SKK has an incredible amount of forms. We are not the only ones btw, many Chinese styles have many more forms than we do. I am wondering which forms do you focus on in your practice and why? Which ones do you hate, love and find the most useful? Hoping to get some discussion going here. 🙂
- Home
- Articles
- Glossary of Kempo terms
- Marlon’s web log
- Reviews
- 25 Animal Techniques by Master Jesse Dwire IV
- Anatomy of a Streetfight by Paul Vunak
- Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Self-Defense Techniques
- Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Theory and Technique
- Explosive Lifting for Sports by Harvey Newton
- Fumio Demura Seminar Review
- Okinawan Karate by Mark Bishop
- Review of Extreme Impact download 1 by Iain Abernethy
- Review: Fujita Seiko:The Last Koga Ninja by Philip T. Hevener
- The Art of Learning, by Josh Waitzkin
- The Clinch by Mark Hatmaker
- Shaolin Kempo Technique Archive
- Contributors
- What we have, what we need:
- The Combinations
- The Forms of Shaolin Kempo Karate
- Other Techniques
- The Animal Techniques
- The Point
- We Don’t Have A Chat Room
- Frequently Asked Questions
I have been focusing on P1-3, sometimes 4 and Kata 1-2. The rest are fairly redundant in terms of movement. I like Stature of the Crane as well. Black belt forms I mess with Han Suki, N.&S. Nglis and Swift Tigers. I recently switched to a system which doesn’t put as much emphasis on the quantity of forms but on quality. Which means I get to make P1-3 K1-2 as advanced as I want. I can change strikes, footwork, timing, adding combos etc. Because I spend more time on less material I feel like I actually see more in my material, and because of that I can see the overly repetitive nature of several forms. If the movement has been taught already or the principle then why reteach it in a different form? Essentially the answer to that is chinga $$$ dolla bills! The early system appears to be much more dense and deep. Now it is spread out, because its a business, and the art is somewhat lost.
Of the SKK forms that I still do (gasp!), I try to focus on those that I see as the ‘soul’ of the art. 1-6 kata, statue of the crane, Honsuki, Sho Ton Kwok, and of course, Swift Tigers. I think of these as the core kata, and recognize the particular key contributions of my forefathers – Gascon, Pesare, Cerio, Villari?, and so on. There are interesting things beyond that, but my attention is focused elsewhere…
Hello James. Why those pinans? I generally think of the pinans and 1-5 kata as two forms. Of course, in the process of “kempo-izing” the forms we can lose the style of fighting they teach and not merely the applications. Cannot one focus on the quality of the material even in a system that teaches a large amount of material? Repetition teaches very well and variety helps to motivate. Although, I agree there is far to much focus on money driving things in many SK circles, this fact does not negate the validity of the practice.
Gasp! indeed my friend…lol. So, other than history what do you gain by the practice of those forms? How do you “see” them contributing to SK (I am very interested in this response from you!)?
Starting with the basics, kata 1-5 have ‘themes’ for me. One kata is closing the gap / forward pressure. Two- feint and bait, withdraw, and counter. Three – kyusho and standing manipulation. Four – grab defenses including vs. kicks. Five – integrating 1-4. Six – SGP’s major contribution, traps, low kicks, combinations in context. And onward from there…
I think it would be interesting to discuss the Bunkai of the SKK forms.
Shaun,I think it would be great to discuss applications from the forms. I will start another thread. However, the way I read Matt’s last response…it is all about application.
Matt if 5 kata is the integration of 1-4 then why not simply keep only 5 and 6 kata?
I focus on Naihanchi, the skk kata’s 1-6 ( i like doing them as one long form leaving out the salut in-between them and using the opening of 6 kata as part of the form itself), Statue of the crane, sho tung kwa, Hansuki, Swift tigers, tai sing mon and i like 5 dragons. I find they “fight” differently and so add to the development of my skill. I first learned naihanchi from Soke Cuevas who teaches it as a complete martial arts system (minus traditional & modern weaponry). Wonderful form and his teaching really expanded my understanding of the “how to” of delving deeply into forms and my material.
Almost all the movements after P3 become repetitive, in my mind and the same is true of the Katas. How does one master 108 DM’s? How does one master 50 forms? as the amount of material increases one focuses more on newer material and less on older material. I have found that i can turn P1 into an extremely advanced form by adding pieces. Really I’d rather thoroughly understand less material, than have less understanding of more. I have spent the better part of the last year tearing apart and looking @P1 and have found a ton of stuff in it. The key is looking at the forms as an art form and not a concrete idea. If that makes sense?
Hello James,
I agree completely that in-depth study and practice holds far greater benefit than merely accumulating material ( and often poorly at that).
1 pinan is full of techniques against punches, kicks, clubs. It contains throws and locks and … well you get the picture. If Naihanchi kata can encompass a whole system then just adding on forms can seem a pure money making exercise.
Leaving that aside, I do not find the forms repetative when they are not all performed the same way. One of the great wonders of kempo is that 6 kata and Hansuki actually have a different rhythm to them. Kempo tends to do every form fast and hard. This is why our 5 pin an can look so very different that a Kyokushin practitioner’s 5 pinan. As I said earlier the pinans are all one form to me. They move the same. 1 – 5 kata all move the same, although differently than the pinans. Statue of the Crane moves differently as Sho tTung Kwa. What I am saying is that by dong the forms all the same way we lose the richness of the form…and so it can easily seem just a repeat of the last form and teach us very little. To my thinking what differentiates one form from another is that it will teach a different fighting style…otherwise it will simply be another instance of another form.
Once the forms are “done” as a different fighting style then many things open up.
Marlon – I feel that keeping just 5 and 6 would work fine for me for maintenance, but in consideration of ‘bringing up’ new practitioners, having a more focused task might prove helpful, and then the ‘master form’ would help integrate the concepts. Thus is the role of 1-4.
I also agree with your assessment of the pinans vs. kata (vs. 6 kata, vs. Hansuki) in terms of differences in movement vocabulary. Changing for uniformity loses the richness of the material, and may lose the lessons as well.
James- you will not get an argument from me – I am often a ‘less is more’ evangelist, and ‘teach for depth, not an inch deep and a mile wide’ is often at the forefront of my thoughts. As far as this archive, I posted it partly so that SKK folks could see the whole beast and decide intelligently what to leave out.