Variable Resistance: Upping the Training Ante

[Vash]

In my karate school, we tend to work at several levels of resistance, though there are no terms for these levels, and no real distinction drawn between them. However, I feel it prudent to set up a skeletal framework for the introduction of resistance in learning the so-called "classical" or "traditional" arts - the arts which tend to place emphasis on forms/kata training.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 0:
0 Resistance - Forms/Kata practice. Includes initial introduction to techniques, as well as all manner of one-person formwork, shadowboxing, and the like. At this level, focus for the beginning and intermediate student is on developing a general understanding of the intended motion. For the more advanced practioners, a basic study of strategy is available, as is the free study of intended physical structure within certain techniques or ideas.

Level 1:
Two-Man Drills. Training at this intensity level tends to focus on translating the concepts garnered at Level 0 into executable techniques recognizable as the "style" or "method" of the practitioner. (also includes bagwork, padwork, et al)

Level 2:
Low-Intensity free-sparring. Focus at this intensity level is on allowing the student to actively test the techniques/concepts introduced at the previous levels against a completely non-cooperative opponent.

Level 3:
High-Intensity free-sparring. Focus herein is the same as Level 2, only the pressure is raised a few notches - not, however, at the cost of safety or lack of control of trainees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my opinion that training with this type of sliding scale of resistance will allow a student of a "classical" or "traditional" art to apply their style's techniques and strategies under stress.

Any thoughts?

[yenhoi]

Same sort of thinking on our side of the table:

attribute training: solo training in any number of manners that improve basic personal attributes.

skill development: partner training with varying levels of "resistance," decision making opporatunitys, and mistake making opporatunitys.

Its common in JKD concept camps to refer to this type of training methodology as Progressive Sparring, Isolation training, or similar.

Skill development cannot take place without a somwhat or fully resisting partner/opponent.

:eek:

[Vash]

Originally posted by yenhoi
Skill development cannot take place without a somewhat or fully resisting partner/opponent.

I'm going to be real ballsy and disagree. And I'm going to use my own (exceptionally limited) experience to make my case.

When I was coming up, learning the basics, I found the "dry-land swimming" exercises helped me to focus on a given technique without the "distraction" of a bag, mitts, or an opponent. By doing this, then afterwords going up each level of the aforementioned intensity scale, I was able to more effectively (and much sooner) use the technique than having started with a higher level of intensity. That is to say, I'd gone through a similar process, leaving out the "dry-land" aspect, and had found it difficult to grasp what I was doing quickly and effectively.

Iain Abernethy (http://www.ianabernethy.com/articles/Kata_Bunkai_the_next_big_thing.htm) has a good article which explains more clearly what that last paragraph was trying to get across.

For me, this learning process has proven to be effective. Of course, I've always found it easier to "get" something shown me if I pantomimed it first. I'm just strange that way. And many of the people I've worked out with have been the same way. Of course, there have been many people (and there are obviously a great number of people, as shown by the amazing and proven fighters in the non-forms camps) who don't work that way.

My suggestion is that a full range of pressure-testing, from 0 all the way to balls-to-wall, allows for a complete psychological and neurological immersion in a given task, thus making a more complete learning experience.

Later on today, after I've edited the sleep-deprivation out of this post, I'll discuss the merits of training techniques which don't work in every situation and which are not easily accomplished by someone without a substantial bit of training in said technique.

[yenhoi]

This is where terminology and lingo will seperate and destroy us Vash.

Our family has decided that there is attributes, the basic building blocks of all fighters, like speed, endurance, power, structure, integration, and focus... and then there is skills, specific functions you can DO against a person who doesnt want you to and is trying to hurt you, these involve the aspects of timing and setup that cannot be simulated without another person. Principles are higher ideas that are learned through specific expierences while training attributes and skills.

Solo practice of all sorts can be very beneficial on many levels. What we call "skills" are things you can only do against a person... and so can only be practiced by doing them against a person.

An example of a skill would be: the ability to "enter" past your opponents weapons and gain a superior clinch hold/grip/tie up. Another might be the ability to "off-balance" your opponent from a superior clinch hold/grip/tie.

skills are obviously inter-related with attributes, techniques, and principles. People can train attributes and techniques to a large extent without partners and with great results, but skill and (martial) principle seems impossible to actually practice alone.

I would also say that some solo training methods like shadowboxing, carenza, some types of form and kata, and visualization obviously exist in the gray area between attribute/technique and skill/principle.

;)

[Vash]

This is where terminology and lingo will seperate and destroy us Vash.

Indeed. It's hard to learn whilst having to play the language game.

That was a good post. Definetly cleared up a few things.

[SevenStar]

Excellent thread. Yenhoi has the same train of thought as I.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Solo practice can be an invaluable way of training (along with the three other mentioned levels). Back when I was learning Shotokan Karate (and I was also somewhat interested in JKD) I remember thinking "hmm, what if someone decided to make up a kata for JKD?" "What would it look like?" With Karate I learned that once the forms really become second nature, you can mix-match as many different moves as you want and literally make up your own forms. That's how the masters of old did it.

I think it could be useful for practitioners of JKD to do this (as I'm sure many probably have already).

[Vash]

That's one of the topics I intended to broach sometime after the forms vs no-forms debates blew over on the main forum.
I've got a few decent-sized posts regarding my views saved on disk. I would be very itnerested to hear more of yours, and anyone else's thoughts on the subject, so long as they can be presented in a non-policitical, this-is-right way.

[yenhoi]

How do you pick which forms to collect?

:confused:

[Vash]

Originally posted by yenhoi
How do you pick which forms to collect?

:confused:

I don't think I understand the question; are you asking how a school (style) decides which forms to practice, or are you referring to practice at the individual level?

[yenhoi]

Mainly how do you decide which forms to collect, Vash.

But also, if you want, how/why have any specific schools/systems/styles collected and taught the lists (short of long) of forms?

:confused:

[Vash]

Originally posted by yenhoi
Mainly how do you decide which forms to collect, Vash.

Well, I'm sticking to those in my system, plus two I'm working on with friends/students of other styles; one is from a style which heavily influenced mine, and the other is the CLF Drunken form.


But also, if you want, how/why have any specific schools/systems/styles collected and taught the lists (short of long) of forms?

My guess, and that's all it is, is that the forms within a syllabus correspond to and help instruct the attributes of a given fighting methodology.

[Vash]

To start, here's the fuel for the flame: a method of combative instruction which utilizes the practice of forms, long or short, against no or compliant resistance is less efficient than a system which focuses on active resistance at all but the introductory levels of instruction.

However, this does not speak to the overall efficacy of a system. Often times, it'll be said that "it takes years to master x form." While this can be true, it does not mean one should not be able to adequately defend themselves given three or four months of good training. From my conversations with the "higher ranks" in both my system and a few kung fu systems, the techniques which are thought of as inadequate for immediate use are labeled correctly. It is the time invested and applied to the training of the "advanced" (heretofore labeled as inadequate for immediate use) technique which allows for the "effortless" application in a live environ.

This difference in training:

1) Utilizing only quickly efficient attributes and attribute-builders; method is negligible

2) Focus is on development of combative ability utilizing a specific method

If trained properly, the "tradititional" approach can produce combatants on the same level as the "modern" approach. However, they more often than not do not, at least "these days." This, I believe, is due partly to something Ford Prefect pointed out on a thread in the main forum; the difference in physical activity preferences.

One method will produce fast results which can be carried on and improved upon for some time; the other takes time to make the chosen method natural (and therefore, efficient and effective). They are not completely different goals. The difference is one of degrees.

[SevenStar]

This is what we've been saying all along - the difference is in the training methods. that and the design. TMA systems were designed to take longer.

[Vash]

Sevenstar is correct.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

But wait, doesn't the quick and easy path lead to The Dark Side of The Force :D

[Vash]

Well, despite the undying horse which is still being beaten on the main board, I think it's a good a time as any to reanimate this discussion.

I think it would be interesting to hear from those who train in the "traditional" or "classical" styles with one primary goal being self-defense, or at least combat efficacy, at the very least in regards to training methodologies, etc.

[Vash]

Com'mon, I know there's still some of the non-regulars lurking.

Post. Please :o

[SevenStar]

as far as what? how they develop their self defense skill?

[Siu Lum Fighter]

If you ask me, the training methodologies employed in a good Bak Siu Lum (Shaolin Kung Fu) curriculum will eventually produce a superior fighter and will bestow immense power through the practice of Chi-Gung and some of the other internal arts (Hsing YI, Ba Gua, Tai Chi). To his credit, Bruce was actually starting to tap into this power on his own without any real guidance.

To his discredit, I think he was full of too many negative emotions like anger and hatred. This caused an excess amount of heat to rise to his head which in turn caused the edema in his brain. This is really nothing new. The immense power that can be unleashed through Chi Gung, over practice, or practicing in the wrong manner can cause headaches, high blood pressure, and death.

[Vash]

Though interesting, I'd rather not have this turn into a Chi Gung discussion, as it tends to distract from purely technical/methodoligical discussion.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

OK Vash, I'll steer this away from Chi-Gung although I do think it slightly does pertain to effective self-defence. After all, Bruce was able to puncture Coke cans and bend steel with the impact from his fists. This shows that he had achieved a certain proficiency at fa-chi (emitting energy). Which is basically the same principle behind iron palm, iron shirt, or the dim mak death touch. When Karate practitioners break through bricks or wood or drive nails into boards with their hands etc...(like in The Chinese Connection which was faked or Fist of Legend which was not) they're using the same methods.

But anyway, I think Bruce's JKD does offer some good fighting methods. Naturally, if someone with as much enthusiasm for fighting as Bruce had is going to devote virtually all of his time to the best methods for fighting, there's going to be something there that's worth looking into. I think perhaps he was so much of an idealist and he wanted so badly to be the one to come up with something "new" that the fact that many of the methods and styles that he drew from were considered to be be purely classical and traditional was lost on him. I think his JKD would have been far more effective if he had committed to learning the full curriculum for one or two other styles (perhaps Hung Gar, Mantis, Hsing I, or Shaolin).

[Vash]

I would disagree about the learning of the full curriculum.

If a trainee were to learn, say, a single form from one, and work it's applications against a steadily increasing resistance, from the formwork itself, to two-man drilling, to sparring, he would be much more prone to utilizing the skills than if he had the whole library, but never took the quiz.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

That's actually a pretty good point about increasing the resistance from a form. While it is true that many styles will teach you a bunch of forms with no two-person drills for any of the techniques, many styles, like Hsing I, Tai Chi, Tam Tui etc., do teach the applications via two-person drills and sparring. I'm personally fond of Tam Tui and Hsing I for their two-man drills (although I don't personally know much Hsing I, I've been drawn to it cause it's just friggin' awesome). I'd still like to see a JKD form even though Bruce said forms were a "waste of time."

[SevenStar]

OK Vash, I'll steer this away from Chi-Gung although I do think it slightly does pertain to effective self-defence. After all, Bruce was able to puncture Coke cans and bend steel with the impact from his fists. This shows that he had achieved a certain proficiency at fa-chi (emitting energy). Which is basically the same principle behind iron palm, iron shirt, or the dim mak death touch. When Karate practitioners break through bricks or wood or drive nails into boards with their hands etc...(like in The Chinese Connection which was faked or Fist of Legend which was not) they're using the same methods.

fa jing is merely explosive release of energy, correct? Do you think that an external stylist cannont produce this? If not, then why? peng and various other energies are demonstrated in various external styles - non chinese ones - but they are unnamed. They are merely part of proper technique.


I think his JKD would have been far more effective if he had committed to learning the full curriculum for one or two other styles (perhaps Hung Gar, Mantis, Hsing I, or Shaolin).


why do you feel that way?

[SevenStar]

I'd still like to see a JKD form even though Bruce said forms were a "waste of time."


what do you feel a form could teach that drilling and applications work can't?

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Forms can teach fluidity of movement as well as how to best interlink all of the techniques at one's disposal. After practicing a form enough times, one gets a sense for the continuity of movement from technique to technique. It's a good way to get a feel for how to link it all together. The stop and go of two person drills and sparring doesn't facilitate this as much though two man drills have their place in a well rounded curriculum too.

[Vash]

In terms of technical continuity, I agree. Having a series such as presented by forms allows for a look at a good combination possibility. We have to remember, when looking at forms-centered training, which all systems utilizing them really are, that each technique must be tested in a variety of different ways, from the free-flow of the form, all the way up to full-on sparring.

With the forms, we have a method of learning a very unorthodox method of personal combat. In terms of expediency, the forms-transmission method is not on the higher end of the scale. However, this can be countered by proper training, which includes the form work, the drilling of specific techniques (bags, et al), two-man drilling, and various levels of sparring.

The one thing that, in my opinion, has weakened the classical traditions as a whole has been the differentiation between the forms training and the fighting. Of course, there were schools that did not do this. There were, many, though, that did. And do.

Here's a little food for thought. I think that a classical trainee should exhibit the visual traits of their system, if they have trained in a method of variable resistance.

Of course, I'm just some krotty boi. What do I know?

[SevenStar]

Forms can teach fluidity of movement as well as how to best interlink all of the techniques at one's disposal. After practicing a form enough times, one gets a sense for the continuity of movement from technique to technique. It's a good way to get a feel for how to link it all together. The stop and go of two person drills and sparring doesn't facilitate this as much though two man drills have their place in a well rounded curriculum too.



athe stop and go feel you are referring to however, is more akin to the true flow of the fight, though. it's one thing to transition from position to position doing a form. It's quite another thing to transition while someone is trying to hit you. From a perspective of just training basic footwork, then yes, I agree with you. but beyond that, I think sparring is a must for teaching proper transitioning and footwork.

[Vash]

Sevenstar is right.

Without training that variability that is inherent in fisticuffs, then one will not be able to actually function effectively in that circumstance.

Again, no one is saying "forms = bad." They take up a good bit of my training time, though they'd take up a lot less if I had consistent access to a training partner, one with whom I could work on the various applications within my curriculum at a variety of intensities, from completely compliant (initially), to moderately resistant (a good bit of the time), to completely resistant (a good bit of the time).

By training the forms, and then using the forms as the basis of our training regimen, it's possible to utilize the "traditional" or "classical" methods under heavy pressure, though it takes quite a bit longer to become proficient with the skills.

[Vash]

For the traditional artists out there:

about how much time do you spend (class-wise) on forms work, and about how much on application, sparring, et al?

[Siu Lum Fighter]

While it's true that forms cannot provide the experience and training that sparring can, I still feel that they are invaluable to a well rounded curriculum. After doing a particular form over and over again I can tell you that the moves become ingrained into your psyche to the point that they become second nature in a real conflict. There's such a thing as having a "body knowledge" from performing a form and really getting it down. Your body literally learns the moves until it spontaneously snaps out the proper action for the given situation. I was recently involved in a small scrap with a bunch of cholos. I threw a right cross at this kid and he actually dodged my punch. After that he tried to get me on the ground so his 6 or 7 other dipsh*t buddies could start kicking me. That's when my form work really kicked in. I somehow managed to stay on my feet (I credit this to doing Tam Tui over and over again) and instinctively threw some heel kick and punch combinations to get these b*stards to back off. Before I knew it the fight was broken up. To sum the whole thing up, I credit my form work for surviving this conflict since I had to deal with multiple opponents and I successfully managed to fight them off; something I couldn't have prepared for from just sparring from one single opponent.

[Vash]

With regards to the differences in the learning curves between forms-based (traditional/classical) and modern (or, more to the point, sport-tested) . . .

As was alluded to earlier, when working with forms-based curriculum, it takes longer to become proficient with a given skill set. This is off-set, according to the forms-based trainees, by the "depth of skill," or applicability, of the classical techniques. Now, I've been beaten, grabbed, choked, thrown, and ground-fought by some rather experienced classical trainers who were using some of the "inefficient" techniques of their styles, and they all had one thing in common: they had been using the skills of their styles for a long time. Now, could they have used the same skills with the same efficacy a decade or two ago, before they had trained as long and as hard as they had? I doubt it. But, they can now.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

So, in the long run, who would you say is more likely to be the better stylist/all-around fighter? The modern, sport-tested, kickboxer type or the classicallly trained MAist? I, for one, think that a Grandmaster with a multitude of techniques at his disposal is a more deadly fighter than someone who (under Dan Inosanto's tutelage) would advocate drilling just 10 techniques over and over again. Especially if the forms practitioner really internally imagines performing the techniques against multiple opponents from different directions. I just recently started re-learning all of the Shotokan Karate forms I used to know (mainly the Shorei-ryu forms) and I can imagine the opponents as they're coming at me like waves against the shore. Sure, there's not the unpredictableness of a real opponent or any of the other factors, but after a while I feel confident using the techniques on a real foe. Of course, I would practice them on a partner a few times as well just to get a feel for distance and the body mechanics.

I'm not saying that I'm the baddest dude on the planet or that I could actually use all of these techniques in a real conflict, but give it a couple more years and I could feel confident using them. And besides I have a set of core techniques that I would use without thinking.

[X-Warrior]

A classical argument. I have to agree with both of you. The truth is: on the street your art might work better than you expect it.

Researches conducted among prisoners and victims of crimes concluded that 50% of criminals left their victims that fought back by any ways. These victims didn't know martial arts or self defense techniques, they were just plain folks who fought back using their basic human instincts (remember, criminals are the cheap low lives who prey on the easy targets because they're not honorable enough to fight at their own levels). Soon as these victims fought back, they were left alone.

So the answer to the question which one works: a traditional art or a combative sport is, they both do! Why? Because the most important thing is not what style you learn but how well you know it and often just that you're willing to use it or fight back with it; and with proper training, both of these type of arts will give you what you are learning them for: to survive. Every fight is different and what might work in one situation could be a great mistake in another. As far as who is better, really comes down to personal skills and levels.

-X-
PS: I practice both traditional arts and combative sports and I also had a short encounter with a guy who wanted to rub me. I only performed one blocking technique which just paralized him mentally. I instantly realized it wasn't my skill (or the form of art I used) that stopped and turned him away but the fact that I fought back and I didn't show any fear from him.

[Vash]

Good post above.

Returning more to the original topic . . .

The levels of resistance without question affect the learning curve of an art. If we look at the programs of MMA, mixed martial arts, we find a rather short learning curve. That is, a level of proficiency is reached within a relatively short timeframe, a level which allows for less-restricted compeition between individuals of equal training time or perceived skill. Often, this is not the case in "traditional," or forms-based training programs.

I've more to add to this, particularly from a carotty-man's perspective, but I'm tired.

[yenhoi]

The learning curve distinction isent form based vs sport based, its about time spent working against opponents/partners who are working against you.

Shuai Chao, Wrestling, Judo, BJJ, Boxing, Thai Boxing - none are "MMA", all are "traditional" and all have very short learning curves. They all have cosiderable forms training involved.

Time in with teachers and training partners = skill development.

:eek:

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Good point,

Right now I'm learning Hsing Yi and Muay Thai (from the same teacher) and I have to say, as far as actual applications and fighting, the results are immediate. Especially with Muay Thai, I've finally really gotten a feel for the whole hip/shoulder, elbow/knee, and hand/foot alignments (referred to in the classics as the "three external harmonies"). This is integral to styles like Ba Gua as well. Although I never quite fully "got it" for some reason.

It's worth noting though, that even though Muay Thai is definitely a traditional, classical style, it's a lot like sports oriented arts like kick boxing and San Da in that when you initially train with the stances and strikes, there's not as much form work. It's just all practical strikes and movements (the elbows and knees can be particularly devastating).

Anyway, I've managed to effectively apply this "body knowledge" to my form training. To me it illustrates the principal of working with various techniques (via forms) in conjunction with the actual experience of striking pads or sparring.

[cerebus]

Given the same amount of time in training, the guy who has trained only 10 techniques and can use them effectively in full contact sparring will defeat the guy who has 1,000 different techniques he's been training primarily through forms work. I can't believe some people even doubt this...

[Siu Lum Fighter]

What about the guy who trains the thousands of techniques and full contact sparring? And why does it have to be 10 techniques? Why not 12, 16, or 20. Most truely bad-ass masters I know of can use more than 10, even Dan Inosanto. So why not train with more?

[cerebus]

I mentioned 10 as an example because 10 is the number you used as an example. Go back and read your own post.

I was responding to your assertion that someone who trained a multitude of techniques and really visualizes his opponent when practicing forms would beat someone who just practices 10 techniques but drills them to a high level of usage.

I disagree with that assertion and have seen the fallacy of it proven many, many times.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

I only mentioned "ten" because that's what Inosanto advocates and in that post I did not say that someone who only practiced forms could beat a guy who mainly sparred.

I do, however, believe that the practitioner who trains with forms and sparrs is, in the long run, the more superior fighter. Let's say you take two fighters: one's a western style boxer and the other is an experienced, traditional kung fu fighter. If both fighters are pretty much equal in speed and strength and they fought with just as much heart, the kung fu practitioner would be WAY more likely to win. The boxer could always get lucky, but the kung fu artist would have a lot more offensive and defensive techniques at his disposal. I don't care how hard the boxer sparred or practiced his limited repertoire of techniques, it's more than likely that he would get worked.

[cerebus]

Actually I've seen (and been involved in) several fights like the hypothetical one you mention. In every case the person who did NOT practice forms (boxers and kickboxers) defeated the traditional martial artists (who often had been training much longer than the boxers and kickboxers). I myself have many years of training in boxing (5), kickboxing (3 1/2), san da (3), and traditional arts (training since 1978/79) and I don't have to theorize about who might or might not win. I've been there. I know who will win.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Fine, and I've seen guys who did practice forms on a regular basis who've kicked ass on fighters who strictly train for the ring. It can be a two way street. I've seen San Shou fighters who regularly train in Tai Chi, Hsing Yi, Northern Shaolin, etc...totally take more kickboxing oriented fighters apart on the Lei Tai. Yes, their are other factors that make up a fighter other than techniques, but I still believe that if you take a traditional fighter and a non-traditional fighter with the same strength, speed, and agility the non-traditional guy isn't necessarily as likely to come out on top (and by traditional, I mean someone who does full-contact sparring as well).

I simply do not believe that practicing forms is a waste of time

[cerebus]

I don't believe practicing forms is a waste of time either. But practicing forms won't improve your fighting. It will improve your "form" in your chosen martial art. That's what it's designed to do. The only time traditional martial artists defeat pure fighters in competition is when they (the traditional martial artist) have trained their fighting longer and more intensely than their opponent (or possess some physical advantage like speed, size, strength, or mental advantage such as mental toughness). Forms practice has nothing to do with it.

You take two guys of similar size, with similar amounts of strength, endurance, mental toughness, etc and train them for the same length of time with the same length training periods (say 2 hours a day, 3 days a week for a year), one in 1/2 forms 1/2 fighting and the other only in fighting, then (barring some "dumb luck" kind of mistake) the pure fighter WILL win. To try and say otherwise is completely illogical and demonstrates your lack of experience.

[Vash]

Now, let's not have this devolve into a forms v no forms, MMA v TMA, et al, style argument.

I think one of the things not being discussed is the why and the how.

In Cerebus' example, limited technical reference coupled with consistent training of few techniques at several levels of resistance breeds self-defense capablity.

In SLF's example, a larger technical reference base coupled with consistent training of many techniques at several levels of resistance breeds self-defense capability.

Of course, I'm reading in the "consistent training at various levels of resistance" part.

I think, really, the only question is this: can a training regimen which does not include training of all aspects of a system, disregarding that system's utilization of forms, at various levels of resistance, from no resistance to complete resistance, produce on a regular basis, individuals capable of self-defense?

[cerebus]

Regarding your last paragraph Vash, yes. Kickboxers, Muay Thai practitioners, Savateurs, JKD practitioners, the students of Kenpo master William Chow (who did not teach any forms. Most of his students went on to add forms to their respective arts so as to make their arts more than "just" methods of self defense), and many others do not practice forms, yet are extremely capable of defending themselves.

Forms add a "self-development" aspect, beyond fighting, to the systems which practice them and help the student to learn the "form" of the system in question, but they are not required for someone to become an extremely skilled fighter. The development of "form"per se, can be more efficiently trained through drills, but forms add an "artistic" and expressive element for those who are not so concerned with fighting.

[Vash]

Regarding your last paragraph Vash, yes. Kickboxers, Muay Thai practitioners, Savateurs, JKD practitioners, the students of Kenpo master William Chow (who did not teach any forms. Most of his students went on to add forms to their respective arts so as to make their arts more than "just" methods of self defense), and many others do not practice forms, yet are extremely capable of defending themselves.

I'm sorry, my post wasn't as clear on what I was thinking as possible. I was not referrencing forms as such, but more any type of zero-resistance training - whether it be shadow boxing, solo drills, or just the introduction of the technique without an opponent or partner.


Forms add a "self-development" aspect, beyond fighting, to the systems which practice them and help the student to learn the "form" of the system in question, but they are not required for someone to become an extremely skilled fighter. The development of "form"per se, can be more efficiently trained through drills, but forms add an "artistic" and expressive element for those who are not so concerned with fighting.

I agree with this, though I don't really agree with people studying a martial art without at least one of their three primary goals being self-defense ability.

[SevenStar]

I only mentioned "ten" because that's what Inosanto advocates and in that post I did not say that someone who only practiced forms could beat a guy who mainly sparred.

I do, however, believe that the practitioner who trains with forms and sparrs is, in the long run, the more superior fighter. Let's say you take two fighters: one's a western style boxer and the other is an experienced, traditional kung fu fighter. If both fighters are pretty much equal in speed and strength and they fought with just as much heart, the kung fu practitioner would be WAY more likely to win. The boxer could always get lucky, but the kung fu artist would have a lot more offensive and defensive techniques at his disposal. I don't care how hard the boxer sparred or practiced his limited repertoire of techniques, it's more than likely that he would get worked.

I had a long, drawn out reply to this that got lost during the forum maintenance last week, but in a nutshell, more does not always translate to better. Unless you have a statistic to back up your claim that he would be WAY more likely to win, then what you are saying is unfounded. Especially when you look at the track record more traditional guys have when it comes to fighting...

Anyway, we're not saying forms are bad. they are great. However, you can't REALLY believe what you are saying. If you are fragmenting your time between forms, weapons, strikes, kicks - MANY of each, for that matter - How are you better off than the guy spending 100% of his time sparring and refining his basics?

[Siu Lum Fighter]

OK, let's take Bruce for example. Sure he admired Ali a great deal. He recognized, as do I, that Ali fought with a lot of heart and he was very effective at using what techniques he had at his disposal (the jab, upper cut, etc.). Now I'm sure Bruce thought to himself, "I can beat Ali." Bruce knew that, along with his own quick footwork and thorough knowledge of "the basics," he had a lot more weapons at his disposal, not to mention, the ability to effectively use a great many more techniques.

Of course, Bruce didn't practice any more forms after he abandoned Yip Man's Wing Chun curriculum. He learned a few here and there from other styles, but that was only in order to isolate certain techniques (use what works and toss the rest). My point is, Bruce Lee himself had a plethora of techniques at his disposal. Some of which he wouldn't even show to his own students. Of course he usually didn't feel a need to use them all. Hell, when you're that good you can usually just get by with your basic ten (whatever those might be). Especially when you're fighting people who only practice their "basics" over and over again. That doesn't mean you can't still have a multitude of locks, strikes, blocks, kicks, sweeps, grabs, etc. at your disposal that you can use effectively if you felt the need or desire to.

[SevenStar]

That doesn't mean you can't still have a multitude of locks, strikes, blocks, kicks, sweeps, grabs, etc. at your disposal that you can use effectively if you felt the need or desire to.


And there's the rub. I can't count the number of techniques that I have learned that I have never used and will most likely never use them. What does this mean? That even when the opportunity to use them presents themselves to use them, I won't. It's not so straightforward as just using it when you see the desire, which is part of what I am getting at.

At least with "the basic ten" you are learning them - repeatedly drilling them - and doing so from every possible angle. I really don't need a spinning crescent kick when I have a hook or a spinning backfist. I can sidestep a straightline kick the same way I would sidestep a straightline punch (Assuming I am a boxer don't train kicks) - the principle is the same.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

So are you saying that if you practiced both the spinning crescent kick and the spinning backfist, you would still only use the backfist or the hook every time? All I'm saying is you CAN retain and use more than ten techniques if you practise them enough. You can use more than 20, 30, or even 50 if you are good enough. I don't know, maybe it's a question of how much brain power you're working with. That and how much "body knowledge" you aquire by practicing your techniques over and over again. Now maybe your ability to use all that stuff doesn't make you a better fighter than somebody who's using less (there are other things that make up a good fighter), but it's always nice to have the choices.

[Knifefighter]

Solo practice can be an invaluable way of training (along with the three other mentioned levels). Back when I was learning Shotokan Karate (and I was also somewhat interested in JKD) I remember thinking "hmm, what if someone decided to make up a kata for JKD?" "What would it look like?" With Karate I learned that once the forms really become second nature, you can mix-match as many different moves as you want and literally make up your own forms. That's how the masters of old did it.

I think it could be useful for practitioners of JKD to do this (as I'm sure many probably have already).
There aren't too many things that would make JKD no longer JKD, but adding forms into the equation would definitely be one of them. JKD was specifically developed on the conclusion that forms were B.S.

[Knifefighter]

Well, despite the undying horse which is still being beaten on the main board, I think it's a good a time as any to reanimate this discussion.
I think it would be interesting to hear from those who train in the "traditional" or "classical" styles with one primary goal being self-defense, or at least combat efficacy, at the very least in regards to training methodologies, etc.
Kind of ironic that people would be talking about the merits of forms on a JKD board, considering Bruce thought forms to be the complete antithesis to fighting.

[Knifefighter]

Again, no one is saying "forms = bad."
I am. Not only are they a waste of time, they develop bad habits.

[Knifefighter]

Shuai Chao, Wrestling, Judo, BJJ, Boxing, Thai Boxing - none are "MMA", all are "traditional" and all have very short learning curves. They all have cosiderable forms training involved.


Huh!!!???
What are you talking about?

[Knifefighter]

I do, however, believe that the practitioner who trains with forms and sparrs is, in the long run, the more superior fighter. Let's say you take two fighters: one's a western style boxer and the other is an experienced, traditional kung fu fighter. If both fighters are pretty much equal in speed and strength and they fought with just as much heart, the kung fu practitioner would be WAY more likely to win. The boxer could always get lucky, but the kung fu artist would have a lot more offensive and defensive techniques at his disposal. I don't care how hard the boxer sparred or practiced his limited repertoire of techniques, it's more than likely that he would get worked.

This despite a whole host of evidence to the contrary.

[yenhoi]

Well, KF, those "arts" that I mention do employ form training. Almost any MT school in america you will find the open and closed "short and long" four count combos, 15, 17, and 18 count "long combos" among many others. Some SPM forms are 3 small arm/hand movements and many SBGi gyms use the same exact 10 movement Guard-Isolation-Drill.

"Forms" do not have to be 108 movements or techniques strung together to qualify as a form. Some forms are much less defined as per their exact movements/motions/techniques then others. How a school/family/system/style uses, abuses or under-uses form training is a different story.

Muay Thai, Boxing, Wrestling, BJJ are not set apart from other "traditional" types of martial art training because they lack forms and formwork. BJJ is just as "traditional" and more so then something from Ed Parker or the Plum Flower Association, Im sure, was my point.

:eek:

[SevenStar]

they don't do considerable form work, though. I was once in adjarn chai's organization, so I had to learn those combo counts in muay thai, but we didn't spend a lot of time on them. We are currently somewhat affiliated with manu ntoh, and we don't focus on his counts either.

In judo, we don't even start learning the kata until brown belt, and that is because you need them for your rank tests after 3rd degree brown.

in bjj and sub wrestling, we do technique drills, not forms. I guess if you want to be technical about it, if you are training shrimping solo, then you are training a form for shrimping, but I don't really agree with that.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

I was talking to some guys in my class about that scene in Enter The Dragon where he's in his room practicing and he does the same double, rear twisted, tornado kick combination that's in our Bak Siu Lum forms (#'s 1 and 5). Apparently, after...not being able to beat Wong Jack Man he went to Hong Kong and learned a bunch of Bak Siu Lum. I read somewhere that he was able to learn about one form every two weeks. Which is quite good considering how long some of them are. What I think happened though was that he mainly wanted to learn all of the acrobatics and high kicks. Once he got to a point where he could do alot of TKD and Siu Lum kicks, he really didn't need any other training to help himself look good in the movies. He had the Wing Chun and boxing for the hands, and the elaborate kicks for the feat. At that point he didn't want to bother with having to remember any forms. Doing drills and sparring are the things that are going to make you a better fighter so why bother?

I'll tell you why. There's no point in differentiating styles or methods if there aren't given sets of specific techniques. It's the same with boxing, fencing, Judo or anything. Most traditional Asian martial arts (like Bak Siu Lum) are special though because they take the celebration of that uniqueness even further. They take the "flavor" of that style and it's given techniques, and they put them together in forms. These forms can then be passed down through the generations and that uniqueness is preserved. No one's saying you don't need drills and sparring to be a good fighter. But I really don't think you can say you really know kung fu, karate, TKD, or almost any other Asian martial art without knowing some sets. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it seems as though Bruce learned a lot of forms in order to get the "essence" of each style, but I really don't think he ever got the full essence of any one style he studied (except maybe Wing Chun, and simple boxing) because you can't really be an expert at any one style unless you learn all or most of what it has to offer. And that includes all of the different forms.

He did, however, develop some impressive abilities. So, I don't know, maybe combining what little he knew from each particular style was enough to create an effective style. Or maybe it was effective because it was his style and something only he could use effectively use.

[Knifefighter]

According to everyone who knew him, Lee thought forms were absolute and complete B.S.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

That was the conclusion that he came to after years of practicing forms and not having a desire to remember them. To each his own. I actually completely disagree with him on that point and I would've loved to debate with him about it if he was still around (I'll bet the next post is going to be something like, "he would've kicked the snot out of you if he was still alive!!")

[yenhoi]

The idea of JKD is not "a little bit of this, a little bit of that."

As pointed out, Lee had to basically completely immerse himself in various types of training, like forms- for hours, days, years, before much later he was able to reject them as something he considered useless to his personal training.

JKD is a process of accumulation and evaluation. Im not suggesting that each person must practice forms for many years before they can figure out for them self that forms have very little value when it comes to training to really fight- but long hours, days, and years of training lots of different types of things are necessary for a person to really understand what is useful and what is useless to their individual training.

Flavor and styles of fighting do not exist. Only us individuals actually train and fight. Whatever each of us calls or classifies our own training its still ultimately a individual thing. No one kicks someone else with a Bak Sil Lum purple flower kick.... you would use your leg or a piece of it, whatever name makes you feel cool. Its just plain silly to suggest that to learn how to train yourself and fight that you would have to complete some other persons strict curriculum complete with various names and labels in order to become skillful.

Dragon whips its tail!

:eek:

[Siu Lum Fighter]

I didn't say you have to learn a whole, complete curriculum in order to learn how to train yourself or to fight. what I'm saying is that to learn the so called "essence" of a style you must train in that style for a while. Yes, it does come down to individuals but you can't tell me there isn't any difference between arts like Karate and Wing Chun. When we're talking about the "essence" or "flavor" of an art form we're talking about all of the habits and particular techniques that are inherent in that style. You can't tell me there aren't any differences in methodologies and styles, just like you can't tell me that a Muay Thai fighter is going to fight the same way somebody who uses ninjutsu would.

[yenhoi]

Fighters from the same school/family/system rarely even look the same, let alone fight the same. Obviously people training the same list of techniques using the same training methods will have similarities in application and appearance. I am not telling anyone that there aren't any differences in methodologies across the millions of schools/families/systems. Thai fighters from the same school dont even use the same exact set of techniques or training methods and they dont all look the same when they fight or have the same habits. Its not a style/art thing when people fight or train to fight.

Of course there are differences, which is why the JKD method is to accumulate and evaluate: individuals should not accept a strict list-curriculum just because it is style/art/flavor/because master said so. The piecemeal idea of styles is fake and false. Instead people should become immersed in different training methods - some will be found in many different systems and others in smaller groups. Regardless of what list of techniques or fighting formula someone hands us, it will always be up to ourselves to do the hard work and put the time in, and that makes the very idea of canned flavorful tasty styles, fake and wrong.

Wing Chun on one side of the world looks, feels, is trained and is applied very differently then Wing Chun on the other side. There is only very basic common elements that I would agree remain intact and make up the "essence" of that system, but forms have nothing at all to do with that, and either does the name or any of the other labels and definitions found within that type of system. Other systems are able to transmit this stuff that dreams are made of without heavy emphasis on form work, and so are Chinese and other eastern systems.

:eek:

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Perhaps this debate is really over whether or not a student is going to allow themselves to trust the wisdom and decision making of their sifu when it comes to how they should train. For a period of time during Bruce's life he went along with his elders and his sifu's methods. At a certain point though, he began to renounce their methods and he didn't believe that any one of the myriad traditional styles could be 100% effective (this happened after the WJM fight I might add). One reason for this total perspective change could be because Bruce had a real problem with authority. He had a general disdain for authority figures, no matter who they were. when it came to his elders in the martial arts community, it seems as if he was trying to prove them all wrong.

[SevenStar]

I didn't say you have to learn a whole, complete curriculum in order to learn how to train yourself or to fight. what I'm saying is that to learn the so called "essence" of a style you must train in that style for a while. Yes, it does come down to individuals but you can't tell me there isn't any difference between arts like Karate and Wing Chun. When we're talking about the "essence" or "flavor" of an art form we're talking about all of the habits and particular techniques that are inherent in that style. You can't tell me there aren't any differences in methodologies and styles, just like you can't tell me that a Muay Thai fighter is going to fight the same way somebody who uses ninjutsu would.


there really is no essence, as each fighter is different. A buddy and co-teacher of mine (we now teach at the same school) have trained in ALL of the same schools except one (when I went to longfist, he went to kenpo) since 1996. We are the same height and same build. We have trained the same styles. We fight TOTALLY different. My limbs are long for my height, so I prefer outboxing techniques, even though I was primarily trained as an infighter. he has shorter limbs. I am stronger than him, but he is more elusive. our different attributes dictate how we fight, not the fact that we were trained the same way under the same teachers.

I use the jab, cross, long hook, lead leg roundhouse, etc. primarily. He OTOH dashes in and uses hooks and uppercuts. I prefer sweeping takedowns and pickups, whereas he uses typical "short man" throws, like ippon seionage, which I hate.

Who is to say what the "essence" of our styles are - is it my jkd/muay thai/judo/bjj or is it his, even though they came from the exact same teachers?

My karate teacher sidestepped ALOT and loved leg kicks. He was short, so he would dash inside and use body hooks and uppercuts, along with throws like seionage. If you ever watched him, you would swear he trained muay thai, but he did not. Once again, where is the "essence"? he had more in common with a thai fighter than most karate guys, even though he's never trained muay thai.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Maybe in the world of MMA or kickboxing the lines get blurred. since everyone trains in a variety of different styles you can't really pigeon hole any one particular fighter. But even Dan Inosanto had said in this interview that Bruce Lee was trying to find the so-called "essence" in each style:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PfXfc1CYnCw

Just look at this video of Taijutsu...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iAgxe9katPc

Are you going to tell me Muai Thai fighters are liable to fight like that?

I've seen guys who fight with Hsing Yi. They fight with a san ti stance and you can see them using the 5 elements when they fight. These are trademarks of that style. Somebody who's trained in TKD all their life is not going to fight like that. Here's a Shaolin monk vs. a TKD guy...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z4N9NLiCV5w&mode=related&search=

Their individual styles are obviously Hsing Yi/Shaolin boxing and Tai Kwon Do'ish. I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that there's no such thing as the essence of a style. Why don't we all study Karate and call it Tai Chi then?

[Vash]

Why don't we all study Karate and call it Tai Chi then?

Training methods. Goals.

More tomorrow. Tired now.

[yenhoi]

How about two videos of two different Taijutsu guys from the same school? :confused:

[Vash]

and focusing more on methods of training, ttt.

I would be particularly interested in hearing from the more experienced instructors now frequenting these parts.

The "chart" I initially presented is a rough diagram of my club's training paradigm. Seeing others' and the manner in which the different resistance levels are used would be very educational.