Martial Arts Forms their true purpose?

[Ammar]

I don't know what you are basing this on, but I (mostly) use the same strikes I use in forms. Unless you are referring to the kind of fighting you do with full gloves on. Then no, the punches are different. Do you think that the orignal developers of the punching techniques envisioned that they would be used with gloves?

Gee... and here I thought that strikes used in muay thai or boxing are exactly the same whether you use gloves or not. I also used to believe that these strikes would work no matter if you have gloves on or not.

Obviously, I'm wrong.

[DerAuslander]

In every traditional set/kata/form I ever learned, the power generation used in the sets is not used in sparring. Show me high level sparring using a deep horse stance for example or a "proper" bow-and-arrow stance. Why are they not used do you think? Do you actually think that the power generation taught in the forms is the same as that used in sparring when the position of the body is that different?

You're an idiot.

[Dsimon3387]

Man this has degenerated into a **** fest.

God help me for the frankenstein I have created.

Just wanted people to look at one aspect of training from the perspective of teaching and continuity....Like if you are a teacher have fighters, teachers, novices and all assorted others, how do you guarantee the transmission of your art? is being literate enough? is being computer savy enough? films, books get destroyed after all.

Ok fine I am an idiot I will think twice before I try to put something out there again.... I mean this letter from phrost was the last straw:

DSIMON!!!

Listen I know a form its known as sleep with the fishes?

You know it? You wanna know it tootse? :icon_pale

[Styygens]

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.

This was probably my favorite post in the whole thread. Although I did really appreciate the well-thought-out posts from speedycerviche.

Speedy, I'm doing push-ups tonight in your honor.

[mrtnira]

Within the context of the conversation at that time, the instructor I was talking with used the term crystalization for an idea akin to condensation. It allowed combat techniques to be brought together, condensed, into pattern training for aiding retention, etc.

He was a Ph.D. from Taiwan, whose young life had been under the Japanese when Taiwan was a colony of Japan. His vocabulary reflected his level of education, but I was able to get his idea easily. Since then, I've used that term. But, some explanation is required.

[Dargentus]

Fair enough and thanks for the clarification.

[Styygens]

You have to have it here and ignore the BS. If you pout it in the style forums 8 people will post. You know like all of the people that missed Omgea's form thread. The people there are somewhat in agreement.

Hmmm. OK, but I see two major problems with this.

First, we will inevitably get side-tracked by some variation on the "kata =/= fighting" issue. I don't think that's what the OP is about at all, and that's really the dead horse argument.

Second, the way Dsimon phrased the OP, he throws it open to ALL possible set-forms/"kata.":

I am putting this in Ymas because it is not style specific. ...

Ok so.... forms. I don't believe that forms were designed to fight with at all I think that forms were developed as a way to hollographically transmit the art so that people could have a sort of physical text from which to study the art from. A kata can reveal so many things about an art, it can reveal techniques used, strategies employed, psychological approaches used by the art, and the pedogogy used by the art.

It is fallacy to think that a linear progression of technique A to technique B practiced as a form, translates exactly during a real situation. However what forms do allow is for a teacher to give the student the vocabulary, concepts and techniques of the art which can then be deconstructed further as the student develops the capacity and familiarity with the techniques and approaches.

Furthermore I believe that to think in one dimension as in "practicing a kick in a form = learning how to kick a person is misleading. In reality what reveals itself to a person practicing a technique in a form is different information depending on their ability...

...If this is true then katas are a very sophisticated hollographic physically based textbook that is imprinted on the student and used based on the teacher and students level of insight into the art.... Technique literally reveals itself through what the katas put before one to play with, if one is brave enough to get punched in the nose enough times!! haha

I'm not sure we can say that all possible set-forms/"kata" share a common purpose.

Dsimon hints that set-forms/"kata" are all for teaching/learning. I'm not sure we can even say this is the case.

For example. Consider Koryu kata. Karl Friday's book, Legacies of the Sword, explains the pedagogy behind Kashima Shinryu kata pretty clearly. His observations seem to hold in general for many other koryu -- but speaking in absolutes is dangerous here. I don't have his book in front of me, but he describes how the kata serve three overlapping teaching purposes: passing the strategy (or heiho) of the ryu, developing "skill" or application of the strategy (there was a particular term for this, and it was very nuanced) and, of course, teaching the techniques (or waza) of the ryu.

Friday makes it very clear that the kata are essential to the identity of the ryu. And he does address the truth that kata can change, but the fiction is that they remain the same. And he makes a case that kata do essentially remain the same, even with outward changes.

A visual example: YouTube- Kashima Shin Ryu Part I

Now, compare that to American competitive musical kata. It is still a martial arts set form. The practitioner choreographed this very carefully and I'm sure he repeats it over and over. He uses martial arts techniques; although one could argue the semantics on this...

YouTube- katana freestyle

I doubt this was intended to teach anything. It was intended to win a competition and/or entertain. Where the koryu kata is intended to be an idealized representation of (once) practical technique, this makes no pretense at practicality. So does it really share any common purpose with the koryu kata?

And keep in mind, there's an awful lot of spectrum between koryu kata and American competitive kata.

This is why I suggested changing the venue for the discussion. It's too broad. I think we'll find more differences than commonalities across all possible set-forms/"kata." The conversation is likely to degenerate into definitional arguments. At least in the traditional forums we can attempt to bound the discussion in some context. But here?

I need to look at Omega's thread, because I missed it and now I'm curious what they concluded. Is there a linky?

[Dsimon3387]

Hmmm. OK, but I see two major problems with this.

First, we will inevitably get side-tracked by some variation on the "kata =/= fighting" issue. I don't think that's what the OP is about at all, and that's really the dead horse argument.

Second, the way Dsimon phrased the OP, he throws it open to ALL possible set-forms/"kata.":



I'm not sure we can say that all possible set-forms/"kata" share a common purpose.

Dsimon hints that set-forms/"kata" are all for teaching/learning. I'm not sure we can even say this is the case.

For example. Consider Koryu kata. Karl Friday's book, Legacies of the Sword, explains the pedagogy behind Kashima Shinryu kata pretty clearly. His observations seem to hold in general for many other koryu -- but speaking in absolutes is dangerous here. I don't have his book in front of me, but he describes how the kata serve three overlapping teaching purposes: passing the strategy (or heiho) of the ryu, developing "skill" or application of the strategy (there was a particular term for this, and it was very nuanced) and, of course, teaching the techniques (or waza) of the ryu.

Friday makes it very clear that the kata are essential to the identity of the ryu. And he does address the truth that kata can change, but the fiction is that they remain the same. And he makes a case that kata do essentially remain the same, even with outward changes.

A visual example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFjbxa6YsUc

Now, compare that to American competitive musical kata. It is still a martial arts set form. The practitioner choreographed this very carefully and I'm sure he repeats it over and over. He uses martial arts techniques; although one could argue the semantics on this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsSv-...eature=related

I doubt this was intended to teach anything. It was intended to win a competition and/or entertain. Where the koryu kata is intended to be an idealized representation of (once) practical technique, this makes no pretense at practicality. So does it really share any common purpose with the koryu kata?

And keep in mind, there's an awful lot of spectrum between koryu kata and American competitive kata.

This is why I suggested changing the venue for the discussion. It's too broad. I think we'll find more differences than commonalities across all possible set-forms/"kata." The conversation is likely to degenerate into definitional arguments. At least in the traditional forums we can attempt to bound the discussion in some context. But here?

I need to look at Omega's thread, because I missed it and now I'm curious what they concluded. Is there a linky?

Very well said.

The one thing I might have said in my original post and what Friday might have said as well incidently.... I do know that book you speak of and I know Friday didn't say this either....


Is that what makes kata peculiar is ALL these elements are tranmitted at the same time, vis a vis Hollographically. As human beings we tend to think about information as a hierarchy: So that by the time forms come into Budo in karate we now have katas for different levels. Notice Stygens how in the KoRyu the forms are not necessarily conceived of as being more or less advances. You learn the forms and some of them build on each other, they are in different parts of the school..... BUT what gives a person Meinkyo is not the forms so much as the person's ability to understand the "Ura" the subtle, the secret side of the art that is not immanent and that must be fleshed out in the kata to be understood.

For example, in the Renyo which is mid level Gyoko....What is apparent and obvious to the beginner is the footwork and positions required to avoid a punch, grab and kick. But that kata also becomes the transmitter, the conceptual rosetta stone that will take you through pretty much the mid level katas in Gyoko.... Conceptually in the last part of the kata it shows detailed ways of setting up technique (the transition from ura to omote), and along he way it shows many subtlities that can be taught that will appear again and again in the Gyokko way of setting up technique which I often compare to a renegade washing machine on the most powerful spin cycle with bolts loose and pieces flying off of it as it spins about.... I witnessed this occurance once as a child haha and i males me think of Gyokko now

[maofas]

Alright, seeing that White Rabbit has ragequit for the time being, I'm going to be serious for exactly 10 minutes:

Dsimon, the idea that forms were meant to be unwritten textbooks of moves so we don't forget them is true, but that being said, Shotokan (and many forms of Karate) are terrible examples of this, because regardless of what some of its practitioners may say to justify how they've spent hours upon hours of their lives, there is almost no connection between our forms and our fighting. JJJ, Japanese sword arts, and dare-I-say even the Bujinkan have more applicable kata that they actually draw material from.

The most characteristic pieces of footwork in Shotokan fighting are nowhere to be seen in any of their katas. A basic bread-and-butter technique such as round kick isn't present in any kata except Unsu, something learned only after black belt (and I suspect the original didn't include the round kick at all and was modified later). I can't think of a single kata that includes kizami tsuki. The quintessential piece of Shotokan footwork, the explosive forward shift, is nowhere to be found in any kata.

Shotokan as we know it has little to do with it's katas, which are just artistic devices, vague links to the past, and physical exercises; in fact Shotokan is barely related to anything Gichin Funakoshi brought over from Okinawa. It owes it's current style to Yoshitaka Funakoshi altering the stances and introducing free-sparring, Nakayama sportifying it (and his crosstraining in CMA), the influence of Kendo and Judo, and the JKA instructor's program in 1955 which produced a crop of karateka studied in modern, western methods of physical education.

Also remember Gichin Funakoshi and many other instructors were/are kata collectors. Once upon a time, systems had one characteristic kata or a scarce few to sum up their techniques. Learning a kata and including it in your own syllabus is a far cry from training a system thoroughly and then including their kata to keep record of those techniques. Funakoshi crosstrained, but had very limited experience with Naha-te, yet he included Naha katas.

Now as far as modern application goes: a modern karateka such as myself could go back over the long-dead movements in kata and try to pull material out of them, but that opens the door for nonsense IMO. It's a terrible idea to start with a movement that has been altered for ascetics over time (as all Shotokan kata have been, take a look at my favorite kata "Hangetsu" and compare it to the original Okinawan version "Seisan") and force it like a square peg into a round hole.

The proper way (IMO) is to work backwards from the problem itself. X is a problem, what can be done to counter this? I may show someone a technique and say, "Hey you know that funny move in the middle of Bassai Dai? This is what that is.", but that's as far as it goes. Oh, don't get me wrong, I find it interesting to play with the movements, speculate what they might be, see what applications a respected instructor might have, but that's hardly the core of my sytem, more something to screw around with after regular class is over.

In short, kata for some systems is the unwritten textbook. For others like mine, not so much.

[Styygens]

The one thing I might have said in my original post and what Friday might have said as well incidently.... I do know that book you speak of and I know Friday didn't say this either....


Is that what makes kata peculiar is ALL these elements are tranmitted at the same time, vis a vis Hollographically.

Actually, Dsimon, I believe Friday did say that, or something like it. You have to have all three elements present for the set-form to be a kata. You can't just string moves together randomly and call it a kata, no matter how many times you repeat it. This is what separates a koryu kata from the Creative Competition Kata.

The section on Kata in Legacies of the Sword is well-worth reading for those who may be interested in Japanese kata. My retelling it in bits and pieces won't do it justice.

What Friday doesn't address, because it is unthinkable for him as an actual koryu practitioner, is whether a koryu headmaster, considered the embodiment of his art, could weave strategy, skill, and technique to create a new kata. If we go by what's been said so far, it seems he could.

But it doesn't happen because there is another important factor involved here: tradition. And that's a notion worth spending some time on too.

According to Dave Lowry (whom I rely upon because my own ability to read Japanese is nonexistent) the kanji for Ryu meaning "school" is the same as meaning "flow" with the implication that the teachings of the school flow like a river through time to touch all generations. To be part of the ryu is to be the current of that flow and part of something greater than oneself.

In a sense, the kata in koryu aren't just the catalog of strategy, skill, and technique of the ryu. They ARE the ryu. This brings us back to DdlR's observations much earlier in the thread about Bartitsu kata having the same intrinsic historical value as an antique. It is a connection to the past. But the nature of the ryu as an institution is such that it looks forward to the future also. All practitioners learn the kata, and essentially those Kata are the same.

Maybe that can offer a possible explanation to Maofas about why the karate kata differ from the fighting in his system. The kata are there to connect him to the past, and bridge his transmission of the art into the future. They aren't necessarily a one-to-one lesson on the current application of the art. (Also, Shotokan culture is a mash-up of Okinawan and Japanese influences; not everything translated well.)

At this point we should admit that if a person has no interest in tradition or history, or if the person's sole interest in martial arts is learning to fight, then all of what I just said is worthless from his perspective. Congrats, you win the prize. Stop reading. Don't bother. You're right. You'll also be right that kata are not necessary to learn how to fight.

So why kata in the first place?

The arts that insist on the value of kata come out of a particular cultural background. CMA, KMA, and JMA are all firmly within the Confucian-influenced world. And I would venture the guess that as you move further from this sphere of influence, the reliance on set-form as the "be-all and end-all" of teaching diminishes.

Confucian education for hundreds of years (thousands? My timeframe may be off...) rested on the premise that there is a perfect form that must be copied repeatedly until the person internalizes the methods. It wasn't just martial arts, but calligraphy, composition, music, etc. So kata are a manifestation of this practice.

Confucian thought also venerated tradition and ancestors. So is it any surprise that a practice that can be shared across generations would be deemed worthwhile?

Consider also that there is much evidence that kata became more important and systemized during the Tokugawa period of peace. No longer could warriors bond through the shared experience of the campaign and battle. Kata serve admirably as a substitute shared experience. Everyone in the ryu struggles with the same kata and develops through them. Moreover, kata identify "us" as sharing particular knowledge, while "they" don't know it.

This might also help explain why Kano retained kata in Judo. Although he was eager to use Western education methods, he was still Japanese and respected tradition. If you understand the points I just made, Kata are not just a quaint, customary way of training, but a solid connection back to the roots of jujutsu. Judo kata demonstrate reverence for what went before, and the relevance of those lessons to today -- because Judo kata, as speedycerviche has described, often have a direct relationship to Judo throws in randori.

I don't expect everyone to jump on the kata bandwagon, and I won't try to convince you that kata will make you a better fighter. Like I said, if history and tradition are not important to you, then kata will obviously have no value for you either.

I can imagine many counterpoints to what I've written for which my response will be, "Yes. You are right." Many of the functions of kata can be done in other ways. But that wasn't the cultural answer when and where kata developed.

I happen to think that if your chosen art includes kata and you do not spend some portion of your training on kata, you are missing out on the full experience of the art. If you don't want to do kata, choose a different art.

I like kata; there, I said it. But I don't expect too much from kata either.

...And don't forget, I still like hitting and wrestling people.