Martial Arts Forms their true purpose?

[Lazyeyedhobo]

Not sure if this was answered already, but what is the point of learning a series of ineffective techniques that are organized into a set pattern when they are not the same techniques you use when you fight/spar? How does learning something completely different, that has no combat application help you learn martial arts at a faster rate?

Not trying to be a dick. I'm just curious is all. I never learned from any katas in boxing or wrestling. Just maybe certain drills, but those changed based on the instructor and were usually made up on the spot.

[speedycerviche]

" How does learning something completely different, that has no combat application help you learn martial arts at a faster rate?"

Well Kata should not be completely different although most is. The idea is too teach principals and body mechanics which are two things that make techniques work along with distance and timing which is learned in randori/sparring.

[nomamao]

no you didn't....no you didn't....

it's all because how something looks in form and what it's used for are often different things and not something a casual viewer would notice, not because they are "teh secret deadly hidden technique" but just because looking at them in forms is out of context.

No, looking at them in forms IS the proper context which is why the forms have that particular sequence. Otherwise, you could create your own forms and they'd be just as valid because they use the same techniques... NOT REALLY.

[W. Rabbit]

Not sure if this was answered already, but what is the point of learning a series of ineffective techniques that are organized into a set pattern when they are not the same techniques you use when you fight/spar? How does learning something completely different, that has no combat application help you learn martial arts at a faster rate?

Because there is always a combat application for each technique in the form.

To learn it and remember it you can practice the set (which aside from containing all the techniques is a great, great, great workout).

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.

[speedycerviche]

"Because there is always a combat application for each technique in the form."

No there is not some forms do not have combat appilcations and are not ment too.

[W. Rabbit]

No, looking at them in forms IS the proper context which is why the forms have that particular sequence. Otherwise, you could create your own forms and they'd be just as valid because they use the same techniques... NOT REALLY.

you funny

[Dsimon3387]

"But it suffers from the same problems in some ways that the "telephone" game does"

No it does not. The people learning Kata spent a long time learning them it is not like they were shown once then repeated it like the game. Also you underestimating the power of oral cultures to transmit infomation based on how you as a modern western person living in a society based on writing can do it, it is down right ignorance.

"Kano was among other things of gifted intellect.

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

The end depends on the Kata most were to teach principals (Nage no Kata, Ju no Kata, Kime no Kata). Whereas some where to preserve techniques and principals (Koshiki no Kata). Some where to teach character and promote physical fitness (Seiryoku Zenyo Kokumin Taiku no Kata, Joshi Judo Gonshinho).

The problem with Karate Kata is that it does not show any semblence to how you would actually fight whereas the Judo Kata does. For example seoi nage in the Nage no Kata is preformed off a downward blow and the Tori catches the strike and blends with the energy and throws using the momentum this can be applied easily to numerous situations eg high collar grab. The Karate Kata Taikyoku Shodan has a equally sound principal block/parry a strike like mae geri move foward attack with a punch and you see this alot in Kyokushin tourneys but it is done with an uppercut or other punch not a stepping down in to zenkuashidachi(sp?) chambering one hand at the chest punch and that is the basic Kata it gets more overly complicated and further away from actuall application as you get to the more advanced Katas.

I don't know what your difference is here:

I gave an example involving an oral culture.... Pre Upanishadic India. inthis case I cited how the head moves with each syllabule of the Veda being recited so the person can connect physically to memorizing the oral text being taught. Seriously guys if you accuse on the posts you read do not snooze!

The telephone analogy was to say that what I teach you... will look very different in times past if there is not a technology to preserve the knowledge under certain conditions. Just as what the first person in the circle says will end up quite different than what the last person says... why are you picking on my analogy haha?

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, this is an opinion and is at least as chuavanistic as you accuse me of being regarding oral cultures. and since when are karate forms not for fitness? and since when is it a fact that they do not correspond to combat? (I happen to agree with you onthis last point for what it is worth, but that does not make it a fact)

But alas this is a straw man! the point is: Kano found it necessary inhis revamped westernized all encompassing approach to moral development, combat efficiency and fitness to include forms! that is the real issue here why? surely he didn't need to use this relic now did he? He deliberately chose to do so when in fact Japan as a literate culture with writing and other forms of transmitting the old ways... did not even place the importance on forms that they would later recieve in Budo.

we don't really disagree over any matters of consequence that I can see I do not hold oral cultures in any lower position than any other cultures and have stuck up for folk martial arts on these threads many times, so I put my money where my mouth is on that point.

[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.

[W. Rabbit]

"Because there is always a combat application for each technique in the form."

No there is not some forms do not have combat appilcations and are not ment too.

Yeah I guess that is subjective and depends on the form we're discussing ...I am only coming at this with my knowledge of karate kata and fighting hung ga sets.

Which forms did you mean (that don't have combat applications)? I am curious what non-fighting forms people know...for development?

Edit: I should be more careful about using "form" vs. "form set" since they mean different things.

[Dsimon3387]

"Because there is always a combat application for each technique in the form."

No there is not some forms do not have combat appilcations and are not ment too.

or maybe it is not a direct causal relationship between the two? Maybe the forms are there to put together an entire hollograph of the art. Then the fighters come along and it is revealed to them in the forms how the art best functions in combat, and the teachers come along and it is revealed to them the best way to teach the particulars of the art, etc etc etc. Maybe just he same weaknesses are revealed and the art is changed accordingly and new forms are created.

People like friendly fire believe there is such a thing as a best way to punch throw and lock.. I do not i think there are principles which apply to the best way to do these things but the actual application is varied. In victorian England to use a man's shirt to choke him is different than to choke a man in a track suit, so the principles need tweaking in my opinion. Forms are a way to reaffirm both:

a) the principles that make the best way to do something

b) the circumstances under which these ways were derived when they were taught. so they can be tweaked if necessary.