"The Case For Less"...an approach to forms trainin

[bushido_man96]

This is pretty much a forms-based question, but I welcome any and all comments, forms-related training or not. Be warned, though, that it is a rather forms-related questioning.

The title for this post comes from the title of an article in the September, 2009 issue of Black Belt Magazine. In this article, he uses the idea of Michael Johnson, and his being so good at running, and working so hard at it, and delving so deep into something so common as running, that Johnson was able to make it something people sit up and take notice of, when he does it. The author, Steven Pearlman, then relates the idea to training in a single kata.

I really found this article rather interesting, and when Pearlman used Michael Johnson and his running as the comparison for studying a kata, I really think he hit on a good idea.

It is said that Funakoshi was made to practice Tekki (Nahanchi?) for 7 years, before learning a different kata. This doesn't happen much today, because katas seem to be the curriculum for belt tests; each belt has a kata(s) that must be learned.

I think his idea of working one kata, from the ground up, is a great way to explore how one can really dig into what one kata would have to offer.

What are everyone's thoughts on this? Do you think that having a "kata-based curriculum" has in a way reduced how much one kata can be explored? Are all the katas a necessary evil? I look forward to your comments.

Edited August 27, 2009 by bushido_man96

[ninjanurse]

I think kata is an integral part of traditional martial arts. Having only one limits the number of solutions (bunkai) to explore but that does not mean we have to have so many. A good topic for reflection-gives me an idea for my next project!

[bushido_man96]

Having only one limits the number of solutions (bunkai) to explore but that does not mean we have to have so many.

Pearlman actually addresses this idea in the article. He states:

...does each sucessive kata really demand higher skill? Remember that doing many kata improves your skill if only be repetition, but doing more kata doesn't necessarily require advanced skills.

He goes on to talk about changing emphasis from "valuing more" to "valuing better":

What if instead of basing progression on more kata, we based it on better kata?

I think that this could be a very viable option as an approach to forms training, even at higher ranks, when there is more time between promotions, where one that has done many forms, can take the time to really delve into one form. It would be interesting to see something like this progress from the beginning.

Quotes reference: "The Case For Less", Black Belt Magazine, Sept. 2009, pp. 74 by Steven Pearlman.

[ps1]

Do you think that having a "kata-based curriculum" has in a way reduced how much one kata can be explored?

YES!!! Absolutely. I would submit that this lack of extensive training in kata, specifically including its applications and the mastery of those applications, is the reason we have alot of martial artists who really aren't that good at defending themselves. Too much time is spent practicing an empty set of movements simply to move up to the next rank. Instead, that time should be spent learning the pattern, then what the applications of the pattern are, then how to actually use it in a self defense situation, then being able to use it. Only after knowing all that and being able to apply it, should the next form be learned. I don't care if a black belt only knows 1 kata. If he can use the lessons of the kata to defend himself, I'm happy. Otherwise, it's just a dance.

Are all the katas a necessary evil?

NO. Look at Boxing, Muay Thai, Wrestling, and BJJ. None have forms of any kind. But they are all very effective martial arts.

[Sokusen]

I don't see anything wrong with a kata based curriculum, but at the same time you don't need to learn several kata to become a great martial artist. Uechi ryu only has three original kata that was brought back from China; Sanchin, Seisan, and Sanseiryu. Eventually 5 other kata were developed as "bridging" kata to help students transition from one of the original kata to the next. The two kata between Sanchin and Seisan have pretty much the same techniques in them as in Seisan. So essentially you are studying the techniques of Seisan for about 5 years before you test for your black belt. Granted a student could only learn Sanchin and Seisan rather then learn the bridging kata. But I think you would weed out alot of students who have a hard time making that leap from Sanchin to Seisan. So in this case it is multiple kata being learned in order to master one.

[joesteph]

I don't know that I'd take a single form and look for the examples Pearlman has given, but I do understand and applaud his point. Pearlman is advocating quality over quantitiy, and essentially asking the question, "When is less actually more?"

In Soo Bahk Do, there are three basic forms for the white belt level. They could easily be made into two, and in-depth applications could be concentrated on. Right now, at 5th gup, I have a background of three basic forms, three forms in the Pyung Ahn series, and recently completed my second in the Chil Sung forms. If I stopped dead in my tracks right now and concentrated on the applications within, I'd be a happy man--and yet not a dan member.

I do ask my teacher for what I see as individual applications within the forms as I am studying them, and sometimes I'm off-base, but usually she tells me that what I've concluded is one way of application, and has shown me a second application. But it isn't that I'm asking for every move, and there is the pressure of class time as a finite thing. Don't misunderstand me. Some of the moves we do are explained as we do them, but I would love to go deeper, to tear forms apart ("deconstruct" them?), especially the "higher" forms that still must incorporate the first three basics, and dive into the sea (Pearlman calls it an "ocean") of applications.

I wonder if too many instructors are pressed for tests and promotions to go into such detail, especially if their art has many required forms to be known. Reaching black belt may actually refect the impatience of modern society, particularly the competition between schools for obtaining and retaining students. ("You're still an orange belt after all this time? I'm a red belt." "Your son/daughter is still a green belt with all those lessons? My son/daughter is a black belt.")

I like what Steven Pearlman has to say but, then again, I'm a more patient man, a patience that does enjoy promotions, but wouldn't mind at all if they weren't so frequently tested for, and who wants to know "the how's and why's" of the forms for their applications.

[bushido_man96]

Too much time is spent practicing an empty set of movements simply to move up to the next rank.

This is the feeling that I have experienced in my years of TKD. From the ATA, to the TTA that I am now a member of, the forms have always been basically belt curriculum, with established one-steps filling in the rest of the test material.

Now, I'm not exactly sure why TKD forms have gone this route, but it may go back to the idea that Funakoshi didn't show bunkai applications to Choi, who then didn't see any reason that he couldn't design his own forms, to focus on different physical aspects. When H.U. Lee created the ATA, he still used the Chang On patterns, until he began designing his own forms. The ATA forms were designed to work on techniques that were established for the respective ranks. Each form became more technically demanding, adding jumping and turning kicks, etc, as layed out by the rank requirements. But, no "applications" are taught. That is my take on the TKD idea behind the use of forms as curriculum.

[Harlan]

There are not many katas in 'traditional' Goju, and I think that from the beginning one gets the idea that depth, and variation of bunkai, and multiple layers of principles, are the meat of the system. Essentially, one IS studying one kata...adding depth to it...over a lifetime of study. Adding katas over time is, to my way of thinking, really a teacher's perogative specific to his/her teaching methodology. Some say, 'one kata a year', not for rank...but for proficiency in at least the fundamentals to the system and a reasonable performance level. Others say, 'no matter...you get to the same place eventually'...and can have one working on all the katas concurrently in a relatively short time (a few years). I prefer the latter approach because the student can SEE how a teacher's ideas, or principles, are interpreted in different kata.

I think the idea that there are 'higher' katas is artifice, and has more to do with control, money and politics. There are more 'complicated' aspects to certain kata, but I think it depends a lot on the student. Personally, I find Saifa, the first Goju kata that we learn, the hardest physically to 'get'.

Quote: It is said that Funakoshi was made to practice Tekki (Nahanchi?) for 7 years, before learning a different kata. This doesn't happen much today, because katas seem to be the curriculum for belt tests; each belt has a kata(s) that must be learned.

 

I think his idea of working one kata, from the ground up, is a great way to explore how one can really dig into what one kata would have to offer.

 

What are everyone's thoughts on this? Do you think that having a "kata-based curriculum" has in a way reduced how much one kata can be explored? Are all the katas a necessary evil? I look forward to your comments.

[joesteph]

There are not many katas in 'traditional' Goju, and I think that from the beginning one gets the idea that depth, and variation of bunkai, and multiple layers of principles, are the meat of the system.

You refer to yourself as a "Beginner, Matayoshi kobudo & Goju Ryu," Harlan, but your perception doesn't sound like it. I can understand children performing forms, not really following why they do something other than the obvious punch and kick, but also not questioning the application. The same can be said, I believe, of many adults. Sometimes a not-so-obvious application from a form is needed to "jump start" the adult. For me, in Soo Bahk Do, once the Pyung Ahn (pinan/heian) series got underway, I really wanted to tear even the basic/intro forms apart.

Essentially, one IS studying one kata...adding depth to it...over a lifetime of study.

An interesting way of looking at it. For myself, I've found in Soo Bahk Do not only the Pyung Ahn series as one form broken into five parts (which it has been interpreted to be), but also the Chil Sung (meaning "Seven Stars") series. The latter is actually easier for me to work at deconstructing, because I can see Tai Chi moves within it, Tai Chi having been studied by the Founding Father, GM Hwang Kee.

Case in point: In the present Chil Sung form I'm working on, I spoke with my teacher about the first move as I interpreted it, but I was seeing an application from the Pyung Ahn series there, so I was off the mark. However, she did tell me it that it was linked to the second move, which I'd thought of as an elbow break from Tai Chi (and can be). When she linked the two together, I understood the application of one into the other. I wonder if any other adult asked her about the first move, let alone the tie-in of the first with the second. (She did tell us all that the second move was a takedown, but I wish we'd have had time to practice the application of the first two moves.)

There are more 'complicated' aspects to certain kata, but I think it depends a lot on the student.

Very true.

Edit: Needed to reword to clarify.

Edited September 8, 2009 by joesteph

[DWx]

Now, I'm not exactly sure why TKD forms have gone this route, but it may go back to the idea that Funakoshi didn't show bunkai applications to Choi, who then didn't see any reason that he couldn't design his own forms, to focus on different physical aspects. When H.U. Lee created the ATA, he still used the Chang On patterns, until he began designing his own forms. The ATA forms were designed to work on techniques that were established for the respective ranks. Each form became more technically demanding, adding jumping and turning kicks, etc, as layed out by the rank requirements. But, no "applications" are taught. That is my take on the TKD idea behind the use of forms as curriculum.

The thing with TKD forms is that they were designed purposefully for a form based curriculem whereas most katas were not designed to be part of a set or standard syllabus. As I understand it, the Chang Hon forms are more a way of introducing concepts at each level rather than actually introducing the techniques themselves. So forgetting the actual techniques, you'd have to learn the full set in any case even if you changed all the moves themselves to a handful of attacking and defensive techniques because otherwise you wouldn't be learning much. What I mean is that at each level you are introduced to different types of stepping, body posture, transitions and what we'd call body motions. Introducing new techniques themselves doesn't really matter all that much but introducing the concepts in manageable chunks is what I think is important and the Chang Hon patterns are designed to do this.

The other thing with the Chang Hon forms is that there isn't really any bunkai to be discovered. They were just designed in a really obvious way where X move is to block X type of attack and Y attack is for this number of targets so that the soldiers learning them could pick up the skills quickly. (To be honest the concept of bunkai is pretty alien to me...) The application part comes in with the step sparring as strictly speaking there shouldn't really be any set sequences to learn. You can just apply the techniques you know in your own way to demonstrate that you know the purpose and method of each one. I suppose that is bunkai in a way? but you certainly don't have to delve too deep in order to find them. You wont find any hidden applications unless you start deviating from how the forms were originally devised. I could imagine spending years perfecting the movements but I can't really see you learning anything new by just solely practising one of the forms from this set for a number of years.

The way I see it is that forms/katas are your catalogue or manual of transitions, body positioning, breath control and then to a lesser extent kicks, punches and blocks. You study them as a reference for the fight and practise them to ingrain muscle memory. They are also a form of exercise just as press-ups, sit-ups and burpees are. How many you learn and need to practice will be determined by which ones you choose to learn and how much you can extract from them. So yes if you keep finding new things in your kata then by all means keep studying it. However most styles give you a certain set of forms to learn for a reason, usually to give you what your teachers and masters consider the full package. Also with forms I think there can be a bit of a saturation point where you just can't get anything more from it for the time being and need to learn a new form and new ways of doing things before going back to the one you were originally studying.