Martial Arts Forms their true purpose?

[helmutlvx]

Goju-ryu is a derivative of Naha-te taught by Highashionna Kanryo, you idiot.

Gichin Funakoshi, who is accredited with inventing Shotokan studied Goju-ryu, Shorin-ryu, and Shorei-ryu. Shotokan is influenced largely by the latter two.

It is indeed different from the Okinawan style of karate in the modern era, but these differences were once not as obvious.

I am hostile because you have all kinds of holes in your arguments and try to cover them up with inaccuracy and redaction. "Conventional Understanding"? Says who!

I demand peer-reviewed proof for such claims to substantiate your opinions.

[Dsimon3387]

You stated you don't think kata are/should be used for fighting AND THEN assert that kata contain fighting strategy and accurate psychological responses!

Where and how is this possible? Can you give us any examples?

edit: And before you make a call to the WAAAAAHMBULANCE, I'm doing exactly what you say in your OP. I'm being skeptical. (The juvenile insults are just how I have fun.)

Kata contain the set ups the subtlities and the idiocyncracies of the art. For example, in shotokan one punch one kill and never strike first, are psychological elements and strategic elements... certainly they are related to fighting, but no not directly When Machada uses a linear attack that has the hallmarks of shotokan what is the relationship of this to the kata?

The kata is more related to the transmission of the are imo. This has to consider not just the fighters but the teachers, the method by which the art is transmitted, etc.

So you can see that I am talking about an indirect relationship here... Machada might learn through the katas what to emphasize that makes a shotokan punch distinct from a Goju punch. He may learn how to condition his body to make this punch happen and he might learn how to set up that punch.

Does this make sense?

[Dsimon3387]

Because he fucking didn't, that's why.
The "kata" in Judo are a wholly different animal than the kata in Karate in or the tao lu in Chinese martial arts.

you should elaborate.. yes BTW they are and we should ask why that is... Kano was among other things of gifted intellect.

So why did he choose to incorporate these forms Bearclaw? to what end sir?

[TheDingo]

In general, I see "forms" are more of an encyclopedic approach of summarizing the basic moments of a system in a method than can be transmitted via repetition. But it suffers from the same problems in some ways that the "telephone" game does -- variations and interpretations in transmissions. I see nothing wrong with forms (even as a part of training, even if it is for more historical reasons), other than don't try to read too much into them, and they are not combat techniques.

Even goju was started with a basis the eight forms brought over from China, so helmut, it's a part of the history your system. You are getting to strung up and pissy, so go change your tampon and come back and try for a more civil discussion.

[helmutlvx]

@Dsimon3387
Could you give specific examples of said subtleties and set-ups?

Did you read that big long thread about how Machida's striking is also influenced by Muay Thai and boxing?

There is no such things as a "Goju punch" or a "Shotokan punch". There is a type of punching that starts from the hiki-te position that has become associate with the term "karate punch".

Karateka don't always punch like that.

"Might, might might" don't make right. If you're going to make absolute statements, make absolute supplmentary rebuttals.

Oh wait. You're saying Machida learned how to fight from the Shotokan kata his dad taught him.

I thought you said kata AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR FIGHTING.

edit: Your style field is empty. What do you train in and what rank do you hold?

[helmutlvx]

In general, I see "forms" are more of an encyclopedic approach of summarizing the basic moments of a system in a method than can be transmitted via repetition. But it suffers from the same problems in some ways that the "telephone" game does -- variations and interpretations in transmissions. I see nothing wrong with forms (even as a part of training, even if it is for more historical reasons), other than don't try to read too much into them, and they are not combat techniques.

Even goju was started with a basis the eight forms brought over from China, so helmut, it's a part of the history your system. You are getting to strung up and pissy, so go change your tampon and come back and try for a more civil discussion.

I don't have to be civil in a dead horse thread.

[Dsimon3387]

Goju-ryu is a derivative of Naha-te taught by Highashionna Kanryo, you idiot.

Gichin Funakoshi, who is accredited with inventing Shotokan studied Goju-ryu, Shorin-ryu, and Shorei-ryu. Shotokan is influenced largely by the latter two.

It is indeed different from the Okinawan style of karate in the modern era, but these differences were once not as obvious.





I am hostile because you have all kinds of holes in your arguments and try to cover them up with inaccuracy and redaction. "Conventional Understanding"? Says who!

I demand peer-reviewed proof for such claims to substantiate your opinions.

Naha-Te Shuri-Te are Okinawan forms of karate... Shotokan is a Japanese form of karate. It has A DIFFERENT PHILOSPHY OF ENGAGEMENT a different physical orientation, etc. One strike one kill, block before attacking where do you hear that in Okinawan karate? These are not little differences... I know who invented Goju I studied Okinawan karate for over 14 years in a fighting kumite based club, your teacher would know my teacher I guarantee it. So watch it with the idiot talk, you are embarrasing yourself, not me.

it does not matter that Funakoshi studied Okinawan karate because he changed the style, as much as Kano changed Ju Jutsu.
These differences were obvious once Shotokan became itself and not Funakoshi studying karate as a student...ask your teacher if you do not believe me.

[helmutlvx]

You're one post behind on my responses, so I'll wait for you to catch up.

[Dsimon3387]

I don't have to be civil in a dead horse thread.

I agree 100% you certainly don't however:

a) would you speak to me like that if I was in front of you? I can honestly say to you that I never speak in a manner that I would not speak to a person standing in front of me.

b) You show some real lack of knowledge in your understanding of your style, As Dingo said, like a good deal of Okinawan te there are pronounced Chinese influences on the system in addition to indigenous and. forms are a part of that tradition.

c) Honestly you don't know how stupid it sounds when you are foul typed and aggressive like that.

[helmutlvx]

I agree 100% you certainly don't however:

a) would you speak to me like that if I was in front of you? I can honestly say to you that I never speak in a manner that I would not speak to a person standing in front of me.

b) You show some real lack of knowledge in your understanding of your style, As Dingo said, like a good deal of Okinawan te there are pronounced Chinese influences on the system in addition to indigenous and. forms are a part of that tradition.

c) Honestly you don't know how stupid it sounds when you are foul typed and aggressive like that.

A. Yeah. I would. Many of my insults are in jest, but my questions and requests for substantiating evidence are exactly how I would conduct myself face to face. If even an inch is given to historical and technical inaccuracies in karate, it could go the way of taijutsu.

B. I actively practice the kata attributed to my school. That's not my argument. I am pointing out specific contradictions and flaws in your statements, my own training is irrelevant to the discussion. The exception to that is if you're calling my rank into question.

C. **** you. Vulgarity and stupidity are not endemic to each other.

I reiterate. What style do you practice and what is your rank?