A different question about forms, kata and patterns

What I've understood from your posts is not quite what I said. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

And I thought my post addressed the original question - forms are emphasised because they are how techniques are taught and how they have been taught. It is a method that has worked for generations, so it is still used. There are schools that lose sight of the purpose of forms, but that is a different question.

 

I said many times I like forms, they're like sequences in boxing, and from my karate and boxing experience, shotokan forms and boxing drills feel the same. Shadow boxing is different for me, when I shadow box I sometimes start with the form but end up formless, and sometimes even ridiculous.

The original question though was why are there so many schools that emphasize forms. You can argue that martial arts effectiveness (ability to fight) is not really related to forms, and use every modern combat sport as an example. Conversely, you would be hard pressed to find an elite combat athlete who swears that forms are everything.

If there are so many schools focusing on kata (true, right), there should be a corresponding mass of fighters out there who claim "forms school is where it's at". But there aren't. I think the reason for so many forms schools is that 99% of them can only make money teaching forms, and not actual fighting skills. Think about it this way, if you learned a recipe you can sell it. If you learn a kata you can sell it the same way.

If you happen to be a real fight instructor who does forms, power to you. BUt most forms instructors are not that, no different from the number of "boxing instructors" out there that have never boxed, or coached a boxer. Anybody can claim to teach "form", for $. It doesn't have to be some ancient Asian art either, there are guys willing to teach you modern "forms" in everything from guns to mind control.

 

OK, Grond, I see that we agree and I initially misunderstood you. Sorry for the confusion.

I can relate to a forms instructor not really teaching how to fight. My first sifu (Wah Lum Preying Mantis) was like that, but my Wing Chun sifu taught us to use it, and I teach my students to be able to use the art.

 

Just because X is more popular than Y, doesn't mean people who teach X are motivated by greed. Salsa dance is more popular than the foxtrot, but you'd laugh at a foxtrot enthusiast concluded from those bare facts that "people who teach salsa are in it for the $$$." Ice cream shops are more popular than cannoli shops, but that doesn't mean that people who sell ice cream aren't legitimate dessert enthusiasts and are just motivated by greed. The same is true with karate and boxing.

And frankly, it's offensive to keep on saying that everyone who teaches something you aren't into is just doing it for the money. You're effectively calling a significant number of the regulars here greedy every single time you call forms-centric arts "all about $$$."

It's also totally nonsensical because you are continuing to ignore my point that one of the most popular kata-heavy karate styles in the USA, JKA Shotokan, uses VOLUNTEER instructors. How on earth can a volunteer instructor be motivated by $$$?

 

How many people have you met who have become wealthy by teaching karate?

 

How near?

Is competitive push-hands too far? What about Olympic TKD? Karate point-fighting?

How would a boxer fair in a BJJ competition, or vice-versa? Would these failures of trial-by-combat put a question mark over them as "martial" arts?

How do we square this with the fact that simulation drives real combat practices more than competition? The military, police and security forces engineer simulations more than they have competitive games. Are they doing it wrong?

 

Why do many sites promising the "magic weight loss pill" or trendy exercises, and relatively few giving good, scientifically grounded explanations on diet and exercise? Because most people want quick results and very little of the gruelling work. I stand by my original statement that most of these people are getting exactly what they want.

 

...except they aren't getting the quick results.

 

Until they actually try to fight someone competent, and the chances of that are low, then they'll likely not find out.

 

I have a slightly different perspective.

Most of the money made from athletics, outside of top ranked professionals (NBA, Football, soccer, etc) is from kids classes and clubs.

A lot of martial arts schools survive on their kids programs. Parents can drop their kids off for their strip mall karate class where they mostly throw kicks and punches in the air and do kata )and any sparring is very light to no contact) with the reasonable expectation that they aren’t going to get hurt.

The harder and more realistic the training, the less kid friendly. And I’m not being pithy either. If your livelihood is running a gym or dojo you need students to survive. And many or most of those students are going to be kids.

Kids are more active than adults in general.

People that hang out on forums like these are the few who have carried their passion for it into adulthood. This place is not the norm.

 

This is a fair question. There are people in the world who wouldn't consider two people hitting each other " A fight" if they didn't have knives.

IMO It all comes down to rule sets and levels of resistance. If the level of resistance is 100% then it will by default be closer to a combat situation regardless of the rule set. Even things like Olympic TKD have the option for knockouts.

I'd also say that something like 90% of martial arts practitioners never want to actually test themselves either in competition or in a live scenario outside of a gym. (I made that statistic up but I imagine it is a lot of people). So then you have to ask if they are doing nothing except their art in their gym how do they know they could defend themselves? For instance you'll get people who attend Muay Thai classes that never EVER spar harder than very light tapping. Can they defend themselves better than a Tai Chi person who has never sparred outside of push hands? Might be pretty even.

 

The guys doing touch sparring in a Thai class though are learning techniques that are proven to work in a unarmed fight.

They are using the same training methods as the fighters just at a different intensity.

They have the correct mechanics down both offensively and defensively,

Now we all know when the intensity goes up accuracy levels and technique goes down but they have a better starting place than someone whos art is basically unproven and the training methods have produced very few if any actual fighters.

 

But the more restrictive the ruleset, the more specific the skills practiced are going to be.

For instance:



These guys are trying 100% to win, but I would side with icefield, in that someone who has only done touch sparring in a more open ruleset would have better odds in a fight. I also agree with his reasoning, and this ties in with my belief that, especially for beginners, it is as much about the art as the person: if there are people who have done it for real guiding your low-intensity introduction to training, then you will be building functional skills, and avoiding bad habits, from the get-go.

 

Yep everyone likes to say it's the person not the art but not all arts are created equal.

It's not politically correct to say that but its sadly true, two average beginners not particularly gifted, they take two different classes, one in an mma class learning solid striking and grappling fundamentals doing light striking sparring and grappling sparring taught by guys who have fought and in classes with fighters, and the other does aikido and silat (or insert any other art you wish) in classes for 6 months under a coach who has never fought teaching stuff his teacher has told him will work....

Which of the above will be better prepared to defend themselves after those 6 months?

 

Yeah, I think it becomes more about the person once you have a decent amount of high intensity sparring under your belt. When training is focused on what works, rather than trying to preserve a stylistic way of fighting and make that work, then differences between styles start to fade away. The differences become more about specialisation and preferred tactics rather than dramatically different ways of moving.

 

Which begs the question, defend themselves from what? In most societies, having a punch-on or being assaulted is going to be relatively low on the list of things that are likely to hurt you. If self defence is keeping yourself safe, then that includes during training time and in other likely situations that could cause you harm.
An anecdote: back in my uni days I trained both boxing and aikido (for a period of time, both at the same time). About 6 months into my aikido training, I was riding my bike (legally) across an intersection and got hit by a car. Aikido training saved my life because after flying over the bonnet I performed a perfect forward roll and came up on my feet cursing the driver but otherwise unharmed. I still haven't used anything from boxing to actively keep myself safe, but there have been a few occasions since where the ability to go with the flow of otherwise overwhelming physical force and to roll/breakfall has saved me from serious injury, including falling down a hillside when bushwalking in a remote area. So for the average person in Australia, I'd have to say aikido would help keep a person safer than boxing.

For "fighting" though, I would choose whichever best suited the rule-set I would be fighting under.

 

Wouldn't a gymnastics class or parkour give you more effective training in rolling and breakfalls? Seems like if that was the reason you trained Aikido then a lot of your training time was wasted...

 

How so? I'd only been training aikido for a few months when it happened.
Additionally, it wasn't the reason; it wasn't even, at the time, a conscious reason. I was doing striking arts at the time, and wanted a locking/throwing art to do as well (plus, the $25 a semester cost was nothing to be sneezed at). How could it have been a waste of my time?
Also, one of the benefits of doing aikido training over gymnastics and parkour, was that I was being moved by someone else into needing to fall, as opposed to placing myself in a position to fall - a subtle but very real difference.