What makes a "Form" of Lightsaber combat.

[Darth Nonymous]

Greetings. I thought I would introduce a topic that has been floating around in other threads for a while. Forgive me if this is already a thread. The question often asked is "What is a Form". I will outline the Terra Prime method and hopefully, some other will chime in with theirs.

Our system uses each form of lightsaber as a training focus rather than an independent style as in real martial arts. The first four forms are fundamental and the student should have a basic understanding of it's concepts. The forms are a progression of training rather than islands that one is to colonize. This allows the student to get the basics of each method of fighting and specialize in the method that suits them best. It is that attribution to a type of training that is often used to say "this person is Ataru" or the like.

In TPLA's system a "form" as it is used in cannon sources (e.g. Atraru Niman, Makashi etc.) consists of several parts:

1. The formula: this is the basic philosophy or key to the method of training. This consists of the major philosophy and training focus that the Form represents. For example: Shii-Cho's formula is the Attacks Zones and Marks of Contact.
2. Accelerations: These are the basic techniques used or favored in the training regime. These are organized into simple, repetitive exercises and repeated by the student to rehearse the basics physical aspect of the style.
3. Dulon: The way we use the word Dulon at TPLA refers to solo practice routines-what are usually called "forms" in martial art. Most Forms have a master set of dulon which is learned before freeform practice is begun. This is a very important step that folks often skip when not under the direct supervision of a teacher. I liken it to learning music: learning songs can teach you how to write music for your own songs. Dulon sets are broken up into sections called "trajectories".
4. Velocities: these are the two person fighting exercises. Velocities usually start out in a pre-arranged sequence and add speed and changes later. We at TPLA also practice Solah games were the speed is increased until one party makes a mistake or surrenders. Velocities give the student a good gauge to apply the techniques they have learned in their solo training.

I did not include sparring or free play because I kind of assume that is the end game to most of this. Obviously, if you wish to use our materials to choreograph fights, that can easily be done in stead.

The goal of TPLA is to get a curriculum like the one we have for Shii-Cho up now for all the forms. We also want to get some guest instructors to do some videos with us and get some of you to do the same. Big plans for TPLA1

There is my method of organizing this stuff. How are other folks thinking about it? HAs anybody tried going through the Shii-Cho stuff from the beginning and is finding it helpful? Is there anything I missed or should include? Or do you have a different perspective?

I look forward to what people post.

[Master Lucien Kane]

The way I am doing things, each Form will be it's own style of lightsaber combat... That is how they are described in the books, so that has been what all my research has lead up to.

That is obviously quite a bit more work as it requires an entire style of martial arts to be developed for each form. Which can be a lengthy process.

Much of my other terms are the same,

Sequence (kata)

Velocity (sparring drills)

Kai Kan (choreographed fighting)

The marks of contact are the same.

There is nothing wrong with taking them this way, after all, it is open to interpretation, and simplification. For me, my goal has always been to do two things... Make effective forms of martial arts, and have them recognized as canon. For this, I think the first part of that objective is easier... Getting it recognized is going to be the hardest part I think.

Anyways, this is where my ruminations have taken me... There's nothing wrong with Master Nonymous' approach, and it's an effective teaching tool.

[Veldryne]

Honestly Masters, I like the way the shii cho was set up. It makes a solid basic foundation for everyone to build on, and really helps in areas where there really isnt a way to get proper instrcution.  They have been instrumental in teaching the guys with no sword experience at all in our area that have been getting into the lightsabers. Keep up the great work both of you.

[Master Uilos]

I love all of this so far. I've already stated it, elsewhere, but I'll throw in my two bits.

The Forms: The seven styles of lightsaber combat that we're talking about. Whether or not they are distinct or building up from one another is a matter of perspective. I'm a firm believer of "Whatever gets you to the point of comprehension gets you there." I personally side that they are seperate and distinct, if nothing for the sake of being seperate and distinct.

forms: Kata showing patterns and formations. Used primarily as a teaching tool. Consider General Sun's Shii Cho, it fits into this form. Everything about it is meant to teach, from bladework to thoughtwork. It is a crystallization of The Forms, a tangible representation.

solo-form: Personal kata demonstrating one's skill with a saber. may be based on a single Form, may be based on several. Solo forms are a matter of demonstration of skill, not teaching. I believe this is in line with Nonymous' "dulons". Correct me if I'm wrong.

The Forms have a unique distinction in that they are symbols of martial arts. They are archetypes, something that Star Wars feeds on. We are essentially reverse engineering what is described with what experiences we individually have and have collectively pooled together.

My belief is that the list I just made trickles down into one another. You learn the concept of the Forms, you learn a form that you believe fits your understanding (or make one, deliberately, purposefully) which then blossoms into the culmination of your personal expression in the solo form. I know too many people who think if they put on a demo, they are doing something. I say this as a martial artist and a stage combatant, I see the forms as understanding the use of a lightsaber, and being a Jedi/Sith. The audience as a whole doesn't know about the forms, nor care. This is for our edification as practitioners.

As for velocities, that may infact be the best way to show some of the Forms better than by one's self, especially Form V, which relies alot on the opponents movements as much as the user.

[Darth Nonymous]

Ok, so this brings up a good question. If each is supposed to be a "style", what makes it such? What needs to be included to be called a "style" as opposed to a technique or philosophy?

I am thinking mainly here of Shii-Cho, which is included in most schools or styles as the basis for combat. That makes a lot of sense. from a historical and developmental point of view as well. What I am think about is treating the first four forms as kinds of Shii-Cho, limited styles that are useful for teaching developmental skill. All the rest seem to be synthesis of some or all of the first four.

There are real world analogs to this very thing.

[Master Uilos]

Ok, so this brings up a good question. If each is supposed to be a "style", what makes it such? What needs to be included to be called a "style" as opposed to a technique or philosophy?

I am thinking mainly here of Shii-Cho, which is included in most schools or styles as the basis for combat. That makes a lot of sense. from a historical and developmental point of view as well. What I am think about is treating the first four forms as kinds of Shii-Cho, limited styles that are useful for teaching developmental skill. All the rest seem to be synthesis of some or all of the first four.

There are real world analogs to this very thing.

I think we're going to hit hairsplitting on this one, because of how we use the words. But to me, Style is technique combined with philosophy. It's the movements as well as the methodology. Let me be clear, I explicitly agree with you in my paper that the first four forms are combined in the way you're speaking, especially in consideration to the Marks of Contact, but they also exist separately and of their own accord.

Shii Cho has elements of the other forms. Yes, but that's not the whole of it. It's a siege engine. It's straightforward burst of carnage, never retreating. It's constant moving forward attacking multiple opponents. Makashi focuses more on linear precision work, like a sniper rifle. It picks it's spots more closely, works the opponent into a position it favors. Soresu goes for clean and decisive hits, using patience and waiting for the right strike while Ataru's style focuses on barrage until something sinks in.

Again, I agree with you that Shii Cho has a kernel of all these things, but it has a life and meaning of it's own. Each one CAN be used of it's own accord. Doesn't mean it should. But it can. I believe in building them separately, to show clearly in my mind (let alone the mind's of others) that THIS is essence of the form, and then start focusing on blending.

[Darth Nonymous]

I think we're going to hit hairsplitting on this one, because of how we use the words. But to me, Style is technique combined with philosophy. It's the movements as well as the methodology. Let me be clear, I explicitly agree with you in my paper that the first four forms are combined in the way you're speaking, especially in consideration to the Marks of Contact, but they also exist separately and of their own accord.

Yes, we may be getting into hairsplitting. I am of the belief these hairs need to be split. And I do agree that none of our system precludes someone training in just Shii-Cho or focusing on Soresu. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Shii Cho has elements of the other forms. Yes, but that's not the whole of it. It's a siege engine. It's straightforward burst of carnage, never retreating. It's constant moving forward attacking multiple opponents. Makashi focuses more on linear precision work, like a sniper rifle. It picks it's spots more closely, works the opponent into a position it favors. Soresu goes for clean and decisive hits, using patience and waiting for the right strike while Ataru's style focuses on barrage until something sinks in.

While we differ on the details of what the forms represent, I do agree with the spirit of what you are saying.

Again, I agree with you that Shii Cho has a kernel of all these things, but it has a life and meaning of it's own. Each one CAN be used of it's own accord. Doesn't mean it should. But it can. I believe in building them separately, to show clearly in my mind (let alone the mind's of others) that THIS is essence of the form, and then start focusing on blending.

Here is the point of it all. Ataru CAN be trained in isolation. If it is it must meet the minimum requirements to prove effective to the wielder. It cannot be USED in isolation any more than you can use the skills you learned reading Sci Fi in isolation from those you read romance with. That's where reality conflicts with popular notions.

ANY system of martial art is just a training regimen. I believe I have touched on this before, but the idea that we "use" martial arts in fighting like tools on a belt is not true. We bring all of our skills to each fight. If our training regime is not complete, or too limited, we either have to come up with novel approaches to solve those problems or look to other training methods to see if there is an existing solution. The first four forms form a very nice historical and technical evolution. (I am aware that these are plot devices used in story telling, but as Ulios has said, we are reverse engineering this stuff.)

1. Shii-cho: Basic attack and defense with the saber. Used as a learning tool to introduce saber techniques. Designed for battle field confrontation (blaster fire and multiple opponents). This makes it simpler and necessitates it being easy to learn. Adaptable to single combat but limited in the techniques. 
2.Makashi: Designed to be more applicable to single saber to saber combat. Trains a complete understanding of the mechanics of the weapon. Since it is mainly developed for saber to saber or one on one, we can assume Shii-Cho would still be used as the battle field training technique.
3. Soresu: a refinement of previous techniques to respond to a greater defensive need. It would be assumed that the inventors of Soresu must have developed it from the previous two.
4. Ataru: the same situation as Soresu. It is a refinement of technique based on perceived short comings in the training developed and/or combined with at least the first two forms.

From there you get the explicit mixers: Forms 5-7.

[Veldryne]

Thats a really good way to look at it, and they frequently in the literature mention that each successive form is developed based on previous styles