Master A. says: The Seven Forms are BS!

[Darth Nonymous]

That's why I chose this way to start the discussion - Master Ken is a parody, but as most parodies, holds a certain grain of truth. Yes, it is exaggerated, but when it comes to SW, exaggeration gets normal, anyhow. 

I think his jokes are based on his statements being wildly exaggerated versions of "keyboard warrior" types. But this isn't a humor forum.

The way I see the Forms presented in fiction - Vapaad being a prime example - they resemble the martial styles of China as presented in the 60's Wuxia movies. "My Golden Dragon style trumps your Yellow Tiger style!" The use of the Forms in KotOR clearly went in that direction and the new RPG by FFG does it too (Shii-Cho having Brawn as base Attribute, while Shien switches to Cunning, for example). "Shatterpoint" has some lengthy passages that explain why Mace's Vapaad is sooooo much better (as did the Dark Horse Clone Wars comics ...).

I can't speak to the EU stuff asI have never read it. But from the way that it is presented on Wookiepedia, it doesn't seem like they even have a common definition of what a "Form" is. While the most common and provincial interpretation are the 80's kung fu tropes, that fits right into seeing them as popular descriptions made by outsiders.

Secondly, the dragon fist vs Tiger fist thing is a later development in Hong Kong Cinema. The style vs Style presentation are in reality represented old Chinese  political rivalries that were often commented on in the original Novels (most of which were fairly recent.). Kung fu has been misrepresented in those movies a bit because it's not the martial arts which are being compared, but the schools or groups of people for whom the characters are fighting. So it's not so much "My dragon fist will crush your Tiger fist" but, "My gang is going to kill your gang.".

I started this discussion because I felt that it was time to make something clear, that ALL of you have written: The 7 Forms are fictional, and can be seen in all kinds of ways - but they don't mean a thing when it comes to real-world dueling. It's something I feel is all too often not clear, especially to newbies.
Correct - and as with real world martial arts, it doesn't mean a thing when facing an opponent. It seems to be some kind of human need to have some kind of lineage, even if it's obviously made up (and that holds true for a lot of so-called 'traditional' martial arts, also).

Fist off a better word for what I was meaning would be history. But lineage works too. And this is an idea I used to agree with , but now think there are aspects that are needed for good training. For one thing organization. The skills and progressions need to organized in a way that novices can navigate the material and retain the lessons. The flavors, philosophies, outlooks, and culture of any practice is going to be seated in the history and lineage of the art. It may not have a direct impact on your ability to win a duel, but technically, neither do push ups.

And that is stuff that is essential to the practice. Especially with lightsabers but in traditional martial arts as well. If we did not have lineage history or culture, we would not be doing this. Martial arts are not really good for much else than physical conditioning. They are anachronisms. We don't carry swords and most of us will not have to defend ourselves from loss of life and limb more than twice in our lifetimes. If at all. Martial arts are games now, practices, cultural expressions. It means something to us that it is called "Wudang Jian" or Bolongese Rapier" or "German Longsword" or "Yagyu Kenjutstu" or anything else. That's why we do it instead of just throwing kettlebells around and going to the shooting range.

Martial artists are always all about practicality but we do the most impractical thing out there. So, what it seems we need is a connection to what we are doing. Wether it be a "real martial art" or a fictional one.

[Darth Nonymous]

Nope. Samurai where obliged to carry their swords as badges of office, after the Tokugawa took over. Most Samurai where bureaucrats anyhow (like medieval knights), who had only a very basic knowledge of combat. Firearms played a major role at the battle of Sekigahara, but then saw almost no use (besides some minor uprisings) until the Meiji restoration - by which the Tanegashima matchlock was still in use. Isolation is perfect for preserving things ... 

gunpowder weapons have been in use in Asia since the Song Dynasty in China. Ming General Qi JiGuang advocated relying almost entirely on guns and cannons by the 1500's. It is sort of a myth that martial arts went downhill because of the gun. Guns have existed side by side with sword and other weapons for centuries in Asia. I don't think the situation has changed that much.

[Master Althalus]

So, what it seems we need is a connection to what we are doing. Wether it be a "real martial art" or a fictional one.

Interesting thought.

I don't think of sabering as a martial 'art', but as a martial 'sport'. The difference being that it lacks the history of once being invented to actually kill people.
Like boxing, that was always meant as a sport (even a very rough one) or many styles of wrestling.

It is sort of a myth that martial arts went downhill because of the gun.

The same myth as in the West. Gunpowder weapons were fielded since the 1400's, however inaccurate and unsafe. Bladed weapons were used in battle up until WWI - they never were really important on the field to begin with. They were always considered side-arms, used as a backup. The sword as a weapon of war is a myth in itself.

[Master Seblaise]

The sword as a weapon of war is a myth in itself.

I agree for the West .... do not sure for the East.

During wars, in the west, axes, pikes and spears were often preferred to swords because of their impact on armors. But for dueling, swords have always been weapons of choice ...

In the West, the end of the Chivalry/Knighthood was not due to the gunpowder weapons. It was because war became a science.
In the Middle Age, before the One Hundred years war, it was the job of the Nobles. But during this war, battle after battle, pole-arms, bows and crossbows used by common people were the true strike force of the different armies ... In the end of this war, it was known that noble knights alone were no more able to protect a country ... it was the beginning of the end of the ancient way of war ...

[Darth Logos]

Nope. Samurai where obliged to carry their swords as badges of office, after the Tokugawa took over. Most Samurai where bureaucrats anyhow (like medieval knights), who had only a very basic knowledge of combat. Firearms played a major role at the battle of Sekigahara, but then saw almost no use (besides some minor uprisings) until the Meiji restoration - by which the Tanegashima matchlock was still in use. Isolation is perfect for preserving things ... 

It seems that Lucas found the various Samurai movies so appealing that he modeled his Jedi more in their image and made the lightsaber their sign of rank. After all, we have to accept that what we call SW today is a genre-mashup of gigantic proportions - deliberately.

My point in this was merely that a katana became nothing more than a decoration. The lightsaber however was still a prized weapon and could be operated by anyone (your results may vary). Thusly Grievous. Although not a Force sensative, he could still be more than a match for most Jedi, even masters.

It's interesting, however, that in the very first version of the script that later should become SW, lightsabers are not exclusively carried by Jedi - Stormtroopers carry them too.

I know. This:

So, basically, we could just call what we train today 'Niman' and be done with it?  Yes, I know, fictional and all - but it seems a lot of people care about this thing.

Depends on how much of an anal-retentive nerd you want to be. Now if a bunch of swordsmen and other martial artists got together with Lucasarts and pow-wowed about establishing set practices for each form, then you could move forward with the notion of identifying each individuals style. It would be fun, and probably visually stimulating, but wouldn't contribute much, if anything, to any story. Even though I'm very detail oriented, even I say just let some dudes whoop out sabers and some shell went down. Awesome.

But on the other side, I wouldn't call the general saber techniques seen on screen to be any specific form. I've also read that Niman also incorporates use of the Force in its maneuvers. So at some level, Niman becomes impossible to practice.




I wasn't trying to diminish the place of close-quarters combat due to the use of firearms, but you can't argue that as firearms became more and more accurate, so to did their effective range. Ultimately making it difficult to close the distance to an enemy in order to use a melee weapon.

[Darth Nonymous]

Interesting thought.

I don't think of sabering as a martial 'art', but as a martial 'sport'. The difference being that it lacks the history of once being invented to actually kill people.
Like boxing, that was always meant as a sport (even a very rough one) or many styles of wrestling.

Historically speaking, there aren't many martial arts the fit that category. Martial arts is a very large field that includes sports, warfare, forms of dance and performance, and traditional training systems. Sabering is quiet frankly more of an art than any since we need to create the back story as well.

The sword as a weapon of war is a myth in itself.

You have to qualify this. Swords have been used as side arms and calvary weapons for quiet some time and if you just mean short bladed hilt weapons, those would be an almost ubiquitous side arm among soldiers.

[Master Althalus]

Historically speaking, there aren't many martial arts the fit that category.

In fact, most of them, as their first 'versions' were created to be used in duels, warfare or self-defense. What later became of them is an entirely different matter. I always found it rather funny how practitioners of 'traditional' Asian styles would look down on HEMA as 'having no living lineage', when in fact a majority of them were practicing certain techniques just because of tradition ...

Some of those arts became acrobatics like Wushu, some were sportified like Kendô, some became meditative practices like Iaidô and others were covered up as dance and almost disappeared in it like Capoeira. But somewhere down the line, all of them were intended to actually kill people.

You have to qualify this.

Bladed weapons were carried as side-arms - but they were never really relevant as to the battle itself. The Samurai's primary weapons in the field were the bow and the spear, the footsoldiers not even carrying a sword (just a long knife). In Europe, swords were the side-arms of knights (their primary weapons being the lance, mace and shield), nobles and officers - people who often were not expected to actually join in the fray. Depending on cultural background, swords would be used in formal pre-battle duels, however.
Swords have the (military) drawback to be expensive. In Europe, we have quite a lot of pictures showing battles where even the nobles don't carry swords but Falchions instead - those being a lot cheaper.

calvary weapons

The most ubiquious cavalry weapon in history is the spear, followed by the bow. After those weapons were either lost or the fight was carried into close quarters, some sort of side-arm was drawn. Often, this was a kind of sword (curved blades quite often) but also a lot of bludgeoning arms.


But we're disgressing quite some way here ... 

[Darth Nonymous]

In fact, most of them, as their first 'versions' were created to be used in duels, warfare or self-defense. What later became of them is an entirely different matter. I always found it rather funny how practitioners of 'traditional' Asian styles would look down on HEMA as 'having no living lineage', when in fact a majority of them were practicing certain techniques just because of tradition ...

Some of those arts became acrobatics like Wushu, some were sportified like Kendô, some became meditative practices like Iaidô and others were covered up as dance and almost disappeared in it like Capoeira. But somewhere down the line, all of them were intended to actually kill people.

That's the myth but not historically true. Most of the martial arts we practice today really don't have a continuous history going much past the 1600's and really the majority of them come from the early 20th century. The entire idea of the martial arts as a separate component of things is also a relatively new concept.

 For instance, in China before the early 20th century, martial artists were not called that. If you were a soldier you need to use a spear, sword, shield, etc. If you were a body guard you need other things as you did as a police man. Most arts were settled and codified in the 20th century and, as you pointed out earlier, made up a lot of lineage BS. Including the killing part. It gives a system veracity in the eyes of perspective students, but it in no way mens anything more than an advertisement. Most of these people don't even have concrete evidence for their arts origin or early lineage, at least in Asia. But the idea of a person who's defining characteristic is practicing the martial arts for their own sake was unheard of say in the Qing Dynasty. You had a vocation or situation that required it.

But, even by that metric Sabering is still a martial art. These are analogs of swords, killing weapons. And therefore, descended from systems intended to end life. Therefore, it is just as a martial art as HEMA. Or anything else. Just as Keno and kenjustu is.

Bladed weapons were carried as side-arms - but they were never really relevant as to the battle itself. The Samurai's primary weapons in the field were the bow and the spear, the footsoldiers not even carrying a sword (just a long knife). In Europe, swords were the side-arms of knights (their primary weapons being the lance, mace and shield), nobles and officers - people who often were not expected to actually join in the fray. Depending on cultural background, swords would be used in formal pre-battle duels, however.
Swords have the (military) drawback to be expensive. In Europe, we have quite a lot of pictures showing battles where even the nobles don't carry swords but Falchions instead - those being a lot cheaper.The most ubiquious cavalry weapon in history is the spear, followed by the bow. After those weapons were either lost or the fight was carried into close quarters, some sort of side-arm was drawn. Often, this was a kind of sword (curved blades quite often) but also a lot of bludgeoning arms.

You equivocate a lot on your definition of swords and weapon of war here. Swords to me are hilted blade short weapons used for cutting and stabbing people. So a falchion is a sword, just a specific type of sword. And even when you have cavalry with spears, they have blades as side arms. Why you don't include side arms as weapons of war, when there are obviously historical pieces intended for military purpose versus civilian purpose.

The above just shows what part in war swords and blades played. They may not have been the main means of engagement in large scale battles, but as side arms they are just as important. Arming sword and shield is still useful with spears and calvary. Theye are indeed a weapon of war as they were produced for soldiers all the time.

But we're disgressing quite some way here ... 

My point is that there is lots of fiction in the "real" martial arts.  The very idea that all martial arts existed in the forms we recognize now is the biggest one. That is what I call BS.
 The complaint that the Seven Forms is BS is just superfluous. They are fictional, true, but so is most of what we know as martial arts. People claiming to be masters in it when it doesn't exist are just identifying themselves as amateurs. But it's not really a lie when every one knows it's not true.

[Master Althalus]

Ahhh, now I see - sorry, but English is not my native language, so I sometimes need a bit more explanation to understand properly.

That's the myth but not historically true.

Funny enough (if you take the common picture at face value), there are more martial artists in Europe than in Asia. We have names and evidence of professional fencing masters up from the 12th century - men that actually made a living by teaching others how to fight. Other fencing masters where craftsmen, teaching in their off-time.
But then, there are no standing armies between the fall of Rome and the late 16th century, so learning to fight was not the baddest idea when one could be called to arms anytime.

They may not have been the main means of engagement in large scale battles, but as side arms they are just as important.

The thing is: a side arm is a last resort. Like officers today carry a pistol but will rely on their assault rifle as long as possible. So, when the side arm is drawn, a lot has already gone wrong.
In fact, reports of officers defending themselves with their sword during the Napoleonic Wars mostly depict them taking some enemies with them before being shot to death or stabbed by bayonets. That's a scene that can be found quite often throughout military history in various ways.

The MYTH lies in the way, the sword is shown in popular media (not only today). The sword is not the best of weapons - especially not in warfare.

My point is that there is lots of fiction in the "real" martial arts.  The very idea that all martial arts existed in the forms we recognize now is the biggest one.

Martial arts are children of their social and military world. Whenever one thing changes, the art adapts or dies.

The complaint that the Seven Forms is BS is just superfluous.

Oh, I think there's a lot of good material in this thread by now.

[wandering-seeker]

Martial arts are children of their social and military world. Whenever one thing changes, the art adapts or dies.

I think the argument could be made that some martial arts have remained largely unchanged in their core philosophies and what they train their students to do. For instance, Japanese martial arts have moved from outright combat arts aimed at killing the enemy, into art forms built around self-defense. That change, a result of the Western influence and cultural shifts away from militarism. In Europe, the different martial variations of Fencing allowed their practitioners to win many duels/kill many challengers, but the art of fencing was fundamentally ill-suited to the battlefield. Kung Fu has given rise to many different schools, Tai Chi and Wing Chun to name a few, and is itself a multi-style form, But there are schools of Kung Fu that to this day maintain the core traditions of the art as a lethal skill. This is not, of course, to suggest that it is the only school to preserve its roots in a martial and warlike tradition but to draw attention to the fact that some societies and traditions survive the larger societal changes by retreating into smaller enclaves away from the public and public practice.

[Master Althalus]

that to this day maintain the core traditions of the art as a lethal skill.

The problem being that without the need to use it, there's no proof the skill is still there.
What you say just underlines my statement (I don't understand your intention here clearly, sorry) - changing circumstances lead to changing arts. Those that won't change will eventually die out.

That's what has been said in the other thread about the 7 Forms: The Jedi were preserving each and every evolutionary step of their fighting arts, regardless of the change and without even thinking about its usefulness. But being a exclusive society, the Forms survived within this tiny bubble that was the Order. In the end, the Forms died with the Order ...

[Darkshadowfox91]

I use and see the forms as lessons. You start with 1, learn the standard stance as well as its blocks and attacks. Then move on slowly to each and practice the form that is most comfortable more than the others. Once you feel you got most of it down you can start to mix and match. I really only see it as a teaching tool really. Nice post!

[Darth Logos]

I don't think of sabering as a martial 'art', but as a martial 'sport'. The difference being that it lacks the history of once being invented to actually kill people.
Like boxing, that was always meant as a sport (even a very rough one) or many styles of wrestling.

Ummm.......boxing is a martial art. It just limits techniques to fists only. Similarly, there are other martial arts that focus on kicks. Wrestling is a martial art as well, but instead focusing on delivering body blows, it focuses on twisting the body into submission through pain. And like most predatory mammals, "play/sport" is, for the most part, practice for the real fight. Champion basically equates to "most effective fighter".

You have to qualify this. Swords have been used as side arms and calvary weapons for quiet some time and if you just mean short bladed hilt weapons, those would be an almost ubiquitous side arm among soldiers.

Cavalry is pretty much just mounted soldiers, whether they used sword, spear/lance, bow, rifle, or other. But swords, although have been used for other significance, are specialized blades, designed for one purpose: to kill another human being.

[Master Althalus]

Ummm.......boxing is a martial art. It just limits techniques to fists only.

Defintions ... Boxing was created as a sport. Right from the beginning, there were just two men, some kind of ring and rules that the two agreed upon. Like Welsh shin-kicking was created a sport.

Wrestling is a martial art as well,

Depends on the style of wrestling (here, things get complicated). European wrestling in the Middle Ages was based on techniques for fighting in earnest, but had a sporting variant.

MY definition of a 'sport' is, that it was never created with the intention to actually maim or kill the opponent. Even with early Pugilism, deaths in the ring were uncommon. Like with Dussack-fencing, were bleeding head wounds were intended, but permanent damage was not.

But that is just my definition, nobody has to follow this. 

[Master Seblaise]

A Martial Art was created for fighting (self defense, war preparation, body/mind shaping) and is based on technics.

A sport was created to find a winner by managing a "safe" fight between opponents. It is based on rules (rules that enable finding the winner) and all technics are created considering the rules.


It is not my definitions but i like them ...

Judo, for exemple, is a Martial Art (no weight categories ...)  .... but Olympic Judo is a sport (Weight categories for safety and less technics because of the rules ...).
English Boxing was never considered as a Martial Art because from the beginning, it was created to find a winner between two "champions" using only fist (and only the front face of the fist).
Chinese or French boxing were originally martial arts ... and then, becomes sports ...