With the introduction of Oriental Martial Arts into the Occidental mindset came a re-envisioning of what people could do with their bodies, as well as re-interpretation of how physical combat was played out.
Of course this was only after people of the “West” began to accept the people of the ”East” as more than comedic second-class citizens (as per “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”), or tolerated former antagonists their forebears fought in the war.
It was largely in part due to the passion and work of Bruce Lee and many other similarly famous Martial Artists that the terms “karate”, “Kung Fu”, and “Judo” grew to become of nearly household use – and at least superficially understood by the ‘Western’ mindset.
Hundreds of years of traditionally secretive training was released with these peoples actions, and ingested by the Occidental cultures with the fervour of a staving child, along with the mysteries and curiosities that these cultures offered.
Decades of training in stylistic interpretations of traditional teachings began a new era in the martial art histories; one in which training was developed upon firm foundations such as kata and stance work, as proposed and promulgated by masters such as Gichen Funakoshi, Chojin Miyagi, and Kanbun Uechi (just to name a few).
Remember that Japanese martial arts have an interconnected history with Chinese fighting styles, as the two cultures have intermingled in various ways over the past half dozen or more centuries. As well, Japanese “Karate” as the Western world would come to know it first took form in the 19th century (after Jujitsu had already been known in the West for much of the post Sakoku period, where Japan came out swinging into the international arena.)
The aforementioned masters are considered the fathers of the respective arts, but also the fathers of modern Karate. They each have forms/katas associated to their particular styles and skill sets, much like the different Gung Fu forms like the Shaolin Animal sets, or Hung Gar forms.
The historical practice of forms (called kata [Japanese] or taolu [Chinese]) was to train a martial artist in a particular use of their body, and how these movements would and could be applied as a series of techniques in a combat situation. Much like religion can be said to be a way to perpetuate practices, knowledge, and social understanding/expectation, form practices were likely intended to make martial knowledge multi-generational. When something is put into a ritual or other formulated practice, it can be taught to subsequent generations – and, as with all ritual and practice, these generations tweak and/or amend their understanding of them.
The kata were for use in training as a tool so as to develop a practitioner’s ability without continuous fighting while reducing the risk of further injury. I won’t pretend to know exactly what the masters of old were thinking, but having studied societies, religions, learning, and communication, I can reasonably posit that they were likely intended to help focus a martial artist, assist in continual learning, and to make certain actions reflexive and sequential in applying particular techniques. This is not to say that the movements were to be stagnant and mathematically calculated, but instead that the moves were to produce a sense of flow and fluidity between actions.
These actions and their flow were intended to replicate, through simulation, the movements of successful martial techniques. As well, considering the proliferation of Zen/Chan Buddhism in martial arts, the actions themselves were also given a meditative quality – although this amalgamation may have been more syncretic in nature, it has taken on more importance into the modern era, arguably starting around the end of the Meiji Restoration. ((Check ))
By increasing the emphasis of meditation within the martial arts may also further the argument of kata/taolu as searching/teaching fluidity between movements. The mind/body connection as an ideal vice solely the physical activity shows the practitioner a way above simple physiology. If ones mind is in their form, thinking about their movements, they have not captured the essence of the form nor achieved a state of Zen, or have good Gung Fu, etc…
I digress a little, as the issue implied in the title as “What is better: Forms or Formlessness?”
With the advent of MMA/Mixed Martial Arts, a mainstream interpretation of what “Combat” is has begun – and with that, and overwhelming belief by the laity/ non-martial arts community that judo or jujitsu is the end all/be all fighting style. As well, there became an understanding (rather misunderstanding) that UFC and MMA bouts were about Art supremacy, and each combatant was the epitome of any particular art – and thus by extension any champion of whatever art that won a bout proved their practice superior and thus “this art” was better than “that art”.
Arguably the change in times and increase in legal authority has reduced the need for individuals to learn how to defend themselves up to and including the ability to use lethal force; and consequently modern training regimens have adapted to modern expectations… including the introduction of the monetary and recognition drives that abound in the Western world…
The MMA assumption that a particular practice is better than another based upon the success of one practitioner against another is a logical fallacy, but not the crux of this topic – as the discussion of “Art” and “Practitioner” will be covered in a later work. This example is instead used to illustrate a stepping-stone to colloquial understanding of “Forms vs Formlessness”. The advent of modern MMA can be seen as a result, and indicator in some ways, of the debate – a result of earlier misconceptions, and the apparent successes within the ring that perpetuate their understanding within that realm, as well as an indicator of future points of contention within the debate. The arena fuels the practice, like society makes its individuals – and the perpetuation is based upon the participation and investment of the next generation.
So – to bring us all to the same page: Forms have been used as a training tool for generations, and have held ‘esoteric’ meanings (usually held within family lines) that were likely designed to transmit a particular understanding through multiple generations (whether successful or not). These understandings were a guarded secret for the most part, and it is believed that revealing secrets to outsiders was forbidden – until Bruce Lee, so it is believed, dared teach ‘gaijin’ or even early Funakoski Gichen taught his first “Western” Students. An interesting point to bring up is that the branching out of styles became prolific in the mid-twentieth century, after the Second World War…
Bruce Lee taught Westerners his style – which was originally Wing Chun as taught by Ip Man – until later developing his ‘way of the intercepting fist’ (Jeet Kun Do, or JKD). It was here, after years of practice and study of his original style in addition to physiology and other martial practices, that he began advocating the ‘way of no way’, and Formlessness.
As many know, his art was successful and his foundational theories and philosophies are highly respected – I do not, nor will not, contend to argue against these philosophies or practices, nor suppose that my words hold any influence in comparison. I will, on the other hand, offer counterpoint in defense of the argument, and illustrate the conflation to a reductionist view of his Formless argument. I will argue that you cannot be formless without first being formed.
As the common view and opinion of modern “MMA” practices and sport fighting are typically founded in the (or extrapolated from this) argument of not needing forms/kata for training, we will look here first.
MMA sport-fighters typically train in predominantly “Western” methods (such as physical conditioning, cardio, and weights, while using combat training apparatus for singular/individual training and sparring partners for application and evaluation of opponents, etc. in addition to repetitive practice of sanctioned techniques. The martial aspect of this training typically does not do a sequence of movements in a rhythmic timing, without an apparatus or sparring partner as taolu or kata is done. Admittedly there are “shadow boxing” occasions, but this is about as close to a similarity that we will find in this practice when compared to traditional martial arts training.
Arguably this “freeform” training does serve to mould the sport-fighter from what they were into a better sport-fighter, using the parameters of the arena they train for as a sort of form – but we’ll bring this up in a moment.
Bruce Lee said “Be Formless, shapeless – like water” and this is where many people stop, and thus misinterpret the intent. Because of his stature in the Martial Arts and entertainment communities, these words were given extreme weight and value – especially as the subdivision of martial arts styles branched out further, and further… This single statement is often attributed as the spark that kindled the fire the arguments around the Traditional vs. Modern training practices. But let’s look at it a little deeper:
“Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless – like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow, or it can crash. Be water my friend.”
He also said, and this will be explored as well, “All fixed set patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The truth is outside of all fixed patterns”
As mentioned above, these two quotes are likely the root of the anti-kata argument, and on the surface it makes total sense. Remember the brief history lesson at the beginning of this writing, and let the sequence of events churn in your mind. The sequence is not totally linear, nor directly causal (as there are a myriad of other issues at play – ie “Western” societies need for a ‘McAnswer’, or a pull solution to every problem, inherent discrepancies between Judeo-Christian values and worldview understandings vice Chinese/Japanese perceptions and observational frames of reference, etc.)
Now let’s look at Bruce Lees development and training before we look at his quotes and changes. When he first started training, he was taught forms and “fixed, set patterns” as the foundational training in Wing Chun! He was originally “formless” when he started, and later became “formed” through his training in set patterns; It was his internalization of these formed actions that enabled him to be “formlessness” once more.
Analogously, before he was trained he was just a spill of water, moving wherever without direction. His training showed him to become a cup/bottle/teapot, to which became frameworks and references for later actions – ultimately returning to the natural state of fluidity after taking the previous forms.
The second quote refers to how one seeks application and applies answers – he was not trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater! He is saying that the application of basics and body dynamics learned through fixed set patterns is in fluidity and adaptability outside the “fixed” practices – but in a holistic way.
The difference between his pre-trained and post-trained formlessness is the exploration of body dynamic, and movement through “fixed set patterns.” Although, these two particular interpretations of “Formless” are radically different – as the pre-training version relies solely on inherent ability and ‘instinct’, while the post-training version will have taught those inherent abilities, internalized their practices, and developed a keener ‘instinct’. The post-trained “Formless” version would be better equipped, as the earlier lessons would be internalized – escaping the rigidity of the pre-established patterns, and creating fluidity between movements as required.
The MMA sport fighter does practice using a form of sorts – drills would be a “form” of sorts, as the trainer must be able to evaluate the basic movements and body dynamics of the sport fighter. These are predominately pre-arranged and fixed sets of drills meant to encourage fluidity as the trainer will diversify the routine so they are not performed identically every time. I would argue that this is what Bruce Lee would likely agree to as a good approach, in line with one interpretation of his theories.
But does it encapsulate all that “fixed set patterns” teach? Does manoeuver and technique-based “formless” training really trump the “fixed” patterns and what they teach?
Freestyle practices of manoeuvres and techniques arguably have two sets of focus: personal movement and the target, and consequently they are likely to have a competitive value inherent in the practitioner’s perceptions of efficacy.
Fixed-set patterns do not have an opponent external of the practitioner (simply put – their imagination), so instead the focus is on personal movement – in all of its intricacy. These workouts typically encompass many of the things the “freeform” stylists would use secondary training practices to build (ie stretching, meditation, focus, timing, etc.). Breathing is regulated, vice performed – the practitioner times their breath for the actions, extends their bodies into foundational movements etc. – and ultimately focuses on their own bodies and how they work vice being externally focused on a target and a desire for dominance/victory.
A good kata/taolu is done without an opponent in mind, but evaluates the actions of an opponent through each movement. A good kata practitioner who does not do this will fall short in the fluidity of response against an “unorthodox” approach; but that same practitioner who can flow between the concepts of the kata/taolu will find their answers outside the fixed-set patterns.
Both sides of the equation can take the “best practices” lesson from the other, as too rigid will be broken but too pliable will not stand the test of time. To be truly “formless” one must first be “formed” and then forget the mind, and become like water again. To learn to apply lessons learned within practice, one must work them until they no longer have to think of them and instead just do them as necessary. This is the “It” that Bruce Lee has mentioned before; the training of responses, so that the cognitive mind doesn’t need to be engaged in the equation when fractions of a second can determine success or failure.
For me, I will become formless through practice of form as this works for me on multiple levels. To only train in one mindset goes against all that Bruce Lee advocated, but to dismiss any positive aspect in training is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And just remember that he was formed before he taught formlessness…
