When the kata is applied to self defense

[now disabled]

I'd argue that's a problem with a specific form, rather than a problem with teaching the form first. If I pulled together the 8 moves I use most in sparring, combined them into a form, then taught that form before anything else, it wouldn't have that problem.

I don't like form-first for an entirely different reason. Adults learn best when they understand context. Forms lack natural context, so people don't really understand (unless they are given copious descriptions) what the movement is meant to do, and cannot use good intent with it. If they learn the technique (with application) first, then they can get closer to useful intent right away in the form.

You make a good point there about learning ...

Just a thought ...the arts that do have forms or Kata (as in grouped together and named) could it be possible that when they were first grouped or taught or "invented" (can't think of a better word) the people that were students then would have known what they were for as in application of same ...ie a strike or a cut they more than likely would have seen so the response to same would be easier to put into context ..or the response to a thrusting stab with a sword or the response to a fast drawn sword etc et al they more than likely would have seen that and could place it easier than possibly folks today?

Maybe just maybe if say for example in my art someone says Shomenuchi strike yes it based on the sword strike (overhand to the head) so folks think ok never seen that or can't picture it etc ...how about if it were said ok replace sword with bottle in an overhead strike that folks might be able to equate more to ...the response is the same (ok there are more than one) just the weapon is different

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I was under the impression that Hapkido does have forms. What system of Hapkido doesn't have forms?

Maybe it does. I thought it didn't.

If the forms were updated to include the techniques actually utilized while fighting, then yes the forms wouldn't be an issue.

I do believe that there is a descendant style of Kyokushin karate that removed all kata from the system, and it remains a highly effective style.

This was my early point. I don't think forms/no-forms is the primary differentiator. I think there's a correlation, but other factors (probably several others) make the real difference. It's like the early studies that showed coffee was really bad for health. It turns out most of that "bad for health" was because coffee drinking and cigarette smoking had a high correlation at the time.

 

[now disabled]

I have no loathing towards Aikido. The exact opposite in fact.

You can take what I said about Aikido and apply it to Daito-Ryu as well.

Daito -ryu no .... no you certainly cannot

And no I really don't think everyone actually understand what Ninjutsu actually is lol



Except everyone knows what Ninjutsu is.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well, it's also possible that forms arent the problem, where two styles have similar problems with the training model . What I mean is, if a yoga instructor and a tai chi instruxtor fight, their lack of martial skill isn't because one does yoga. It's because neither are developing martial skill .

Yes. I think the issue is the wider question of training approach. In general, where you don't see forms, you probably see a higher percentage of time in sparring/competition/resistive training. You probably see a higher average of fitness (though some forms-intensive programs do spend a lot of time sweating). You probably also see more hobbyists in the forms-intensive stuff, because maybe it starts easier and more folks stick it out.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You make a good point there about learning ...

Just a thought ...the arts that do have forms or Kata (as in grouped together and named) could it be possible that when they were first grouped or taught or "invented" (can't think of a better word) the people that were students then would have known what they were for as in application of same ...ie a strike or a cut they more than likely would have seen so the response to same would be easier to put into context ..or the response to a thrusting stab with a sword or the response to a fast drawn sword etc et al they more than likely would have seen that and could place it easier than possibly folks today?

Maybe just maybe if say for example in my art someone says Shomenuchi strike yes it based on the sword strike (overhand to the head) so folks think ok never seen that or can't picture it etc ...how about if it were said ok replace sword with bottle in an overhead strike that folks might be able to equate more to ...the response is the same (ok there are more than one) just the weapon is different

That's entirely possible. I created kata for my curriculum. My students know exactly what's going on in those, because I made it obvious. Give it a few generations, with the natural loss of stuff and changes in the art, and those exact same forms might be far less than obvious. In fact, if you taught the movements to someone from elsewhere in the art, they wouldn't understand some of the movements, because I teach about half of the techniques differently than they do.

 

[now disabled]

That's entirely possible. I created kata for my curriculum. My students know exactly what's going on in those, because I made it obvious. Give it a few generations, with the natural loss of stuff and changes in the art, and those exact same forms might be far less than obvious. In fact, if you taught the movements to someone from elsewhere in the art, they wouldn't understand some of the movements, because I teach about half of the techniques differently than they do.

It was just a thought as to if you substitute the sword strike and say think bottle folks might be able to picture that coming as that is more likely than a sword.

Would you possibly agree that the tech or form in response is basically the same (ok the distance different but the response is the same)

 

[Hanzou]

Yes. I think the issue is the wider question of training approach. In general, where you don't see forms, you probably see a higher percentage of time in sparring/competition/resistive training. You probably see a higher average of fitness (though some forms-intensive programs do spend a lot of time sweating). You probably also see more hobbyists in the forms-intensive stuff, because maybe it starts easier and more folks stick it out.

What are your thoughts?

I would say that more folks stick it out in forms-intensive styles because they aren't getting beat up everyday. MMA, Judo, Bjj, Kyokushin, etc. beats their students up on a regular basis. When you aren't getting beat up, you begin to believe that you're better at fighting than what you really are, and your ego gets out of control. No one is there to sock you in the face and bring you back to reality.

 

[now disabled]

Also if for example someone is out walking or hiking and has say a hiking pole or a shepherds crook as an aid with them them the same basic techs can be applied as that of the jo (ok maybe one or to transfers won't work) and the responses are the same be it a jo or a person coming at you with a stick ...I guess the hanbo the same both ways

 

[now disabled]

I would say that more folks stick it out in forms-intensive styles because they aren't getting beat up everyday. MMA, Judo, Bjj, Kyokushin, etc. beats their students up on a regular basis. When you aren't getting beat up, you begin to believe that you're better at fighting than what you really are, and your ego gets out of control. No one is there to sock you in the face and bring you back to reality.

So your saying that in the arts you state people get beat up in the training halls?

Again I do think that you are not interpreting Kata or form correctly and what they are

 

[Steve]

Yes. I think the issue is the wider question of training approach. In general, where you don't see forms, you probably see a higher percentage of time in sparring/competition/resistive training. You probably see a higher average of fitness (though some forms-intensive programs do spend a lot of time sweating). You probably also see more hobbyists in the forms-intensive stuff, because maybe it starts easier and more folks stick it out.

What are your thoughts?

I think they're all disconnected . Kyokushin Karate has forms, fitness, and competition mindset.

You touched on it in your earlier comment about correlation vs causation of dancing and boxing skill. The same is true for other elements of a training model . We can see results of the typical competition based training model. Results are virtually gauranteed.

So if you add yoga, forms, dancing, pilates or anything else, can you see gains? Maybe .

But this all hinges on a presupposition that the training model is solid . in a competitive environment, that is easy to see . In a "traditional" training model, that remains a legit question. Can the average aikidoka fight? Can the average ninja fight? Can the average boxer fight? Can the average mmaist fight? I dont think the answer to all of the questions is yes. At best it's may be, may be, yes, yes . and that's being very generous to aikido and ninjutsu.

The trick we see is to say, yeah well that's not what aikido is for. Okay . so then what is it for?

 

[Steve]

On another note, it's not as simple as saying adults learn best when context is provided. As people become more expert in an area, they will overcome issues and through experience have context . Providing too much context for these people in training can actually delay skill development because the learner will need to reconcile the context you provide then with their own . Slows things down. This is another advantage of experiential learning and why arts that do not apply skills in a context are unreliable at building expertise. Said simply, everything remains academic, which we see in some of the self defense "experts" here who acknowledge having no practical experience.

 

[now disabled]

I think they're all disconnected . Kyokushin Karate has forms, fitness, and competition mindset.

You touched on it in your earlier comment about correlation vs causation of dancing and boxing skill. The same is true for other elements of a training model . We can see results of the typical competition based training model. Results are virtually gauranteed.

So if you add yoga, forms, dancing, pilates or anything else, can you see gains? Maybe .

But this all hinges on a presupposition that the training model is solid . in a competitive environment, that is easy to see . In a "traditional" training model, that remains a legit question. Can the average aikidoka fight? Can the average ninja fight? Can the average boxer fight? Can the average mmaist fight? I dont think the answer to all of the questions is yes. At best it's may be, may be, yes, yes . and that's being very generous to aikido and ninjutsu.

The trick we see is to say, yeah well that's not what aikido is for. Okay . so then what is it for?

If your talking about Aikidoka in a sports ring then no otherwise well yes (well average depends on what you mean by average) I would consider myself as slightly above average and I have used it to take knives bottles and other items of people and to subdue them

 

[now disabled]

On another note, it's not as simple as saying adults learn best when context is provided. As people become more expert in an area, they will overcome issues and through experience have context . Providing too much context for these people in training can actually delay skill development because the learner will need to reconcile the context you provide then with their own . Slows things down. This is another advantage of experiential learning and why arts that do not apply skills in a context are unreliable at building expertise. Said simply, everything remains academic, which we see in some of the self defense "experts" here who acknowledge having no practical experience.

See when you were in the mob lol did you umm have stripes on your sleeve or pips on the shoulder and were you part of the head shed mob? lol........

 

[Steve]

If your talking about Aikidoka in a sports ring then no otherwise well yes (well average depends on what you mean by average) I would consider myself as slightly above average and I have used it to take knives bottles and other items of people and to subdue them

so if I took a group of 1000 random aikidoka with at least, say, 1 year of serious training, and had random people assaukt them, they would successfully defend themselves? I am skeptical.

 

[Hanzou]

So your saying that in the arts you state people get beat up in the training halls?

You cannot progress in Bjj, Judo, MMA, or Kyokushin without fighting. So yes, actual fighting is an integral part of those styles, and you're constantly fighting in those styles. I would also argue that there is far more physical contact in those systems than form-intensive systems, which also adds to people wanting to stick with the latter more often.

 

[now disabled]

so if I took a group of 1000 random aikidoka with at least, say, 1 year of serious training, and had random people assaukt them, they would successfully defend themselves? I am skeptical.

Some might ....a year of training probably not

 

[now disabled]

You cannot progress in Bjj, Judo, MMA, or Kyokushin without fighting. So yes, actual fighting is an integral part of those styles, and you're constantly fighting in those styles.

In the sport side ?

 

[Hanzou]

In the sport side ?

Period. Classical Kyokushin for example makes you perform full contact sparring for each belt grade. When you go for your black belt, you have to fight multiple black belts in non-stop full contact sparring.

 

[jobo]

I think they're all disconnected . Kyokushin Karate has forms, fitness, and competition mindset.

You touched on it in your earlier comment about correlation vs causation of dancing and boxing skill. The same is true for other elements of a training model . We can see results of the typical competition based training model. Results are virtually gauranteed.

So if you add yoga, forms, dancing, pilates or anything else, can you see gains? Maybe .

But this all hinges on a presupposition that the training model is solid . in a competitive environment, that is easy to see . In a "traditional" training model, that remains a legit question. Can the average aikidoka fight? Can the average ninja fight? Can the average boxer fight? Can the average mmaist fight? I dont think the answer to all of the questions is yes. At best it's may be, may be, yes, yes . and that's being very generous to aikido and ninjutsu.

The trick we see is to say, yeah well that's not what aikido is for. Okay . so then what is it for?

Yes agree but there's some buts in there, any one who starts as a novice should be a much better fighter in quite short order, the fact your practising how to punch and kick should guarantee that, are they a good fighter, depends on who you are measuring them against, you just need to be better than who ever is confrontIng you, which if it's self defence situation could be nearly any level . so fat drunk at the bus stop, easy meat, super fit sports man, a lot less so. if you want to fight, the sports man you need to come at least close enough to matching him for fitness and be good at your ma.

That is true of mma, and bJj as it is of tmas,

 

[now disabled]

Period. Classical Kyokushin for example makes you perform full contact sparring for each belt grade. When you go for your black belt, you have to fight multiple black belts in non-stop full contact sparring.

And your point is?