Is one form all you need?

[chick sterling]

Recently I was at a party where I I was talking to guy who studies Shotokan and we started talking about forms/kata.
And he told me that in reality, you only need to master one forms/kata in order to defend yourself. A lot of what he said
went over my head but not because he was playing games, in fact he was being straight as possible and noticed that I
was having trouble understanding what he was talking about and laid it out that that the form is the base and a good
martial artist will be able to find limitless amount of techniques from that one form.

Does that make sense?

[mateo]

Actually, I'd say you don't even need one!

[Bruce W Sims]

Historically, a student would focus on a single form and polish that form to its highest execution. Its not that other forms weren't learned, but rather that a student would select a form which somehow seemed to fit his goals, personality and vision of the art. The oral histories of the Okinawan arts are replete with stories of Okinawa-Te masters having their "favorite" kata.

When Funakoshi followed Itosu's lead and brought Karate to the school system in Japan the idea of learning a hierarchy of forms came into vogue. However, this was a matter of Physical Culture and not combat. Back in Okinawa such greats as Miyagi and Motobu came to discount Funakoshi's structure as an overly intellectualized representation of the Okinawan Arts.

As far as the foundations of Karate, there are seven foundation forms which seemingly encapsulate all of what OKINAWATE has to offer. However, one can cite UECHI-RYU as an very sound and effective art whose entire curriculum is contained in only THREE forms.

Taken a step farther, the entire CHEN TAI CHI CHUAN syllabus is contained in only two forms, and the entire foundation of Korean swordwork can be found in a SINGLE form. In the end it is not the form but what one does with it that makes the difference. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[chick sterling]

When Funakoshi followed Itosu's lead and brought Karate to the school system in Japan the idea of learning a hierarchy of forms came into vogue. However, this was a matter of Physical Culture and not combat. Back in Okinawa such greats as Miyagi and Motobu came to discount Funakoshi's structure as an overly intellectualized representation of the Okinawan Arts.

Why did learn a hierarchy? I think it would be easier to learn one form and the figure out what the applications are instead of focusing on a ton of forms.

[Bruce W Sims]

When Funakoshi followed Itosu's lead and brought Karate to the school system in Japan the idea of learning a hierarchy of forms came into vogue. However, this was a matter of Physical Culture and not combat. Back in Okinawa such greats as Miyagi and Motobu came to discount Funakoshi's structure as an overly intellectualized representation of the Okinawan Arts.

Why did learn a hierarchy? I think it would be easier to learn one form and the figure out what the applications are instead of focusing on a ton of forms.

The difference, Chick, was that Funakoshi was advocating Okinawa-Te as a form of Physical Education for the Japanese school system the way Itosu did for the Okinawan school system. There is nothing wrong with using Karate as a way to condition the body and promote health and well-being. Where people go wrong is in believing that they are training for one thing and are actually training for something else. By comparison, Toyama Kanken was much more about training for actual fighting and his SHUDOKAN and its many variations all come back to this, even though he used many of the same forms that Funakoshi did. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Thomas]

....the form is the base and a good
martial artist will be able to find limitless amount of techniques from that one form.

Does that make sense?

I think there's some validity to this. It does depend on how long the form is and what it contains. In Taekwondo, I use the forms to reinforce the technqieus at each belt level. We have three patterns per color level and they represent, in essence, a spiralling of the curriculum in that the early forms are simple and as students progress, they get more difficult. So, from a Taekwondo perspective, I'd say students need more than one form.

That said, one could also argue that you could teach and reinforce the curriculum without any forms. You could also argue that forms have techniques hidden within them... which may or may not even be exploited, understood and taught.

[vincent]

............Funakoshi was advocating Okinawa-Te as a form of Physical Education for the Japanese school system the way Itosu did for the Okinawan school system. There is nothing wrong with using Karate as a way to condition the body and promote health and well-being. Where people go wrong is in believing that they are training for one thing and are actually training for something else.............
Bruce[/quote]

HI Bruce Your statement here really struck a chord with me, and I think also relates to the thread about a Hapkido syllabus
In all my years in martial arts, I've lost count of the poeple I came across who failed to appreciate this point (or that they are training to achive seemingly contradictory goals??)
Good one!

[chick sterling]

(clip)

That said, one could also argue that you could teach and reinforce the curriculum without any forms. You could also argue that forms have techniques hidden within them... which may or may not even be exploited, understood and taught.

How do you apply this with Hapkido? Assuming you have forms with Hapkido.

I could talk about the manner in which material is encoded into the form but it probably would not make a lot of sense without actually taking a form and educating people through the form by identifying each technical sequence and advising what the sequence is meant to communicate to the student. The five forms in MYUNG Kwang Sik's YON MU KWAN Hapkido are Teaching forms and are each intended to serve as a reflection of the information Myung intended each level of Hapkido to know.

The reason I mention this all is because such an undertaking would be rather labor-intense and, frankly, I don't know if I would be willing to expend the time and energy if there is not actually that much interest in the subject. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Thomas]

How do you apply this with Hapkido? Assuming you have forms with Hapkido.

Well, in Combat Hapkido we don't have forms. We introduce, practice, and reinforce the techniques by working with a partner.

I have learned patterns in the traditional Hapkido I studied and they were very much striking/blocking based... which would make sense as a way to review and practice striking. I think for locking, throwing, and such it's far better to practice them with a partner. Patterns, to me, are better to keep people practicing their footwork, breathing, and striking.