form to win the fight, you will see situations where you can pick out techniques used that were taught in different forms. Also, forms are ment to strengthen your body as well. They strengthen the muscles you need for each particular technique, especially when done slow as well. A boxer uses combination punches, is this not a form as well?

Thirdly, the "modern" issue. I think that alot of people do not realize that most traditional systems encompas alot of techniques to use against an attacker that is also trained in martial arts or even your specific system. I think the "modern" systems do not focus on that as much and so people see the extensive techniques of a traditional system and think they are useless or "too much". Yet they are really only techniques that are met with another technique from the attacker.

Just my two cents.

7sm

 

[Mike Clarke]

This has been an education to follow, so my thanks to everyone.
As a person still struggling with karatedo I 've seen this subject debated many times and I've yet to see anyone have a change of heart by the words of someone from the opposit camp.
However, such conversation is good if only for the fact that we are living proof that it's not the type of training we do that is the important thing, but the attitude we have whilst we do it.

"Meditation is not a means to an end, it is both the means and the end." Krishnamurti.

I think one could say the same about training too!

Mike.

 

[RobP]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
Here is my take on the whole issue.

Second, the issue of forms. I think the misunderstanding comes from those who have not mastered forms in general. A form is a combination of techniques and moves that you will use in a true self defense situation..........

Thirdly, the "modern" issue. I think that alot of people do not realize that most traditional systems encompas alot of techniques to use against an attacker that is also trained in martial arts or even your specific system. Just my two cents.

7sm

OK, here's my two bob's worth
I don't agree with the first point - my own background was 15+ years in Chinese heavily form-orientated style before moving to a form-less style. However I would agreee that a form is a combination of techniques - and there is the problem, for me - the technique orientated approach.

You next point is also a problem - in that a form will contain techniques that are designed to work against another art. Problem is - will those techniques work against a modern street-fighter? In all my years of traditional CMA no Chinese teacher ever showed us work against a boxer, for example. And floorwork was never covered either. Or knife defence.

Sure there are "mix and match" arts around, a technique from here and a technique from there, but there are also arts that are "traditional" - although maybe not oriental traditional - that do not use forms.

Body mechanics can be trained in many ways, applications can be trained in many ways. My epxerience has been that students pick up a lot more information in a free-form environment as A) they are not spending an inordinate amount of time memorizing set movement patterns and B) they are not worried about "doing it wrong", they are just doing it.

Cheers

 

[rmcrobertson]

This is in specific reply to Rob...I think you're overlooking those 15+ years of working, working, working Chinese forms. I'll bet that the things you do, now, are very far from "random," or completely "spontaneous," if by random and spontaneous one means coming up with brand-new stuff every time. I'll bet they look a lot like what you'd been taught and faithfully repeated...

It seems to me very likely that you're doing great with the new, "formless," style. That's where all the arts seem to be heading us--after years of repetitive, dull, boring work that's highly formalized.

I even agree that there are folks who'll do just fine as fighters without, say, any kata. But many of us--who aren't "natural" athletes and fighters, who don't have military/police backgrounds--badly need the forms.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting points.

 

[RobP]

Oh for sure I wouldn't deny that I got something out of forms training and I wouldn't say it was useless. However there are also habits from form training that were inhibitng me I feel. I wouldn't say the way I move now bears much relation to what I did before, it's certainly more fluid and stronger too.

I'd also add that I've trained with people who had no experience other than the form-less style and they were pretty sh-- hot!

I've found in teaching that it seems to bring people along quicker, mainly for the reasons I stated earlier I guess.

I understand the appeal of forms, I'm not knocking them as such, just saying that there is an alternative approach that offers as much depth. FWIW I'm not a big fan of MMA as such, though I know it's in vogue at the moment.

As far as "naturals" go - yes, I agree there are people around like that, very few of the ones I've seen ever did martial arts though - they were too busy fighting

Thanks for the reply

Rob

 

[Marginal]

The one thing that keeps coming out of these debates seems to be that effectiveness comes from conditioning and full power application more than it does from the style or traditions feuling any given style. What I've noticed in that regard is that a lot of traditional MA's tend to teach you the forms, the basics etc, but they only provide cursory conditioning and do little to nothing to encourage further training outside of class.

In such a case where a student goes to two classes a week, and does no real strength and endurance training, of course they're going to fail against an art like boxing where there is heavy focus on endurance and the cultivation of strength etc. That's more responsible for arts "not working" than the arts actually being flawed on a per technique basis. (Honestly, there's only so many ways to punch, kick of choke a guy...) So saying that arts need to modernize makes sense in that case. If you're training to fight, knowing how to generate power doesn't really matter if you're physically unable to do so physically. Haven't seen a MA that says "Don't try to make yourself stronger" or "You can only acheive strength through the following means..."

On the other hand, it's kinda hard to say what works and what doesn't from the outside looking in. What works for someone, might not work for another so trying to force anyone onto the "true" path will never work. (Be that modern MA or traditional MA. Works for you? Great. Still doesn't apply to everyone. No matter how many UFC's you've seen, or how many street attackers you've killed with your 7 inch band of chi...)

 

[KennethKu]

Good post Marginal. Very well put.

 

[Astra]

The way I see it, forms are the general application of the art. Taught to understand and use the basics of it, and variate from it. And to refine techniques - if you do everything quick and using lots of strength, you might never notice certain mistakes you make. As my Sifu sais - it's better to do something once properly, then to do something ten times and fail miserably at all ten attempts. Most people who don't do forms will not learn to control themselves very effectively and their technique might suffer. Though, relying on ONLY forms is also not good, since you loose fluidness and power from your moves. I can honestly say I'm happy I've practiced forms more then average. (Though I have practiced everything else more then our average student, too). My moves are more precise and work better then most in my class.

Forms should be balanced with other methods of training, and not be seen as "Form - nothing else" or "Everything except forms"

 

[RobP]

I agree that where forms are taught they need to be balanced out with other training methods - unless it's one of those form/kata competition type schools

As for working fast and with strength - yes, that's true but you can work non-form drills slow and relaxed too! I'm not advocating full on sparring from day one, or even the usual kind of sparring at all really.

In systema technique does not suffer through this appraoch because technique is not taught. Instead what is emphasised constantly are the main principles of move, breathe, relax, maintain form. The response to the attack then comes out of this rather than trying to fit a technique into the situation.

I know that technique can be changed and altered, but there is no changing the fact that form is partly there to teach a set technique. I just feel that too much time can be spent getting the technique against a set attack right rather than working a correct response against an attack.

Cheers

 

[rmcrobertson]

So in systema, how do you learn to, "move, breathe, relax and maintain form," exactly? And what, "form," is it that you're maintaining? last, why's it called, "systema," if there's no system of orderly moves?

Sorry: I just don't know, and I'm interested.

 

[RobP]

Aside from strength / stretch / breathing exercicses all the training is done in the form of drills with one or more partners. For example, a drill to work on maintaining form might be - one person lays a long stick across their back or shoulders (ie "crucifxion" position). Another person attempts to touch or grab them - reasonably slowly initially. The stick-person must evade the touch or grab. Having the stick in place helps maintain the upright posture.
This is just one example. So often drills will focus on one or two specific things, then work that against different types of attack - eg punch, kick, knife, mulitple and also in different envrionments - standing, sitting, on the floor, blindfold,etc.

If I might direct you to my website at www.systemauk.com there are a few articles on there that may explain it a little better

I think the word "system" comes from the idea that the art is seen not as just a collection of moves or techniques but as a system of moving / breathing / interacting with what is going on around you. I read an interview recently where Mikhail Ryabko said something like "of course you can take one or two things out of the system, such as a drill or breathing exercise, and that would be ok - but what you have to remember is that this is also a system that you can use to ride horses or fly a jet".

Cheers

Rob

 

[SMAC]

so long as we are all enjoying what we do it doesn't matter. The only losers in the arguement are those that say forms are absolutely useless or perfect training. No-one seems to really be saying this, that is good.
Must go and train now, christmas must not be allowed to win.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Thanks, RobP for the reply. I'll check out the website, though, because I'm still not seeing a fundamental difference between what you're describing and the American kenpo I've been taught. It sure looks as though the style you're describing offers a series of exercises and drills to teach posture, calm breathing, quick response, etc. (like forms and sets) and a series of exercises and drills with partners--like running techniques and tech lines--

I've another question too. Responses to attacks need to be more than spontaneous: they also need to be logical, right? What if, for a cheap example, the spirit moves you to take the first guy to the ground, and he's got three buddies there? There must be some set of principles taught that govern what to do/what to avoid...something comparable to kenpo's checking system, for example.

And one last thing: how does Systema introduce rank amateurs, like me a few years back, to self-defense? is there any place for, say, women?

I also disagree with a subsequent poster, assuming that I read right. I don't think that it is "all good," in martial arts...some stuff makes sense, some doesn't, and I think we've all seen martial artists doing things that just don't make a hell of a lot of sense...something similar happens when we see folks who are doing forms in ways that are just plain wrong...some of this isn't a difference of opinion, either.

I'll check the website...

 

[RobP]

Hi Robert

Yep, you are right with your example, going to the ground in multi situation wouldn't be so good! I guess it's down to the instructor / teacher to give students guidance and suggest appropriate resposnes. I find I need to do this in my own class, especially with people with less experience. So we might start off by showing a particular technique in a situation to give them a start point. However we emphasise that this is just a start point.

As far as principles are concered they really are just -
Move (to the best position)
Breathe (mostly to maintain flow, control fear, etc)
Relax (fluid movement)
Form (maintain strong posture)

Other than that there are no restrictions in terms of what may or may not be attempted.

Self defence is worked in from day one in that that is how the principles are put to the test, if that makes sense. Of course there are other factors to work in too, environment, psychological and so on. Women - at the moment I'd say it was an 80-20% men - women split in the classes.
Cheers

Rob

 

[rmcrobertson]

This just seems to be opening up more and more questions. Here are some of them:

a) what is considered to be, "the best position," how is it recognized by a teacher, and how is it taught? I realize that "the best," will vary--but there must be some basic rules...and I'm betting they look a lot like kenpo rules.

b) how do you develop breathing? I recall the exercises you mentioned...but aren't there some guides for what's good/bad? Does Systema connect breathing and motion to develop power? If so, how're basics of this taught?

c) what's, "good posture," mean? what do you do when a student just can't find it?

d) is any sort of individual practice possible; if so, what is it like?

e) how are students told, "Nope, that won't get it," and on what grounds are such criticisms made?

I might as well add what I'm thinking here. It's my suspicion that there isn't nearly as much formlessness/techniquelessness as is being said...no, they ain't the same techniques...but everything I've read so far about Systema principles and aims--specifically including the stuff about "balance," and "flow," and "spontaneity," sure sounds exactly the same as kenpo to me...

Again, thanks. It's interesting.

 

[RobP]

I'll do my best to answer:

a) the best position is one in which you are safe but in a position to do something back. Or maybe saying the most appropriate position would be better, as sometimes that may mean getting out of the place completely.

b) there are a group of core exercises that all involve breathing and movement working together. There are also static breathing exercises. Breathing is emphasised strongly in all the work and drills too

c) good posture is generally maintaining upright spine and level shoulders. There are drills to work specifically on posture to help students find it. Some of these are static drills, the difficult part is then maintaining form when moving.

d) Individual practice would be the core exercises for the most part. You can also work with things like a stick or a length of chain to train body movement

e) Students will usually know something hasn't worked in that they will have been grabbed / hit etc. In that case the instructor may offer suggestions or it may be a case of slowing things down a little to help the student improve their movement.

When I first heard of / saw Systema I thought it sounded just like my previous art - taiji. However the more I do it the less I think it is like anything else

BTW do you know Martin Wheeler? He is a US Kenpo guy who is now heavily involved in the system.

Cheers

Rob

 

[RobP]

Oh, just to add something - the core exercises are not like form or kata. They are mostly things like variations on different types of squats, push ups and similar with specific breathing patterns . IE they are not "combat" moves in any way.

Cheers

Rob

 

[rmcrobertson]

Thanks again, Rob. I appreciate your time...and I'm saying this because now I have been on the website you recommended, and I'm about to really disagree.

Here's the basis of it. A lot of what I saw, and what you're talking about, reads and looks like cases of reinventing the wheel. First off, when I looked at the website--I saw, most prominently, somebody doing the first move from a kenpo knife defense, "Glancing Lance," which also begins Form 6. Second, I saw a buncha folks doing what Clyde O'Briant calls, "kenpo twister," great exercise, incidentally. And third, I saw a couple of cases in which the "spontaneous," response left the defender wide open...which is one of the reasons for the formal stuff in kenpo, which trains checks/control of pivoting/control of height/width/depth.

Another thing I noticed was that ALL the senior instructors have a fair chunk of martial arts experience, before Systema. It suggested that they'd been shaped, pretty thourougly, before becoming 'spontaneous"--which is what's supposed to happen anyway, in any system. One unhappy note--there's that whole Stalin thing...I thought it just meant, "steel," but nope, Uncle Joe himself...which I guess is not much more repulsive than Mr. Parker giving that third-rate Francisco Franco (himself a tinpot Mussolini), Augusto Pinochet, a black belt. (Thank Joe Pesci I wasn't around for that. I woulda had to quit kenpo...a real pity, but standing about for the approval of fascist discators...ya gotta draw some lines.)

But to be more specific about your informative and intelligent post.

a) I still don't quite see how you know (let alone teach) what is the "best" position, unless you start talking about positive and negative posture, checks, zones of obscurity, etc.

b) those, "core exercises," on breathing, to me, sounds suspiciously like what I was taught (and have now been returning to, some years later) about breathing in Short Form 1, and stance sets...or being endlesslesy nagged in advanced class about not inhaling right before moving...or Jill Tatum's stretching classes, which draw on t'ai chi aand yoga.

c) posture is precisely a big chunk of what sets and forms train; it certainly seems very clear to me that the more folks work sets and forms, the better their posture is and remains...

d) using, "a stick...or..a chain," to train body movement looks very traidtional, and I mean in the sense of old Chinese Shaolin...but here, I'm going by old Jackie Chan movies, combined with what I've read.

e) looking at the difference between what hasn't worked and what might sounds completely familiar to me, probably because I've had a deserved heapin' amount of criticism of my sparring.

f) if some of the stuff isn't meant to be "combat moves," then aren't we right back with some of the stuff in martial arts that we're always hearing should be discarded because it isn't useful in combat?

What I was most interested in, I hasten to add, was the teaching methodology. I will say, as a teacher in two distinct areas, it's a hell of a lot easier to teach martial arts--for the simple reason that nearly all students are consciously motivated, or you don't have to put up with them for very long at all. But I very much liked and was excited by the decentered nature of the classes, and the sitting around and discussing after class...

I've seen such non-judgmental teaching before, of course, though I can't say I'm good enough to practice it. But if I were used to very rigid classes, evn badly-taught and yet very formalized classes, I'd be pretty excited by Systema...and as it is, I'll try aand learn some more, liking the teaching method so much.

So once again, thanks for your trouble.

 

[RobP]

Hi Robert

Thanks for taking the time to look at the site and your thoughtful repsonse.

I think as far as the Kenpo thing goes we will have to agree to dis-agree . As I said before, initially I saw a lot of taiji in it. Others have seen wing chun, aikido, etc, basically whatever art they have practiced already.

As far as the top guys go - weill I know Mikhail is pure systema trained, from a very young age. With other it varies, most of the non-Russian guys have done other stuff, I think mainly as this has not been around for that long. Be interesting to see how the guys in my class who have no previous experience will shape up in a year or so against other arts.

Stalin - I agree, and there are no apologies that can be made for the ruthless and cruel things he did. However it was a relation of Mikhail's that BG'd Stalin, something that happened before he was born. FWIW the people I've trained with today have struck me as very decent, deeply religous in most cases.
I think that sort of thing is a question of history - the stories of the Japanese testing karate on prisoners and the like. Not nice but in the past.

You mentioned some of the training sounding "traditional". Well to be honest I think a lot of it is. My first impressions were that the system was a Russian special forces thing, a lot of neat moves and some good training methods. The more I've got into it and researched the background, I've discovered a lot of it is based heavily in tradition. In fact some of the next video clips I plan to upload show various Russian folk arts.

As far as the breathing / core exercices go - well, they can and are practiced purely for health by some, along with other health exercises. But let's face it health and strength are pretty big advantages in combat!

I don't know whereabouts you are based, but the only other thing I can add is that if you get a chance to train with one of the main guys, give it a shot - you will find them very approachable too. If you get that experience it will hopefully provide a lot more answers than I can in my posts or through the website.

Thanks for your thoughts and questions.

Cheers

Rob

 

[rmcrobertson]

Thanks, and I know this is heresy...but I can't even get enough time to train at my home school, Larry Tatum's. And I can't even get a handle on half the stuff I've been trying to learn...I'm a "one lifetime, one martial art kinda guy," at least until I get so old I have to collapse into t'ai chi...or as I think of it, real slow and elongated kenpo.

I still say the reason we see this stuff in Systema is because it's really there. Not because somebody ripped off somebody else, but because there's a certain logic to intelligent self-defense...

I can't always tell if things were imported into kenpo deliberately, or if they look that way because they have to be that way...you know, the old, "a airplane designed by aliens would look like ours, because the physics of flight are the same everywhere," argument.

I guess, too, I'm pretty happy with the way I've been taught and am being taught. If I weren't, though...