Martial Arts Forms their true purpose?

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 1:00am

Chiu Chi Ling performing Tiger Crane Double Pattern Fist set, this video has probably been posted here before but it has awesome air ripping sound effects.

Sound effects aside, the narration and Chiu Chi Ling's power and energy in this set (something he developed practicing the same said set, learned from his father) says something for form sets as valuable. Seeing is believing (hearing on the other hand...is just fun).

Note: this starts of slow and he really gets going around 1:50 before kicking ass in eight directions.

YouTube- Hung Gar Tiger Crane

**speedycerviche** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 1:02am

Dsimon3387

I was not saying the oral culture thing about you I was saying it about someone else.

"the differences you site in Judo kata are first of all not necessarily true.... karate katas have many of the same characteristics yet you have determined they do not correspond to fighting"

Yes they do I said that they both teach principals about combat, it is just the Karate Katas do it in a more roundabout way as I said you can use the principals from both Taikyoku Shodan and from Nage no Kata. The big difference is that the Nage no Kata application are far more close to what the Kata is. If you are teaching the Katas principal then showing a realistic application of Taikyoku Shodan then Kata is fine but usally that is not what happens espically as you go into the more compilcated Kata of Karate.

**Lazyeyedhobo** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 1:02am

To use it in a fight, you need someone who knows how to take the technique out and show you how in a real fight you'd use it, with your guard up and all, covering your vital points and so on.

A good example are some of the "fancy" looking northern/southern CMA form movements with both hands in the air doing something. In a real fight application chances are only one of those hands is doing "the technique" while the other is guarding a vital point or ready for some type of counter.

This is what confuses me though. Why would someone have to interpret the kata? Why isn't the kata correct in the first place? Someone could interpret as any number of things. If that is the case, wouldn't the confusion make kata an ineffective training method and a poor way to carry techniques from generation to generation?

**Dsimon3387** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 1:05am

Originally Posted by DdlR

Here's the way the form and function question is addressed in Bartitsu, which was effectively "lost" throughout most of the 20th century and is currently being revived.

Back around 1900, E.W. Barton-Wright detailed a series of about 40 Bartitsu "self defense sequences". He took photographs of each technique and clearly described how they all fit together. These sequences were essentially short, two-man forms taken from ko-ryu jujitsu (probably the Shinden Fudo Ryu, but we're not sure) and from Pierre Vigny's method of stick fighting. The sequences include plenty of valid, high percentage techniques that are easily proven in sparring, as well as some that are very low-percentage and which rely on things working out "just right" to pull off. These kata or etudes ("lessons" in French, describing the same concept of choreographed training sequences in fencing) still form the basis of modern Bartitsu, but from two very different perspectives.

First, they represent links with the historical origins of the style; from that POV they are considered to be valuable in the same way that 110 year old antiques can be valuable, which has nothing to do with how well they work compared to more modern technology. They can be practiced exactly as Barton-Wright demonstrated them, out of respect for tradition and a sense of connecting to the past. They also provide a kind of technical and tactical "common language" for modern Bartitsu enthusiasts.

Second, the kata and etudes are used as conceptual springboards for neo-Bartitsu training. In a modern Bartitsu training session, the goal is to screw with the c1900 kata by introducing progressive levels of resistance and unpredictability. Two partners might start one of the stylized stick-fighting etudes, then one of them (usually the "attacker") will muscle up, suddenly release an established grip, throw a sucker punch, etc. The other trainee is then challenged to ride with the resistance and re-gain positional and initiative advantage, based on Barton-Wright's key precepts of surprise, balance capture and leverage/joint control.

Thus, we get both historical preservation and combat-practical use (via progressive pressure-testing) out of the forms as a bridge between set-plays and free sparring/fencing.

Ok just to be crystal clear here as I use the term "Forms" I mean not only kata but two man forms which was in fact how forms were done in classical and warring stated period Ju Jutsu arts.... this example you site wouyld be a perfect example of forms and what is intended to be taught and transmitted through the forms

Notice the line: From Shinden to the modern Jitz to the present: You cite some reasons why this is important... I wish I had five other posters who would give an example like this without making reference to the combat efficacy! haha

**speedycerviche** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 1:06am

"This is what confuses me though. Why would someone have to interpret the kata?"

First you have to know what the kata is for, is it for fighting for exercise or something else. If it is for fighting then you need to find the principals and adjust them to how you would use them in real life just like anything else.

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 1:13am

Originally Posted by Lazyeyedhobo

This is what confuses me though. Why would someone have to interpret the kata?

Because often the people learning the kata/form sets are newbs to those techniques and just don't know any better, this is why you want a good teacher who knows what the forms are really for. It's not secret stuff, just subtle.

Originally Posted by Lazyeyedhobo

Why isn't the kata correct in the first place? Someone could interpret as any number of things. If that is the case, wouldn't the confusion make kata an ineffective training method and a poor way to carry techniques from generation to generation?

Another reason why you need a real teacher. You can royally **** up your perception of any martial art if you try to learn the form from a book, DVD, or from the internet. Even video is a poor format for something this nuanced and physical.

keep something else in mind...performing these sets correctly especially the physically demanding ones (Tiger Crane..hoo boy) train and improve your breath control...and breath control is critical to real fighting.

**Squerlli** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 1:15am

The purpose of martial arts : to fight.

If you're not fighting, you're not practicing a martial art. Kata's are useful for judo the same way a slow compliant demonstration of a double leg or ankle pick is useful in freestyle wrestling. You show someone what they're supposed to do and how it's properly done.

If you're punching and kicking the air, then you're shadow boxing and it should only be done as a warm up. That is the only purpose it serves. Stop trying to find some hidden meaning behind it, stop thinking a prearranged form helps you in an actual fight and stop thinking you're doing some '200 year old kata' because some fat white guy in a strip mall probably invented it in the 80's.

Summary: Shut the **** up and go back to training.

**Dsimon3387** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 1:17am

Originally Posted by speedycerviche

Dsimon3387

I was not saying the oral culture thing about you I was saying it about someone else.

"the differences you site in Judo kata are first of all not necessarily true.... karate katas have many of the same characteristics yet you have determined they do not correspond to fighting"

Yes they do I said that they both teach principals about combat, it is just the Karate Katas do it in a more roundabout way as I said you can use the principals from both Taikyoku Shodan and from Nage no Kata. The big difference is that the Nage no Kata application are far more close to what the Kata is. If you are teaching the Katas principal then showing a realistic application of Taikyoku Shodan then Kata is fine but usally that is not what happens espically as you go into the more compilcated Kata of Karate.

OK

But the important thing is that Kano put forms in Judo... Certainly he did not do this to teach combat skills, I would say that the Okinawan Te teachers, and even Funikoshi probably likewise had a different reason for using forms.... In no case was it to teach people to fight, or a sequence of how to fight.

that is why it is a red herring to argue the difference in forms... yes they may well teach some different ideas but the question is: is there a difference in the way the forms convey information in different arts?

**speedycerviche** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 1:21am

"But the important thing is that Kano put forms in Judo... Certainly he did not do this to teach combat skills, I would say that the Okinawan Te teachers, and even Funikoshi probably likewise had a different reason for using forms.... In no case was it to teach people to fight, or a sequence of how to fight."

I disagree I think Judo Kata does teach combat skills in the form of body mechanics and principals. I thought that was the point of many Karate Kata as well.

**speedycerviche** · Posted On: 7/12/2010 1:52am

"But the important thing is that Kano put forms in Judo... Certainly he did not do this to teach combat skills, I would say that the Okinawan Te teachers, and even Funikoshi probably likewise had a different reason for using forms.... In no case was it to teach people to fight, or a sequence of how to fight."

Is there any reason you think that the old Karate teachers did not think Kata was useful for fighting?. Did not Motobu say that Nainhanchi (sp?) contains everything you will need to know about real fighting?. From what I have read about Kano and the early Kodokan I think they thought that Kata was useful in teaching combat. I would like to see any quotes where any founders of the old systems said that Kata was not there teach people how to fight (not including Kata that are ment as exercise).