Forms/Applications vs. Sparring/Fighting

[apoweyn]

kc elbows,

i haven't read the whole thread, and haven't got any interest in choosing sides myself. ninety-nine percent of the time, these things are just misunderstandings anyway, not worth the effort we blow on them. like you said, sometimes that happens on forums.

anyway, as always, you make a good point. cheers kc.


stuart b.

p.s. in eskrima, there are several things peripherally related to forms. let me see if i can get the terminology right. i'm sure black jack can bail me out if i flounder a bit.

there's cadena ('chain') which is essentially shadowboxing (random stick movements designed to practice freestyle), sayaw (forms used by some teachers, mine included), and then various patterns (or combinations, to stick with the terminology of this conversation). in my curriculum, there were combinations like 6-count-arco, 12-count-arco, and the like. but by and large, eskrima tends to be predominantly freestyle. at least, in my experience.

[Black Jack]

KC,

Kali, lets use that as a generic term to start, as there are hundreds of FMA based systems and subsystems, does have patterns and yes I bet some could be considered dead patterns but IMHO these are two man flow drills.

Chris may want to jump in here as he has a much deeper kali background than I, but the dos manos drills you see in kali like hubud-lubud or the handbox drill, or the weapon work like sinawali or sumbrada are two person drills that give the user a "base" to develop his free-form flow.

The goal a a flow drill is not to develop a specific set in stone movement in the next generic step of the drill but at its highest level to be able to mutate into the next movement not based on technique but principle, they are like Chi Sau in a way, start with a base striking stucture and then let it evolve from there.

So in that respect I don't think you can compare them to form work as they will change, they leave the standardized format behind, to learn to be free and flow.

Though kali does have some solo movement drills as well, I believe Lameco Kali has patterns such as kadena and the 1-2-3 movements, though Chris can tell you more about that.

Just my thoughts.

P.S. That's good stuff Ap,

Cadena De Mano-Chain Hands-as I have seen it in the Willow system is a two person training drill used for empy hand h2h-its used to build up reactions and so forth. I would compare that to a CMA "short" two person form, being that it only uses like three to 4 movements at the most, an example would be block, check with the other hand into a grab, palm the elbow joint, as you palm them in the face.

The two students would do this back and forth, back and forth.

[KC Elbows]

Cheers back at ya, Ap.

Black Jack,
Interesting stuff. I'm curious to see more from Chris.


Not to muddy the waters, but let's muddy 'em a bit.

I know that, in the past, some tai chi sifus did not generally teach the form as a whole, except to preserve the whole system, and taught movements individually and let the students apply and flow from movement to movement in pushhands and fighting in a way that worked within the system.(Hopefully that made some sense)

Anyway, in that context, was what they were teaching form? Or was it more like the kali patterns, initially form in a very limited sense, but ultimately completely free flowing?

[apoweyn]

cheers black jack.

i've heard the term cadena used in different ways myself. as a specific style name, to refer to a two-person drill as you have, or to refer to shadowboxing. i guess 'chain' is a fairly generic word in this context.

in any event, i was thinking of the solo drill. i agree wholeheartedly with your characterization of the 2-man drills like sinawali, sembrada, cadena de mano, hubud, etc. very well said. i may have to borrow your verbiage in the future.


stuart b.

[apoweyn]

kc elbows,

that's an interesting question. my personal take is that we're very often describing different sectors of the same spectrum. in other words, regardless of the discipline, there's always a point at which form is stressed. then a point at which application is stressed. then a point at which free flow is stressed. etc.

the specific points on the spectrum may vary from style to style, teacher to teacher, or student to student. but in essence, i don't believe that the end goal of any style is to do right by a form (though individual teachers may take that stance).


stuart b.

[Knifefighter]

There is a big difference between forms and drilling. Drills usually have an "aliveness" and are very closely related to the specific movement you use when doing the movement for real. Forms, on the other hand, are set movements that many times are not able to be done in real time against a resisting opponent. My opinion is that the more forms that are in the system, the less it will be able to be used in a realistic manner. I believe the the more effective styles are those that spend the least amount of time in doing form work.

[KC Elbows]

Apoweyn
I agree. I sort of take the stance that the form should match, as much as is plausible, the fighting.

KF,
I agree. I respect guys that do choy li fut/hung gar, etc, that have 100 forms in the curriculum(are they expected to learn all 100?). However, it seems like those forms must have a lot of repitition in them, and that the style could be more concise.

No offense to hung gar or choy li fut guys, I've seen some fierce guys who practice those, it just boggles my mind the number of forms involved.

I prefer the concept behind some styles, where there's one or two open hand forms, that's it, but the applications are varied.

And I totally believe in the method that I mentioned above, the old tai chi thing, where each movement was more important to the student than learning them chained in a specific pattern. I work on segments of my forms that way, and I see a big difference in my practice from changing over from the "I do this whole form several times, I'm good" school of thought. Oddly enough, my form looks better now, as there are segments of it that I have gotten much more proficient in, as opposed to being just OK all the way through.

And, of course, then I test what I've been working on against others, and find out where there was a flaw in my form, or a hole in the defense I intended, or whether I rely too much on too few tactics.

[Mutant]

Red_Fists, I think your curriculum sounds solid and well-rounded (no pun intended )... I like the full-circle concept and agree.

Actually I think most of us are on the same page here (despite all the bickering) and a lot of it is a question of semantics as KC pointed out. Its just a question of, to what degree are forms useful and what percentage of your training should be spent doing forms. I think a possible explaination is that its not a linear process and it varies depending on your level and on what your immediate and long term goals are. Even traditional schools that have produced good full contact fighters don't have the fighters standing around doing forms while training for an upcoming bout (i would hope). Their training would have to look much like the stereotypical muay tai or boxing training if they are in fact a competitive fighter at that level. Even then, forms can be a nice way to cool down, stretch out, feel rooted and circulate chi.

A lot of it just comes down to personal preference and the fact that different people learn in different ways. I still don't think you can build a very good fighter with only or mostly forms. Schools which only teach forms or have only limited, disjoined sparring are in fantasy land (but as discussed previously, some may prefer fantasy land). Some schools may take the 'full circle' approach and i think that is a very valid method that can produce a well rounded martial artist. Schools which skip forms and only concentrate on fighting can produce some nasty fighters, but I think will lack the depth, knowlege and overall skill of a MAist who trains it all. A lot of this comes down to limited training time, so we have to pick and choose how to spend our training time wisely to achieve our personal goals.

Besides, forms can give us something nice to do when we are all old and no longer fighting but still feel like developing & passing along our kung fu

Me personally, I barely practice any forms now, just to relax sometimes, otherwise they seem like a waste of my time. But I used to practice forms all the freakin' time and I think (hope?) they were useful for developing.

[KC Elbows]

I'm with you, MW. Originally, the style I study was one open hand form and one spear form. In the eighties, seven more forms were added on, all external except the last(which is external-internal). Unfortunately, I don't feel the first two match the style very well, the third one is good external southern kung fu, the fourth one is northern(its a southern style, so I don't understand this), the fifth and sixth are weapons I don't plan on learning, and the seventh is almost so close to a segment of the original one open-handed form that, while cool, you could practically start on the one form when you're ready for this one.

I've finally started the original open-handed form, I've gone through all the "new" forms, and when I teach, there's probably only one of them I'll teach. Its all the core form, in my opinion, everything else is not necessary(my teacher agrees with me in principle, although he still teaches two of the new forms.)

Give me a limited number of moves that combine into a sensible fight strategy(or is it tactic?) and I'm happy.

[Merryprankster]

KC,

Long time since I read this thread... sorry

No. Sparring is not the only way to develop balance and power. However, it is the only way to learn to apply the balance and power you develop to an actively resisting opponent.

I hope that made sense. I'm hopped up on Sugar and Caffeine.... YEE HAH!!!

[Chris McKinley]

Hi all,

Somebody mentioned that there might be a question in here for me concerning FMA. Sorry I haven't stayed current on this thread or I'd've responded sooner. From what I'm reading, you guys have got it right. There are countless variations on the theme for sumbrada, hubud lubud, cadena, siniwali, florete, ocho ocho, etc. They're all designed to take a specific skill set and get in a lot of repetitions in a short period of time to wire it in. They all represent a compromise between the crucible of free-form combat training and the controlled laboratory of solo forms practice.

The Inosanto/Lacoste Kali I practice includes dozens of various drills. In fact, in recent years, most of the criticism has been focused on people who are "drill masters" but who aren't able to apply their complex movements within real-time sparring or combat. Lameco Escrima, my other FMA, also includes numerous drills, getting into the sword & dagger aspects rather deeply in addition to the standard ones.

Personally, I look at such drills as just another facet of a complete fighter's training. Isolating and drilling specific skill sets will propel your ability WITH THOSE SKILLS like nothing else. However, solo practice is where you can correct bad habits, instill good ones, and move from good to excellent in your proficiency. The area of the spectrum between skill drills and all-out full-contact free-form sparring acts increasingly as a field-test, trial-by-fire, and toughening of those skills. All of it is necessary, IMO.

Guys who only spar or only fight NHB will more quickly reach a plateau in their personal ability and are more likely to remain stranded on that plateau permanently, as their bad habits get more and more ingrained. Guys who only practice endless skill drills can easily become "collectors", amassing a huge assortment of techniques and responses, but none of which has been field-tested and battle-hardened in real time. That approach can lead to option anxiety in a real fight and also a false sense of confidence in one's ability. Lastly, guys who only do solo forms practice never develop the interactive sensitivity and timing that comes with working with an opponent/partner. They also get blind as to where their weak spots are in terms of application, and similarly, they don't get the benefit of isolating and refining specific skills.

The most intelligent approach would seem to be one which includes healthy doses of all of it, allowing the person to see how it all fits together and how each part supports the others.

[KC Elbows]

MerryPrankster,
Sugar and caffeine are my drugs of choice.

I mean, who needs sleep.

Interesting stuff on the FMA's. This discussion is quite the eye opener. Its sort of turned into a "What is the ideal way of doing form" thread, and a bunch of us seem to be leading to a minimalist approach(not meaning hardly doing form, but doing smaller 'drills' and such).

Sad that this is the shortest post I've written all week. I need to work more.

[Prairie]

I've seen several definitions of what a form is to be. I'll restrict my response to those forms which are strictly solo and which have the same essential structure each time they are practiced.

I say the same essential structure because the method of movement changes over time as one gets stronger, more flexible, and gains understanding of what the proper body mechanics for the particular movements. The points about strength and flexibility are, in my view, the purpose of doing forms. Endurance would be another benefit of form practice although a myriad of other training tools will also increase endurance (and strength and flexibility) However, forms are a means of cataloguing techniques and methods of movement and one may as well get stronger while working a form.

The point about gaining understanding of proper body mechanics is important. It's my opinion that this gain in understanding cannot come from form practice alone. One can attempt to copy ones teacher exactly or be told over and over again by ones teacher and not really understand how the body is to work. Only after extensive experimentation with a resisting (to a lesser or greater degree) partner can one begin to understand how the body really should move. The increased understanding from these experimentations can then be taken back to forms practice where the body can hopefully get extra training in moving in the newly learned fashion.

Experimentation can come in many forms. Application training is for folks just trying to learn how the body works (I'll put my hand up for this one). Free sparring would be for those folks who have a good idea on how the body works but need now to figure out how the mind works. When to apply a technique or mehotd of movement is important. How to learn to keep from retreating when one should advance is also important (and the reverse).

It's my view that forms practice, applications training, and sparring are all important parts of a training regimen. However, as I may have implied above, I believe that applications training and sparring are vital to truly learn a system. The form is a strengthening exercise and a means to remember.

Let's also remember that some techniques shouldn't be practiced for real. For example, one cannot practice a a quick neck break on a living practice partner. One can go to a certain point with the partner but the practice of the entire technique with speed will need to be solo.

If I had to leave one part of my training out, the part left out would be forms practice. Thankfully nobody is asking me to leave forms out though as I feel they are important.

[KC Elbows]

Prairie,
I like the statement you made about sparring being about the mind. In sparring, I find out that something I thought would work doesn't, I find out how I am strong and weak, I find out what is missing from my fighting altogether, and I find out the same things about my opponent.

Its somewhat ironic that the most physical part of MA is also the deepest mental aspect, though much of the thinking goes on between sparring sessions, as opposed to during.

[Chris McKinley]

KC,

At least for me, I'm not pushing a minimalist approach to solo training at all. If anything, I'm suggesting that we all need to make our training schedules just that much heavier, not by cutting down on one area of training, but by adding in certain other kinds. ;P

The key is learning to appreciate each kind of training for the magic that only it can give you and not expecting it to be something else. For instance, solo practice is your own personal laboratory for combat skills. No where else do you have such a fine degree of control over just exactly what you are wanting to work on or practice. Now, if we whine about solo practice because it doesn't give us training in 'aliveness' against a moving, resisting opponent, then we are guilty of expecting to get apples from an orange tree.

Like I said before, I think all of it is beneficial because it all supports the development of the whole. Kind of like different legs of a table. The more legs you have, the more stable it gets. Keeping your development strong in all of these areas not only gives you a deeper perspective on your training, it maximizes your ability to "work in" any new improvements you might stumble upon throughout your years as a martial artist, and this can lead to entirely new avenues of growth, interest, and development.

For instance, let's say you're a TKD stylist who's been a tournament forms competitor and a point-sparring competitor for most of your martial arts career so far. One day, you're talking with a Muay Thai friend of yours and he shows you some of the kicks of his style, which you immediately fall in love with. Let's say that your training includes a comprehensive approach, so you take these new kicks and work with them. At first, you only do them as a side project in your solo practice. You're not under time pressure and the safety of your personal solo practice time allows you to play with these kicks until you think you have their execution, at least, refined to a point where you think you've got them down.

Next, you go to a training buddy and, for variety, you suggest working on the new kicks a little bit. At first, maybe, you just take turns holding pads while you practice your newly acquired skills against an actual target. Over time, you get better and begin to pad up and practice throwing your kicks against the moving target of a resisting opponent. All the while, you're practicing in a safe environment with a trusted partner and gradually moving up your training to become more realistic. While the danger increases, so does your control, and the training remains more or less injury-free and productive.

Eventually, this little side project has become so successful that you decide to try your hand at full-contact tournament fighting for the first time. You lose your first couple of fights, but not overwhelmingly. And most importantly, you realize to yourself that you managed to actually land a couple of those new kicks in your arsenal. You keep taking new fights, all the while continuing to refine your new skills with your partner, and eventually you start winning more than you lose. You also find that your point-sparring skills are quite useful in this new context, too. Now you're well on your way to a new side career as a full-contact fighter.

That was just an example. I could have started with someone who only spars full-contact and learns to shore up his weaknesses with skill drills, or learns that solo forms training actually improves his timing and execution in NHB fights. My point is that training outside of your "comfort zone", to borrow a psychobabble term, can lead to improvements in ways you didn't anticipate.